Italy was one of the first countries to adopt both an economic balance sheet and an environmental one. Documents that will become increasingly interconnected, if we want to ensure the effectiveness of green policies. We discussed this with Alessandra Stefani, head of the Directorate General for Forests at Mipaaf.
"There are various strategies to reduce CO2 production, but trees are the only way to absorb what is already present in the atmosphere." This is the plain, simple truth that Stefano Boeri, internationally renowned architect and president of the Triennale di Milano, placed before our eyes during the second World forum on urban forests, held in the Lombard capital from 21 to 23 November. For this reason and for many others – such as reducing temperatures and increasing biodiversity – it has become essential both to plant as many trees as possible within urban centres and to better protect Italy's forest heritage, currently concentrated in mountainous and rural areas, countering the phenomenon of management abandonment that represents the greatest threat to our woodlands.
For Alessandra Stefani, head of the Directorate General for Forests of the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies (Mipaaf), this kind of separation between centre and periphery should no longer exist: "The problem with our forests, in fact, is that they are all disconnected from one another; moreover, there are none along the coastlines or in the Po Valley. Reconnecting mountains, hills, coasts and plains – and, we would add, cities – would benefit the entire ecosystem, which as a rule responds very positively to connectivity." Secondly, according to Stefani, effectively safeguarding natural resources requires overcoming the obstacle posed by the brevity of political mandates, since environmental measures must be designed with the future in mind if they are to deliver long-term results. And to understand whether objectives have been met, we also need to think in economic terms.
What is the economic value of Italy's forests?
We would all be tempted to say that the value of forests is incalculable, and in many respects it is, because we know full well that forests are the cornerstone of life as we know it at this moment. In reality, if we want to reason somewhat more closely in line with the need to devise environmental policies and to understand whether policies for the environment and for forests have hit their target or not, we must make the effort to assign economic values to the benefits that forests offer to the planet, to the people who live on it and to animals.
Perhaps the most interesting thing is not so much the absolute value of this natural capital in itself, as the changes over time. If we increase the value of national natural capital through our policies, it means those policies are efficient and effective; whereas if we do not increase it, it means we have not implemented good policy. That is the meaning, the purpose, of assigning an economic value to the benefits that the forest provides.
Secondly, we must also remember that forests are very generous: they offer the possibility of using their activity to compensate for or mitigate some of the environmental impacts created by other initiatives; we should therefore try to give back to them, at least in part, what they give us. Here too, one must make the effort to put a monetary figure on the service – whether that is providing clean water or oxygen, absorbing carbon dioxide or preventing hydrogeological instability.