Acta Silvae et Ligni 134 (2024), 27–38 27 Original scientific article / Izvirni znanstveni članek ASSOCIATIVE ORGANISATIONAL MODELS IN ITALIAN FORESTS FOR ADDRESSING LAND ABANDONMENT ORGANIZACIJSKI MODELI POVEZOVANJA V ITALIJANSKIH GOZDOVIH ZA REŠEVANJE PROBLEMATIKE OPUŠČANJA ZEMLJIŠČ Francesco LOREGGIAN1, Davide PETTENELLA2, Laura SECCO3, Nicola ANDRIGHETTO4, Giorgia BOTTAROS5 (1) University of Padova, Department of Territory and Agro-Forestry Systems, Italy, francesco.loreggian@phd.unipd.it (2) University of Padova, Department of Territory and Agro-Forestry Systems, Italy, davide.pettenella@unipd.it (3) University of Padova, Department of Territory and Agro-Forestry Systems, Italy, laura.secco@unipd.it (4) Etifor Srl Società benefit (B-Corp), Italy, nicola.andrighetto@etifor.com (5) University of Padova, Department of Territory and Agro-Forestry Systems, Italy, giorgia.bottaro@unipd.it ABSTRACT This paper investigates associative organisational models as a potential governance solution to the issue of land abandonment. Land fragmentation, along with inadequate or absent management, are key problems that hinder forest stability and resilience in many countries, particularly in Southern Europe. Land abandonment further exacerbates these issues, increasing climate change-related risks, such as forest fires. After reviewing the broader European context, the paper focuses on Italy, where this problem is particularly acute. Based on a qualitative content analysis of the literature and policy documents, the paper outlines the available solutions for promoting active forest management through associations, as outlined by Italian forest law. Several types of associative models exist, facilitated by recent policy initiatives, including forest consortia, forest associations and cooperatives, and various instruments for regulating partnerships and associative management. However, limited data on land abandonment and forest ownership, especially regarding private ownership, hampers effective implementation and monitoring, highlighting a significant research gap in this area. Key words: private forest owners, associative solutions, associative forest management, land fragmentation IZVLEČEK Članek prikazuje rezultate raziskave organizacijskih modelov kot eno mogočih upravljavskih rešitev za težave zaradi opuščanja rabe zemljišč. Razdrobljenost zemljišč ter pomanjkljivo ali manko upravljanja so ključni problemi, ki ovirajo stabilnost in odpornost gozdov v številnih državah, zlasti v južni Evropi. Opuščanje zemljišč je hkrati s tem povezan kritični dejavnik, ki povečuje izpostavljenost nekaterim s podnebnimi spremembami povezanimi tveganji, kot so gozdni požari. Po pregledu evrop- skega konteksta se članek osredotoča na primer Italije, kjer je ta problem še posebej pereč. Na podlagi kvalitativne vsebinske analize literature in dokumentov o politikah so opisane razpoložljive rešitve za spodbujanje aktivnega gospodarjenja z goz- dovi prek združenj v skladu z italijanskim zakonom o gozdovih. Obstaja več vrst modelov združevanja, tudi zaradi nedavnih političnih pobud, kot so gozdarski konzorciji, gozdarska združenja in zadruge, ter nekaterih instrumentov za urejanje partner- stev in asociativnega upravljanja. Kakorkoli, pomanjkljivi podatki o opuščanju zemljišč in o lastništvu gozdov, zlasti zasebnih, ovirajo učinkovito izvajanje in spremljanje ter pomenijo raziskovalno vrzel na tem področju. Ključne besede: zasebni lastniki gozdov, rešitve združevanja, asociativno upravljanje gozdov, razdrobljenost zemljišč GDK 914:944(450)(045)=111 Received / Prispelo: 23. 02. 2024 DOI 10.20315/ASetL.134.3 Accepted / Sprejeto: 01. 08. 2024 1 INTRODUCTION 1 UVOD Land abandonment and ownership fragmentation, often accompanied by uncertainty about landowner- ship, are important and interrelated issues that hinder active forest management in parts of Central Eastern Europe and Mediterranean Europe (Lawrence et al., 2021). These challenges exacerbate the impacts and risks of climate change, such as forest fires (Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco et al., 2022; Spadoni et al., 2023). In many cases, managing very small parcels is not eco- nomically viable, leading many smallholders to aban- don them. The abandonment of secondary forests re- duces land values and perpetuates a vicious cycle that erodes forest-related socio-ecological communities. Furthermore, ideological polarisation between dif- ferent views on forests, often corresponding to urban vs. rural points of view and sometimes challenging sci- entific consensus while being influenced by mass me- dia, can represent a further obstacle to the active man- 28 Loreggian F., Pettenella D., Secco L., Andrighetto N., Bottaro G.: Associative organisational models in Italian forests ... agement of forest landscapes (Pecurul-Botines et al., 2023). Various innovations, supported by the EU RDP and CAP funds, have been introduced to aggregate for- est properties or support forest-related supply chains and networks. These innovations aim to encourage more active forest management, including organisa- tional, institutional and social innovations. However, due to high management costs, difficult market conditions, adverse events and an increasing number of “absent” forest owners (Mozzato and Gatto, 2016), these efforts have not achieved the expected outcomes. In countries such as Italy, the trends of land abandonment and fragmentation have persisted over decades, despite the introduction of governance and policy tools. This paper provides an updated overview of the associative solutions proposed to promote forest man- agement, with a focus on the Italian context, where this issue is recognised as a priority and where recent po- litical actions have been taken to address it. 1.1 An insight into the Italian context 1.1 Vpogled v kontekst Italije Italian forests are predominantly owned by private individuals (ca. 66%), with an average property size of less than 3 ha per owner. These privately owned forests have been less studied compared to publicly owned for- ests (Canton and Pettenella, 2010; Mozzato and Gatto, 2016; Rizzo et al., 2019). Of the 34% of forests under public ownership, 65% are municipal forests, while only 24% are state-owned (or region-owned) forests. More than 60% of Italian forests are located at alti- tudes above 500 metres, primarily in hilly and moun- tainous areas that have experienced significant depop- ulation in recent decades (Amodio, 2022). Among the reasons limiting the economic and social opportunities that could arise from the use of the primary resources in these territories, land fragmentation has been iden- tified as a crucial driver (Secco et al., 2018; Rizzo et al., 2019). Fragmentation drives up management costs, which often exceed the revenues generated by agri- cultural, agro-pastoral and forestry activities. Coupled with changes in the lifestyle and management objec- tives of private owners, this often leads to land aban- donment, altering the ecosystem services provided by meadows, pastures and forests (Beltramo et al., 2018). Since precise figures on land abandonment are lack- ing, statistical proxies are used to provide an overall picture of the issue. According to the latest Agriculture Census, the Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA) decreased by 26.4% over the last 38 years (from 15.8 million ha in 1982 to 12.5 million ha in 2020). During the same period, Wooded Areas (WA) shrank from 5.6 million ha (25%) in 1982 to 2.8 million ha (17%) in 2020 (ISTAT, 2022). The Census definition of WA differs somewhat from the FAO’s definition of forests, since it considers areas of at least 0.5 ha where mature canopy cover is no less than 50% of the total area. This includes forest roads, natural areas within forests (e.g. ponds, rivers, clearings), nurseries and forest buildings. Data from the National Forest Inventory (Gasparini et al., 2022) provide more detailed forest-related in- formation, highlighting a significant gap between the 9 million ha of “high forests” reported in 2015 and the 2.9 million ha of WA in active farms estimated in 2020. This gap is partly due to the exclusion of “pure” for- est holdings, i.e. forest owners who do not have a farm, from the Census sample until 2010, removing one of the few sources of data on privately owned forests (Mozzato and Gatto, 2016). Even when comparing ear- lier WA data (pre 2010), a large discrepancy remains: 4.5 million ha in the 2000 Census versus 8.75 million ha in the Forest Inventory (the closest available data refers to 2005). Other indicators confirm that a sig- nificant proportion of forest appears to be abandoned or managed in an extensive, occasional or unplanned manner. Only 9.5% of coppices (which account for ap- proximately 42% of the Italian tall forests) are in the “young” phase, and just 0.1% are “in regeneration”, in- dicating very limited activity. Furthermore, no silvicul- tural interventions have been detected in 37.4% of the forest area, and only 15.5% of the total forest area has a valid management plan (RaF Italia, 2017; Gasparini et al., 2022), even though such plans are mandatory for public forests (which comprise 34% of the total). The land abandonment issue, together with the need to redistribute abandoned farmland, has been a central theme in rural development policies since the post-war decades (beginning in the 1950s), culminating in Law No. 440 (1978), which set rules for the use of unculti- vated, abandoned or insufficiently cultivated land. How- ever, these policy instruments have not been effective in halting or reversing the trend, and land abandonment driven by urbanisation and industrialisation has contin- ued, accompanied by increased ownership fragmenta- tion due to the heritage system (Omizzolo, 2015). In recent years, regional legislation has sought to address these issues through governance and policy instruments. One example is the creation of land banks aimed at reallocating unused agricultural land, with the goal of boosting employment in rural areas (Povellato and Vanni, 2017). This initiative mirrors similar efforts in 13 other EU countries (Hartvigsen et al., 2021). The Italian Land Bank was established by Law 154/2016 Acta Silvae et Ligni 134 (2024), 27–38 29 and includes agricultural land that is already cultivated and capable of generating income immediately, allo- cated through a simple and transparent auction proce- dure managed by a ministerial agency. Another policy strategy recently implemented in the forestry sector encourages the management of fragmented forest holdings by supporting the estab- lishment of forest owners’ associations, as outlined in Italian forest law (L. 34/2018). These associations are seen as a way to consolidate fragmented properties and reactivate the management of abandoned lands by streamlining management costs (Brocca et al., 2023), as detailed in chapter 3. 2 METHODS 2 METODE Two separate methodologies, schematised in Fig. 1, were used. The first phase aimed to identify the main associative organisational solutions in Europe to encourage forest management, followed by a second, more in-depth analysis focused on the Italian context. Initially, a rapid semi-systematic review of the sci- entific literature was carried out to obtain an overview of the situation at the European level, following the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021). This methodolo- gy, designed to provide insight into complex areas and topics, allows for the inclusion of a partial set of litera- ture while maintaining transparency, enabling readers to assess whether the arguments and judgments pre- sented are reasonable (Snyder, 2019). The process is based on the following steps: (1) identification of stud- ies to be included, (2) selection of identified studies, (3) eligibility assessment, (4) full document reading and (5) data extraction. Between January and April 2023, nine query strings were developed for literature searches in the Scopus database. These searches were based on two core keywords: “forest AND organization” plus key- words added using the Boolean operator W/1 after “Forest” and linked with OR: “actor*”, “owner*”, “asso- ciation*”, “model forest*”, “communit*”, “cooperative*”, “consortium”, “agreement*”, “network*”. The articles found were then screened according to three criteria: i) they had to focus on organisations associating forest owners; ii) the text had to include at least some details about the legal form of the organisation; and iii) the Fig. 1: Scheme of the methodology Slika 1: Shema metodologije 30 Loreggian F., Pettenella D., Secco L., Andrighetto N., Bottaro G.: Associative organisational models in Italian forests ... text had to provide some information on internal gov- ernance arrangements. Only articles meeting all three criteria were considered relevant, after which a deeper content analysis was carried out to identify and char- acterise different types of associative forest manage- ment organisations. The reading of the texts and extraction of data were based on a previously developed analytical framework that considers four key dimensions (Loreggian et al., 2023): i) actors: who the members are; ii) purposes: the objectives they aim to achieve; iii) rules: the legal/ formal framework; and iv) the distribution of power and resources (governance arrangements are consid- ered within this dimension). The identified types were then grouped into three main categories: i) forest as- sociations, ii) forest cooperatives and iii) other models for associative forest management. The in-depth analysis of the Italian context was based on a hybrid methodology due to the limited availability of scientific literature on organisational solutions in the forest sector in Italy. Specifically, the focus on Italy involved three steps (outlined in Fig. 1): first, an analysis of current Italian policy and legisla- tion documents; second, a review of both scientific literature (searched only via Google Scholar) and grey literature, including online sources, conference materi- als, public event reports and newspaper articles; and finally, a categorisation and characterisation of exist- ing forms of forest owner associations. In the first step, references to the terms “land aban- donment”, “land fragmentation”, “silent lands”1 and “association/associated” were searched within policy documents. For these documents, a set of six keywords was selected to guide the subsequent literature review. In the second step, these keywords (in both Italian and their English translations) were used to search the scientific literature (via Google Scholar) and grey literature (via the Google search engine). Finally, the existing organisational solutions detected during the previous steps were categorised and characterised ac- cording to the same analytical framework cited above (Loreggian et al., 2023), based on the following dimen- sions: i) actors, ii) purposes, iii) rules and iv) distribu- tion of power and resources. 3 RESULTS 3 REZULTATI The literature review resulted in the identification of 528 articles, of which 103 were selected based on 1 “Silent lands” are defined by the national forest law as lands whose owner is unknown, or unavailable after a proper search has been carried out (D.Lgs. 24/2018, art. 3 and 12). their titles and 30 after reading abstracts. In the end, only 22 were deemed eligible to for in-depth content analysis. The results of this analysis are presented be- low. 3.1 Overview of the problem and suggested poli- cy and governance solutions at the European level 3.1 Pregled problema in predlagane rešitve politike in upravljanja na evropski ravni Private land fragmentation, poor organisation and insufficient motivation among private owners are identified as major issues affecting the forest sector in many European countries (Mobilisation and …, 2008; Pecurul-Botines et al., 2023). In Europe, 56% of the to- tal forest area is privately owned, with “individuals and families” owning nearly 77% of it. A large proportion of these holdings, 88%, are less than 10 hectares in size (Who owns …, 2019). Various organisational models exist, ranging from those where forest owners are ac- tively engaged in managing their own forests, to those where owners are shareholders and the association manages the forest on their behalf (Rauch and Gronalt, 2005; Hansmann et al., 2016; Pezdevšek Malovrh et al., 2017). These models have been grouped into three main categories, as outlined in Table 1: i) forest own- ers’ cooperatives; ii) forest owners’ associations; and iii) community forests and other associative solutions. 3.2 Associative forest management solutions to land abandonment and fragmentation in Italy: legislation and experiences 3.2 Rešitve asociativnega gospodarjenja z gozdovi, vezane na opuščanje in drobitev zemljišč v Italiji: zakonodaja in izkušnje As mentioned in the Introduction, Italy has promot- ed various forms of associations for over a century as a mean to foster forest management. However, following the introduction of “forest consortia” in the first forest law (RD 3267/1923), there was a long period without specific policies addressing this issue. From the 1980s onwards, a “regionalisation” trend emerged, driven by administrative decentralisation, including in the forest sector (Secco et al., 2017). Since then, several regional administrations have developed associative organisa- tional models in the forest sector, incorporating them into regional laws and programmes (Baldini and Baldi, 2014; Corona et al., 2023). Two recent policy documents from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (RaF Italia, 2019) highlight the importance of this approach: the Con- solidated Text on Forests and Forestry Supply Chains Acta Silvae et Ligni 134 (2024), 27–38 31 (Legislative Decree n. 34/2018, art. 10, c. 5) and the National Forest Strategy (2022). The first document identifies “associative forms of management” as a key strategy to enhance forest planning and promote sustainable forest management (Ferrucci, 2018). The second, approved in February 2022, reaffirmed this approach. Both documents outline two primary ob- jectives for forest management associations, aimed at addressing fragmentation and abandonment: first, to aggregate properties for more rational, cost-effective and sustainable management, and, second, to recover abandoned and so-called “silent” lands, whose owners are unknown or unreachable (Brocca et al., 2023). The models found in the literature and policy documents can be categorised into two broad types: (i) structural solutions, involving formal associative structures, and/or (ii) contractual solutions, formalis- ing cooperation agreements between two or more ac- tors (Table 2). Commons are excluded from this analy- sis as they typically manage a single, non-fragmented property and do not aggregate multiple forest owners/ actors. This categorisation is primarily based on the legal framework defining the entity of the agreement. Some structural solutions, such as foundations and the for- est condominiums, remain very rare and are not de- tailed here. For example, the “Italian Forest Fund” is a foundation created to manage forests solely for nature conservation purposes, openly opposing other man- agement objectives. It differs substantially from other associative models because its members are not for- est owners, with ownership instead being transferred to the foundation, primarily through external dona- tions. The forest condominium (only one known case) is an attempt to manage small private forest holdings through a “central administration” service provided by Table 1: Analytical synthesis of the main types of models identified through the literature review for associating forest owners in Europe Preglednica 1: Analitična sinteza glavnih tipov modelov združevanja lastnikov gozdov v Evropi, opredeljenih s pre- gledom literature FOREST OWNERS’ COOPERATIVES FOREST OWNERS’ ASSOCIATIONS COMMUNITY MANAGED FORESTS Diffusion Common in Northern Europe and Baltic countries. Common in Europe. Common in Europe, with various specific models. Actors Small private forest owners, either: i) paying a quota for annual financial returns; ii) signing long-term agreements. Small private forest owners. Members of a local community. Purpose Cost reduction, for profit. Supporting forest owners in managing their forests, lobbying. Managing community-owned or entru- sted lands. Rules Democratic companies (one member, one vote). Not-for-profit, democratic and participa- tory. Democratic but exclusive, with country- specific norms. Resources and Business models i) dividend model: members are share- holders, providing capital and receiving a financial return; ii) active owners model: owners directly involved in forest management. i) organisations established to support members in forest management (admini- stration, legal compliance, sales, funding); ii) organisations for representation of members’ interests (lobbying). i) community forests, where communities hold property rights; ii) community-based forest enterprises managing third party (often public) fo- rests. References from the litera- ture review (Kittredge, 2005; Rauch and Gronalt, 2005; Hull and Ashton, 2008; Tuominen et al., 2008; Dedeurwaerdere, 2009; Han- smann et al., 2016; Pezdevšek Malovrh et al., 2017; Pivoriūnas, 2021) (Milijic et al., 2010; Živojinović et al., 2015; Pezdevšek Malovrh et al., 2015; Sarva- šová et al., 2015; Hansmann et al., 2016; Põllumäe et al., 2016; Kajanus et al., 2019; Põllumäe et al., 2019; Pivoriūnas, 2021) (Macqueen, 2013; Ambrose-Oji et al., 2015; Bassi and Carestiato, 2016; Bis- sonnette et al., 2018; Lawrence et al., 2021) Table 2: Main solutions for associating forest owners and/or implementing associative management in Italy Preglednica 2: Glavne rešitve za združevanje lastnikov goz- dov in/ali uvajanje asociativnega upravljanja v Italiji (i) Structural solutions (ii) Contractual solutions Formal organisational structures that constitute new entities associating various actors. Agreements between two or more actors (the parties to the contract) that produce legal effects. o Consortia o Associations o Cooperatives o Foundations o Forest condominiums o Concessions o Business networks o Forest agreements o Value chain contracts o Long-term private multi-year sales of forest plots o Free loan contracts 32 Loreggian F., Pettenella D., Secco L., Andrighetto N., Bottaro G.: Associative organisational models in Italian forests ... a professional forester, supporting a group of private landowners under a mid-term agreement. Some contractual solutions, such as concessions, private sales contracts and free loan contracts, are primarily used to regulate agreements between two parties and are therefore not discussed in detail in the following section. Instead, a summary is provided (in Table 3), along with examples of the main types of multi-actor associative models. 3.3 A closer look at possible solutions for ad- dressing forest abandonment and fragmen- tation based on empirical cases identified in Italy 3.3 Podrobnejši pregled možnih rešitev za obravnavanje opuščanja in razdrobljenosti gozdov na podlagi empiričnih primerov v Italiji a) Forest consortia. The consortium is the oldest le- gal entity for implementing associative forest manage- ment in Italy. Initially developed to associate public for- est owners (primarily municipalities), forest consortia remain a distinct Italian model. The “Consorzio Boschi Carnici”, founded in 1874 by 19 municipalities in the northeastern Italian region of Friuli Venezia-Giulia, is one of the oldest examples. Forest consortia were later promoted and regulated by Royal Decree 1723 (1921) and further expanded by Royal Decree 3267 (1923). These laws mentioned consortia as the reference model for associating forest owners, although they were mainly directed towards public owners, such as municipalities, mountain communities and parks. When controlled by public members, consortia are considered public enter- prises. A consortium is, in fact, an organisational form regulated by the Civil Code (Art. 2602), which can only include entrepreneurial subjects or, in the special case of forest consortia, also public subjects. Private, non-en- trepreneur individuals cannot be members. The consor- tium can become a company itself, with limited liability for its individual members, capable of managing forests while ownership remains with each member, with the aim of generating and sharing profits. Furthermore, for- est consortia often take care of other public functions in the territory, such as hydro-geological safety, and can be responsible for maintaining tourism infrastructure such as footpaths, trails, via ferratas, mountain huts and pic- nic areas. Forest consortia appear to be the best solution thus far for developing solid business models, based on commercial activities but also able to secure financing from Rural Development or other European funds. In some Italian regions (e.g., Lombardy), their public sig- nificance is legally recognised, allowing them to receive public funding for the provision of “environmental ser- vices” (i.e., ecosystem services). Consortia can act as legal entities entitled to sign contracts and agreements and participate in other societies or associations. b) Forest associations. Associations are defined in articles 14 to 42 of the Civil Code as one of the key entities within the Italian legal system: collective or- ganisations whose purpose is the pursuit of “non- economic goals”, i.e. they are not-for-profit. Various calls for financial support and legislative interventions have shaped specific types of associations at the re- gional level. Examples include “Forest Associations” in Veneto, Molise and Sicily; “Land Associations” in Pied- mont; and “Woodland Communities” in Tuscany. As- sociations can be legally recognised or not, depending on the choice of the members (and can acquire legal status following registration in the Register of Legal Persons). However, associations face significant limita- tions in conducting commercial activities and manag- ing financial resources compared to consortia, as they are not allowed to make profits. Their governance is also more complex, as it necessarily relies on participa- tory decision-making mechanisms. c) Forest and community cooperatives. The coop- erative model is a well-established solution in forest- ry across Europe. While forest owners’ cooperatives thrive in Northern Europe (Hull and Ashton, 2008; Kajanus et al., 2019), in Southern Europe, the coopera- tive model is more frequently applied to forest work- ers’ enterprises (Trigkas et al., 2020). In Italy, there are no examples of cooperatives among forest owners. As with other Southern European countries, the coopera- tive model in the forest sector is implemented by many forest workers’ companies, especially in central and northwestern regions. However, they are not relevant for the purpose of this study since they do not associ- ate owners but instead carry out forestry operations on third-party properties. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning the innova- tive experience of community cooperatives, which first appeared in Italy about 30 years ago. Some of these cooperatives are significantly involved in the manage- ment of forest lands otherwise at risk of abandonment. Community cooperatives generally operate in multiple sectors, with the overall goal of responding to urgent local community needs, typically in rural mountain areas, where a minimum level of commercial and welfare activities, mobility and assistance to vulner- able groups such as the elderly are required (Grignani et al., 2021). Their potential in forest management is evident, as Italian forests are the primary natural re- source in mountain regions, both in the Apennine and Acta Silvae et Ligni 134 (2024), 27–38 33 Alpine areas. The community cooperative “I briganti di Cerreto” in the Emilia-Romagna region (central Italy), founded in 2003, was one of the first to offer not only tourism services but also forest management services, ranging from more traditional timber logging activities to more innovative forest therapy sessions. Another community cooperative, “Ecosistema comunale di Cas- tell Azzara” in Tuscany, signed a “forest agreement” (a contract, as further detailed in the paper) with three private forest owners, assuming full responsibility for forest management. d) Innovative contractual solutions. There are sev- eral contractual instruments that allow a landowner to entrust the management of forest resources or certain services to third parties. One of the more recent and specific types of contracts is the so-called “forest agree- ment”, defined by national law n.108 (2021), with the purpose of “enhancing public and private areas with an agro-sylvo-pastoral vocation, as well conserving and providing ecosystem services offered by forests”. This contract allows for the participation of forest owners (or subjects holding rights in rem of forest property), even if they are not entrepreneurs. Forest agreements appear to be highly suitable for bringing together vari- ous actors, both public and private, from different sec- tors to manage private and public forests, ensuring the conservation and delivery of ecosystem services while respecting biodiversity and landscapes. In the few recent agreements signed, various ap- plications have emerged: public landowners assigning forest management responsibilities to a third public administration, private owners entrusting their land to a community cooperative (private entity, not owner), and even agreements between public and private for- est owners, involving multiple actors, both public and private, with different roles in a management frame- work that balances public and private interests. Finally, it is worth mentioning long-term forest concessions, a seemingly simple but very uncom- mon solution, with a few scattered examples such as the “Ecolforest” forestry cooperative in southern Italy and the “Silva” forest cooperative in Piedmont, both of which were entrusted with multi-year management of municipal forests. Small forest enterprises, as well as larger forest associations, can benefit from such con- tracts that allow investment in innovative machinery and technologies that would otherwise be prohibi- tively expensive. Public forest owners are the primary type of landowners who could offer forest concessions, as the size of their land could make management ac- tivities profitable. They, in turn, benefit from long-term agreements through more careful interventions and investments in infrastructure (such as forest roads), which could also be funded through rural development programmes. Additionally, other ecosystem services, regulated by the contract, could be provided alongside the profits from timber sales (Romano et al., 2014). Table 3: Summary of the three main types of associative structures operating forest management in Italy Preglednica 3: Povzetek treh glavnih tipov asociativnih struktur pri upravljanju gozdov v Italiji CHARACTERISTICS CONSORTIA ASSOCIATIONS COMMUNITY COOPERATIVES Members Public forest owners (municipalities) and forest entrepreneurs (private) Forest owners (private and public) + other actors Members of a local community Forest ownership Shareholders (large areas >3000 ha) Members (small areas 50-500 ha) Contractors (mid-small areas ≈200 ha) Legal form Contract à Enterprise (artt. 2602-2616 cc) RD 3267/1923 Associations (artt. 14-42 cc) + Regional laws Cooperative (labour model) Regional laws Internal governance structure Democratic but centralised. Vertical Democratic and participatory. Horizontal Democratic and participatory. Vertical Purpose For profit efficiency (cost optimisation), land management. Not-for-profit activation of management (care for the territory) and land care. Mutualism, socio-economic development of local community, creating employment opportunities. Value proposition Timber and regulation of forest eco-system services. Forest management plans, support for administration, marketing and logistics. Any valuable forest ecosystem services. Forest management Management responsibility given to the consortium by contract. Management responsibility given to the association by bylaws (unclear legal definition). Management responsibility given to the cooperative by contract. Financial sources Commercial revenues and Rural Development (RD) funds. Targeted (regional) grants + financing from public tenders (RD funds). Commercial revenues, financing from public tenders (RD funds, etc.). Context Areas where public entities (mu- nicipalities) have extended forest ownership. Abandoned areas, with fragmentation of private land and/or small public properties. “Inner” rural areas (low-altitude mountain regions). 34 Loreggian F., Pettenella D., Secco L., Andrighetto N., Bottaro G.: Associative organisational models in Italian forests ... 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 4 RAZPRAVA IN ZAKLJUČKI Although the monitoring of agricultural and forest land use is discontinuous, sporadic and yields uncer- tain and varied results depending on the sources of information, the most significant change in national land use patterns in recent decades in Italy likely stems from the abandonment of agricultural and forest land management. The expansion of forests serves as a general indicator of this trend, driven by intensive ur- banisation and industrialisation, particularly after the Second World War. Italy’s total forest area has doubled in 50 years and now covers ca. 11 million hectares, or 36% of the country’s total land area, according to the last National Forest Inventory. However, only a small portion is actively (and responsibly) managed (e.g., only 9-10% is certified according to FSC and/or PEFC standards, and only ca 15% has an approved and up- dated forest management plan). Despite the evidence that the problem is persist- ing or worsening, national policy makers still consider associating forest owners (and especially private and small owners) as one of the preferred solutions to ad- dress land fragmentation and abandonment. Interest- ingly, the creation of associative forms for the manage- ment of privately owned forest land does not seem to be a priority in the EU Forest Strategy 2030, where col- laboration is primarily mentioned in relation to initia- tives aimed at enhancing the skills and knowledge of forest actors. The emphasis on networks and associ- ated management mirrors the important role assigned by Italian authorities responsible for the sector (name- ly, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty and Forestry) to domestic forests, which are mainly seen as key assets for rural development and the revitalisation of local supply chains. This supports local economies and maintains employment opportunities in rural ar- eas while guaranteeing the maintenance of landscapes attractive for tourism and ensuring protection against soil erosion and hydrogeological instability. However, as mentioned, there is not yet a robust, regular and complete monitoring and evaluation pro- cess to assess the effectiveness of the various policy instruments introduced in the past to stimulate the aggregation of private forest owners. The overall un- certainty is further compounded by an inconsistent framework developed by the 21 different Italian re- gions and autonomous provinces, each attempting to support forest associations through region-specific norms and funding that are not coordinated, while civil matters remain the exclusive competence of the state. A deeper understanding of the overall framework is needed, from the national level down to the regional levels, as any solution, whether structural or contrac- tual, should be implemented with the right actors, well- defined purposes and compliance with existing laws. Solutions should be based on appropriate governance arrangements specific to each case and, above all, sub- ject to regular monitoring and evaluation. This process can assist policy makers and practitioners in obtain- ing evidence-based information to guide their deci- sions. All the solutions have limitations, but they can be complemented by integrating other instruments to overcome specific issues or foster collaboration with other (associative) actors. Moreover, associations are recognised in the Consolidated Forest Law 34/2018 as a strategic entity to reactivate the management of silent lands (Art. 12, c. 3). However, the same law as- signs the responsibility for defining how this process should be completed to the regions and autonomous provinces, and no clear procedures have been estab- lished to date. Despite the lack of clarity about the quality of these policy and governance instruments, identifying land- owners, who are the main beneficiaries and/or targets, remains a significant challenge, hampering the on-the- ground effectiveness of policies. This is due to a com- bination of bureaucratic complexity, data privacy regu- lations and the continuous migration of many people from rural (mountain) to urban areas or other coun- tries, making it very difficult to inform them of oppor- tunities and motivate them to take action. Furthermore, understanding who forest owners are, their character- istics, motivations and attitudes would be a key step for policy makers and practitioners to select the most effective instruments to implement in different cases (Pezdevšek Malovrh et al., 2015). This represents an- other major research gap: there is no characterisation of private forest owners in Italy based on their socio- economic features (Mozzato and Gatto, 2016). Only a few general studies and one recent detailed study fo- cused on the province of Trento conclude that forest management within small private holdings is largely voluntary and depends on forest owners’ values and objectives (Rizzo et al., 2019). This is consistent with the conclusions from a similar, broader study on Slo- venian and Serbian private forest owners’ behaviour, which concludes that the understanding of owners’ behaviour is important for the success of policy initia- tives aimed at promoting forest management, wheth- er individually or collectively. It is essential to target owners with a tailor-made mix of policy instruments (Pezdevšek Malovrh et al., 2015; 2017). In regard to the category of “silent owners” or “absent owners”, Acta Silvae et Ligni 134 (2024), 27–38 35 who are no longer farmers, more attention should be paid in policy design to new types of land owners. This involves shifting away from the traditional focus on farmers in rural development funding programs and recognising new, innovative profiles of civil society- driven groups of potential owners and managers who are increasingly interested in forest conservation and stewardship. In conclusion, this paper provides an updated overview of policy instruments introduced in Italy to stimulate associative forest management. It aims to support both current and prospective forest owners in taking action to reverse forest abandonment and assist policymakers in adjusting and improving existing in- struments to better suit their objectives. 5 SUMMARY Land abandonment and ownership fragmentation, often accompanied by uncertainty about landowner- ship, are significant and interrelated issues that hinder forest management in some parts of Central Eastern Europe and Mediterranean Europe, exacerbating the impacts and risks of climate change, such as forest fires. The management of small parcels is not profit- able, leading many small holders to abandon them. This accelerates the reduction of land values and fos- ters a vicious cycle that depletes forest-related com- munities, particularly in mountain regions. These issues are a priority in Italy, as recognised in the Italian forest strategy and addressed by the recent national forest law (l. 34/2018) and some normative and funding initiatives at the regional level. Italian forests have expanded continuously over the last cen- tury, while agricultural land and wooded areas within active farms have decreased. Data on forest manage- ment, such as the ratio of forest areas with manage- ment plans, confirm that most forests, including those owned by public entities, lack proper management plans, often being managed informally or abandoned altogether. This research investigates associative organisation- al models as proposed solutions to address the inter- related problems of land fragmentation and land aban- donment. Given the scarcity of data on these problems and their solutions, the paper initially highlights proxy data, followed by a methodology combining a scien- tific literature review, policy document analysis and a review of grey literature. After providing an overview of associative models at the European level, the article categorises and characterises the main associative or- ganisational solutions available to encourage active forest management and support the development of forest supply chains, starting with landowners, as in- dicated by the national forest law. Two main types of solutions are identified: struc- tural and contractual, with three and two categories, respectively, described in more detail, along with some unique cases. Consortia, which have existed in the Ital- ian forest sector for over 150 years, act as enterprises whose members (often municipalities) assign man- agement responsibilities to the consortium, typically for profit and the provision of ecosystem services. As- sociations, introduced more recently, aim to counter private land fragmentation, especially through land associations, which are detailed and supported by some regions. These associations provide opportuni- ties for small private forest owners to access funding, share costs and gain local representation, but they face significant limitations in business development and fi- nancial management. Despite a strong historical legacy, cooperatives in Italy have limited application in the forest sector. They are present in some regions but are primarily forestry companies, not cooperatives of forest owners. Commu- nity cooperatives, however, are an innovative model that is rapidly spreading to address broader social is- sues and could play a significant role in associative for- est management, particularly in marginal, rural, low- mountain areas where forest ownership is typically fragmented. Several contractual instruments (e.g., public con- cessions, long-term agricultural contracts) can be ap- plied to forest management, but business networks and forest agreements are specifically designed to ag- gregate multiple actors, either to improve vertical in- tegration of the value chain or to serve as a first step towards association. Contracts are crucial for develop- ing institutional associations, allowing them to expand managed areas and develop business relationships and opportunities. In conclusion, while forests in Italy have expanded by 2.8 million ha of high forests between 1985 and 2015, wooded areas in active farms have decreased by 2.8 million ha between 1980 and 2020. With only 15.5% of Italian forests under a management plan, land abandonment remains a significant issue, reduc- ing the variety and amount of forest ecosystem servic- es that could be provided and depleting forest-related communities. Associating forest owners, as indicated in the national forest law (Art. 10), has emerged as a key solution to combat land fragmentation and aban- donment. Implementing associative solutions requires careful consideration of the overall socio-economic context and a deep understanding of the complex legal 36 Loreggian F., Pettenella D., Secco L., Andrighetto N., Bottaro G.: Associative organisational models in Italian forests ... framework at both national and regional levels for the effective integration of different solutions and under- standing the potential for their development. Significant gaps remain in the quantitative evalua- tion of land fragmentation and abandonment, as well as in understanding who forest owners are, their be- haviour, motivations and attitudes. More research is needed to provide necessary information for the suc- cess of policy initiatives and the effective development of forest associations. 6 POVZETEK Opuščanje zemljišč in razdrobljenost lastništva, ki ju pogosto spremlja negotovost glede lastništva zemljišč, sta pomembni in povezani vprašanji, ki ovi- rata gospodarjenje z gozdovi v nekaterih delih srednje- vzhodne Evrope in sredozemske Evrope ter povečujeta obseg vplivov in tveganj podnebnih sprememb, npr. gozdnih požarov. Gospodarjenje z majhnimi parcela- mi ni donosno, zato ga številni mali lastniki opuščajo, opuščanje gozdov pa pospešuje izgubo vrednosti zemljišč in spodbuja začaran krog, ki dokončno izčrpa z gozdom povezane skupnosti, najpogosteje v gorskih regijah. Ta vprašanja so v Italiji prednostna naloga, ki je priznana v italijanski strategiji za gozdove in obravn- avana v nedavnem nacionalnem zakonu o gozdovih (l. 34/2018) ter nekaterih normativnih in finančnih pobudah na regionalni ravni. Italijanski gozdovi se v zadnjem stoletju nenehno širijo, medtem ko se kmeti- jska zemljišča zmanjšujejo, krčijo pa se tudi gozdne površine znotraj aktivnih kmetij. Podatki o gospodar- jenju z gozdovi, kot je razmerje načrtovanja, potrju- jejo, da večina gozdov, tudi tistih javnih lastnikov, nima gozdnogospodarskega načrta, kar pomeni, da se z nji- mi gospodari na neformalni ravni (značilno za majhne posesti), ali pa se z njimi sploh ne gospodari, pogosto so opuščeni. Ta raziskava preučuje organizacijske modele združevanja kot predlagane rešitve za reševanje med- sebojno povezanih problemov drobljenja in opuščanja zemljišč. Zaradi pomanjkanja podatkov o teh dveh problemih in relativnih rešitvah so v članku najprej poudarjeni nekateri posredni podatki, nato pa met- odologija združuje pregled znanstvene literature z analizo političnih dokumentov in pregledom sive lit- erature. Po pregledu nekaterih organizacijskih mod- elov povezovanja na evropski ravni članek predstavlja kategorizacijo in opredelitev glavnih asociativnih or- ganizacijskih rešitev, ki so na voljo za spodbujanje ak- tivnega gospodarjenja z gozdovi in podpiranje razvoja gozdne dobavne verige, začenši z lastniki zemljišč, v skladu z navedbami nacionalne zakonodaje o gozdovih. Prepoznani sta dve glavni vrsti: strukturne in pogod- bene rešitve, znotraj katerih so podrobneje opisane tri oziroma dve kategoriji ter nekateri posebni primeri. Konzorciji so najbolj tradicionalni subjekti v itali- janskem gozdarskem sektorju, ki že več kot 150 let delujejo kot podjetja, katerih člani so povezani lastniki zemljišč (pogosto občine), ki na konzorcij prenesejo odgovornost za upravljanje svojih gozdov, večinoma zaradi dobička, in so jim zaupane druge storitve gozd- nega ekosistema. Združenja imajo neprofitne namene in so bila nedavno uvedena v gozdarskem sektorju kot posebno orodje za preprečevanje drobljenja zaseb- nih zemljišč, zlasti v primeru zemljiških združenj, ki jih podrobno opisujejo in podpirajo nekatere regije. Združenja potekajo tudi kot rešitev za male zasebne lastnike gozdov, da bi pridobili možnosti financiranja, si razdelili nekatere stroške in pridobili reprezenta- tivnost na lokalni ravni, vendar doslej ni bilo velikih združenj, mala pa imajo pomembne omejitve pri raz- voju poslovanja in finančnem upravljanju javnih sred- stev. Kljub močni zgodovinski zapuščini in razširjenosti se zadruge v Italiji v gozdnem sektorju uporabljajo le v omejenem obsegu. Razvite so bile le v nekaterih regijah in le za mala gozdarska podjetja, medtem ko lastniki gozdov tega modela v nasprotju z drugimi ev- ropskimi državami niso uporabljali. Zadruge skupnosti so inovativen model, ki se hitro širi za obravnavo širših in raznolikih družbenih interesov, vendar bi lahko bile zanimiv akter pri asociativnem upravljanju gozdov, saj so močno povezane z obrobnimi, podeželskimi in nizkogorskimi območji, za katera so značilna gozdna območja, katerih lastnina je običajno zelo razdrobljena. Za upravljanje gozdov se lahko uporabljajo številni pogodbeni instrumenti (kot so javne konc- esije, dolgoročne kmetijske pogodbe itd.), vendar so poslovne mreže in sporazumi o gozdovih posebej zasnovani za združevanje več akterjev za doseganje boljšega povezovanja vrednostne verige (vertikalno povezovanje) ali kot prvi korak za združevanje podob- nih subjektov, kot so lastniki gozdov. Poleg tega so po- godbe zelo pomembni instrumenti za razvoj institucio- nalnih združenj, saj jim omogočajo širitev upravljanega območja ter razvoj poslovnih odnosov in priložnosti. Medtem ko se gozdovi širijo (+2,8 Mha visokih goz- dov med letoma 1985 in 2015), se gozdne površine na aktivnih kmetijah zmanjšujejo (-2,8 Mha med letoma 1980 in 2020) in le 15,5 % italijanskih gozdov ima načrt upravljanja, zato lahko potrdimo, da je opuščanje zemljišč pomembno vprašanje za gozdarstvo v Ital- iji, kar zmanjšuje raznolikost in razpoložljivost eko- Acta Silvae et Ligni 134 (2024), 27–38 37 sistemskih storitev, ki bi jih gozd lahko zagotavljal, ter zagotovo slabi z gozdom povezane skupnosti. Strate- gija združevanja lastnikov gozdov, ki je jasno navedena v nacionalnem zakonu o gozdovih (člen 10), se je uvel- javila kot ena izmed ključnih rešitev za preprečevanje drobljenja in opuščanja zemljišč. Uvajanje asocia- tivnih rešitev zahteva skrbno upoštevanje splošnega družbeno-gospodarskega konteksta in poglobljeno poznavanje zapletenega pravnega okvira, tako na nacionalni kot regionalni ravni, zlasti za učinkovito vključevanje različnih rešitev in razumevanje poten- cialov za njihov razvoj. Ustrezne vrzeli so bile ugotovljene pri kvantitativ- nem vrednotenju razdrobljenosti in opuščanja zemljišč ter pri razumevanju, kdo so lastniki gozdov, njihovega vedenja, motivacije in odnosa; zato je potrebnih več ra- ziskav, da se zagotovijo potrebne informacije za uspeh političnih pobud in učinkovit razvoj gozdnih združenj. REFERENCES VIRI Ambrose-Oji B., Lawrence A., Stewart A. 2015. Community based forest enterprises in Britain: two organising typologies. Forest Policy and Economics, 58: 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. forpol.2014.11.005 Amodio T. 2022. Territories at risk of abandonment in Italy and hypothesis of repopulation. Belgeo, 4. https://doi.org/10.4000/ belgeo.57229 Baldini G., Baldi B. 2014. Decentralization in Italy and the Troubles of Federalization. Regional and Federal Studies, 24, 1: 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2013.827116 Bassi I., Carestiato N. 2016. Common property organisations as ac- tors in rural development: A case study of a mountain area in Italy. International Journal of the Commons, 10, 1: 363–386. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.608 Beltramo R., Rostagno A., Bonadonna A. 2018. Land consolidation as- sociations and the management of territories in harsh Italian en- vironments: a review. Resources, 7, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/ resources7010019 Bissonnette J.F., Blouin D., Dupras J., Chion C., Bouthillier L. 2018. Comparing polycentric configuration for adaptive governance within community forests: Case studies in Eastern North Ame- rica. International Journal of the Commons, 12, 1: 352–377. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.822 Brocca M., Ferrucci N., Flick M., Mauro M., Roggero F., Rossi D., Luci- fero N. 2023. Legge Serpieri e paradigmi normativi forestali: tra storia e attualità. In: A. dei Georgofili (Ed.), Arrigo Serpieri un grande maestro. Società Editrice Fiorentina. Canton A., Pettenella D. 2010. Family forest owners’ motivations in forest management activities: a case study in Recoaro Terme municipality (north-east Italy). Forest@ - Rivista Di Selvicoltu- ra Ed Ecologia Forestale, 7, 1: 44–57. https://doi.org/10.3832/ efor0618-007 Corona P., Lombardo E., Wolynski A., Researcher I. 2023. Evoluzione storica delle amministrazioni forestali in Italia. Quaderni dei Ge- orgofili, 2: 169–208. https://www.georgofili.net/articoli/evo- luzione-storica-delle-amministrazioni-forestali-in-italia/14084 (10. 10. 2024). Dedeurwaerdere T. 2009. Social learning as a basis for cooperative small-scale forest management. Small-Scale Forestry, 8, 2: 193– 209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-009-9075-5 RaF Italia - Rapporto sullo stato delle foreste e de settore foresta- le in Italia 2017-2018. 2019. Arezzo, Compagnia delle Foreste. https://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/ IT/IDPagina/19231 (10. 10. 2024). Mobilisation and efficient use of wood and wood residues for energy generation: report to the Standing Forestry Committee by the Standing Forestry Committee ad hoc Working Group II on mobi- lisation and efficient use of wood and wood residues for energy generation. 2008.. Ferrucci N. 2018. Il nuovo testo unico in materia di foreste e filie- re forestali: una prima lettura. Diritto Agroalimentare, 265. https://doi.org/ISSN 2499-7463 Gasparini P., Di Cosmo L., Floris A., De Laurentis D. (ed). 2022. Italian national forest inventory — methods and results of the third sur- vey. (Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering.). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-98678-0 Grignani A., Gozzellino M., Sciullo A., Padovan D. 2021. Community cooperative: a new legal form for enhancing social capital for the development of renewable energy communities in italy. Energi- es, 14, 21: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14217029 Hansmann R., Kilchling P., Seeland K. 2016. The Effects of Regio- nal Forest Owner Organizations on Forest Management in the Swiss Canton of Lucerne. Small-Scale Forestry, 15, 2: 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9315-9 Hartvigsen M., Versinskas T., Gorgan M., Land K., Hartvigsen M., Versinskas T., Gorgan M. 2021. European good practices on land banking and its application in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. https://fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/ fig2021/papers/FAO_banking/Hartvigsen_etal_paper.pdf (10. 10. 2024) Hull R.B., Ashton S. 2008. Forest cooperatives revisited. Journal of Fo- restry, 106, 2: 100–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/106.2.100 ISTAT. 2022. Instituto Nazionale di Statistica. https://www.istat.it/ (1. 7. 2024) Kajanus M., Leban V., Glavonjić P., Krč J., Nedeljković J., Nonić D., Ny- bakk E., Posavec S., Riedl M., Teder M., Wilhelmsson E., Zālīte Z., Eskelinen T. 2019. What can we learn from business models in the European forest sector: exploring the key elements of new business model designs. Forest Policy and Economics, 99: 145– 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.04.005 Kittredge D.B. 2005. The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: International exam- ples and potential application in the United States. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 4: 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.for- pol.2003.12.004 Lawrence A., Gatto P., Bogataj N., Lidestav G. 2021. Forests in com- mon: learning from diversity of community forest arrangements in Europe. Ambio, 50: 448–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-020-01377-x Loreggian F., Secco L., Pettenella D. 2023. Organizational models in European forestry: an attempt of conceptualization and catego- rization. Forests, 14, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050905 MacQueen D.J. 2008. Forest connect: Reducing poverty and defo- restation through support to community forest enterprises. International Forestry Review, 10: 4: 670–675. https://doi. org/10.1505/ifor.10.4.670 Pezdevšek Malovrh Š., Kumer P., Glavonjić P., Nonić D., Nedeljković J., Kisin B., Avdibegović M. 2017. Different organisational mo- dels of private forest owners as a possibility to increase wood mobilization in Slovenia and Serbia. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering, 38, 1: 127–140. https://crojfe.com/site/assets/ files/4073/pezdevsek.pdf (10. 10. 2024) 38 Loreggian F., Pettenella D., Secco L., Andrighetto N., Bottaro G.: Associative organisational models in Italian forests ... Pezdevšek Malovrh Š., Nonić D., Glavonjić P., Nedeljković J., Avdibe- gović M., Krč J. 2015. Private forest owner typologies in Slovenia and Serbia: targeting private forest owner groups for policy im- plementation. Small-Scale Forestry, 14, 4: 423–440. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11842-015-9296-8 Milijic V., Rankovic N., Nonic D., Nedeljkovic J. 2010. Organization of private forest sector in Timok forest area. Annals of Forest Rese- arch, 53, 1: 59–69. https://doi.org/10.15287/afr.2010.115 Mozzato D., Gatto P. 2016. Determinants, attitudes and willingness of private forest owners to produce goods and services: a review of the international literature. Forest@ - Rivista Di Selvicoltura Ed Ecologia Forestale, 13, 1: 18–30. https://doi.org/10.3832/ efor1751-013 Omizzolo A. 2015. Impatti della frammentazione fondiaria nelle aree montane Italiane e indirizzi di riqualificazione. Università degli studi di Urbino Carlo Bo. Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mu- lrow C.D., Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J.M., Akl E.A., Brennan S.E., Chou R., Glanville J., Grimsha J.M., Hróbjartsso A., Lalu M.M., Li T., Lo- der E.W., Mayo-Wilson E., McDonald S., … Moher D. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906 Pecurul-Botines M., Secco L., Bouriaud L., Giurca A., Brockhaus M., Brukas V., Hoogstra-Klein M.A., Konczal A., Marcinekova L., Ni- edzialkowski K., Øistad K., Pezdevšek Malovrh Š., Pietarinen N., Roux J.-L., Wolfslehner B. 2023. Meeting the European Union’s Forest Strategy goals: a comparative European assessment. (From Science to Policy, 15). European Forest Institute. https:// doi.org/https://doi.org/10.36333/fs15 Pivoriūnas A. 2021. Forms of cooperation of lithuanian forest owners: a case review. Baltic Forestry, 26, 2: 1–7. https://doi. org/10.46490/BF455 Põllumäe P., Lilleleht A., Korjus H. 2016. Institutional barriers in forest owners’ cooperation: the case of Estonia. Forest Poli- cy and Economics, 65: 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.for- pol.2016.01.005 Põllumäe P., Lilleleht A., Korjus H. 2019. Reflections of active forest owners to the public-private forestry support system in Esto- nia. Forestry Studies, 71, 1: 100–119. https://doi.org/10.2478/ fsmu-2019-0015 Povellato A., Vanni F. 2017. Nuovi strumenti per le politiche fondi- arie. Banca della terra e associazioni fondiarie. Agriregionie- uropa. Agriregionieuropa, 13, 49. https://agriregionieuropa. univpm.it/it/content/article/31/49/nuovi-strumenti-le-politi- che-fondiarie-banca-della-terra-e-associazioni Rauch P., Gronalt M. 2005. Evaluating organisational designs in the forestry wood supply chain to support Forest Owners’ Coopera- tions. Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 4, 1: 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-005-0004-y Rizzo M., Gasparini P., Tonolli S., Zoanetti R., Buffoni D., Dellagiacoma F. 2019. Characterizing small private forests and forest owners’ motivations and attitudes in Trentino (Eastern Alps, Italy). Small-Scale Forestry, 18, 4: 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11842-019-09425-5 Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco C., Górriz-Mifsud E., Prokofieva I., Muys B., Novoa C.P. 2022. Blazing the trail: social innovation suppor- ting wildfire-resilient territories in Catalonia (Spain). Forest Policy and Economics, 138, 102719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. forpol.2022.102719 Romano S., Cozzi M., Ventura G., Viccaro M. 2014. Un modello di go- vernance innovativo nella gestione delle foreste appenniniche italiane. In: Atti Del II Congresso Internazionale Di Selvicoltura: Progettare Il Futuro per Il Settore Forestale, Firenze, 26-29 No- vembre 2014. Firenze, Accademia Italiana di Scienze Forestali, 2: 770–774. http://dx.doi.org/10.4129/2cis-sr-mod Sarvašová Z., Zivojinovic I., Weiss G., Dobšinská Z., Drăgoi M., Gál J., Jarský V., Mizaraite D., Põllumäe P., Šálka J., Schiberna E., Šišák L., Wolfslehner B., Zalite Z., Zalitis T. 2015. Forest owners associ- ations in the Central and Eastern European region. Small-Scale Forestry, 14, 2: 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-014- 9283-5 Secco L., Favero M., Masiero M., Pettenella D.M. 2017. Failures of political decentralization in promoting network governance in the forest sector: observations from Italy. Land Use Policy, 62: 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.013 Secco L., Paletto A., Romano R., Masiero M., Pettenella D., Carbone F., De Meo I. 2018. Orchestrating forest policy in Italy: missi- on impossible? Forests, 9, 8: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ f9080468 Snyder H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104: 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039 Spadoni G.L., Moris J.V., Vacchiano G., Elia M., Garbarino M., Sibona E., Tomao A., Barbati A., Sallustio L., Salvati L., Ferrara C., Franci- ni S., Bonis E., Dalla Vecchia I., Strollo A., Di Leginio M., Munafò M., Chirici G., Romano R., … Ascoli D. 2023. Active governance of agro-pastoral, forest and protected areas mitigates wildfire im- pacts in Italy. Science of the Total Environment, 890. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164281 Trigkas M., Anastopoulos C., Papadopoulos I., Lazaridou D. 2020. Business model for developing strategies of forest cooperatives. Evidence from an emerging business environment in Greece. Jo- urnal of Sustainable Forestry, 39, 3: 259–282. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/10549811.2019.1635031 Tuominen P., Uski T., Jussila I., Kotonen U. 2008. Organization types and corporate social responsibility reporting in Finnish forest industry. Social Responsibility Journal, 4, 4: 474–490. https:// doi.org/10.1108/17471110810909885 Who owns our forests? Forest ownership in the ECE region. 2019. (ECE/TIM/SP/43). United nations publicatins, Economic Com- mission for Europe. https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/ publications/SP-43.pdf (10. 10. 2024) Živojinović I., Weiss G., Lidestav G., Feliciano D., Hujala T., Dobšinská Z., Lawrence A., Nybakk E., Quiroga S., Schraml U. 2015. Forest land ownership change in Europe: COST Action FP1201 FACE- SMAP country reports: joint volume. Vienna, European Forest Institute Central-East and South-East European Regional Of- fice. https://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2164/4748/ FP1201_Country_Reports_Joint_Volume.pdf;jsessionid=80A474 10FFA44AEA9CAE7BD005B9B8E0?sequence=1 (10. 10. 2024).