Country Case Study: Italy – WP 8

Home , Civic Network, Milan metropolitan area, Province of Milan, Valeria Fedeli

G-FORS Project

Milan Polytechnic Dipartimento di architettura e pianificazione

The Italian team:

Alessandro Balducci (project director) Claudio Calvaresi Valeria Fedeli Carolina Pacchi Elena Valsecchi Davide Zanoni

March 2008

Introduction ...... 4

Part I - Case study on SEA.Province of Milan Master Plan, 2003-2007...... 5 I. The legal and institutional setting in the member state for the selected case studies...... 6 1. Strategic Environmental Assessment...... 8 II. Case study on SEA ...... 10 1. Context and Conditions...... 10 2. The Action Arena...... 12 2.1 Involved Actors: Holders – their resources and roles ...... 12 2.2 Absent Actors...... 13 2.3 Observed modes of interaction...... 14 3. Identifying case specific governance arrangements...... 20 3.1 Governance modes/Governance arrangements ...... 20 3.2 Rules in governance arrangement/ Institutional Context ...... 23 3.3 Changes ...... 23 4. Identifying case specific KnowledgeScapes ...... 24 4.1 Dominant Knowledge Forms: content/claims of Knowledge forms...... 24 4.2 Knowledge holders...... 24 4.3 Social/Spatial distribution of Knowledge ...... 26 4.4 Excluded/Silent Knowledge forms...... 26 4.5 Relevance of reflective knowledge ...... 27 5. Identification of interfaces/interaction between Knowledge and Governance Arrangements ...... 27 5.1 Synergies/contradiction between Governance arrangements and knowledge forms..... 27 5.2 Relationship between Modes of interaction and knowledge forms ...... 27 5.3 Relationship between governance arrangements, knowledge forms and learning Processes ...... 28 6. Identifying “Governance for Sustainability” ...... 29 6.1 Assessing Sustainable Development in the selected case ...... 29 6.2 Assessing the Legitimacy of Policy-Making in the selected case...... 31 6.3 Synergies/Contradictions between governance arrangements and knowledge forms on the one side and sustainability and legitimate policy-making on the other side...... 33 Attachment ...... 35

Part II - Case study on particulate matter Milan Urban Region………………………………38 0. The legal and institutional setting in the member state for the selected case studies ...... 39 0.1 Regulatory Framework...... 39 1. Context and Conditions...... 41 1.1 Context and conditions: Two Storylines for a ‘special untreatable context’? ...... 42 1.2. Case history, Rules, regulation, themes and problems...... 47 1.3 Role of media ...... 61 2: The Action Arena...... 64 2.1 Involved Actors: Holders - their Resources and Roles and modes of interaction...... 64 2.2 Absent Actors ...... 72 2.3 Observed Modes of Interaction ...... 74 2.4 Discourses...... 74 3. Identifying case specific governance arrangements...... 77 3.1 Rules in use/institutional context ...... 77 3.2 Governance Modes/ Governance Arrangements...... 78 2

3.3 Changes ...... 80

4. Identifying the case specific knowledgescapes...... 82 4.1 Dominant Knowledge Forms: Content/Claims of Knowledge Forms ...... 82 4.2 Knowledge Holders ...... 87 4.3 Social/Spatial Distribution of Knowledge...... 87 4.4 Excluded/Silent Knowledge Forms...... 89 4.5 Relevance of Reflective Knowledge ...... 90 4.6 Synergies/ Contradictions between Knowledge Forms...... 91 4.7 Silent Knowledge/Knowledge deficits...... 92 4.8 Changes in Knowledge Formations...... 93 5. Identification of Interfaces/Interaction between Knowledge and Governance Arrangements ...... 94 5.1 Synergies/ Contradictions between Governance Arrangements and Knowledge Forms ...... 94 5.2 Relationship between Modes of Interaction and Knowledge Forms...... 95 5.3 Relationship between Governance Arrangements, Knowledge Forms and Learning Processes...... 96 5.4 Changes ...... 97 6. Identifying ‘Governance For Sustainability’ ...... 98 6.1 Assessing Sustainable Development in the Selected Case...... 98 6.2 Assessing the Legitimacy of Policy-Making in the Selected Case ...... 100 6.3 Synergies/Contradictions between Governance Arrangements and Knowledge Forms on the one side and Sustainability and Legitimate Policy-Making on the other side ...... 101 Bibliographic references ...... 104 Interviews...... 106

Introduction

The Italian team has developed the empirical work concerning the two selected case studies: The SEA of the Territorial Plan (Piano Territoriale di Coordinamento Provinciale – PTCP) in the of the Province of Milan (2002-03; 2006-ongoing), and the air pollution control policy in Milan area. Both cases concern Milan metropolitan area. We have selected this territory because it is the largest metropolitan area in Italy (for population and size), and the most dynamic in terms of economic development. Consequently the problem of urban growth management is particularly critical, and the application of Strategic environmental assessment to the new Territorial Plan has seemed to us a good example for testing the effectiveness of SEA procedure in a ambitious planning initiative. The firs case is relevant for GFors because the implementation of SEA passes through different conceptual definitions and governance arrangements as the process evolves. In particular, it is possible to follow the evolution of the SEA implementation through the change of the regulative framework (after Regional Law 12/2005 introduced mandatory SEA for plans and programmes in Lombardia) and the change of cultural perspective (from a process that concerned institutions and technical experts to a slightly more open decision making process). The air pollution control case concerns the particulate matter in Milan urban area. There are several relevant criteria which justify the selection of this case study. 1) Milan urban area is one of the most critical environmental situations in Itay. 2) Milan is an urban region, rather than a city: it is therefore possible to identify a thick and fragmented policy arena. 3) Pollution control is a contested policy arena, in which different knowledge forms and forms of governance are both present. The Italian team has developed both the case studies according with the methodological tools of the research project, mainly interviews with opinion leaders and key stakeholders, analysis of official and informal documents, press review. In the SEA of the Province Plan, as far as governance modes are concerned, there is a strong hierarchical influence in the plan making process, apart from the rhetoric of a planning based on public participation and arguing. The prevailing of a hierarchical mode of interaction can be found also in the low degree of openness of the plan toward some of the actors to whom the formal model attributes an important role in the process. While the Province does only marginally take into account the results of the public participation process and includes only partially the results of the SEA consultants’ work, it is forced to consider the requests of other organised actors with whom the interaction is based on bargaining. The relatively low degree of openness and the complexity of some planning questions lead the process to rely mainly on expert and steering knowledge. In the second case “policies of reduction of particulate matter”, as far as governance modes are concerned, we can notice as well a hierarchical approach to policies, decisionmaking and implementation. The introduction of the ECOPASS (a pollution charge activated by the municipality of Milan on part of the city at the beginning of 2008 after a long and conflictual process of discussion inside the city government and in general in the civil society) is significant of an approach in which institutions are still self-referential and scarcely attentive to the production of consensual policies, notwithstanding the interest and active position of the citizens on the problem. The ECOPASS is resulting on the one side as the simplistic application of the principle “paying for polluting” and a mediation among serious environmental policies and a vote sensitive issue. This simplification, still much contested, is the ‘small’ and ‘weak’ output of a wide discussion which actually has passed through a wide production of knowledge ( expert, tacit, steering, legal..) which does not seem to be producing reflexive knowledge: a large variety of actors are involved in this production but the parts are always engaged in the deconstruction of others’ actor knowledge ( in particular when the production of knowledge is consubstantial with the role of ruling and controlling the results of policies). As a matter of fact some strange coalitions emerge in the name of public good and citizens’ health ( the centre right elected major supported by environmentalist associations, and isolated by her own party), but in general the actors arena seem to be stressed by a problem on which there seems to be no shared vision neither on the problem, nor on the solutions.

Part I

Case study on SEA Province of Milan Master Plan 2003-2007

Carolina Pacchi, Davide Zanoni

Part I

I. The legal and institutional setting in the member state for the selected case studies

Italy is an example of a regional state, meaning a form of state in which a sovereign public entity coexists with other territorial entities that are given a legal status valid only domestically, together with a certain degree of legislative and administrative independence. In addition to twenty Regions (five special Regions hold wider legislative responsibilities and larger resources than the remaining 15 ordinary regions) the State is subdivided into territorial entities: Provinces and Municipalities. Only Regions, however, are constitutional entities, given the autonomy in regulation, and are part of the constitutional structure of the State1. The Italian administrative system and the linkage between different levels of government (national, regional, provincial, local) has been sharply modified by the legislative reform of the Title V of the Constitution (Constitutional Law 3/2001). This reform has changed the system and redefined duties, authorities and ruling powers, according to some basic principles. Indeed the new article 114 of the Constitutional Law introduced the principle of equality among different levels of government, declaring that “the Republic is composed by the Municipalities, the Provinces, the Metropolitan cities, the Regions and the State”: therefore the involvement of the national government is of the same importance as that of other administrative bodies. Legislative power is assigned to the State and the Regions, but the constitutional reform established that the national government covers only some topics, while the Regions cover all other points of law; the reform has therefore modified the balance in favour of the regions. Local authorities, as Provinces and Municipalities, have just statutory power, concerning the organization and the execution of their administrative tasks. The subsidiarity principle, affirmed by the article 117, ensures independence to a local power base compared to a central power base and distributes responsibilities over various levels of power, thereby initiating that radical decentralisation process of functions and responsibilities to regions and local authorities, which goes by the name of administrative federalism. The Constitutional Law also declares the principle of horizontal subsidiarity, by which “State, Regions, Provinces and Municipalities favour the autonomy of citizens, individuals or associated, to develop activities of general interest, according to the principle of horizontal subsidiarity”. According to this principle, Regions encourage the autonomous initiatives of private parties, involve citizens and their economic and social structures in managing public services, moving from the lowest level - the players closest to the problem - to define actions and laws, creating conditions and guarantees so that the framework is favourable to them. Finally, Title V gives state recognition of financial autonomy also for local authorities, which can set up and put taxes into effect for self-financing; moreover they share the national tax levy in proportion to their territory and population.

Since the 1990s Italy has gone through a significant decentralization process that brought relevant changes to the power of local authorities. With the introduction of the “Bassanini laws” and successive implementation decrees, in particular law n. 265 (3 Agust 1999, Disposizioni in materia di autonomia e ordinamento degli enti locali) and decree n. 267 (18 Agust 2000, T.U.E.L.- Testo Unico delle leggi

1 Art. 115 of the Constitution states that the Regions are autonomous entities with powers to be used within the set principles of the Constitution. These measures, coordinated with art. 5, under which the one and indivisible Republic acknowledges and promotes autonomous local powers, grant to the Regions the status of autonomous territorial entities that pursue general ends, meaning that they are political entities possessing powers which are wide-ranging but subject to the limits and controls of the Central State. 6

sull’ordinamento degli enti locali), subnational governments have progressively received new responsibilities. According to the institutional reform, Regions play the most important role and they are mainly in charge of health services, planning, vocational training, culture and tourism, regional public transportation, environment, housing. They take concerted action with the central government, concerning decisions on legislative and administrative guidelines, as well as strategic planning in coordination with local governments and after having received the opinions of economic and social actors. Provinces were mainly executive agencies of the national government used to implement national policies at local level; through this law, central government assigned to Provinces new powers and competencies, coupled with an increased budgetary autonomy and taxing power. The law on local administrations stipulates that Municipalities and Provinces themselves shall take charge of those matters of general interest that are related to their respective territories and that are not competence of some other body. Provinces are mainly responsible for education and environmental policies, Municipalities mostly provide local public services. Moreover, the law gives state recognition of statutory autonomy: each local authority could define the administrative form in its own statute, the level and kind of cooperation with other local governments and the forms of public participation into the administrative process. In general terms, regional governments maintain the functions of establishing guidelines and coordinating all activities, while the planning and management functions are transferred to the next lowest administrative level. Therefore local authorities do not have any legislative power: they carry out only administrative duties2.

In more detail, the Province covers these fields: spatial planning, environmental protection and disaster prevention, protection and exploitation of water and energy resources, cultural activities and tourism, transports and mobility, parks and natural reserves, waste disposal, health and educational services allocated by the region. The spatial planning tasks within the scope of the Province are: - to collect the proposals advanced by the Municipalities, aiming at the economic, territorial and environmental planning of the Region; - to concur in the determination of the regional development plan; - to work out and to adopt the Provincial Master Plan (Piano Territoriale di Coordinamento Provinciale - PTCP) which directs land uses at a supra-local level, contains the location of major facilities, road infrastructures and communication lines, and gives strategic lines to protect land and water resources, areas for parks and natural reserves; - to review municipal Local Land use Plans (in Lombardy, PGTs)

The decentralisation process towards local government reform is an attempt to radically modify the institutional system, in a search for administrative action simplification and public administration efficiency recovery. It seems to prefigure, at least in general terms, a redesign of the relationships between the state, local authorities and civil society aimed at a form of organisation completely different with respect to the traditional one. The relevance of these changes, above and beyond the initial indications, must obviously be verified in practice so as to be able to assess if and how much they will influence the public administration’s behaviour and governing style. However, there is no doubt that some innovations, which seem to recognise and valorise the role of actors traditionally excluded from decision-making processes, have been introduced, resulting in an overall redefinition of political and administrative action.

In the framework of urban and territorial policies, the new centrality assumed by local authorities in a very wide range of policies regarding the promotion of local development, and the consolidation of a

2 In January 2000, the Lombardy Region approved the regional law n.1 on the reorganization of local administration, in order to implement the central government decree. The law details the duties transferred to provinces, local authorities and mountain communities belonging to the Region. Moreover it introduces a new important element with respect to Bassanini laws: the setting-up in each Province of a Local authorities and mountain communities conference to discuss and put forward proposals on all matters transferred to provinces in the field of spatial planning.

number of regulatory institutes (e.g. the Accordi di programma – Planning agreements - and the Conferenza dei servizi - Conference of services) head in this direction. These policy instruments are aimed at simplifying the work shared by public authorities at various levels and, finally, at defining a contractual model for interaction among public and private actors. All these elements, together with the role played by the EU in the promotion of complex and integrated policies, the interests of institutions, agencies and public authorities for the mobilisation of private actors’ resources and for a larger involvement of local society, facilitated, in the last decade, the emergence of a number of relevant changes. These changes have occurred in the construction of urban and territorial policies, supported by a number of innovations in instruments for intervention at urban and area level. In general terms, the innovations emerging in the local context may be summarised in the four following statements: - recognition of new forms of interests representation, with subsequent wider acceptance of the plurality and diversity of actors and interests involved in urban and territorial policies; - opening up of the decision-making arena towards forms of negotiation and joint planning among various actors, in the form of both public/private partnership and of inter-institutional co-operation (the former intended to activate the resources of various involved actors; the latter, aimed at coordination of and cooperation among the different institutional actors); - growing importance assumed by reference to specific local authorities for the implementation of actions in integrated territories, intended to place the city or territory within the context of international competition and, concurrently, to oppose social-exclusion phenomena; - generalised adoption of competition procedures in the assigning of financial resources provided by government programmes.

1. Strategic Environmental Assessment

The adoption of EU Directive 2001/42/EC led Member States to introduce the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of plans and programmes in their regulatory process. The SEA can be described as a systematic process for integrating environmental considerations into strategic decision-making processes. If correctly implemented, SEA may contribute to more transparent planning processes and policies achieving sustainable development goals, by involving local stakeholders and by integrating environmental expertise. A similar assessment was already foreseen by the EU rules on financing policy which introduced a national environmental assessment (ex-ante, interim and ex-post) for Structural Funds. The EU Directive on strategic environmental assessment has been implemented in the Italian law by the legislative decree 29/04/2006 “Environmental Consolidation Act” (Testo Unico Ambientale) which sets out a comprehensive framework for environmental assessment, defining new procedures for SEA and EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment for single projects as power plants, roads and railways, facilities). The decree states that strategic environmental assessment of policies, plans and programmes (PPPs) represents an integral part of the standard approval process and has to be performed during the preliminary and planning phases. SEA is required for PPPs related to: agriculture, forestry and fishing, energy, mining, water supply and management, transport, land use, tourism planning and waste disposal. Therefore, all regional legislations, in particular those focusing on planning, are going to be revised in order to incorporate environmental assessment procedures.

The Lombardy Region has introduced Strategic Environmental Assessment for provincial and municipal plans with the approval of the Planning Law (Regional Law n°12, 11 March 2005). Subsequently the Regional Council (D.C.R. VIII/0351, 13 March 2007) approved General Guidelines for the strategic environmental assessment of plans and programs; this document represents the regional transposition of the SEA Directive 2001/42/CE. The Guidelines supply instructions on the following issues:

- integration between the planning process and the appraisal activity - the guidance foresees a tight cooperation between policy makers and environmental experts, coupled with a transparent and participatory approach to decision making; - scope of environmental assessment: regional plans (Piano Territoriale Regionale -PTR; Piano Territoriale Regionale d’Area - PTRdA), provincial master plans (PTCP) and municipal land use plans (Piano di Governo del Territorio -PGT); - methodological procedure that rationalizes the actions already defined in the planning instruments and identifies the competent actors to be involved at the beginning of the process; - public participation: plans and programs development has to be accompanied by stakeholders consultation, communication and information activities; - consistency with other procedures, as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Incidence appraisal on Special protection zones (Zone di Protezione Speciale-ZPS) and Sites of Communitarian Importance (Siti di Importanza Comunitaria-SIC); - information system for the assessment for plans and programs: a thematic portal (Sistema informativo regionale lombardo per la Valutazione di Impatto Ambientale- SILVIA) has been developed, in order to collect legislative and methodological information, good practices, references and news.

II. Case study on SEA

1. Context and Conditions

Case history

The case study concerns the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Master Plan in the Province of Milan (Piano Territoriale di Coordinamento Provinciale -PTCP), one of the most interesting Italian experiences of environmental assessment in spatial planning. PTCP is not a land use plan, but rather a general plan that gives some overall rules for the transformation of the areas, then defined in more detail in Local Land use Plans (PGTs). The Plan in force has been approved in October 2003, but after the issuing of the regional Planning Law (n.12, 11 March 2005), it has to be adapted to the new regulative framework through a reframing process, according to the General Guidelines described in the previous section. In November 2005, the provincial Council approved the “Action programme and first indications for the adaptation of the PTCP in force” and has formally started the adaptation procedure (Resolution n.884/05). The action programme provided a preliminary analysis of the issues related to the adaptation of the plan and it defined in particular the organizational structure and the schedule of the procedure. The responsibility of the process is assigned to the D.G. Planning and Land Use (D.C. Pianificazione e Assetto del Territorio) which has to develop the plan, to coordinate a Technical inter- departmental committee (Comitato inter-direzionale) and to assign specific tasks to an external experts panel.

The adaptation of the PTCP to the new regulatory framework, according to modes and schedule established by the law, is a strongly innovative process but, at the same time, a quite limited one. It is innovative because it must develop a new planning mode and a new relationship with policy instruments of other planning authorities (in particular the Plan must guarantee the flexibility in relation to the Regional Spatial Plan and to municipal Land use Plans); but it is limited because the adaptation process concentrates just on the changes introduced by the Law 12/2005 and does not develop a new plan. From a methodological point of view, three elements strongly characterise the new planning model: strategic environmental assessment (SEA), public participation and monitoring during the implementation phase. As explained afterward, the environmental appraisal should integrate the planning and decision making process through the definition of priorities for sustainability and the assessment of impacts rising from alternative implementation options.

The overall process started in 1999 with the planning of the original PTCP, approved only in 2003, and then it passed trough different stages. The Province of Milan experimented a test strategic appraisal of the Master Plan in 1999 and a more structured implementation of strategic environmental assessment (Valutazione Strategica -VaSt) for the new plan in 2003, although at the time it was not yet mandatory. These former initiatives, although quite articulated and comprehensive from a technical point of view, did not foresee neither stakeholder involvement, nor articulated public participation procedures, apart from the direct consultation of local authorities (inter-institutional consultation). Nevertheless they can be considered as useful experiments in terms of environmental integration, because external experts have been involved in the planning process and some efforts to increase the knowledge base have been undertaken. During the adaptation process, that is till ongoing, the Province Planning Department launched a SEA and a public consultation strategy, that started in autumn 2006 and ended in spring 2007, with the political aims of ensuring the overall sustainability of the interventions by enlarging the knowledge base and increasing the public consensus about the main planning issues - the first objective was probably more declared but less actual than the second one.

External components

Type of policy, scope of the plan, spatial conditions of the policy problem The PTCP plan subjected to strategic environmental assessment can be considered in broad terms as a regulatory policy. As stated before, PTCP gives some general objectives and overall rules to manage and to transform areas; these rules have to be connected to supra-municipal interests and to be consistent with the regional planning framework. This means that the plan is intended to have a coordinating function between different tiers of government because the spatial issues to be addressed cross the administrative borders. The Plan includes also some binding provisions which prevail on local planning and have to be defined with broad consensus and accuracy, in particular those concerning rural areas and indirectly urbanization permits. The most important vertical relationship with other government levels is the one with Municipalities, in order to review the Land Use Plans (PGTs). When a Municipality presents in the PGT a definition of rural areas that contrasts with the binding provincial provisions, the City Council has to conform to the provincial plan. This is the reason why the cooperation between these tiers of government may be crucial in preventing conflicts that could limit the effectiveness of the provincial plan itself. Given the regulatory nature of the policy, as far as some areas are concerned, the planning role of the Province depends on effective cooperation with the Municipalities and with the Region. Due to the relative weakness of the province vis-à-vis these other government levels and in the absence of a multi-level governance framework able to define shared guidelines and to uniform tools and procedures, provincial planning could turn out in a political failure, as the last planning experiences proved. In other terms, planning at the intermediate level may show limits in implementing a strategic coordination role.

Rules in use (formal rules) The action arena of the SEA-PTCP process - considered as a single policy problem- is shaped by some formal rules, mainly referred to: authority rules, that specify who take the final decision on the plan; boundary rules that indicate the actors (private and public) to be consulted in order to take the decision; information rules that define the forms of knowledge and the expertise needed to elaborate the spatial plan and to carry out the environmental assessment. Moreover the Regional Planning Law (n°12/2005) and the “Action programme and first directions for the revision of the PTCP in force” (Provincial Resolution n. 460/05) defines the position rules, giving the responsibility of the process to the D.G. Planning and Land Use of the Province and clarifying the institutional architecture - roles assigned to public and private actors. Therefore, these formal/institutional rules assign a leading role to the provincial authority which does manage the overall process, selecting stakeholders to be involved in consultation processes, experts to be consulted and the needed knowledge to be collected. Authority rules give also to the Province most of the decision making power regarding which inputs from consultation procedures have to be taken into account. Nevertheless the aggregation rules do not provide the provincial government the right to take the decision on its own account, without entering into a bargaining process with other institutional actors. The Law indeed gives to the province the authority to take final decisions but also claims for a broad consultation with local authorities and civil society. This aspect turned out to be very important in the specific case: as highlighted in the governance modes analysis, the bargaining process with the Municipalities is crucial in order to create a positive cooperation between different levels of government and to improve the consistency between local and provincial planning. The Province has also to collect, through different consultation instruments, opinions and proposals from local communities and stakeholders before the final decision is taken, but at the end of the day it holds the right to decide which issues let enter into the plan (scope rules). In terms of type of information considered, according to the Law that foresees the obligation to carry out the SEA and specific rules on experts knowledge to be used in process, the environmental authorities and agencies

have been involved at the beginning of the scoping phase and external consultants put in charge to develop the strategic assessment. The action arena is therefore dominated by the Province which opted for a broad institutional consultation and public participation in the process design. This means that formal rules designs an open arena, in which a range of different stakeholders have the possibility to take part at the planning process and the interaction between different actors may probably increase the knowledge base, including a local perspective. Nevertheless the action choices, which reflect the rules in action (informal rules) used by the most powerful actors, shaped a different arena with hierarchical governance forms, as will be further examined below

2. The Action Arena

2.1 Involved Actors: Holders – their resources and roles

The action arena in which the Milan PTCP-SEA process takes places is a highly complex and differentiated one. While a large part of the planning and assessment processes takes place within the public administration organisation, there is also the interaction with a number of other actors, who play in a few cases major roles, but in the vast majority of cases a very marginal one. There is indeed a significant concentration of activities within the public administration structure, even if this does not directly mean that the prevailing governance mode is hierarchical. In fact, the 2005 Regional Planning Law foresees network governance as a mean of coordination not just at the same governance level, but also between different levels: as seen, this is particularly true for Provinces, that are an intermediate governance and planning level, between regional governments and local authorities.

The most important actors in the governance arena are essentially the Province of Milan and the Municipalities. A powerful debate between the two levels of governance characterises the decision making process, because the relevant decisions concerning spatial planning arise just from their interaction. The PTCP framework gives access to stakeholders (interested public, third sector, civil society) but such access rather tends to play the role of a consultation on strategic objectives, aimed at informing and building general consensus within the community, than an effective participation in the policy making process. In practice the most important decisions (e.g. rural areas boundaries, infrastructures) are taken through specific negotiations with Municipalities and other key actors. In the background the Region holds a relevant role because the planning Law sets the institutional architecture and defines specific rules to develop the plan. Moreover, planning at the provincial level must be consistent with the Regional Territorial Plan and the Regional Parks Plans. Table 1. shows a list of the most relevant actors involved in the process, and gives some suggestions about roles and resources.

Table 1. List of involved actors Actor Affiliation Holder Resources Concept Province of Milan Administration Status Political, Cabinet Member for cognitive Spatial Planning Province of Milan - Administration Knowledge Cognitive, Planning Department economic, legal Municipalities and Administration Stake Legal, political, Local Roundtables ,interest cognitive City of Milan Administration Stake Legal, political, cognitive Region Lombardy Administration Status, Legal, political, Planning Department knowledge cognitive Region Lombardy Administration Status, Legal, cognitive Agriculture Department knowledge Other Provinces Administration Stake, Cognitive (Varese, Como, Lecco, knowledge Bergamo, Lodi, Pavia, Novara) Regional Parks (Parco Administration Stake, Legal, cognitive Sud, Parco Nord, Parco Status, delle Groane, Parco del knowledge Ticino, Parco dell’Adda Nord) Agriculture associations Economy Stake, Cognitive, interest, political knowledge Law Consultants Experts knowledge Cognitive (Viviani) Planning Consultants Experts knowledge Cognitive (Treu Polimi) Mobility Consultants Experts knowledge Cognitive (Polinomia) SEA Technical Experts Experts knowledge Cognitive (Poliedra) SEA Process experts Experts knowledge Cognitive (facilitators and mediators, Focus Lab) ARPA Lombardy Administration knowledge Legal, cognitive (Lombardy Environmental Agency) Research institutions Experts Status, Cognitive and University knowledge Environmental NGOs Third sector Status, stake, Political, interest cognitive Third Sector Third sector Stake, interest Economic Interests Economy Status, stake, Political, interest cognitive Citizens’organisation Third sector Right, stake

2.2 Absent Actors

The City of Milan could be considered the absent actor in the arena defined by the PTCP-SEA process. Despite its political power, incomparable with other municipalities, and its relevance in the territorial context, it seems to be not interested in the provincial planning process at all. The reason could be a political one, because the Province has a centre-left coalition and the City a right-hand council. Probably, the provincial government suffers from its institutional weakness, but in this specific case it also suffers from the political divergence with the Region and the City Council. In the PTCP governance arena, characterised by the attempt of the Province to create a broader network for decision making and build consensus in order to avoid conflicts on political choices, the absence of the most important local actor is really a serious matter and this difficult relationship turned out to be a potent weakness of the provincial power. In this situation, the Province failed to obtain cooperation in the planning process from the Municipality of Milan, and the master plan risks to be “partial”, because it manages a territory with a hole in the middle.

2.3 Observed modes of interaction

Following the definition of the chronology of the overall planning process, we propose to divide it in four phases, which correspond to main turning points. As it clearly emerges from Table 2, the plan making process is divided into very different phases: the first one summarises the 2003-04 plan, the last three phases follow the plan adaptation process after the 2005 Regional Planning Law has been issued. In particular, Phase 2. concerns the definition of the institutional setting and the formal rules discussed above, Phase 3. concerns the decision making and public participation for the adaptation process, and finally Phase 4, still under course in March 2008, concerns the fine tuning and formal approval procedure. The action arena changes significantly throughout the process, from the rule setting to the implementation phase, and it can be considered overall a quite complex one. We have in fact different kind of actors (politicians, technical bureaucracies, general interest groups, special interest groups) and different levels (from the national to the local one). In particular, the process is quite closed and limited to governmental actors in the very first (and, possibly, also in the very last) phases, while it is more open in the central phases, which correspond to the consultation (based on arguing) with the general public and to the negotiation (based on bargaining) with Municipalities. It is important to underline the strong difference between these last two governance tools.

Table 2. Planning and SEA process (2003-2007): key activities, outputs and rules

Date Activities and key documents Phases 1999-2003 Planning process; strategic environmental assessment (VaSt) 2000-2001 Institutional consultation: 12 Area-specific Local Roundtables Oct 2003 Provincial Master Plan (PTCP 2003) approval by the PHASE 1 - PTCP 2003 planning and Provincial Council (C.P. n.55/2003) implementation Dec 2003 I Monitoring Report on Plan implementation 2004 Plan management and implementation Mar 2005 Regional Planning Law (L.R. 12/2005) issued Jun 2005 Action programme and first directions for the upgrade of the PTCP in force ( Provincial Resolution n. 460/05) Nov 2005 Starting of the upgrading process according to L.R. 12/2005 (Resolution n.884/05) Nov 2005 The Province opens up the Plan revision process,

appoints the D.G. Planning as responsible unit, creates the PHASE 2 - Institutional and procedural setting for Inter-departmental Committee the adaptation process Nov 2005 Consultation Notice to the public (BURL n.48/05) Dec 2005 II Monitoring Report on the PTCP 2003 implementation Dec 2005 Consultation: Region, Union of Provinces Working Group, Local Authorities Permanent Conference Dec 2005 – Preventive Binding Consultation: 25 motions received from Mar 2006 public actors (18 municipalities) and civil society Apr 2006 – SEA Scoping phase: consultation of environmental authorities Nov 2006 (ARPA, AdBPO, …) Jun 2006 – - Consultation process design (methods, scope) SEA, Forum Sep 2006 PTCP, Province - Stakeholders mapping and invitation (municipalities divided in 12 Roundtables) Jul 2006 Guidelines for the revision of the Plan issued Sep 2006 Opening Plenary Forum (Forum per il Governo del territorio metropolitano) Oct 2006 Position paper presented during Local Roundtables “Verso un progetto territoriale condiviso. Materiali per l’adeguamento del PTCP” (Pim –Research centre) Oct 2006- Inter- institutional consultation – First round (10 Local Feb 2007 Roundtables with 189 Administrations) Nov 2006 Scoping Report (issued by SEA consultants) PHASE 3 - Adaptation process for the Master Nov 2006 I Forum Workshop: Strategies and objectives Plan 2003-2006 Gen 2007 II Forum Workshop: Actions and measures Feb 2007 III Forum Workshop: Indicators and role of actors Feb 2007 10 Position papers for Local Roundtables Mar 2007 Public participation ends– Plenary Forum Apr 2007 Inter- institutional consultation – Third round (Bilateral meetings with Municipalities) Agu 2007 May 2007 Report on the Participation Process (Forum consultants) Sept 2007 PTCP proposal (first draft) and Environmental Report Oct 2007 Final consultation with Municipalities and institutional actors PHASE 4 - Fine tuning and approval Nov 2007 Public consultation on PTCP proposal (to be planned) Dic 2007 PTCP first draft and Environmental Report subjected to Council’s approval

After the definition of the main process phases, it becomes possible to observe the prevailing modes of interaction, through the mapping of the resulting governance networks, and in particular through the calculation of some indicators: complexity, density, centrality and intensity.

a. The level of complexity is measured through the diversity by nature (political, bureaucratic, experts, general or special interest group) or by territorial level (international, national, regional, provincial, local) of the actors involved in each phase.

Table 3. Actors in the overall process by nature and level

Type of Actor Politicians Technical General Interests Special Interests bureaucracies and Groups Group Level experts

International

National Po Basin Authority - Region Regional Lombardia Planning Dept. and Agriculture Dept. - ARPA Lombardia (Environmental Agency) - Regional Parks - Commissioner for - Environmental - Agriculture Provincial Planning - Province NGOs associations - Unione Province - Third Sector Planning Dept. Lombarde - Other economic - Local Authorities - Other Provinces Interests Permanent (Varese, Como, Conference Lecco, Bergamo, Lodi, Pavia, Novara) - Law Consultants - Planning Consultants - Mobility Consultants - SEA Technical Experts - SEA Process experts - 11 Municipal - Environmental Local Roundtables - Municipal NGOs Businesses - 188 Mayors - Research Planning Depts. - Mayor of Milan institutions and - Local Parks University

- Local/ Community Organisations

Complexity: Max 5*4= 20; actual 4*4=16 16/20

In table 3., the maximum level of complexity would be 20 (5 levels*4 typologies), but since in Plan and SEA processes there is no direct intervention of the EU level, the complexity is 16/20. This shows that the decision making process is overall a quite complex one.

In the following figures the complexity of the network is shown for each process phase.

Figure 1. Governance Network Phase 1

Actor mapping Phase 1– PTCP 2003

Regional Region Private and Parks Lombardia sectoral bodies (ANAS, FS) ADMINISTRATION Technical Experts and Province of Milan Consultants Planning Department CIVIL SOCIETY, ECONOMY, THIRD SECTOR THIRD ECONOMY, SOCIETY, CIVIL

12 Municipal Roundtables SUPRALOCAL ACTORS LOCAL ACTORS

Municipalities

Figure 2. Governance Network Phase 2

Actor mapping Phase 2 – Institutional setting PTCP 2006

Po Basin Authority

Regional Region Parks Lombardia Planning Dept. ARPA Milan

Technical ADMINISTRATION Experts and Consultants Other Province

Provinces Commissioner Province Planning SECTOR THIRD ECONOMY, SOCIETY, CIVIL for Planning Department

LA Permanent 11 Municipal Conference Roundtables SUPRALOCAL ACTORS LOCAL ACTORS

188 Municipalities

Figure 3. Governance Network Phase 3

Actor mapping Phase 3 – Adaptation process PTCP 2006

Regional Region Parks Lombardia Planning ARPA Milan and Agriculture Other Depts. economic Technical ADMINISTRATION interests Experts and Consultants Agriculture Environmental Other Province Associations NGOs

Provinces Commissioner Province Planning SECTOR THIRD ECONOMY, SOCIETY, CIVIL for Planning Department Third sector Associations LA Permanent 11 Municipal Conference Roundtables SUPRALOCAL ACTORS LOCAL ACTORS

Universities

Local/community 188 City of Milan organizations Businesses Municipalities

Figure 4. Governance Network Phase 4

Actor mapping Phase 4 – Fine tuning and approval PTCP 2006

Commissioner Province Planning CIVIL SOCIETY, ECONOMY, THIRD SECTOR for Planning Department Third sector Associations LA Permanent 11 Municipal Conference Roundtables SUPRALOCAL ACTORS LOCAL ACTORS

Universities

Local/community 188 City of Milan organizations Businesses Municipalities

b. The density of the network, calculated by using the ratio of the actual links between the actors out of the total theoretically possible links (value between 0;1):

density = l/[n(n-1)/2] = 0,19 in which l = number of relations (one way or two ways) and n = number of involved actors.

c. Moreover the centrality and intensity of the links between the central actor (the Province Planning Dept.) and the other actors have been estimated: the level of intensity has been estimated for each link between the province and specific actors throughout the four different phases (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%): for example if the Province interacts with the City of Milan once out of the four phases, the intensity of the link will be 25%.

d. Finally, the quality of the links has been evaluated in terms of knowledge flows and new knowledge created in the interaction (red line)

Figure 5. Centrality of the Provincial Planning Dept. and intensity of the links

PROVINCE PLANNING DEPT. NETWORK OF RELATIONS

Po Basin Authority Private and Region sectoral ARPA Milano Lombardia bodies (ANAS, FS)

Technical Experts and Regional Consultants Other Parks economic interests Agriculture Environmental LA Permanent Associations NGOs Conference Province Commissioner Third sector for Planning Province Municipal Planning Associations Roundtables Department

City of 100% Milan 75% 188 municipalities 50% 25% Local/community organisations

3. Identifying case specific governance arrangements

3.1 Governance modes/Governance arrangements

According to the SEA Directive and regional guidelines, we considered the plan making and the strategic environmental assessment as the same process, trying to identify the actual level of integration in terms of governance modes and learning mechanisms (plan contents, knowledge creation). This approach allows to better understand the differences between the process in theory and the effective implementation of the law provisions aimed at improving the planning process, trough environmental assessment, and the interaction with a range of different stakeholders (from inter- institutional cooperation with local authorities to public participation aimed at diffused interests). In all these dimensions, considered as main features of the new planning procedures, we can find some inconsistency between the model and the facts. From a theoretical point of view, SEA is seen as an element strictly related to the planning process itself, as a cyclical process that gives feed-backs on the planning decisions rather than an ex post evaluation of the final plan. Nevertheless, in the case analysed SEA seems to proceed parallel to the decision making (see Figure 6), such as a different plan or additional review of the options proposed. As explained in details beyond, this can be assumed because: - the expert team in charge of SEA has not been involved in the preliminary drafting of the plan rules; - the inter-institutional consultation and the public participation processes remained two distinct “arenas” with different capacity to influence the plan; - the draft plan (PTCP) and the appraisal of planning alternatives have not been submitted to the public; - the final plan seems to be influenced only marginally by the environmental assessment, in terms of contents and priorities

Figure 6. From SEA model to practice

PTCP and SEA: the real process

PTCP 2003 Targets Sustainability assessment assessment Initial PTCP drafting Scoping statement PTCP drafting Negotiation Public PTCP Environmental Consultation final Report PTCP Environmental Arrangement/Consultation final report

In the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the PTCP adaptation, hierarchical governance arrangement seems to be prevailing over network governance forms, even if there are formal procedures for inter-institutional cooperation, stakeholder involvement and public participation. The prevailing of a hierarchical mode of interaction can be noticed in the low degree of openness of the plan towards some of the actors to whom the formal model attributes an important role in the process. This is true especially in terms of contents more than in terms of procedures. Province was in fact invited to consider the opinions of other organised actors, firstly the Municipalities, but also the Region, the regional parks and rural associations, but at the end of the planning the external inputs taken into account appear limited. The plan is even more closed towards other actors formally involved in the planning and appraisal process. First of all the consultants for strategic environmental assessment whose work would have to be broadly considered and integrated into the plan from the beginning: according to the empirical evidence and the Environmental Report (final delivery of the SEA) it does not seem that the environmental dimension has had an important weight in the planning choices. The Province took into account only a few outcomes of the public consultation process (Metropolitan Region Governance Forum), partly for political choices and partly because of some knowledge and information gaps that limited the exchange between expert/steering and local knowledge.

The consultation of local stakeholders is a crucial part of SEA and it is also requested by the regional planning law, which considers the involvement of economic and social actors as a basic element in its new approach to spatial planning. However, the results of the participation process are controversial, especially in terms of input to the planning process: the debate on objectives, actions and indicators of the plan has supplied innovative elements and created some networks between different actors, but the creation of new knowledge was limited and just partly granted by the provincial officers. Moreover, the alternatives and their evaluation have not been submitted to the actors during the Forum and not entirely considered in the final draft of the plan. Therefore it seems quite difficult to consider the relationship between social actors and rule makers like a real participatory planning with interactions based on a bottom-up approach.

Forms of networks (arguing and bargaining) are integrated in the decision making process at two different levels; several arenas have been created by the province, with different weights and aims (see Figure 7.): a. the first type is the bilateral interaction with Municipalities based on bargaining that turned out to be an effective place of dealing with some policy decisions with direct effects on the plan (n. 3. in Fig. 7); b. the second type is articulated in at least three different arenas: - public participation (Forum, n. 4 in Fig. 7), - inter institutional roundtables (n. 2 in Fig. 7), - SEA working groups with external consultants (n.1 in Fig. 7)

Figure 7. Sub arenas in the decision making process

Sub-arenas – Adaptation process PTCP 2006

R O T C E S

D 4 R 1 I H Regional Region T N O , Parks Lombardia I Y T M Planning and A O R N Agriculture ARPA Milan T O S C I E Depts. N Other I , M Y economic T Technical D E A I interests Experts and C O 2 S Consultants L Agriculture Environmental Other Province I V Associa tions NGOs I Provinces Commissioner Province Planning C for Planning Department Third sector Associations LA Permanent 11 Municipal Conference Roundtables S UPRAL OCAL ACTO RS LOC AL AC TORS 3 Universities

Local/community 188 City of Milan organizations Businesses Municipalities

These arenas are mainly based on arguing, in some cases with knowledge exchange and creation, but their effectiveness in shaping the plan is questionable. In the first case, during some bilateral encounters with almost each single Municipality, the Provincial Planning Department opened up a negotiation (bargaining), in which Municipalities tried to defend the right of managing their land and the Province tried to defend more general interests. The stake in the game was clear, as the role and interest of each actor in the arena; we can say that a bargaining network prevails by definition, thanks to the rules and the functions defining the arena itself. A quite different mode of interaction prevails in the Forum of participation opened to the diffused interests (economic and social actors), but also in the working groups and in the inter institutional roundtables. In these cases, the provincial administration involved actors in the planning process with an arguing mode of interaction, even if the stake in game wasn’t enough clear. The Province has presented itself to the public putting forward the definition of objectives and actions, thus raising high expectations among actors; they were convinced of being able to take part to a dialectic process of objectives and actions redefinition, in which they could propose new points of view, diverse knowledge types and different interests. At the end of the day, the Forum has been an arguing network but partly deprived of its meaning and original function, because the integrations and modifications formally brought by local actors have not much been considered in the plan.

The bargaining network has been therefore an effective place of dealing with some policy decisions that could touch the interest of some key actors (Municipalities); the public consultation has been a public participation exercise aimed at discussing planning proposals more than aimed at creating a sustainable development scenario to reframe the plan as many actors believed. The strategic vision on general objectives for local sustainability, expressed during the workshops, probably moved local and non technical knowledge but some filters prevented the knowledge from being exchanged. So the public concerns have been marginally considered in the plan making and local knowledge selectively used, in order to create “preventive” consensus, to reduce public observations after the adoption of the plan and to improve political legitimacy.

The most interesting of the three networks, from a governance point of view, is the one represented by 11 inter institutional roundtables formed by groups of Municipalities; here the Province interacted with local authorities on a strategic level, not dealing with specific land use issues and individual requests, but trying to shape future scenarios in an effort to plan in cooperation.

3.2 Rules in governance arrangement/ Institutional Context

As mentioned above, the way actors interacted in different governance arrangements has been influenced by the formal rules system but not fully determined. The behaviour and action choices mainly reflected informal rules, strategically used to achieve different targets and interests. This seems to be true especially for most powerful actors: for instance, the policy makers used their power to shape a different arena with hierarchical influence reducing the public Forum’s weight; the Municipalities as well used their bargaining power to change some plan disposals, in terms of rural areas, through informal negotiation. It’s therefore quite clear that the prevailing governance mode results more from key actor’s orientations than from institutional and external changing.

3.3 Changes

The case study is quite interesting because it concerns an articulated policy process, started in 1999, split into four main phases in which the SEA implementation passes through different conceptual definitions and governance arrangements (especially from the 2003 Plan development to the current adaptation). In particular, it is possible to follow the evolution of the SEA through the change of the regulatory framework (after the Planning Law 12/2005 that introduced mandatory SEA for plans and programmes in Lombardy) and the change of cultural perspective - from a process that involved institutions and technical experts to a more open decision making process. During the overall planning process, the level of complexity of the action arena, as it emerges from Figures. 1-4, changed significantly, from the institutional setting to the adaptation phase. The arena was quite closed in the first planning phase (1999-2003) while it results more open in the phases correspond to the SEA-PTCP process. The new framework created by the regional planning law and probably the political willingness transformed the governance mode in provincial planning but also in the development of urban and territorial policies. These changes occurred in the local context have opened, at least formally, the decision making process through broader representation of new forms of interests and wider acceptance of the plurality and diversity of actors involved in local policies. The arena changed also towards forms of negotiation and co-planning, aimed at coordination of and cooperation among the different institutional actors

4. Identifying case specific KnowledgeScapes

4.1 Dominant Knowledge Forms: content/claims of Knowledge forms

The Milan SEA process has impinged upon a number of different knowledge forms, even if the explicit and implicit rules that influenced the constitution and practical enactment of the action arena and of the four sub-arenas determined in fact the prevalence of scientific, expert and professional knowledge over other knowledge forms. The presence of different knowledge forms seems to be due more to the de facto presence of very complex actors networks than to an explicit intention/design to enrich the SEA expert knowledge base through the inclusion of different (especially local and everyday) knowledge forms. This in turns leads the process to select and filter the different forms of knowledge legitimated and used from the beginning (relatively wide and differentiated knowledge input) to the final stages (relatively narrow knowledge output). In this regard, we notice that the rhetoric that underlies the SEA-planning process and the political claims tend to depict the PTCP SEA as the first experimentation in the Milanese context of a consensus process towards local sustainability: the ideal typical decision making process in which, starting from a shared vision of a sustainable Milanese urban region, built through the contribution of a multiplicity of social, institutional, economic and civil society actors, the Province elaborates a set of general objectives, and technical experts evaluate and measure the possible impacts and effects of the plan against such objectives. A similar process would entail and mix not only a wide range of different knowledge forms (it is clear, for instance, what an important role everyday and local knowledge would play in helping to develop a shared vision), but innovative forms of learning and the development of new (and maybe unexpected) knowledge bundles.

In fact, as we will see, the actual process took a quite different path, in part because there was at some point an implicit/explicit intention of the Province Planning Department not to open up too much the decision making process, in part because the provincial structure lacked in fact the deutero-knowledge (the know how) necessary to design, implement and evaluate such a complex decision making process. This in turn influenced the position and the willingness of all the other actors (from Municipalities to local stakeholders, to technical experts, to the Region) to effectively and fully contribute to the plan making through the employment of all their cognitive and learning resources; this in fact led the different actors to retreat to more traditional roles (experts as experts knowledge holders, Municipalities just engaging in a political struggle using their veto power to bargain with the Province, etc.) that in turn made for a very traditional SEA exercise as an environmental policy integration tool.

4.2 Knowledge holders

In analysing with a greater detail the different knowledge holders and the types of knowledge exchange and learning processes that took place within the Milan PTCP SEA, it is useful to start from the action arena and specific governance arrangements, and more precisely from the different sub- arenas described in the preceding paragraphs. This means that we will not consider in depth each and every single actor as a knowledge holder, but we will analyse in concrete practices and interaction process, which type of knowledge has been brought into the process, exchanged and, in case, transformed into something different/new. In particular, we recall that we recognised four main sub-arenas, in which the Provincial Government and the Provincial Planning Department interacted with other actors: - province working groups with external consultants on plan and SEA (Law Consultants, Planning Consultants, Mobility Consultants, SEA Technical Experts, ARPA Lombardy, SEA Process experts facilitators and mediators) - 11 inter institutional roundtables - public participation Forum

- bilateral interaction with Municipalities (around 140 out of 189)

1. Arena Province – Plan and SEA Consultants Expert and professional knowledge, steering and institutional This first arena is the one in which the Province Planning Department and (more occasionally) the Cabinet Member for Planning interacted with the technical experts, selected for the adaptation of the Plan and for its environmental assessment through the SEA, the Province Environmental Department and the Regional Environmental Agency (ARPA). The interaction has been quite frequent throughout the whole process, and this in turn led to a significant knowledge exchange and to the development of a basis of common knowledge. The activity focused on the preliminary analysis for the scoping document, based on the review of other plans, programmes and sectoral policies, that describes the environmental framework of the Province, then continued informally during the process to define objectives and alternatives of the plan; finally the work carried out and the knowledge base created flowed into the Environmental report and in particular into a web-based data system. On the other hand, the group has not been involved at the same level in the public participation process developed through the Forum and this in turn is important because the knowledge transfer from the Forum to the experts was mediated by the Provincial Planning Department, the Forum facilitators and some of the SEA consultants, but there has not been a direct interaction with all the consultants in charge of the Plan.

2. Arena Province – Municipal Roundtables Steering and institutional (Municipalities), experts and professional This second arena has been a quite important one in terms of knowledge transfer (in both directions) and knowledge creation. The meetings with every municipal roundtable (there are 10 RT formed of around 15-20 municipalities each, plus the City of Milan) were accurately prepared by the Province Planning Department through the elaboration of contextual dossiers that were meant as an analytical tool to identify the main questions and problems in each area, but also as design tools, because they should orientate the common discussion (e.g. on the boundaries of rural areas to be preserved from development). Following this presentation by the Province, the discussion was based on expert and professional knowledge on the one hand, but also on steering and institutional knowledge, used especially by the Mayors in the discussion with the Province. It is important to notice that, following the Roundtable discussion, the Province Planning Dept. decided to launch a knowledge transfer service for all the Municipalities, by supplying them a complete on line data-base system for the gathering of environmental, social and economic data for their own individual Strategic Environmental Assessments. The D.A.T.I. (Documentation for Territorial Analysis and Indicators) system is a useful instrument to support local administrations in developing their PGTs and carrying out the SEA according to a common scheme of general objectives and indicators for sustainability. This outcome of the institutional consultation and broadly of the PTCP SEA process is quite interesting, both in terms of process and in terms of contents, because it creates an extended base of knowledge to be used by all local authorities to improve the consistency of their plans and it may active a relationship between the Province and the Municipalities based on the exchange of information, data and expert knowledge on sustainability concerns.

3. Arena Forum Expert and professional, maybe product, no way for local and milieu This arena formally was organised in a small number of thematic meetings, to which around 3.000 stakeholders at provincial level have been directly invited. In fact, for a number of reasons, no more than 300 people took part to this consultation, some just once or twice. While the Province had originally planned to involve a wide variety of organised stakeholders (this means that the Forum was not open to the general public or to individual citizens), what happened in fact is that, due to the discussion topic, perceived as a highly technical one by the invited actors, there was a sort of self- selection, in the sense that a lot of actors considered their participation not useful/too difficult. Those who decided to participate hold, as an average, not only recognised institutional roles, but they clearly hold (or presume to) expert and professional knowledge about local development and /or spatial planning and land use regulation. This knowledge turned out to be crucial in the evolution of the public participation process, because each single meeting revolved around very specific aspects 25

(objectives, priority actions, indicators), which were discussed using a highly technical discourse, and presented to the actors right within the meetings, with no possibility on their part to examine dossiers and materials beforehand. This in turn led to a quasi paradoxical output: those who participated appreciated very much the possibility to be listed among the ‘happy few’ involved in the decision making process; on the other hand, since there has not been communication to the public at large or media coverage, there were almost no voices from those who were (explicitly or implicitly) excluded from the process.

4. Arena Province – individual Municipalities Steering and institutional, local and product This last sub-arena is quite different from the other three, mainly because the prevailing governance mode is based on bargaining rather than on arguing, thus diminishing the role that sound expert or local knowledge could play. In fact, the Municipalities used as much as they could the possibility to threaten the Province on the final approval of the Plan. The procedure for the plan approval, in fact, gives many possibilities to the Municipalities to have a say: a first step foresees a formal approval by the Conferenza dei Comuni (the assembly of all 189 Municipalities), followed by the final approval by the Provincial Council, within which the Mayors may make their voice heard indirectly through councillors coming from their political parties.

4.3 Social/Spatial distribution of Knowledge

As we have seen, a lot of invited actors decided not to take part to the Forum because they thought not to be informed enough about the topics under discussion. There is possibly another reason that made the interaction Province-local stakeholders particularly difficult: the discussion about objectives, actions and indicators for the Plan concerned the whole Province, while most actors know and experience in fact a much smaller context: depending on their role and professional activity, their neighbourhood, their municipality, a group of municipalities with similar features. Some actors claimed they would not be able to extend their argument to the whole provincial territory. The decision to organise the public Participation Forum as just one arena held at the provincial level thus excluded a number of actors and therefore it narrowed down the range and type of possible knowledge inputs.

4.4 Excluded/Silent Knowledge forms

As in many strategic or spatial planning processes, the main actors who are excluded are citizens and representatives of diffused interests, who usually are not given access to discussion arenas that hold both high political importance and significant expert knowledge content. In this particular case the situation was even more closed to the public at large due on the one hand on the fact that the discussion has always been held at the provincial level, which is an administrative level quite far from the daily experience of the Milanese urban region inhabitants, and on the other to the technical complexity of both the plan and the evaluation. In turn, since the provincial plan does not hold particular communication appeal, local media ignored the SEA process, in favour of other more tangible policies carried on by the Province or more visible political debates in which the Provincial Government plays an important role. The examples are many, also from the environmental planning field: for instance, the debate about the design and implementation of a forest greenbelt around the City of Milan (Metrobosco) was much more visible to the public at large, to laypeople and citizens than the whole PTCP and SEA process.

4.5 Relevance of reflective knowledge

Reflective knowledge has been created throughout the process, even if we can see its presence more in a process than in a content dimension. From a process point of view, as a matter of fact, the Provincial Planning Department was led to understand the importance and to learn the practical enactment of public participation by the accent that the Cabinet Member for Planning and the SEA consultants put on the inclusive dimension. The process developed incrementally in this direction: and throughout Phases 2 and 3 the Planning Dept. managed an increasingly complex interaction process (Forum, Inter-institutional Round tables and, finally, bilateral meetings with the Municipalities). From an institutional setting point of view, this process did unmistakably modify the system of relationships among actors that was in place before (see for example the actors’ network involved in the 2003 PTCP process, Phase 1), and this will influence the way provincial planning processes will be designed and implemented in the future.

5. Identification of interfaces/interaction between Knowledge and Governance Arrangements

5.1 Synergies/contradiction between Governance arrangements and knowledge forms

In complex decision making processes like the Milan PTCP SEA, it is necessary to accurately distinguish different knowledge formations and their relationships with the formal and informal governance arrangements. In particular, in our case the complexity of the decision making process and the number of actors involved implies a series of different situations, in which knowledge bundles interact with governance arrangements. There are two main contradictions from this point of view: one between hierarchical and network governance arrangements, and with the relevant knowledge formations; the second one between arguing and bargaining networks, their relative importance in the decision making process and the type of knowledge used, exchanged and produced within them. For the first point, the Gfors Conceptual framework predicted that in SEA cases hierarchical governance modes would be largely prevailing over the others: in the Milan case this is partly true, of course, because a large part of the decision making process, from the rule setting to the actual design of the plan revision, took place within the public administration organisation. But at the same time it is true that the process shows an increasing degree of openness, through its articulation in four intertwined but separate sub-arenas, some created during the process itself and not foreseen from the beginning. It seems to us that at some point the Provincial Planning Department has been forced to open up the process more than expected, and that it had to learn how to do so. It is for this reason that a wider knowledge base (still within knowledge domains 1 and 2) was made available and partly used. For the second contradiction, we clearly see that the most relevant deliberative arenas formed in the process, those in which interaction was based on arguing and the actors’ preference systems changed in the course of the interaction, have been the Inter-institutional Roundtables on the one hand and the public participation Forum on the other. In these two sub-arenas, as a matter of fact, deliberation was based on sound (although not completely shared among the actors) knowledge bases and on public interest: nevertheless the results of the deliberation in these two sub-arenas were those who had the lowest possibility to enter into the final plan revision, due to typical contradictions with the intentions of the Province. The other interaction mode, the one based on bargaining, is much more traditional in nature. It is based on the exchange of political resources and veto powers between the Province and the Municipalities, with a very poor knowledge creation and with totally exogenous preference systems: neither the Province nor the Municipalities did in fact change their objectives throughout the interaction or learned during the process.

5.2 Relationship between Modes of interaction and knowledge forms

As we have seen in 4.1, in different sub-arenas within the decision making process different knowledge forms are exchanged and created. In particular, it seems relevant to identify the specific relationships and the underlying filtering mechanisms. There is a general diffusion of expert knowledge and more in general of knowledge belonging to the science, research and expert domain, which is legitimised in each and every arena of the process: in particular, its use and exchange is the only legitimated in the first sub-arena, the one in which the Province interacts with the planning, environmental and SEA experts.

Figure 8. Interface between Governance Arrangements and KnowledgeScapes

Interfaces Governance arrangements/KnowledgeScapes in the main sub-arenas

1 Techn ica l Province Expert, Professional Experts and Planning Consultants Department Steering, Institutional

2 Municipal Province Expert, Professional Roundtables Planning Department Steering, Institutional

3 Province Individual Planning Steering, Institutional, Local, Municipalities Department Pr oduc t

4 Expert, Professional, Product Forum

Secondly we find the Roundtables: in their interaction with the Province there is the creation of new knowledge, which is the result of the work in common on the implementation of the provincial strategies in each local context. But since the rules in use enable only institutional actors (Mayors or their representatives) to take part to the Roundtables, the knowledge remains confined to the expert, steering and institutional domains. Then there is the bilateral interaction with Municipalities, in which local knowledge might have played a role, but that were mainly based on bargaining, as we have seen in section 5.1. Finally, there is the more complex interaction with a wider range of stakeholders within the public participation Forum. From a knowledge creation and exchange point of view, this is a very interesting sub-arena, because all sorts of different knowledge holders played a role: the Province Planning Department with its technical bureaucracy; the planning consultants, with their sectoral and specialised expert knowledge (agriculture, transportation, land use, legal aspects, etc.); the SEA consultants, that tried to strengthen the environmental dimension through knowledge production and diffusion; the process experts who designed and facilitated the process; and finally the participating stakeholders, whose access to the discussion, as we have seen, was the result of explicit or implicit filtering process. In the face of this rich and diverse array of knowledge forms the design of the process, highly focused on technical aspects (general and specific objectives, action proposals, indicators) and strongly dependent on the knowledge input supplied by the Province Planning Department, has not been able, according to our point of view, to fully exploit this richness. This resulted in a wider knowledge input followed by a much narrower knowledge output (as it is detectable reading the final plan revision).

5.3 Relationship between governance arrangements, knowledge forms and learning Processes

Since the interaction with both Municipalities and other institutionalised stakeholders can contribute to the legitimacy of the SEA and the planning process, it is under this perspective that we will look at the relationship between governance, knowledge and learning processes. In this sense, we see that from the beginning of the process the intention to experiment more open and inclusive decision making processes derived from three different sources: the Cabinet Member for Planning, who is the politician in charge of the planning process and who should of course be accountable in the face of his constituency and his political party; the SEA consultants, who thought that only through a thorough participatory process SEA could become really an instrument to enhance local sustainability (and not just an environmental policy integration tool), and finally the Regional Planning Law, that interprets the EU directions towards more sustainable planning practices. These three inputs had to face a very traditional planning routine, that characterises planning approaches diffused in Local Governments in Italy and that is strongly hierarchical and expert knowledge based. Thus throughout the process there have been not only contradictions (as described above), but difficulties, vetos and impasses that led the process to frequent stops: but all along these difficulties, the actors, and especially the Planning Department, learned how to implement in a different, more innovative way planning and evaluation. We can therefore clearly read an evolution in the Planning Department attitude, which in turns led to a more open decision making process (especially towards institutionalised political actors like Municipalities, but also towards recognised knowledge holders like experts and, to a lesser extent, towards other stakeholders). But innovations find difficulties in being rooted into routines and traditional practices: this is why, even if there has been experimentation at the process level, from a content point of view the revised plan tends to be more traditional and less open to the different inputs from different actors and from different knowledge forms. We could define this process, as it will be explained in 6.1. an incomplete innovation because of a series of important gaps in knowledge development, communication and transmission. This is why the level of output legitimacy, in terms of local sustainability, is lower than expected.

6. Identifying “Governance for Sustainability”

6.1 Assessing Sustainable Development in the selected case

The main conceptual node about the Strategic Environmental Assessment as environmental policy, aimed at sustainability objectives by using different types of knowledge, revolves around the possibility to build up a shared sustainable development “scenario” as a basis for local planning. This framework scenario should define local priorities in terms of economic, social and environmental objectives, according to which the planning process should proceed. As it is recalled in the G-FORS Conceptual Framework, “Sustainability is not an absolute, but a relative concept that cannot be fully analysed outside a certain governance context or dissociated from its political, social, economic and wider socio-spatial context. In particular, sustainability is highly dependent on local knowledge (…)” (p.9). The purpose of SEA is therefore to ensure that environmental impacts of plan are identified and assessed against the local priorities presented by the “scenario”, and this evaluation is carried out during plan’s development and before its adoption. The creation of a participated scenario at the beginning of the plan making process should increase the comprehensiveness of the policy by leading to a more extended knowledge base with a higher differentiation of problem perceptions.

In theory, institutional actors, environmental authorities and local stakeholders, even if with different role and commitment, are called to give their opinions about the overall planning strategy and to define general objectives of sustainable development. All results from the consultation process (institutional and public) should be integrated and taken into account in the course of the planning procedure. This would help to move towards the goal of sustainable development, not only in terms of policy outcomes but also through innovations in procedures. Nevertheless in the specific case, the extent to which SEA was able to go beyond traditional planning process by effectively integrating a range of social, economic and environmental factors to influence

the decision making process is questionable, and became therefore one of the important research questions.

Starting from these assumptions, we analyzed the case study of SEA implementation in the provincial context in order to understand if a thorough knowledge exchange and the production of public knowledge, as the basis and the pre-conditions to implement a SEA process, led to more contextual outcomes in terms of planning choices. The need for public production of knowledge stems from the concept of sustainability as a knowledge gap in the environmental policy, a missing knowledge about future developments and non intended external effects. There are some knowledge boundaries to be crossed between different administrative sectors (horizontal coordination), tiers of government (multi- level governance) and societal sectors (gap between expert knowledge and everyday knowledge). But reducing and crossing knowledge boundaries mostly depends on the patterns of interaction and the type of actors. In the case studied, the use of local knowledge in consultation procedures alongside expert and steering knowledge was limited, the learning process within the administration (creation of reflexive knowledge) probably refers more to procedures than contents, the substantive integration of localised insights, scenarios and development tracks in terms of sustainability was really poor.

A more comprehensive and inclusive approach to the SEA, mainly due to the institutional setting (second order governing), gave entry opportunities for new knowledge forms: technical and scientific knowledge from environmental authorities and SEA experts, but also local knowledge from public actors. The application of the SEA to the plan making of the Province has partly transformed the existing governance mode into a mode potentially oriented to sustainability. Indeed the process entailed different levels of negotiation with public and institutional actors, a public consultation process and the employment of resources from external experts. The inclusion of such new governance practices in parallel to more traditional hierarchical structure will probably reframe the local planning policy in the future and it will favour a more strict integration. Limiting the appraisal to the institutional setting and the procedures adopted, we can state that the governance structure helped to favour the boundary-crossing of everyday knowledge with scientific and steering knowledge. However, this does not seem enough to fully understand the effective integration of the environmental dimension into the plan. Despite the fact that an appropriate governance structure has been created (process), the will of the policy makers (more departmental officers than politicians) was mainly oriented to protect the traditional planning “core” activities, while, at the same time, trying to convince the public opinion of their environmental integration objective (rhetorical commitment). The environmental assessment, as stated before in the analysis, helped to transfer knowledge between different societal sectors (civil society and public administration) and different tiers of government (province and municipalities) and to reduce the missing knowledge about the environmental effects of the plan within the public sector, but it didn’t ensure an effective utilisation of different types of knowledge. SEA enhanced the knowledge base but it used selectively to confer legitimacy more that improve the plan making. It also promoted horizontal integration within the provincial administration (inter- departmental) and between different sectors, which however didn’t lead to a broad policy integration: the plan marginally reflects the evaluation and the impact assessment carried out by the SEA experts, even if some results are taken into account; the appraisal of planning alternatives were not submitted to the public consultation; the officers responsible for the plan didn’t consider a wide range of social, economic and environmental factors able to influence the decision making process. The knowledge base created should be effectively used in the plan making and this condition can be respected only if the SEA becomes a cyclical process that gives feed-backs on the policy decisions.

In terms of aggregation, the recommendations of the SEA have been partly integrated in the plan but the degree to which objectives are aggregated and concerns of different actors are accounted for varies from one type to another. In fact a wide range of actors have been involved in the overall PTCP-SEA process but with different “levels” of involvement. The influence of the consultation process on the plan making can be evaluated from three different points of view: 30

- from the side of the environmental authorities and agencies involved at the beginning of the planning process to advice on the scoping phase, the reference scenario, the environmental framework and the general objectives of the plan (very positive influence and informal relationships during the overall process); - from the Municipalities and the parks (into the inter-institutional roundtables) (real players of the policy making, by formal and informal bargaining); - from the public actors (innovative results but poor influence on the plan).

In the public participation (Forum), the discussion was technical and the information on PTCP scope and contents not considered enough; there was a knowledge gap between the officers and the actors which created some troubles in redefining general objectives defined by the Province; moreover the participation was limited in terms of number and type of actors (on average 100-150 persons during the overall participation process).

These features can be explained by some relevant factors referred to the cognitive dimension of sustainability: - knowledge gap, perceived by local actors, (local knowledge is considered poor and not appropriate to discuss about planning and technical issues) induced some of them to not take part to the process (filtering process); - trust gap: the public Forum was considered useless by some actors, due to a lack of trust in the public administration and, in particular, in participatory instruments; - information gap created a sort of boundary between the expert and local knowledge; actors were not enough informed before the workshops, especially when objectives and actions of the plan were presented by the officers and discussed. This seems to be a strategic use of knowledge by the officers. - power gap: actors were different in terms of “voice” in the decision making, because some of them had bargaining power with the Province used in other tables. - language gap: difficulty to integrate results of the participation into the plan because different languages were used.

The consistency of the plan, in accordance with other objectives and programmes, is a quite problematic issue. The reference scenario elaborated by the SEA consultants presents the environmental impacts arising from the existing regional and local plans: they are considered exogenous and independent variables which can influence the definition of the plan’s contents and reduce the positive impacts of the PTCP in terms of sustainability. Some disposals of the PTCP, especially for the land use and the system of infrastructures, are indeed dependent on different tiers of government (local and regional). The results of SEA therefore are based on some hypothesis that call for a more intensive multi-level cooperation. The macro-objectives of the Plan are not achievable without this cooperation and the level of consistency between plans should be enhanced. Conflicts between the Municipalities and the Province arose because they have different interests in the planning process: Municipalities tend to increase the land urbanisation for revenues, the Province tries to protect the natural habitat reducing the land use. This conflict that may create inconsistency between local and provincial planning need a multi-level governance arrangement, partly created by the bilateral negotiations during the PTCP-SEA process.

6.2 Assessing the Legitimacy of Policy-Making in the selected case

The quality of governance process can be evaluated according to the results of the empirical analysis (researcher’s point of view), by taking the criteria of legitimacy (input-throughput-output) into account, but also to statements of the interviewed actors acting in the arena. Their evaluation of the outcomes is quite interesting because is based on individual expectations and the conflict between different views of the process contributes to better understand its real nature in terms of transparency, legitimacy and effectiveness. For instance, opinions from social actors are related to the effective use of their voice and knowledge in final planning, to some individual gains such as satisfaction and personal gratification for the involvement, social capital and networks creation. These goals becomes evaluative criteria to be considered in the overall assessment, in order to avoid a partial reading of the

process. At the same time, the voice of the SEA consultants expressed during the assessment may complete the framework and clarify some relevant aspects in terms of output legitimacy.

Input legitimacy

At least formally, the SEA of the Milan PTCP can be considered as instrument aimed at implementing a participatory planning process through the involvement of the public and local actors. Different actors in different arena had the possibility of expressing their voice (consent or dissent) during the public workshops and institutional consultation but the input-legitimacy of the process is still questionable. The participation itself didn’t guarantee a real basis for legitimacy, because the power of influencing decisions was more apparent than effective. The voice of the public has been heard but how far has gone in the process, and which kind of knowledge transfer occurred? This question is related to the effectiveness of the consultation process that seems to be adequate only at the inter-institutional level. The input legitimacy indeed could be mainly traced to the work carried out during the 11 roundtables, where local Municipalities and the Province created a dialogue based on equal relationship, focusing on strategic issues and local problems in land management. Although the planning as a whole is thought to have a high input legitimacy in terms of participation (according to plan developers, obviously, but also to local actors which are convinced of their substantive role in the process), a more careful interpretation is that the public participation ensured actors “get their voice heard” but in practice inhibited knowledge transfer because of the cognitive gaps and differences in the attributes of actors discussed above.

Throughput-legitimacy

As stated before, the framework gave access to stakeholders but the public consultation was basically aimed at informing and building general consensus within the community more than opening the policy making process in a broad and effective sense. For this reason, throughput legitimacy was enhanced trough the provision of information on planning objectives and actions during the public workshops (even if not sufficient to create an effective knowledge exchange), reports and meeting notes on the web site, specific publications (journal) on the ongoing process. The transparency of institutional settings and processes was partly enhanced and the public awareness of spatial planning increased, but probably just a few stakeholders understood how really measures are taken and who is responsible for them. Moreover, the SEA process, more or less voluntarily, fell in the public domain and that made political actors accountable for what they have done. The question is to understand whether the disclosure of the process was a goal of the policy makers to enhance the legitimacy of the plan or rather an outcome of the process. Despite of the output, the “public/participated dimension” of planning is clearly an asset that could be useful to support plan approval and implementation. Anyway, the SEA was not only a formal procedure to be fulfilled, but rather a vehicle to give a participatory dimension to the plan. This represents a clear break with the past. The first experiences of environmental assessment in spatial planning (VaSt of PTCP 1994- SEA 2002), based on steering and experts knowledge, basically failed and were hidden under the sand just because they were in-house procedures. The participatory dimension of this last SEA, at least formally, may save the plan, enhancing its legitimacy versus other public administrations (municipalities, region, parks, etc.) and the private actors who have taken part to the consultations. Probably, we can assert that the SEA was born as a generous attempt to change the content of the plan towards more sustainable objects and actions, but from this point of view did not obtain the expected result. The SEA in fact didn’t have strong effectiveness on the plan, but generated a relevant change of the governance model as unexpected outcome. This change has increased throughput legitimacy in the short term and it has generated a store of experiences and "knowledge of process”, useful for the improvement of the SEA tool in terms of effectiveness and knowledge exchange. In fact, thanks to the work carried out in the roundtables (Area planning), the SEA represented an useful instrument of arguing and testing a new model of co-planning (co-pianificazione).

Output-legitimacy

In measuring the legitimacy of the policy outcomes, we have to consider two different dimensions which give opposite results: the first related to the spatial plan itself and the degree policy objectives (e.g. rural areas definition, land protection) are reached, the second referred to the degree to which available knowledge is used to develop decisions well-informed about their impacts. The acceptance of policy outcomes results clearly good for those actors (Municipalities) who were active in defining the rules of the plan and crucial for the implementation of these actions. In this case, the bargaining process during the bilateral negotiations and the inter institutional roundtables created the necessary consensus among key actors, in order to avoid later conflicts. Nevertheless it doesn’t mean that the output reflects all the instances collected through public consultations and above all the integration of the environmental dimension into the planning rules is still incomplete. The “knowledge store” created during the overall process of assessment (with the environmental authorities and SEA experts) and consultation (public and institutional) has been used as a base for the plan developers, but the initial concern expressed by some actors that the consultation process would not result in any substantial changes to the final plan was justified. The officers drawn up the plan’s rules according to the environmental findings and the available knowledge, but their priority was to verify the tasks that Law 12/2005 attributes to the plan instead of consider all the environmental objectives set by the local actors and SEA consultants. Some of them were in fact excluded from the final objectives, even if they are not out of the scope and influence of the planning choice: reducing emissions from transports and buildings; improving the carbon budget; prevent industrial risks; to guarantee green-field sites; supporting social integration; to rationalize the technological networks system; mobility management. Despite this questionable choice, SEA consultants decided to consider in any case these objectives for sustainability in order to measure the effects of the plan and to monitor its performance. The reasons at the base of this decision were mainly two: - it was important to guarantee the effectiveness of the participation process: since local actors has been called to discuss on these topics, it was necessary that they could find a effective trace of the work carried out, giving to the process a good degree of credibility and legitimacy; - the presence of explicit objectives for sustainability indicates that there are some measures able to put then into effect. This decision can not be easily dropped because it represents a clear cut between the plan and the environmental assessment, and reminds that the full environmental integration, in terms of contents, is still utopian in such a decision making context.

6.3 Synergies/Contradictions between governance arrangements and knowledge forms on the one side and sustainability and legitimate policy-making on the other side

The key message suggested by research findings is that although the governance model have been broaden and “oriented” to sustainability, through the formal opening of the action arena, and have produced more comprehensive planning by the knowledgescape provided mostly by experts and politicians, however the real impact of this innovative process have not been emerged in the content of the plan. In the consultation process, the voice of the public has been heard but it has not gone so far into the plan, probably because the public consultation was basically aimed at informing and building general consensus within the community more than opening the decision making process: the power of influencing decisions was more apparent than effective. Anyhow, the arena offered wider knowledge input, a rich and diverse array of knowledge, but the planning, mainly based on technical aspects and in-house input, has not been able to fully exploit this richness through the inclusion of different (especially local and everyday) knowledge forms.

But therefore what’s happen during the process? Which factors depressed the original idea of a consensus process towards local sustainability (just rhetorical words?) What limited the strength of the new governance model?

We offered some explanations like the intention of the planning department not to open up too much the process, the willingness of all the other actors to effectively and fully contribute to the plan making, and the strategic use by the most powerful actors of informal rules in order to achieve different targets and interests. These factors refer more to actors attitudes than to governance arrangements, in particular to the cognitive dimension of the sustainability. It seems that the prevailing governance mode resulted more from key actors’ orientations than from institutional and external changing. Actors appeared to be unprepared to correctly apply a governance model for sustainability because there were still too much cultural resistances and cognitive gaps which obstructed so far a thorough application of a new participatory model. The provincial structure lacked the knowledge necessary to fully implement such a complex decision making process and the personal behaviour of actors was contradictory; but the governance model remains good even if at the end it failed to conduct the process in the intended direction. In fact the process developed incrementally in the right direction, managing an increasingly complex action arena and giving legitimacy to public consultation. Moreover this process did modify the system of relationships among actors that was in place before and this will influence the way provincial planning processes will be designed and implemented in the future. The SEA therefore didn’t have strong effectiveness on the plan, but generated a relevant change of the governance model as unexpected outcome. This change has generated a store of experiences and "knowledge of process”, useful for the improvement of the SEA tool in terms of effectiveness and knowledge exchange.

We can therefore see traces of innovation, also within the actors attributes, especially the Planning Department, which however experimented an innovative way of planning. But innovations find difficulties in being rooted into routines and traditional practices: this is the reason why, even if there has been learning at the process level, the revised plan tends to be more traditional in terms of contents and less open to the different inputs, as the adoption of specific objectives for sustainability.

We could define this process an incomplete innovation due to a series of important gaps in management capabilities and knowledge development/transmission, but also to the inertia and short sight of some actors. This is why the level of output legitimacy, in terms of local sustainability, is lower than expected. This is why sustainable development is still a chimera in such a local context.

Attachment

Complete list of Actors taking part to the decision making process Groups of stakeholders (120 actors) taking part at the 2006-07 FORUM

Third sector Associations AGRITEAM, Rete Comitati Milanesi, FIAB, Lista Dario Fo, Lista Civica Usmate, Rete Comitati Milanesi, Fondazione Oltre, Periferie al centro, Arcoresiste, ALER, ABCittà, Ass. Mowgli education, Ass Autotrasportatori, Comitato Parco Sud, Associazione Analisti Ambientali, Fondazione Terra

Local Authorities and Public actors Regione Lombardia, Provincia di Milano, Associazione Comuni Adda, Parco Nord Milano, Parco Grugnotorto, Comune di Senato, Melegnano, Corsico, Marcallo, Bellinzago, Monza, Parabiago, Corsico, Lodi, Assago, Paullo, Presso, Limbiate

Industrial Ass., Businesses Latitude srl, Assolombarda, Confindustria, Unione Industriali Grafici, CAMM, ATM, Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori, Formaper, CESI spa, AINM, Unione Commercio Turismo Servzi, Assimpredil

Trade Unions ANCL –Sindacato Consulenti del Lavoro

Environmental Ass. Ass. Salvaguardia Viboldone, Comitato Parco Sud, LIPU, Ambiente Italia, WWF Italia

Cultural Bodies Consumers Ass Universities DIAP-Politecnico, Università Milano, Politecnico, Centro Studi PIM, DEPAAA Unimi

Schools Cooperatives CORCAB Private citizens Professionals Ass. Ordine Arch. Monza, Ordine Dottori Forestali, Studi associati architettura

Development and Environmental Agencies AGINTEC, ARPA Lombardia, Navigli Lombardi, AISLO, Comunimprese Agenzia Sviluppo NO,

Main Actors involved – PTCP-SEA 2003

Province of Milan: Political Actors Province of Milan: Planning Department and Strategic Assessment Unit Technical Experts and Consultants

Local Authorities through different kind of participation strategies:

-12 Area-specific Local Roundtables (Brianza, Nord Milano, Nord e Groane, Rhodense, Legnanese, Castanese, Magentino, Abbiatense- Binaschino, Sud Milano, Sud-Est Milano, Martesana-Adda, City of Milan)

-Local Authorities Permanent Conference (including all 189 Municipalities)

Adaptation Process 2006-2007 Two parallel courses of Institutional Participation – Actors involved

Institutional Actors Municipalities within Local Roundtables

Provincial Committee (Giunta) Abbiatense-Binaschino 31 Oct 2006 Committe of the Provincial Council Martesana-Adda for the Territory (Commissione 22 Nov 2006 Consiliare Provinciale Territorio)

Provincial Council (Consiglio) Castanese 17 Jan 2007 Conference of Municipalities and Legnanese Parks 6 Feb 2007 (Conferenza Comuni ed Enti parco)

General Directorate (Direzioni Magentino 20 Feb 2007 Centrali):

- Planning, - Environment - Transports - Economic development - Strategic provincial Project - Monza and Brianza Project - Safety

Regional Parks Monza Brianza 10 Nov 2006

Local Parks (PISL) Nord Milano 23 Jan 2007

Other Provinces Rhodense 6 Dec 2006

Province of Monza and Brianza Sud Est Milano 18 Dec 2006

Lombardy Region Sud Milano 27 Feb 2007

Workgroup Union Lombardy + Milano Provinces (UPL)

Part II

Case study on particulate matter Milan Urban Region

Valeria Fedeli, Elena Valsecchi

0. The legal and institutional setting in the member state for the selected case studies

0.1 Regulatory Framework

The first laws concerning the reduction of air pollution in Italy date to the ‘60es and ‘70es; after the law concerning air pollution in 1966 (L.615, 13th, July, 1966) and the institution of the national health care service in 1978, standards for the quality of air have been fixed just at the beginning of the ‘80s (DPCM 30.3.1983), in terms of generic maximum acceptable limits to the concentrations of polluting elements (including already at that time particulate matter). In 1988, on the base of CEE regulative frame, Italy has defined with the DPR 203/1988, new positive guiding values and negative limits and has attributed specific competences to the Regions in terms of formulation of “Piani di Risanamento dell’Atmosfera”. This season of laws was however essentially focused in the contribution to air pollution production from the manufacturing system.

After three years, with DM 20/5/1991, new levels of attention for polluting gas were instituted. In particular in November 1991 the attention was focussed upon the urban contexts, because of the urgency of the problem in main Italian urban areas: the Ministries of Environment and Urban Areas established standards for pollution in urban areas still based on the concept of “limits of attention” and “alarm”. Mayors were attributed the possibility to adopt some dispositions against local crisis. In 1994 these standards have been anew reformulated; criteria for the individuation of emergencies were instituted as well as the right of people to be informed on the level of air pollution. In 1999 the quality objectives became law following the European directive (92/72). The DM 163 21/04/1999 finally compelled majors (for cities of more than 150.000 inhabitants) to:

1. introduce limits to urban car traffic in the case of the overthrowing of limits and levels of attention; 2. present, at the end of the year, a report on the quality of air and to promote an action programme every year. In the following years laws were promoted concerning the quality of fuel.

The DLGs 351/1999 and DM 60/2002 have enlarged the number of polluting elements and introduced restricting values for conventional and non conventional pollutants, among this particulate matter. They have defined the compulsory monitoring of values, but at the same time changed the definition of agglomeration with more than 250.000 inhabitants as the one in which it is officially stated the necessity to evaluate and manage the quality of air. In particular the second decree confirmed the obligation to information to the public in case of overcoming alarm levels, but eliminated the obligation for cities to edit the year report on the quality of air. It has also attributed to the Regions the duty of evaluation of the quality of air as well as that of informing people and the competence on this field of policies. Thus shifting to the regional level of the formulation of the regulatory framework, notwithstanding the persisting relevance of the national level in the field. The EU directive has become binding the 1st January 2005: it allows overcoming the limit of 50 micro-grammas on a cube meter of air no more than 35 times a year.

Since that time every Italian region is competent and in so far differentiated in the field. In the specific case of Region Lombardia, in the last months, as we will explain, the situation has had a peculiar and interesting turn. In the specific case, on the one hand the Region Lombardy has promoted its new 2006-2007 plan for crisis situation in the sphere of atmospheric environment 39

(Piano di Azione per il contenimento e la prevenzione degli episodi acuti di inquinamento atmosferico, relativamente alle zone critiche ed agli agglomerati della Regione Lombardia 2006/2007 - DGR n. 3024 del 27/07/2006). On the other the Region has been discussing and adopting a new law in the field, which changes the regional approach based on crisis situation into a general strategic framework of action able to play a proactive role. The law project recently approved, has been presented in June 2006 (PDL 170, Norme per la prevenzione e la riduzione delle emissioni in atmosfera a tutela della salute e dell'ambiente): part of the regional action programme “Misure Strutturali per la Qualità dell’Aria in Lombardia 2005-2010” – presented in august 2005, it was meant as an answer to the national implementation of the community framework in particular to the Community directive 96/62/CE and the following (1999/30/CE, 2000/69/CE e 2002/3/CE) which have lead to the national implementation through D. Lgs. 351/993 and D.M. 60/024. It is also linked to the new norms in environmental field introduced by the D Lgs 152/06 (Norme in materia ambientale) whose aim is to guarantee restrictive emission indicators and reinforcing the regional role in this policy field.

Generally speaking, cities have remained powerless in this field of policies: they are due to apply regional measures, even if in the meantime they have promoted local policies in order to contribute locally to the solution of the problem. This is particularly true in some cities of the North of Italy, where, as we will show in the Report, the problem is particularly relevant.

This short reconstruction of the legal framework allows to understand that the Italian case has remained for a long while stuck inside centre-driven policies (the state level and the regional one being responsible for this policy field), essentially meant as sectoral, and based on indicators of alarm, and local initiatives unable to treat a problem which necessarily crosses traditional jurisdictions and administrative boundaries. The very last period has actually seen a new approach on the legislative level, while the increasing crisis situation has compelled local authorities to promote autonomously local solutions to the problem. This is producing the opening of wide action local arena in which the situation still appears quite confuse but at the same time really dynamic and interesting to be explored.

The change of this regional legal framework is a constituent part of the case study: this is the reason why, rather than putting it at the beginning of this report as an introduction, it will constitute one of the main focuses of research in the following chapters.

3 Decreto legislativo 351/1999 (Attuazione della direttiva 96/62/CE in materia di valutazione e di gestione della qualità dell'aria ambiente). 4 Decreto Ministeriale 60/2002 (Recepimento della direttiva 1999/30/CE del Consiglio del 22 aprile 1999 concernente i valori limite di qualità dell'aria ambiente per il biossido di zolfo, il biossido di azoto, gli ossidi di azoto, le particelle e il piombo e della direttiva 2000/69/CE relativa ai valori limite di qualità dell'aria ambiente per il benzene ed il monossido di carbonio). 40

1. Context and Conditions

Case history

The case study we will present in the following chapters and paragraphs focuses on a specific period, that comprised between 2006 and the beginning of 2008, though referring retrospectively to a longer period dating 1999 (referring to the EU directive), the reconstruction of which is necessarily relevant in order to understand what occurred during these last two years. This choice is based on the fact that in this biennium three important facts have undertaken a process of maturation, facts which are profoundly concurring in redefining completely the field of policies linked to the reduction of particulate matter in the context of Region Lombardy: 1) first of all, 2007 and 2006 have been record years in the production of particulate matter for the area we are exploring. Actually also 2004 and 2005 had already been characterized by a dramatic situation; but the production of data and features concerning the PM10 has officially recognized this critical situation just in 2006, and just as an outcome of a long polemics among environmental association and the regional authority, due to the late introduction of the monitoring tools and parameters defined in the EU directive. Actually the last two years have been characterized by a growing attention of the public opinion to the problem, due to the worsening of the condition, to a renewed attention of media5 and to the attention paid to the Italian situation by the EU, which has menaced sanctions for the continuous overcoming of the limits. 2) Second, after 15 years from the first regional plan for the reduction of pollution (published in 1993- “Piano di prevenzione contro l’inquinamento atmosferico”) and more than 25 years after the first availability of data on the production of PM10 (in 1980), the Region Lombardy, among the first in Italy to get to this point after the competence has been decentralized to regions, approved at the end of 2006 a new law, a framing law which aims at innovating significantly this field of environmental policies and the way of defining and dealing with the issue of production of particulate matter. A law which has been approved with a large bipartisan consensus, on the one side, and on the other contested by the central state, as we will see in the following paragraphs. In this new legal framework, on march 2007, the first Italian “interregional stop” to car circulation has been promoted: for the first time in Italy, after the 1973 petrol crisis, several millions of inhabitants of the northern part of the country left their cars home for one Sunday, in order to provide a sign of “common engagement” of the regions more affected by the problem; 3) The Milan city council electoral campaign held in 2006 has been characterized by the common and bipartisan proposal, launched by both the centre-left and centre-right parties, of the introduction of a congestion charge for entering the city of Milan. The winning candidate, Letizia Moratti, has promoted and defended during 2006 and 2007 this idea, notwithstanding opposition in her own political party, and has succeeded in approving it before summer holidays in 2007. After a long discussion inside the city council, the experimentation of the ticket has started in 2008, among polemics about the efficacy of the project, because of a significant reduction of the original idea, both in terms of territorial dimension and citizens/cars affected.

5 The press review produced for 2006 and 2007 shows clearly the relevance of the argument in the local discussion: the ECOPASS project has been the focus of the attention for 2006 and 2007, but we also have to remember that a book, edited by two local journalists, has dedicated three chapters to the reconstruction of the dramatic situation in the field of air quality in Milan (see Milano da morire, 2007, Luigi Offeddu, Ferruccio Sansa). 41

Therefore as a matter of fact, the last two years presented several innovations, which can be read as the result of a rather long history: in this sense this case study will be “prospective”, in the sense proposed by Barbara Czarniawska in her “Narrating the organization”, 2007:

“the development of a phenomenon can be studied retrospectively (“can you tell me what happened?”) or prospectively, when the researcher tries to follow the chain of events, as well as following the chain of accounts, of course” (…); in a retrospective account, one story encompasses all the previous accounts (…). What differentiates the two approaches is that a prospective approach studies the process of social construction in its making; a retrospective approach is scrutinizing a construct that exists at the time of the study. In other words, in a retrospective approach, the time dimension is located in the accounts of actors; in a prospective one, it is located in the account of the researchers (…)”.

Deciding to adopt, in this perspective, a rather prospective approach, we declare that the case is concerned with a moment in which sense-making is produced and the definition of the limits of the process are not yet in a actors perspective but defined by us. Into what Czarniawska would define a “window approach”:

“in what I shall call a window study, the balance id reversed. A researcher opens an arbitrary time window and describes all that can be seen through it. Here it is the processes that are negotiated with the actors: what is central, important, new, routine and so on” (ibidem, pg. 65).

This quotation introduces to the proposed approach, we have adopted in the case study: where events are investigated ad social constructs, of course, but more specifically where we try to deal with the impression that the specificity of the facts and processes we will be describing cannot be reconstructed retrospectively, since still open and on-going: as researchers we are exposed to a “crowded” window overview in which actors, with their different frames, interact, sometimes chaotically, and produce different interpretations of the process. These different interpretations are relevant for the case in itself: looking and exploring them from a “window prospective” seems to allow us to leave untouched the heterotopy of the situation we have been studying and focusing on the dimension of sense making which is underproduction.

1.1 Context and conditions: Two Storylines for a ‘special untreatable context’?

Since 2006, the two most relevant facts have been the adoption of the new regional law and the experimentation of the ECOPASS in the city of Milan: apparently in contradiction on the base on the principles they stand on, they are rather strictly linked, as we will try to show, in terms of the context they represent and reproduce. Despite being outcomes and contexts of two rather different policy arenas, they are in fact part of a bigger one which intersects (more or less attentively and significantly) several different others (as numerous as weak and limited). Reconstructing this case by way of these two storylines (next to each other, overlapping and at the same time in contraposition) seems to offer a useful device to deal with a “window reconstruction” interested in a prospective approach. As a matter of fact these two storylines have commonalities and differences: we will focus on them in a conclusive paragraph of this first chapter, after having proposed in the following ones for each of them, the relevant Projects, available Rules, Themes, Problems. Concerning instead the spatial peculiarity of the case, it is possible to anticipate first of all some common elements useful for the interpretation of the two storylines, and secondly one argumentative element, linked to them, which has a relevant role in the construction of the problem. The two storylines, indeed, have two different geographical settings: the first, 42

concerning the ECOPASS, has essentially a municipal dimension, being linked to the boundaries of the city of Milan (or even less, as we will see or much larger in terms of policy arenas, since it affects the surrounding municipalities). The second has a wider geographical reference, dealing with the regional boundaries of Lombardy, and more broadly to the north Italy trans-regional context.

Actually in the background, we can find a specific environment which has to be described and one common reference. We will try to introduce the context introducing first a ‘discourse’ reference common to many actors involved in this process.

One common “discourse” reference …

According to several different actors, has to deal the city of Milan would stand in a rather peculiar situation, if compared with other cities: the fact of laying in a plane, still area, characterized by thermal inversion, which enhances the stagnation of air and of particulate matter, is, in the representation of the problem given by many (different) actors, an “undefeatable” obstacle, a sort of binding condition which cannot be changed. More than in any other EU city this would cause the impossibility to solve clearly the problem: thus making irrelevant, or at least contestable, the limits proposed by EU for the Milan situation. In other words, the Milan case would be unique and incomparable to others, and untreatable with common tools. This interpretation of the situation is rather diffuse and is a leading reference in the public discourse.

Actually it is as well as clear that the city of Milan is part of a wider conurbation: a conurbation whose extension is so wide and particular that overcomes not just the borders of the city and the province, but has to deal with a regional and interregional dimension. As shown both by several territorial research projects, and common sense developed in everyday life of the inhabitants of this area, Milan is in fact part of a larger urban region, where the problem of air pollution, as several others, cannot be defined or treated inside a municipal perspective. Particulate matter is produced in fact all around these area inhabited by 8 million of people, which travel about 20 km a day with their individual cars, travelling around a conurbation with a multiplication of centralities and urban, social, economical, etc, relationships. This interpretation too is shared by many actors: the consequence of this second peculiarity is that, according to them, the problem cannot neither be treated, nor defined at a local scale.

This untreatable character is in this sense twofold and affects from different perspectives the related production of governance modes, policies and knowledge: the two storylines will show the coexistence of a Milan centred perspective and one focusing on a wider territory, often in contrast and contesting each other, and delegitimizing reciprocally each other on several plans. The delimitation of the territory of the policy stands in fact as one of the more contested issue in both storylines and generally witnesses the difficulty of institutional actors to deal with an interpretation of sovereignty-territoriality able to cope with problems and facts which have no more traditional territoriality to deal with. At the same time this nature affects the production of knowledge, both in the production of scientific data concerning the phenomenon and the perception of the problem in common sense: on the one side the monitoring of PM10 is contested (opposing different data related to individual exposition and general figures, for example, but also polemics on the positioning of the monitoring points); on the other, the difficulty of dealing with a clear identification of the territory of the problem, produces relevant paradoxes: citizens of provinces outside Milan consider the Particulate matter production as a Milan’s problem, and, notwithstanding the fact that values measured in the surrounding municipalities are quite similar, often believe to be living in a better environment..

At the end of the day, as we will see, the two storylines define different territories of policies and part of their problems of legitimacy and efficacy result strictly linked with this troubling interpretation of the problem.

…to introduce the context.

The Province of Milan, with its 3.839.216 inhabitants, is one of the most heavily populated in Italy and Europe (1982 people per square km). 41 % of the population of Region Lombardy lives here, although the Province accounts for just the 8.3% of its territory. Six out of its towns host more than 50.000 inhabitants; another 30 have a population of more than 20.000 people. It is one of the wealthiest areas in Italy: as a matter of fact its economy is the largest in Italy. Its 336,593 businesses in 2005 account for 42.3% of Lombardy enterprises and 6,5% of the total national enterprises. All this generates over 10% of Italy’s GDP. Actually all this cannot be described without framing it in a wider area that includes 10 provinces with almost 8 million inhabitants and 700,000 firms: Milan, Lodi, Piacenza, Pavia, Novara, Varese, Lecco, Como and Bergamo. This wider territory belongs to different regions and nations if we consider also the relationships with Switzerland. At the core of the province and of this wider region is the city of Milan: though loosing inhabitants in the last decades, it still is the central city, both in terms of its economic role and of its production of wealth, innovation and culture. The city of Milan in itself is inhabited by 1.256.211 inhabitants and plays a central strategic role in the Province and the Region, as well as in the general national context being differently and intensively used by several people (students, workers, city users, etc.) which find there central strategic and unique functions.

What in the 1970s could be described as a compact urban form growing along some radial axes based on a number of poles that formed a sort of ring at a distance of about 15 km from the central knot of Milan following a typical Christallerian pattern and with neatly distinct conurbations around the other provinces of the area, nowadays looks rather like a dense conurbation within which it is almost impossible to recognise municipal boundaries and the original polycentric structure, which has been clearly reshaped. This can be read not just the outcome of a typical sprawl effect caused by dispersed and fragmented urbanisation of the metropolitan periphery, but rather as the production of new urban formations characterised by their own form and by a significant degree of autonomy, central in the production of wealth and in shaping the economic role the city of Milan plays in the national and international context (Balducci, 2005).

This urban region is facing (a) a growth process of many external areas pushed by the strength of Milan but also by a significant autonomous attraction capacity, (b) the relocation of population from the city of Milan, (c) the localisation of new metropolitan functions in the field of commerce, production and loisir in this enlarged urban region, giving form to a new and integrated geography of development (Balducci, 2005).

The city of Milan has lost almost one third of its population in the last 30 years (480,000 inhabitants) to reach a size, which is today a little less than that of 1951 just after the war and before the large migrations. The fall in the resident population of the central city has been cushioned by the growth in the percentage of foreign people who have come to account for 10% of the population of the regional capital, Milan, amounting to132.676 inhabitants in 2001 according to City of Milan figures. Even though it is important to notice that the demographic decline of the core city now seems to have ended, these produced important effects.

While this has happened, on another level, there has been a relevant process of economical change and transformations in the city: while the 1980s have been central years for a process of de-industrialisation of the central city, in the last decade there have been important processes of economical renewal producing wide surfaces of brown-fields. Yet what has affected the 44

industrial basis has not just been a process of decentralisation at the territorial scale. The outer part of the city region, and particularly the highly industrialized north, has been able to strengthen its position in many sectors (furniture, mechanics, textile, electronics etc.) with areas of specialisation and excellence and intense growth, based mostly on small and medium enterprises.

The outcome of these processes has been a reshaping of the relationships between different parts of the metropolitan area, with a wide diffusion of residence evidenced by the stability of the provincial population (circa 4 million) in the face of the huge loss of population of the core city (more than 400 000). In relation to 1981, the census data of 1991 showed an overall increase in mobility of 5,4%, with a decrease in movements within the boundaries of the core city (- 16,8%) and a parallel increase in movements from other municipalities towards Milan (+18,9%). At the same time, the data show increasing movements from the core city towards the external communities (+8,8%) and between the external communities (+35%). In fact, the region we can observe today is not just a core city that has been affected by a process of sprawl: actually geographical analysis provides rather evidence of the co-presence of different urban formations within the area6. At the same time the core city is still the focus of the region and about 900 000 cars per day enter the city (Balducci, 2005). In fact, in the absence of any effective policy of price control for private housing, as public housing became residual, and as a result of very weak policies of traffic control and public transport, the central city has started experiencing a growing divergence between the population that uses it either during the day or during the night, and the population that resides in it.

The Province of Milan is an area with high concentration of territorial flows involving the movement of people and goods (over 6 and a half million movements per day): its geographical position, at the centre of the two main east-west and north-south infrastructural corridors has historically assured it a strategic location. The name of Milan itself witnesses for this role, since in its original form (Mediolanum) it essentially indicates the role of a land in-between, devoted to exchanges and intermediation. The region is nowadays the strategic knot of a complex system of motorways (181 km) and railway networks (315 km), as well as it is one relevant strategic hub, with its three airports, one next to Milan (Forlanini national and international Airport), the second in Varese province (Milan Malpensa national and international airport, the hub for ALITALIA) and the third a low cost companies airport located in the province of Bergamo, which has seen an extraordinary success in the last decade (Orio al Serio Airport). The flows are not just of people, they are also of goods. The logistics around Milan as a centre has expanded enormously. It is estimated that there were over 5.2 million sq. m. of indoor shop floor space in 2004 and the number of firms and workers almost tripled in 2001. And then there is the functioning of large commercial centres like the fruit and vegetable market of Milan which serves a catchments area of 10 million inhabitants with 9,000 operators working each day and a turnover of 1 million tons of goods per year.

If we now consider the map of the public transportation system for the Province area (as well as the Region’s one), though some slight relevant changes have been produced in the last years with the renewal of the regional transportation system (SFR), it still shows a model drawn on a radial distribution from the centre to the periphery, laying on the historical axes of the post-II world war city, ignoring transversal movement, still supported uniquely by private cars. All current principal

6 A multiplicity of settlement patterns can be observed, the most remarkable of which are the following: for example the axis of Simplon near Malpensa Airport in the northwest, around the urban core of Legnano-Busto-Castellanza; or the dense and strongly interconnected webs of significant urban centres (particularly the central area of Brianza Milanese); but also the webs of urban centres that are partially conurbated and which present a morphological configuration of the Christallerian type (partially in Saronnese, in Magentino, and in Vimercatese, but also between Varese and Como, around the pole of Olgiate); or finally the punctual urban development of a small dimension (south of Milan).

infrastructural projects aiming at reducing this gap are still in deep late, while, in general, traffic data confirm the picture of an exploded mobility, in which interpretative models based on commuting and typical models of work, are no more able to describe a demand more and more based on high flexibility and variability and less and less treatable by traditional public policies.

Data on the quality of environment of this urban region are among the most worrying in the EU context. As shown in different international reports, the situation has become rather critical in the last years, in particular in terms of the quality of air: the city of Milan, in a study conducted among the main 26 European cities, is in the last positions for concentration of No2; yearly maximum concentration of PM 10. These evaluations are due to the fact, that for example in 2005, in the Milan-Como-Sempion region, the threshold of Pm 10 was surpassed for 137 days, and in the same period in the monitoring hotspots 829 episodes of surpassing the limits have been registered. This trend has been confirmed also in 2006 and 2007, and despite the recent measures we will discuss in the following chapters, also in 2008 the limit has been already surpassed.

Fig. 1 Regional Railway Service/ Servizio Ferroviario Regionale (SFR) 2005, Source Regione Lombardia

Fig. 2 Bench marking with other European cities in the field of quality of environment and air (CERTET, 2005)

1.2. Case history, Rules, regulation, themes and problems

1.2.1 THE ECOPASS-First Storyline

The first storyline can quite accurately be reconstructed through the press review. As we will see this is not just a statement or a relative research choice: actually 2006 and 2007 have been characterized by a wide public discussion on the introduction of ECOPASS, accurately documented in the local press. Local society has been substantially absorbed by the polemics on this project, and just relatively affected instead by the second storyline, that concerning the regional law which, has just partially, reached public opinion and acknowledgment. As a matter of fact this first storyline is deeply in touch with a reconstruction of the process through its mediatisation: the press-review is rather an important tool for this story, not only since it provides news about the succession of events, but also since it is a representation of facts rather influencing, as we will see, the agenda setting and the development of the process.

Our research window opens in a moment in which the two storylines seem to intersect for a while.

October 2006: Region Lombardy announces its brand new plan for the elimination of PM, by 2010. The plan is presented as the consequence of the results of studies promoted also by the Joint Research Center, which defines the region as one of the most polluted areas in Europe, after Benelux and one destined to worsen in the future, if following the actual trends. In presenting the plan-law to be adopted, the president Formigoni defines it as a law which can be shared by right and left parties, since one of the best in the EU, as “declared also by the EU commissioner Dimas”. The law can count on specific funding, in order to be efficient and operative and proposes a further research program to be lead with the JRC. The president declares also that in the last 8 years values of pollution have decreased, but that everybody’s engagement is needed to produce success and to overcome the bad luck of a geographical zone (“catino della pianura padana”) in which Milan and the region are located.

Actually in the same days Legambiente, one of the most important environmental association in Italy, discussing the results of its yearly report ECOSISTEMA URBANO on Italian cities (Milan has improved its situation but it still remains problematic), declares its potential interest in this new law, though it fears that providing a law could just produce a false function: that of delaying concrete interventions. An inquiry promoted again by Legambiente and IL sole 24 ore (the most important Italian economic newspaper) shows that concern about environmental pollution is shared by Milan citizens, which are among the less satisfied citizens in Italy7.

The first days of November 2006 set the beginning of our observation of the introduction of the ECOPASS project: in fact while on the one side the region starts introducing the partial limitation for circulation of polluting vehicles (non catalytic ones), for the first time this proposal, contained in the electoral program of both the elected major and the opposition candidate, is discussed (and

7 Traffic, more than pollution, is seen as a problem (43% against 40% average), as well as public transportation (32% against the national average value 23%). Questioned about the liveability of their city, 52,2% of Milan citizens reply positively; in terms of quality of the air 38 % consider it better than in other cities, 31% worst, for 19% the same. But 76% declare that the quality of environment has worsened. This disease is perceivable also on the base of legal conflicts raising among the municipality and citizens: a newspaper article edited in the same days shows out the growing number of arising conflicts: 28,5% related to urban planning and parking; 24,5% on security, 18% about degradation of environment; 10% on transportation and road system; 6,5% noise; 2.3 % temporary markets. There are actually still a few concerning pollution, opened in specific local situations. In general the networks of citizens’ movements are asking for more dialogue and interaction among citizens and the municipality, and also Assessore Croci, the Assessore of the city of Milan in charge for mobility, declares himself interested in this approach to planning and decision making. 47

immediately rejected) by the local governing coalition. There are in fact different points of view on its urgency and efficacy. The plan proposed by the elected major is based on the principle “paying for polluting” and refers to the model of the pollution charge adopted in London. The pollution charge should start, in this first hypothesis, on 19th of February 2007 with simple techniques for payment, and then officially in October 2007 with a more advanced technical support, this in order to avoid the multiple overcoming of the fixed values achieved during 2007, just like during 2006. The general plan is announced to be published on internet 6 of November 2006.

Actually it is almost clear from this very beginning that it will be very difficult to vote this proposal for the governing majority, though the Mayor, Letizia Moratti, declares its availability in promoting a consultation among political forces, institutions and stakeholders in order to overcome contrapositions and to come to a common solution. The proposal, at this stage, is related to an area of 60 skm, 33% of the municipal territory; affecting 77% of resident population and 65% non resident. The president of the Province expresses its positive opinion and the mayor of Milan declares that the municipality will start a confrontation with the surrounding 32 municipalities. At the end of this process, declares the Assessore Croci “it won’t be any more, the plan of the municipality of Milan, but a shared project for the city in order to improve its quality”: the official statements of these two major municipal actors focus from the very beginning on the necessity of collaboration and responsiveness of every citizen).

Notwithstanding the general interest and maturation of the public opinion on the problem (see a brief and clear synthesis given but the contemporary book MILANO DA MORIRE), the project is attacked from the very beginning from almost every local actor. After the first outstanding declarations in fact, both Legambiente and the 32 mayors of the surrounding municipalities define it insufficient and Milano-centric, and discriminating among citizens living next door. While the municipality announces immediately a process of consultation with stakeholders, ACI (the national association of car-drivers) asks for major public transportation integration; the president of API (Association of the small and medium enterprises) reminds the mayor that economical actors are organizing against; the Movement of Consumers declares that it will be useless both for circulation and pollution; Assoedilizia welcomes it, but the representative of craftsman asks for improvements on the plan after consultations, while that of commerce and retails threatens possible augmentations in prices.

Actually the required consultation starts inadequately: the first meeting with mayors on 6th of November produces immediate conflicts. Mayors invited abandon the meeting, deciding to meet the day after to react to the problem, lamenting that they have not been given any possibility to know the plan the city is producing in order to introduce the pollution charge. The first critics to the way Assessore Croci is dealing with the situation emerge. He is accused not to be able to set the confrontation: “he’s becoming a problem” according to the declarations of the collaborators of the Mayor on newspapers. The Mayor does not attend the meeting, which was organized as a sort of quick explication of the general plan, without specific details on the functioning of the ticket. As a result the 32 mayors ask, with the first representative of the left coalition (Marilena Adamo) in the municipality, the institution of a metropolitan conference.

Already in the previous months, in September, the Province of Milan had re-launched the proposal in a public conference and with a programmatic document called “Patto metropolitano contro gli inquinamenti”: after this public initiative, attended by none of the representatives of the municipality of Milan, the Municipality re-launches the ticket. No real initiative was ever enhanced to get support to this.

The Region enters in this debate, in order to improve the situation; the steering committee proposed by the region in its new law, going to be discussed for approval at the end of the month, 48

is proposed as a place in which the contested confrontation among Milan and the surrounding municipalities could be made and both the Province with the related Assessore declares the necessity to restart the discussion with the surrounding municipalities, both Moratti admits a mistake in communication: there “will be” a process of consultation.

At the same time Forza Italia (the most relevant party in the Mayor coalition and her party) regional exponents work at reducing growing conflicts inside the municipal coalition, and the region, while they seem to be producing also a contraposition among Milan Mayor, the National leader of the party and the same Region. The mediation is found upon the official promise that the ticket will not be instituted suddenly: there will be therefore time to adjust it. This notwithstanding the straightforward behaviour and declaration of the mayor, which keeps defending her actions and remembering that it has been a pillar of her electoral program, and as such it has to be respected by the governing coalition.

Actually the general perception, widely spread by the media, is that, the real knot in the process will be, rather than the regional steering committee, the result of a face to face meeting among the regional president and the Major. The outcome of this mediation is rather contradictory: Governor Formigoni asks for transportation improvements before the introduction of the ticket, with the result of postponing it; this sounds as a defeat of the Mayor by her own party, which at the same time goes on minimizing its effects on the citizens with many different arguments: “just a few will pay; it will be an experimentation with results to be evaluated…”

After the pact Formigoni-Moratti, the president of the Province, Penati invites them not to be stopped and influenced by the reluctance of their party. The province of Milan offers as a first place to meet and discuss its “conference of mayors”, to which the region has been already invited for the following 21th of November. The President declares that both the Province and the mayors are open to discuss and collaborate and asks the ticket to be accompanied by a clear program of intervention linked with public transportation, metropolitan pricing and by a program of investments of resources raised. Stating that, with a paradox, the ticket will be a success if there will be no earning, Penati proposes an interesting reframing of the policy, which remains unheard: in fact it is clear from the very beginning of this process of decision making that in the Milan situation, since the policy is felt and judged as a tax, the amount of reinvestment in public transportation have to be used as a strong convincing argument. This rhetoric is particularly used by the city government to avoid the most felt and recurring lamentations against the policy.

While newspapers seem to be for the ticket (encouraging the mayor to keep on, on the base of the rhetoric of common good and public interest), negative voices are diffused concerning the Assessore Croci; the Assessore related to Health (AN) declares herself against the ticket. The frailty of the coalition MORATTI-Croci is quite evident. So evident that from the very beginning some other actors, external to their coalition decide to support them in this choice. For example the regional responsible of LEGAMBIENTE, one of the most relevant environmental associations in Italy, which declares the necessity of supporting the mayor, if the initiative will demonstrate to be serious, and stresses the necessity to link it to investments on public transportation.

The first pools on the subject propose different results: according to a first one commissioned by the municipality the majority of citizens are for the initiative: according to one promoted by the newspaper Corriere, 53,9% are against. On the newspaper different comments are reported: among them that of a previous Assessore is relevant (Paolo Del DEBBIO): “we are in a case in which there is the necessity to experiment. This is not a process in which decisionism can be winning; it is a delicate case. The major cannot see in the future and the issue is vote sensitive: this implies that the ticket must be experienced in order to verify its efficacy which will then be evaluated and further strategies will be promoted”. Rather than in any other official declaration proposed by the politicians, this highlights perfectly the difficulty of a policy choice, linked to 49

unclear possibility to success, and the necessity of an experimental approach to which local society and politics themselves do not seem to be ready to.

The approval of the regional law and the trans-regional stop

By the end of November 2006 nothing relevant happens, but for the process of approval of the regional law, which reopens the discussion: in fact also on a regional level, parties seem to be finding a sort of compromise. Centre-left opposition is deciding to approve the new regional law, notwithstanding persisting doubts, in order to have however a first step towards the solution of the emergence. There is a growing concern about the situation: the centre-left coalition uses this rhetoric in order to justify the apparent convergence with centre-right government, despite not completely convinced by the content and structure of the law.

While Moratti declares, accused to be proceeding alone despite the opposition of Berlusconi (fact that she denies) that the ticket is not dead, after this meeting in the province’s conference of mayors, the 21th of November, it is decided definitively that the regional steering committee provided by the regional law will be the place of its discussion. After the meeting of the conference of mayors of the province, these and the province declare to be ready for dialogue and also Legambiente declares to be supportive, after a further clarification concerning the use of money for promoting public transportation.

On the 28th of November the regional law is approved. It is presented on the media as the first regional law in the field: approved with the abstention of Milan opposition, which asks for funds to make it operative and opens a period of observation. The City of Assessor Croci is positive both about the law both about the process of public consultation organised in order to approve it.

In the following days actually, the press is concentrated on the fact that, notwithstanding the new law, values are more and more critical and urgent solutions are needed. On the one side there are news concerning some actions already activated by civil society association (CHIAMAMILANO, Maldaria e Autoinsieme), on the other political forces launch the alarm and promote new coalitions of actors asking for the alternate use of cars (Lega and Ulivo). The use of emergence actions is opposed both by the region, both by the municipality, which declare that now the region, with the new law, can lead quickly to structural actions, avoiding definitely emergency policies and approaches. An official proposal presented by the city councillor Fedrighini to the city council and approved unofficially by Croci is stopped: it asked for the immediate introduction of the ticket. Actually FI, which is not interested in its quick approval, does not either want the opposition to set the agenda, nor even a quick approval of a policy which is still rather contested inside the centre-right coalition.

Thus notwithstanding the end of 2006 is rather critical for the city: but all major political governing forces try to limit the alarm and avoid stops to traffic or any other kind of intervention. The new year opens again with overcoming of limits and new promises concerning in particular the eco-ticket. 16th of January a new vote proposal is presented, in which the ticket is re-proposed, concerning a restricted area, that of “cerchia dei Bastioni” (the ancient Spanish circle of walls around the city, now covering just the enlarged city centre) with lower prices. The major will propose it to the council for vote at the end of the month: FI declares that this re-dimensioning has to deal with the necessity of taking in count the protests of people and other mayors. The ticket is presented as part of an action plan including other relevant interventions, in particular improving public transportation. According to data proposed at this stage, it will interest more than 110.000 cars entering that part of the city, and 20000 commercial vehicles. Both the Province and the Region take distance from the behaviour of the city of Milan, in this moment: the municipality can decide on its own, nor the Region or the Province can or need to interfere, therefore if the municipality is really intentioned to launch the project, they invite it to keep on. 50

While the project is announced, the GENITORI ANTISMOG Association asks again for regulation of traffic with alternate circulation in order to fight against the negative values of the beginning of the year. According to official and public ARPA studies, the ones produced for the Region, it can reduce of 27% the values (again an association use public data to defend its proposal). The association launches the idea of a public signature collection, which is adopted also by opposition in the following days (the association is pleased but it keeps declaring that’s not a matter of politics: according to their principles, citizens’ health is neither a left or right issue): the idea is to bring signatures to Moratti in order to obtain her attention by 30th of January when she will be in the city council to present the ticket. After the collection of signatures they will proceed towards a popular initiative law and a referendum.

The end of January (28th) is one of the predefined stops for the circulation. While ALTROCONSUMO reminds that according to the OMS-APAT study in 2002-2004 thousand people have died for pollution in Italian cities, the stop is contested from different reasons. On the one side because of exceptions on EURO4 (the regional Assessore points out that it is a way to incentivise people to change their cars, using the funds given by the law), on the other because values are not worrying at that time (the same Assessore says that negative values are expected for the days to come, as a justification for the decision to keep on) and environmental associations fear that using the stops in this way could produce the sensation they are useless. Also the OSSERVATORIO PER MILANO, an independent association, declares, after the stop, that is has been completely useless.

The 30th of January the municipality announces and discusses in the city council its plan for the future: immediately the general stop for certain category of vehicles, which will not have the possibility to enter the city, and then, in spring, the introduction of the ticket. Governing parties immediately declare at the same time on newspapers that this second part of the plan will be unattended for technical reasons and that nothing will happen before October. The plan is presented as the result of the discussion in the steering committee concerning the “Strategy for sustainable mobility”, a general strategic document produced by the Assessorato: it will be funded with 3,5 billions of euro. 13 millions in the short time application and then 20 millions of euro, as permanent resource, could be raised, according to first calculations with the ticket. The steering committee has been attended by the region, the Milan municipality, the Province and some other municipalities. The Province is for the plan, which will be presented the day after to the “Tavolo Milano” (see chapter 3) to central government also in order to obtain funds. The president of the Province proposes in addition the introduction of a highway toll to be paid by people crossing the metropolitan area: in the yearly mobility conference organised by the Entrepreneurs association he asks for the construction of a metropolitan authority in charge of transports, mobility, policies against pollution, not as a partisan demand, but as a tool for governance, a space, a arena, to make synthesis and decide.

Strong oppositions are expressed again immediately by association of retailers which quote a research produced by ACI CENSIS which shows that Milan citizens are not interested in leaving their cars, though as shown by the results of the almost contemporary III report APAT urban environment, monitoring the state of health of 24 Italian cities, which draws a clear and alarming picture of the whole situation, rather critical in several other provinces of the north of Italy (Verona and Torino)

The introduction of the generalised stop is highly contested; on the one side FI declares that it has not been consulted on the issue, Lega accuses the major to behave like a left politician, but in general both opposition and the government coalition denounce too many exceptions, while the municipal police laments to be in difficulty with the application of the law given the brief time- period available of preparation to enforce it. Actually, as the Assessore Croci, remembers there is 51

nothing effectively different from the exiting regional regulation, which is just extended in the duration, but the urban police denounces it on the newspapers.

The press has a strange behaviour concerning the stop: on the one side it presents data supporting once again the necessity of the regulation (see the periodical articles of Harari, quoting the American review of respiratory and critical care medicine), on the other describing irrelevant problems arising all over the city (flowers missing…) or denouncing the lack of real controls. In general it scarcely presents data concerning the irrelevant diminution of Pm 10 values obtained with the new regulation (values are all over high, in particular outside Milan they are above 200 mg: some days after the Assessore states that they have diminished of 15%). Due to these polemics the plan, including this regulation of accesses to the city, is re-voted in the city council and it is approved just thanks to the vote of the opposition: six important votes allow to renew the regulation until 15 of April 2007 and to step forward the introduction of the pollution ticket on the Bastioni area. The major thanks the coordinators of left party and green party, which suggests her to follow their suggestion and not just the position of technicians. The government coalition makes finally positive declaration affirming that, at the end of the day, they have obtained great results in this conflict on the ticket, in particular on the field of public transportation.

One of the main exponents of the opposition, Milly Moratti (the Mayor sister in law), reminds the gap between reality and its representation: data produced by one of the monitoring point owned by the association CHIAMAMILANO, she is president of, show a worsening condition of air, while the mayor, among big polemics, reminds to the city council that the intervention is positively evaluated by EU: but the declaration is highly criticised since publicly referring the content of a personal mail forwarding her the message sent by an Italian EU commissioner in the environmental field to one of the leader of the green party supportive of the law.

While this strong discussion happens at the municipal level, the same days are characterised by the signing of a pact against pollution among the main regional authority of the Padania Regions; the pact proposes a set of strategies to fight together against pollution and a first symbolic act: the stop to circulation in all the territory of the four regions is fixed for the 25th of February. In the communication of the initiative we find a condition similar to that of the city of Milan: Formigoni seems engaged in showing that the problem can be solved only on a large scale. Whether this position can be shared, the perception of his behaviour cannot avoid finding a bit of personalisation of policies. At the same time Galan, the Veneto governor, makes clear that just a part of the region will be interested by the stop. Bresso, the Piemonte governor, instead quotes terrible figures concerning the effects of pollution. Among which, those that attribute to traffic the biggest part in the production of air pollution.

At the central level something quite strange happens: the central government contests to the Region Lombardy the competence on stops to traffic circulation. This contestation is badly seen by the left party which highlights the necessity of regional competence on such a territorially large issue and declaring that there are, rather, other parts of the law to be contested. A first meeting is held in the following days among the central government and the region, but with no real results. The stop is however confirmed: the 15th of February the city overcomes the number of out of limits days of pollution and the press reports results of studies promoted by Legambiente and Istituto dei tumori: “in 2006 1575 deaths for the concentration of PM 10 in the air of the city and 679.957 the hours of work lost for smog”. LEGAMBIENTE publishes data showing the relevance of the problem in large and medium cities all over the Pianura Padana (15 cities, the worst Verona) and announces a new mobile campaign of monitoring (“PM TI TENGO D’OCCHIO”).

Milan Mayor and the Regional President produce joint declarations on the necessity of the stop, also against the position of ACI and Confesercenti (which declares it useless because happening 52

during an important international fair). The Milan Assessore Croci instead declares to be against: “I am not a supporter of the stops”, while it is announced as fragmented and heterogeneously applied by the different municipalities: each one will choose whether or not applying. The region accounts for culpability of the central government with its recurring against the regional law. At the same time the government announces that it will stop the legal action again the region.

The stop however is held and its outcomes are differently evaluated. The ARPA features estimate the reduction in production of PM in terms of 10 tons. But again, according to green party national exponents it was useless. The 83% of Italian citizens consider it useful but insufficient (according to Legambiente Pools) to solve the problem: the 87% is worried about the gravity of the situation of the Padania region, described as a “Bombay on the move” by WWF: 20 millions of people running 20kms a day and 16000 kms a year (doubled if compared to 1980).

After the general stop, for some months, the situation seems to be calming: the only exception is related to the publication of a new study, EUROLIFENET, promoted by the region, in collaboration with JRC at ISPRA and local voluntary associations, among which MAMMEANTISMOG. The project is an experimentation of a different system of monitoring and it produces a new way to look at the problem, since it focuses on personal exposition to PM10. Features are quite impressive and they have large attention on the newspaper, also due to the fact that the piece of news is given also by the New York Times.

The end of the month is characterised by a step back by the region, which announces the only partial implementation of the approved law, accusing the government for producing obstacles to it.

Towards the approval

The end of June 2007 is the beginning of the final official steps towards the ECOPASS: on the one side the technical apparatus is produced and organised to have the ticket ready for October, on the other the city government has to pass through an official act to start the pollution charge. While technicians are engaged in preparing all in due time, politics seem engaged on postponing the ticket. Inside the city government some politicians are intentioned to make it start just after Christmas. The Assessore reminds these data: 89000 cars involved, + 14000 commercial vehicles; + 20-25000 crossing the city, 13 % of all the movements: output expected a reduction of 16 to20% of pollution, in normal condition among 27 and 32 %, 50 millions of euro in a year. The discussion in the city council is rather long and complex8: at the national level in the same days the Environmental Commission approves the report on climate change which proposes a calculation of car taxes differentiated on the base of production of CO2, within others policies. National left party in the meantime asks the government to retire the court recourse in order to avoid defensive justification from the Region.

At the end of July the city council has to decide; after the ultimatum of Moratti, the 19th of July, which declares to her coalition they have to support her, otherwise they will have to find a new mayor, and different declarations of the majority (and its municipal coordinator) stating the intention to discuss the ticket after summer, the ticket is approved. Actually, the mayor is evidently isolated: the chief of the opposition invite her to leave the majority and her bad

8 While the discussion in the city council keeps on slowly, new studies and research projects are promoted: the International hair research foundation (IHRF), with Chiama Milano promotes the campaign “Cosa respirano i tuoi capelli” and the Eurispes-ACI report, promoted by the national car drivers club, tells that citizens feel obliged to use the car for having no other alternative (29,1%); since public services are not efficient (18,7%), or too much binding (17,6%), in particular if one aims at displacing several times during the day (11,1%). 50% of cars entering the city are of residents of the city. One of three citizens uses the car; 450.000 cars arrive in the city and the 300.000 leave from the city. Citizens would leave their car home to avoid driving in the traffic (32,9%), to reduce stress (28.9%) and to avoid parking difficulties (21,9%). Data published by ATM show that Milano public transportation network has 604.000 passengers a year; 3000 circulating buses; 38% of costs covered by passengers. 53

counsellors; at the same time she accuses the spoil system the mayor has adopted of causing the absence of competence and decision making structure (since nobody understands who is deciding and on which technical base; a wide polemic is in the air on this problem, which will emerge just after summer, with a law recourse); at the same time she argues about the general fragmentation of the coalition at local level, whereas the national unity looks like just a defence measure.

In order to obtain the result both the mayor and the Assessore accept to postpone the definition of rules for subscription in particular for residents and the omission of the starting date. The adoption, obtained the 21st of July is contested by different parts: Rosati, the local representative of Unions denounces the method which has not been that of an open discussion with local actors, but also the lack of a plan defining the sense, beginning, duration, monitoring (who will do that?) of the ticket, neither an engagement on the use of resources. And finally the problem of inter- institutional relationships: the municipality moves as in autonomy in one direction, while the region announces the augmentation of prices on public transportation in another. Critics not so far from those expressed by her own majority, which will present a recourse since the ticket has not passed through the city council, but just the GIUNTA (Executive Board). While according to the previous mayor, Albertini, the ticket is a mess, for the Assessore it will reduce of 50% the traffic in the area. The mayor declares it is not a partial policy, but a real one which will have clear effects: she announces a moratoria for diesel (people bought them thinking they were less polluting), the enforcement of public transportation (3 million Euros and 250 thousands km of new public transport, 20%in more frequency on average) and declares to be ready for the confrontation with all categories, though “salute e la difesa dell’ambiente prevalgono su tutto”. She also announces generally a monitoring of the experimentation and consultation of citizens, though not in the form of a referendum. While majority defines the ticket a false ecological policy, as part of the opposition, green party asks for responsibility towards the problem and support for the mayor.

The mayor spends the last days before summer holidays defending the project, both from internal critics and external ones: she denies any problem with Berlusconi, and at the same time about the fact that there is no fixed starting date: it’s just a matter of deciding together, not a defeat. Polemics persist also after summer, in the September start: the president of the Province denounces the limited nature of such a version of the project, but at the end of the day, the first days of October the project is finally approved. The government majority finds the consensus on the base of a reduction of prices for residents, and the elimination of the obligation to buy a public transportation yearly ticket. The two last months of the years will be dedicated to technical implementation of the project, while the first days of 2008 it will officially start and go on for one year experimentation. An informative letter will be sent to all families and a press campaign will be launched, in two times, first concerning the general issue “more quality in your life” and then concerning the ticket. It will be cofounded with money also given by the Ministry and obtained on the Tavolo Milano. It will concern 89000 cars entering the restricted area (740000 the whole city). The ticket receives a new name: Ecopass. Just after the approval the main government parties give paradoxical declaration; while FI and AN declared to be fine with the reduction of prices, they have obtained and that will cause just a little part of drivers paying the ticket, the LEGA announces that it will ask for a referendum for the general closure of the city centre to cars. Opposition as well is critical denouncing the defeat of the mayor on important issues. In general the mayor is contested by her coalition since it is a moment in which at a general level her party is producing a vibrant campaign against the government in the approval phase of the year budget law: while the centre-right coalition accuses the centre-left to introduce new taxes, it is not the case, according to many centre-right politicians, to introduce new local ones. The mayor looks like still more isolated, but thus notwithstanding “stubbornly” supporting against everybody her political programme: she seems to be engaged also in a fight for her possible future.

Just a few days after the approval, the EU commissary Davros, calls against Italy and Milan: in general also pm 2.5 will have to be taken in count and all cities will be asked to present clear plans against pm production. The reprimand is produced after the denounce of the green party councillor, Fedrighini, the same which had supported Moratti, had promoted recourse to EU in the past: after supporting initially the ticket, he is now against the last version accused to be too light. The Assessore and the mayor declare to be happy to be able to show to EU their just approved plans against PM. While this happens the project is contested also by MAMMEantismog, which had asked to see the preliminary studies on the base of which the ticket was introduced: according to the Aarhus convention they should be public, but actually they are denied the access to them. Also on another level the ticket is contested: at the end of October the “Corte dei Conti”, asks for clarification concerning the economical sustainability of the ECOPASS: according to data produced by those presenting the recourse, with the introduction of yearly and monthly subscriptions the ECOPASS will not be able to finance itself, gaining just 15 million above the 46 promised. During November the city council is engaged in a difficult negotiation about the fees and the subscriptions: there is no consensus and this causes also conflicts concerning the approval of the bike-sharing (Lyon’s model): the Major threatens her resignation, and announces that the promised discounts cannot be approved, in accordance with what stated in a Ministry circular and in the Corte dei Conti measure. Actually the clash inside the governing coalition is high. In the same days at a central level the centre-right coalition did not succeed in defeating the government and the mayor feels free to move. Although she is quite an hostage of the majority: there are strong confrontation on the nomination of important public boards and parties are fighting for them, stopping the approval of municipal budget and other major policies in order to gain what they want. At the end of the day it is clear also to the local parties that the city government cannot be destroyed by internal fight, since the situation on the national level is proposing new contrasts against the main opposition parties. The mayor feels attacked by all the newspaper: this is never happened, she stated, neither when she was Ministry of education. Actually she is attacked not only by newspapers and her own majority, but also by several other actors, which share a vision of her rather interested in finalising her plans, rather than really interested in the policy results. At the end on the 20th of December the parties find an agreement and the month of December is dedicated to a negotiation with different special categories: newspaper report about a growing number of meetings, producing exceptions and at the same time increasing dissatisfaction. The Assessore seem to be adopting a rigid position against the different requests of the associations of interests.

In the meantime the municipal offices elaborate a sort of model of monitoring of the ECOPASS to be published daily: a transparent tool which will allow understanding the efficacy and results of the ECOPASS. Opposition parties ask for the introduction of a permanent observatory dedicated to this. The regional governor at the same time, announcing new incentives to FAP, declares that the Ecopass will not solve the situation and that at the end of the day data concerning Milan and Lombardy are not so bad; the situation would also be better than in other Italian cases. The last days of December see the announcement by EU of a new regulation, and at a local level polemics about the functioning of the website containing info on how to pay and when to pay.

Implementation

In the first three months (January-march 2008) of implementation, there have been contested results in terms of efficacy. The very first days were characterised by polemics on the functioning of the system and on info provided. After all started functioning however, it started the monitoring of the values: the first days have been essentially characterised by a daily newsletter on the city of Milan website, showing some good results, though lower than expected, but in line. Actually results have not shown to be so evident and transparent: there has been on the one side a 55

reduction of Pm and traffic on some days, in other limits have been overcame. The following weeks’ bulletins have been rarefied and reduced to weekly ones; at the same time their content has been changed. In the first edition they were rather pointed at showing simply the number of vehicles entering the city centre, without a direct link to data of pollution. Then they have also included a confrontation among values before and after the ECOPASS and a direct link to the reduction of PM (just through consultation of other official websites) or weather situation (deeply affecting the outcomes). At the same time no data has been made available in general for the city as a whole: the city is just now getting ready to produce data referred to a larger area

In terms of public communication there has been a general caution in the first declaration of institutional actors, but then there is a growing confidence on results. While Croci has been following the process on the first line, the mayor Moratti has disappeared from the scene and left alone Croci, preferring international context to present and discuss it. In particular she has been developing a sort of foreign policy presenting it at Bruxelles and New York (ONU). The approval of EU has finally arrived, avoiding the payment of a fee for not respecting the limits. No particular interest was shown (or researched) instead by the national level, any relevant comments or support by the ministry, notwithstanding the relevance for resources invested.

Finally, among polemics concerning the delay or efficacy of the other promised accompanying measures, an important non binding decision has been taken by the city council, which has stated to go towards the progressive the elimination of logistic traffic during the day in the city and there has been a discussion too on the possibility to extend the measure to a wider territory. Both these two innovations seem to be suggesting that the ECOPASS is thought in a long-term perspective: actually the way monitoring of results has been presented does not seem to be adequate to such a perspective.

1.2.2 THE NEW REGIONAL LAW – second storyline

While ECOPASS storyline could be reconstructed through press review, Regional law storyline needs a different approach. This second storyline in fact appears also through the press review, as we have seen in the paragraphs above, but in order to understand its contents, the process and actors arena involved, we have to examine thoroughly also documents produced before and after the law was published and to use interview tools to understand what happened during the process of law design. As we said introducing ECOPASS storyline, process mediatisation plays an important role, but in this second case media analysis is not sufficient to understand what happened: we could actually say that this story is going on “despite” media. While reconstructing the first storyline we can find traces of the regional law implementation process, it is not easy to find ECOPASS traces in this second storyline. We’ll investigate similarities and differences between these two policies looking, for instance, at research projects: both of them are founded on scientific bases, but, while in Regional policies case studies and researches are commissioned to argue the measures taken, in Ecopass case a 2001 study, explaining in detail costs and benefits of that policy, seems to be “hidden”, even if used in its conclusions, by Milan Municipality.

Regional parliament starts to discuss in 2005 about the need of a structural law on air pollution. Every year, since 1999, Region Lombardy writes an “Action Plan” to face air pollution emergencies. In case of overcoming of limits, for one pollutant, emergency acts, concerning traffic control, industrial and heating system emissions, would be adopted by the Regional President. In 1991 (integrated in 1995) “critical zones” were individuated. They are characterized by high density of inhabitants, activities and road traffic (and, as a consequence, of pollution). In 2001 those zones were re-designed, and Lombardy Region was divided in “critical”, “redevelopment” and “maintenance” zones. This division was suggested by studies contained in “Regional Plan for Air Quality” (drawn up from 1997 to 2000) and provides for “action plans” in 56

critical zones to face emergencies and “integrated plans” to decrease critical parameters. Integrated plans had to be provided also in redevelopments zones. In the following years we cannot see formally a distinction between action and integrated plans, also because “integrated” measures are included in yearly action plan or in provisions connected to it. They are provisions arranged directly by the Regional Board. From 2002 we have different kind of measures: standard and limits for industrial or heating systems, incentives or contributions for less pollutant technologies (especially cars), stop or restrictions in road traffic when critical thresholds are overcome. “Action Plans”, published usually every year in August, are followed by “modes and criteria” to put them into effect. They are enforced between October and April. There are also other particular measures, related to directives for specific kind of industries, researches and studies promotion or contribution to support people in deciding to change their old cars.

This model of action could be referred to as a mix of legislative measures, plans and laws, yearly repeated, strengthened in their contents year after year, with major changes related to emerging evidences from studies and researches: some measures, proposed and disappeared the following year, while other improved, other emergency measures become structural and sustained by new funding and incentives year after year.

There’s a sort of “turning point” in this process. In winter 2005-2006 European concentration limits became law in Italy. They were in use already since 2000, when they were officially introduced, but actually, in august 2005 Lombardy approves a new “Action Plan” with some important news, among which an agreement between different Regions in northern Italy to build together policies against air pollution. This agreement was promoted by Lombardy Region. In the same year critical zones were reviewed and extended. This fact is quite important also because usually both contributions and limitations are addressed only to people who live in critical zones.

In 2005 Regional Parliament starts debating a new structural regional law on air quality. The law (n°24) was approved in December, 2006, and voted by the greatest part of political parties (those who didn’t vote justified saying there was political reason to their abstention, while they agreed with the contents of the law). This unexpected result can be read as an outcome of the process of the waking of the law; at the same time, it shows that pollution themes do cross different political positions and are issues of common attention. Different proposals were presented to the Regional Council, by many parties (both within the government parties and belonging to opposition group), but the working group studying the definitive proposal was guided by a political exponent belonging to a party who never submitted a law proposal concerning air pollution. This choice is due, as all those who took part in the working group said, to the fact that it was decided from the beginning no political party could say that Air Pollution Law belonged just to a specific party. Actually there are two reasons because the law was built that way: the first one is related to the EU reminder: Lombardy had to assume structural measures to face and prevent air pollution. The second one concerns pollution theme in itself: many regional measures, in past, provoked strong reactions in public opinion. Every party knows its electoral base will react against any law proposal, because measures could be seen either as “light” (green parties) either as “strong” (liberal parties), especially measures related with road traffic or, in general, individual behaviours. Both these reasons claimed for a mutual and non partisan agreement.

The first part of the parliamentary working - group work focused on the reconstruction of the regulatory framework and then faced the classification of different emissive sources, defining measures for each of them. It’s interesting to note that the structure and content of the first articles of the Law of (statement of principles) was taken from the proposal made by the Regional Board even if it had not yet been filed in Regional Council when working group started its job. We’ll see it’s because regional technicians both participated to law construction process and wrote proposal submitted by Regional Board. The outcome of this process, during which hearings have been planned with other actors (associations, representatives, …), is a text that, in addition to 57

stating general principles, anticipates some measures immediately operational, concerning in particular road traffic measures. It’s another example of “mixed” text: framing law and, at the same time, “action plan”. It defines actors arena (with “institutional table” or “steering committee”, described in chapter 3) and collects all the themes related to air pollution, saying that, in a second moment, they will be better defined by measures that carry principles into effects. Actually these more specific directions promised by the regional law have not been applied as far as now because the law has been challenged by the Italian National Government, which considers some measures (road traffic limitations) are illegitimate. By now, it has just been given (January 2008) a positive opinion, and regional law probably will be in use very soon. Anyway, while regional law was under judgment, in August 2007 some measures were published such another zoning review, the Action Plan 2007-2008, the following criteria and modalities of implementation. These measures, consistent (even "hardest") with the law, aren’t implementing the tools that the law itself provided when issued by the parliament. This law has been criticized, on the one hand, because it is too generic and not very effective (distinctive characteristic of a framing law) and, on the other, because excessively severe in limiting cars movement. Also because of the government recourse, the judgement on its effectiveness is suspended.

We saw above that regional law is the result of a process made by a series of measures and regulatory provisions that gradually become more stringent and complex, but its contents derives also from a series of studies and researches investigating in-depth scientific knowledge about particulate matter. This note is useful also to point out that in recent years, numbers and quality of research projects also have increased. We’ll show it better in chapter 4.

For a long where actually, the Regional Law has been suspended as a result of Government action and it’s too early to understand how it will work. It was replaced in practice by implementing measures adopted later. This factor has also changed the "institutional arenas" system provided by the law itself. The law in fact introduces a "permanent inter-institutional consultation table " and “steering committee” with the aim of discussing with provinces and municipalities both principles and action plans; a specific table would be dedicated to the Milan area. These discussion arenas have not yet been tested in fact; permanent consultation table just discussed about principles and general content. Actually Milan area table was informally working even in the past, but without legitimacy and credibility and the new "permanent inter-institutional consultation table " seems to be running the same risk: the role of this table was strongly debated during the building process of the law as well as its “weight”, in a political sense: majority was for giving it a consultative role, while minority confined its binding value.

At the same time, two other tables are operational and discuss about politics in the field of particulate matter: Region Lombardy promoted in 2006 an agreement between the regions of the Po basin to face particulate matter problems together, even promoting studies to deepen the knowledge of the problem. This reminds again about an important theme in defining particulate matter in Milan area: the idea that it isn’t a local problem, but it has to be faced in a large scale, because of natural (climatic and geographical) reasons. This confrontation table is mentioned in the regional law, while there is no reference to the “Milan Table”, promoted by the Italian Government, which, among other themes, provides a specific technical "thematic table" dedicated to air pollution in Milan area.

Reading the press, a partly different story emerges from the one followed rebuilding the process on the base of interviews and documentary analysis. A decisive role of the regional Governor stands up: he overshadows other assessors’ work and role; he works also oriented to a "foreign policy" that’s also an "environmental policy", with a strong importance of the image and of the announce of change. Especially this last aspect is critically stressed by local civil society associations, environmental or not. The region, through its Governor, wants to bring on itself the

image of “environment spokesman” among other institutions; an attitude that, with varying nuances, it should be noted even in the Municipality of Milan. The law construction process provides some interesting elements and questions on the actors’ system analysis and concerning knowledge forms:

• Relationship between Regional Board and Council who decides policies? We’ll see describing actors in the next chapters that regional board has a “strong personality” and we can have some clues of it looking to the law building process: working group and council commission discussed about a Board proposal and, while the law said that principles have to be put in effect by the Council, the first specific regulations were written by the Board. We have to understand if this “bipartisan” process built a sort of “reflective knowledge” comparing different opinions or if it was the only way to approve a framing law written by Board and Regional technicians. • Relationship between technicians and politics. Regional technicians (environment quality dep.) took part in every phases of the process, both in working group, in commission and in public debate. Their presence was fundamental because they wrote all the Action Plans and measures taken in previous years and they have guided all the law writing process. On the one side the Regional law seems perfectly consistent to the evolution of action plans during the last years. On the other It orders all “sectoral” measures and poses again in its premises all the arguments always used by Region explaining how difficult it is to face air pollution problems (we’ll analyse better technical discourses in chapter 4). The hypothesis is that it doesn’t matter if a politician is not (or doesn’t become) an expert, but his/her consciousness is useful for technicians to promote legitimate measures. Technical arguments were also the tools used by stakeholders to participate to the debate. We’ll see how even local associations become “expert” to promote their reasons. • In this case study we often face with “mixed” law texts, both comprehensive plans and legislative directions, both research projects and comprehensive plans, both framing laws and specific directives. Is this character specific to air pollution reduction policies or is it a specificity of this case, in terms of being situated in a specific institutional and political context? How is this character related to the legitimacy of single measures and to their efficacy?

1.2.3 Some concluding remarks on the two storylines introducing to the following chapters

The two storylines do not have ‘technical’ links or operative coherence: they mostly ignore each other or polemics one against the other in order to gain the “scene”. This is valid too for many other possible storylines which could be told and that we decided just to mention. This happens though actors involved are often the same. When the two storylines touch each other, sometimes they “use” (and often “misuse”) each other, both cynically, both because they need each others’ support; in particular they re-use some of the materials they provide, like negotiating arenas (the regional steering committee “borrowed” to discuss the ECOPASS, rather than enforcing it).

They both offer the possibility to understand the reduction of the problem operated in the public arena: the first one operates the simplification of the whole policy for the reduction of particulate matter to the issue of traffic; more in depth the idea of a “congestion charge” is reduced to a “pollution charge”. At the same time also the second storyline is affected by a reduction of its whole sense, since most of the public discussion about it, is limited to the issue of traffic, while the law is much more general and integrating different fields of action. 59

Environmental issue remains stuck, in both cases, within narrow forms of discourses: on the one side ECOPASS is discussed in so far it is a tax, nor as a tool to achieve major goals; on the other the economic discourse seem to be again the winning one, in a continuous contraposition among competitiveness and quality of life: in order to convince about the necessity of a solution to the problem, also unexpected actors quote the number of hours of work-hours left: social costs are essentially reduced to occupation costs. At the same time the efficacy of a policy is shown by its capacity to raise money rather than assessed through a new monitoring of air. Finally the ‘market solution’ or the ‘technological solution’ seems to be central in the discourse: at the end of the day we are now experiencing a policy which will affect citizens for a short while since the market with its new technologies will solve the problem. But actually institutions seem to be engaged in promoting technical innovation on a very simple level, rather than promoting really new researches.

The difficult character of environmental policies: politicians seem more or less aware of the difficulty of the policies they are coping with. Of course they are exposed to a condition in which uncertainty is one of the main characteristics of the problem and also of its solutions, having to deal with a policy to be implemented with a continuous probing attitude, by trial and errors. But they do not seem ready to copy with the fact that they cannot count on clear results. This seems to be a major cause of immobility; it can also be read as a sign of the weakness of politicians, which seem to relay on a very weak public mandate and sense of commitment towards their voters.

The emerging and contested role of technicians, which are core both of the production of the law, both of the project and implementation of the ECOPASS, and which are asked to become politicians and at the same time criticized for not being able to move as politicians should. At the same time, technical and expert knowledge is misused by politicians, which remain often badly informed both about the problem and the solution. The production and use of expert knowledge is one of the most contested aspects of the problem. At the same time it is scarcely used by politicians in order to support difficult decisions. Most of the dramatic data available are not used, while in many public declarations politicians prefer to quote their children’s coughs rather than official data.

Both storylines concern policies which are not thought to be assessed and are not so easy to be assessed. On the one side there is no clear reference to the issue of assessment in both cases, on the other side it is quite difficult to assess them and show their legitimacy. This seems to be related to the weakness of institutions and politics, which seem far from being interested and able to deal with the issue of legitimacy and effectiveness, but also to the complexity of such a policy field.

Policy arenas seem to be open to interaction, actually they are both hierarchically lead by one strong actor, which is generally providing all the rules of the policy arenas. The action arena results apparently full of actors and open, but at the end of the day, policy arena are rather mono- directed. Both Moratti and Formigoni behave as “solitary heroes of environment”, or at least this is the image they propose of themselves in the press and to public opinion, but also internally dialoguing with their party, or either to EU and central government. There are probably several different reasons for this behaviour: in general we could argue about this leadership model, which is not able, perhaps nor interested, in gaining public opinion support with great public investment. Both Formigoni and Moratti, for example, prefer to support their policies with a sort of foreign affairs policy; they present their projects abroad (EU, USA) and try to get indirect support from these public presentations… On the other side both seem to be proposing an image of great commitment to the environmental problems, without really relating to public opinion or civil society association. On the one side this could be linked to the necessity of right parties to distinguish from the left and all the existing environmental associations which are more 60

traditionally link to left, on the other it seems they have a very limited faith in citizens, as if they were not supporting their choice.

There are major interferences among local political environment and the national one, which influence deeply the process. Often the local decision making process is completely deconstructed by political national events. This has to do deeply with the nature of the political party which is governing the city and the specific characteristics of the two local leaders, the regional and the municipal one, which are both important political features on the national scene.

The individualization of problems, policies and politics: as the continuous call to data concerning everyday life shows, there is a strong stress on individual life, in this field of policies. Since they deal with the habits and behaviours of common citizens, policies, both from the point of view of the data used to argument them, both from the point of view of the outcomes produced through them, relate to individuals and seem to be shaped to talk to individuals. The relevance of the common enterprise in which those policies are inscribed is very reduced: there are many different examples on both side… tacit knowledge and common sense are the reference for that research projects which try to show the urgency of the situation: the research projects on hair, is a typical example of a reduction to common sense of major scientific data. At the same time the fact that ECOPASS is seen as a way to convince people to change their cars for new ones, is again an “individualization” of policies, rather than collective mobilisation, these policies aim at touching and raising individual attention. This can have important effects, both on the efficacy of policies, both on its legitimacy…

1.3 Role of media

As shown by this reconstruction, the role of media is rather central. While the first storyline is the main argument in the press all over the examined years, very limited attention is paid to the regional process. This is producing some spurs on the necessity of commenting the specific role of media in the construction of the problem.

As a matter of fact this role is discussed by several actors throughout interviews: media are in fact accused often to be not reliable. Being responsible, according institutional actors, for example, for the production of confusion in public opinion, providing too much a dramatic reconstruction of the situation, giving false and partisan information, producing more preoccupation than needed. In particular institution accuse media to give a partisan information on policies and actions promoted, laying on a political use of news: they are felt as linked with political parties and not interested, nor able, to admit that centre-right coalitions can produce good environmental policies as well as centre-left coalitions. Institutions denounce the “politicization” of Italian newspapers and the fact that they are strumentalising actors, hostage of environmental associations and civil society committees. At the same time media are perceived as hostage of scoops and market logics; in this sense they are seen as co-responsible in the production of a stuck situation (and its perception) in which there is a general mistrust in institutions and their action. Institutions themselves seem to have problems to communicate with citizens through press: they feel as they cannot reach them when they need and they cannot control or even produce through press a useful information campaign. It is not a case that the info campaign for ECOPASS was made through public posters and letters to citizens, rather than through newspapers.

There is a wide perception, shared among all actors, politicians, technicians, citizens that media lead the dance in terms of agenda setting, constructing and de-constructing the problem, its definition and treatment. At the same time the limited amount of news, or an incorrect reconstruction of the process is denounced: they are charged of deviating the course of events, amplifying or reducing news and the position and relevance of several actors (see for example the

importance given to the opposition of retailers and commerce, but also the support given to small environmental associations like GENITORI antismog, which probably have a specific channel of communication with local media). As for Benjamin, actually “the press is an event in itself”: being on a newspaper is an event, and all actors aspire to be there. In fact media, and in particular local press, are often seen/used as a policy arena, or better a public space, the only left to have a voice in the process: environmental associations for example use local press as the only channel to have a dialogue with institutions: media in this sense are useful to reopen the dialogue, though not free from producing simplification, misunderstandings and polemics, which at the end of the day could result in uneven further dialogue, working on contradictions and exalting conflicts, rather than convergence. At the same time they work as field open to citizens, which express there their individually, through letters in the mail sections.

On a different perspective, many actors seem to be worried about the fact that media are not reached by real information. Several are the denounces of the necessity of a specific work done by associations in order to reach reports and data which seem not to be given to media, which on their part, seem to be laying superficially on the info given by institutions and actors, without providing that role of inquiry which media and press are traditionally asked to play, especially in those countries in which the institutional and political environment lacks of transparency. At the same time the version available on newspapers is often the only available one: news can be drawn just on the press, since processes are not transparent or public and communication is not the first issue in the public agenda. The typical example is provided by the fact that, while ECOPASS was discussed, most of actors interviewed declared to be essentially informed by the press, since official document were not so easy to be found. Uncertainty and partiality were thus in the interviews the recurring conditions and characteristics of knowledge in use (second level, un- direct knowledge, referred by others…). This uncertainty seems to be central in the incapacity declared by actors to judge the relevance and efficacy of introduction of the ECOPASS. Among the available data just a few were used, even by institutions always quoting the same in the press. Media thus result as a space of representation of multiple vision of the problem, at the same time of simplification of these views, as if they could be easily treated and proposed. Finally, we can conclude, there is also a structuring role of media in producing sense, in sense making. They seem to have substituted institutions in making narrations and producing sense, and also public discourse and common sense seem to pass essentially through media.

On the one side media reproduce an episodic representation of politics: it is almost difficult for citizens to find the continuity of a project through media, since they often represent just the ongoing dimension of the policy process, rather than the whole. They are not however the only responsible for this situation. In general institutions are acting without a vision, more episodically than with a governance culture: instead processes dealing with everyday life like those connected with environmental concerns, have a long and progressive horizon to be taken in count. The difficulty of institutions to work on this horizon and to produce sense-making out of a series of governance episodes is a central issue for an institutions. At the same time the role of media in producing common sense is rather relevant: it’s not just a matter of saying to people “what they have to think”, but “to what they have to think”. It is not just a matter of the media’s role in the agenda setting, with Jedlowsky, but rather that they give people ways to categorize reality (for example concentrating their everyday attention on the pollution ticket, rather than on the whole frame; or on its being a tax, rather than a common enterprise for public good). Since we are in a society in which “common sense is a conflictual arena” (with Jedlowsky, according to which this is the atouts of a “Reflexive modernity”), there are continuous conflicts on what normally should be taken for granted and we do not share an homogeneous common sense on what are indeed common problems, media reproduce the different thoughts of individuals and groups which try to impose their view and representation on the reality and what should be normal. Policies dealing with common sense are thus particularly ‘sensitive’ to these situations, becoming necessarily more conflictive than others. And the press reproduces its conflictuality in the impossibility of re- 62

conducting to a univocal vision of the world, or at least an acceptable one. At the end of the day in everyday life, again with Jedlowsky, we are all well aware that what one says is different from what happens and it is part of the commons sense the capacity of distinguishing among what is declared and its real effects. But is it so ‘normal’ to recognize that this law also governs media, asks Jedlowsky? Actually interviews provide some form of reflexive learning process. That in which every citizen seems to be aware of the fact that the reconstruction provided by media is non neutral. Albeit this, media remain among the few, if not the only possible, public arena to be practiced.

2: The Action Arena

2.1 Involved Actors: Holders - their Resources and Roles and modes of interaction

The case here presented by way of two storylines, different and parallel, throughout convergences and divergences, could be related to one action arena and at the same time many different subarenas: as we will try to explain in this part of the report, in fact, actors seem to be, on the one hand, part of one unique general action arena, that related to policies for the reduction of particulate matter and in general air pollution; on the other hand, several sub-arenas can be distinguished related to specific policy arenas structured around decision making processes with their own rules and attributes: for example, we could distinguish between the sub-arena provided by the steering committee instituted by the new regional law and a second one related to the introduction of the ECOPASS in the city of Milan. As we have tried to show below, they behave as separate arenas, though they are actually practised by the same actors, which are recognised different roles and attributes by the institutional setting and related governance arrangement.

Anticipating conclusions related to governance modes, we could say that the case could be associated to a hierarchical governance mode, since some actors are clearly in a dominant position, setting the rules for the participation of the others. At the same time the general action arena is rather confused and fragmented, actors interact in multiple ways and their roles are context dependent, as well as their identities, interests and frame for action and reflection. Borders, rules, attributes are quite different from those defined on the official policy arenas promoted by different governance arrangements. This has resulted in the necessity, on the one hand, to analyse the modes of interaction provided officially, and at the same time to test them through interviews and press review in order to discover interaction modes.

At the same time the following description alternate an overview of the actors and that of their modes of interaction: this is due to an approach in which the actor cannot be isolated from its contexts and settings for action. No actor in fact can be identified out of its doings and the spaces in which its practices are produced. In this sense for example we consider more useful to describe the actor and the way in which it is produced through its continuous adjustment (THEVENOT) to other actors in a situation (in “situation d’epreuve”, CEFAI) centred around a problem, inside a context structured by rules and resources that produce and affect modes of interaction

Two dominating actors and a weak one in between

Looking at the general action arena we can clearly identify two main actors which have a privileged position: they are both institutional actors and for different reasons they have the possibility to set out the action arena, structuring roles related to their specific policy arenas.

The first relevant actor is the Regione Lombardia. As we have seen Italian Regions have been assigned by the central state the competence concerning the issue of particulate matter. According to the application of the EU directive after the national legislative Decree n°351/99 and the following Decree n° 60 of the 2 April 2002, together with the autonomous provinces (a few ones in some specific regions) they are the competent authority in the field of monitoring the quality of air and in the production of policies related to it. The national decrees in fact establish the limit values and the alert thresholds, the tolerance margin and the modalities in which these margins have to diminish progressively and the time period for this diminishing; criteria for collecting data concerning quality of air and the technology to be used, with particular attention to the definition and choice of monitoring points; the delimitations and treatment of different areas 64

inside the region in terms of monitoring and policies for the quality of air; finally public information and communication on the quality of air. In addition to that, according to what is defined inside the DPCM 8 March 2002, regions can also limit, within their Regional Plans for the Quality of Air, or prohibit if the case, the use of particular forms of combustibles. According to the Ministry Decree n°261, 1st October 2002, regions have the possibility to launch their specific process of management of the quality of air.

Regions are accompanied in this competence by APAT, the National Agency for the Protection of the Environment and of technical service, the operative reference for monitoring quality of air. It was created by the Ministry of Environment and the protection of territory after the Legislative Decree n° 300, 30 July 1999, and constitutes the national partner of the European network EIONET, dedicated to information and observation of the Environment and managed by the European Agency for the Environment (AEE). It works as an autonomous agency, both on the technical, scientific and financial point of view, under the monitoring of the Ministry of the Environment and the Corte dei Conti. In 2004 it has prepared guidelines and criteria for the preparation of the monitoring network, in conformity with AEE prescriptions and to the Ministry decree n°60/2/4/2002. APAT has local regional sections, ARPA, which are independent from the Regions and directly linked to APAT: they were created by the legislative decree n°300 30.7.1999 and applied in Lombardy with a regional law n°16, 14.8.1999. According to the law The law gives ARPA is the owner of the monitoring network; responsible for its management and the project and realisation of monitoring devices, the production, collection and communication of data concerning the quality of air. As a matter of fact, before the institutions of APAT, ARPA was directly dependent from the region. This causes important consequences: in fact ARPA is seen by many local actors, still as dependent from the region, which results to be at the same time in charge of legislation, research, policy making and monitoring. As a matter of fact, interviews, press reviews and documents focus on this issue: all along the ‘90es a wide polemic has characterised the context. Due to the fact that for a long while ARPA kept on producing monitoring with technical instruments far from that prescribed by new EU directives, despite being aware of the effects on data: data produced were completely different from the reality, describing a good situation rather than the critical one drawn after the introduction of the new techniques, after the pressure of some civil society associations. Since the results of ARPA monitoring constitute the base for regional decision making, the strong relationship among the monitoring actor and the policy actor is still seen as a problematic one9..

Finally with the new LR n°24, 11.12.2006, the Regional Executive Board can approve a three years program of intervention for the quality of air, to be updated every two years. The law institutes also a permanent place of consultation “tavolo permanente di consultazione” with local institutions (the provinces, regional capital cities and municipalities above 40000 inhabitants, associations of stakeholders, civil society and environmental associations and social representatives).

As a matter of fact it is quite clear that the region is a powerful actor in the action arena, since it has to deal with both the production of data, the fixing of the limit, the definition of territories of policies, the introduction of limitation to circulation or use of different fuels, both in the field of mobility, production, heating, agriculture, within its regional Plan for the quality of air; and finally with the identification of other actors’ role. In fact it holds at the same time strong and privileged powers in terms of defining position rules, boundary rules and authority rules as well as aggregation, scope and information rules. By way of authority the law establishes positions for all other actors, defining who has control over the policy field; it also sets the entry, exit and domain conditions for individual participants and specify which set of actions is assigned to

9 Even now that the two authorities should be quite distinguished, the fact that major experts working inside Arpa are almost the same as before, causes relevant doubts on their autonomy and independency. 65

which position at each node of a decision tree. The new law in fact institute a consultative body, but the power strictly relays on the regional council and executive board. All other actors can be consulted, but as a matter of fact none of the actors interviewed, neither the press review show any real interest to this space of consultation, which is felt as one among the other useless forms of consultation locally available: relevant decisions are seen as to be taken inside the regional government, without a real possibility of interaction and dialogue10.

In this perspective the region is a status holder and a knowledge holder: In addiction to that this situation is made particularly critical by the specific leadership model applied by the Regional Governor, as shown in the previous chapter. Both the approval of the law, both main public campaigns, both declaration on media, are essentially managed by him directly, rather than by the related Assessore, which is mostly unknown to the great public. Actually the regional governor is a relevant feature in the national political panorama: he was re-elected for the third mandate and he has been promoter of different initiatives, more or less successful, as the campaign against diesel car and that for the experimentation of hydrogenous cars. In particular the relationships with the municipality of Milan are quite affected by this policy stile, which is, on the other hand, reflected by the municipal one, rather similar to it, to a certain extent.

Also the city of Milan in fact is characterised by the protagonism of its mayor, Letizia Moratti, former national Ministry of Education in the Berlusconi government, and by a hierarchical approach to the action arena. As seen essentially in the case of the region, the municipality of Milan has in fact adopted in isolation the decision to introduce the ECOPASS for the inner part of the city in 2007. This behaviour has been a sort of constant during the last years; the previous mayor had asked and obtained special powers on the issue of air pollution as well as those concerning urban mobility and he has been declared “extraordinary commissioner” in the field: the regulation of the parking in the street and the realisation of an enormous plan for underground parking sites, the organisation of mobility with restricted and pedestrian areas throughout the city of Milan, the organisation of special lanes for public transportation and its improvement and in general the adoption of an articulate set of plans (from the general one, to the operative ones11) had been his main tools for action, accompanied by the possibility of introducing special stops to circulation or alternated circulation in emergency cases. His mandate was indeed characterised by not only an enormous amount of planning documents produced, but also by the creation in 2001 of AMA, founded as a SRL (limited responsibility society) by the municipality of Milan, and in particular under the auspices of the then Assessore Giorgio Goggi in order to have a new cognitive and operating device in the field of transportation, mobility and environment. Since the beginning of the century, indeed, these competences had been managed by the municipality in cooperation with the main public transportation society founded in the 19th century and which had become progressively an autonomous actor in a very limited field, whose investments and policies were more and more related to internal logics than to governing strategies. With the foundation of AMA the municipality aimed at achieving autonomy and more efficiency and legitimacy of policy making. Since its institution AMA has, among its tasks, that of providing

10 For the same reasons the regional law has been the object of a recourse of the national state, recently rejected by the competent authority, the Constitutional Court (Sentence 10/2008): in particular related to the fact that the state has contested the faculty of establishing permanent limitations to traffic on road networks not of direct competence of the region. 11 PUM 2001-2010, City Mobility Plan; PGTU (General Plan For The Circulation In The City, in 2003 and the Reports on The State of The Environment have been the most relevant planning documents provided during his mandate: with the PUM, produced by AMA for the Municipality of Milan and approved in 2001, the city identifies mayor strategies both on public transportation and private mobility and defines policies necessary to promote a sustainable mobility; this plan has been scarcely debated, according to some scholars (Pucci, Pileri) for its technical nature and for the long term vision of the documents, while a much larger evidence has been around the second plan, as well as that concerning the parking system (PUP, Piano urbano dei parcheggi), which have been both source of conflict and confrontation among the municipality and local actors for their direct influence of the functioning of the city and immediate evidence on citizens life. The fourth planning document, actually a report, was the RSA 2003, the report on the state of the environment, edited in the occasion of the Agenda 21, which was on the one side an interesting report on the evolution of the quality of air in the city, but at the same time was characterized by the adoption of a value of the limit lower than the new one, promoted by EU, which at that time had already be launched and recognized at national level with the ministry decree 60/2002. 66

elected politicians expert knowledge. In particular AMA has to provide reports on the quality of air in the city and played a major role in the production of plans in all the Albertini period. It also manages an informatics system for the monitoring of pollution and is in charge of providing the municipality guidelines and indications for the production of policies able to deal with the issue of air quality (see chapter 4).

The new Mayor, Letizia Moratti, indeed, launching the idea of the pollution charge as a solution to the problem, has changed quite radically its framing, as well as its treatment. Opposing to previous preference for emergency measures (as stops adopted in crisis situation), she has launched a project, shared by all the political parties during the electorate campaign, that she succeeded in pushing forward, once elected, though in complete isolation from other actors, supported by the specific Assessore Croci, an important professor in the environmental themes at the Bocconi University (the most famous private university in Italy in the field of management and economy). Notwithstanding some official declarations concerning a new course of public action, more attentive to participation and the possibility to set out new relationships with other institutional actors, the ECOPASS stands as an example of a policy almost characterised by its auto-referentiality and isolation12. Interviews, like the press review, just reproduce a shared perception of the isolation which the major and the Assessore seem to have researched all around the project: on the one side Moratti behaves as a Mayor independent from her political coalition, not interested to come to compromises, just to the point of counterpoising to Silvio Berlusconi, the national leader of the party, responsible for her candidature. At the end of the day, as already stated in the previous chapter, Moratti, as Albertini before, propose a leadership model not so far from the Formigoni one, essentially based on a strong personality and personalisation of government action, as indeed is for their common national reference, Silvio Berlusconi13.

As far as other municipalities are concerned, they are assigned by the municipality of Milan very narrow a space in its own policy arena, as well as the Province of Milan. The province is made of 188 municipalities. Some of them are very densely populated cities and most of them have a very strong relationship with the city of Milan. Just 32 were invited to the first consultation: those immediately next to Milan: the others were excluded, as well as any consultation is not even envisaged with municipalities of the homogeneous area delimited by the Region in its law. It is clear from the very beginning in the ECOPASS storyline that the city of Milan is not interested directly in any real interaction with the all of them. This is a just result of a long story of progressive isolation of the central city inside the metropolitan context it is part of14.

12 In a first moment the decision seems to be launched in total autonomy by the municipality, without any previous interaction with the region, interaction which happens after the announcement and within a face to face meeting among the major and the governor. Interaction with surrounding municipalities is promoted on a very weak basis and immediately rejected when municipalities realise that they are just consulted and not asked to cooperate on a shared project. Environmental associations are scarcely involved as well, though in many cases they are interested in supporting the major in difficult moments; civil society is just sporadically questioned by pools and is promised some form of “eventual” ex-post consultation after the introduction of the ticket; stakeholders are treated individually and negotiation are provided case by case, with many conflict and threats by both sides. 13 On the other the Assessore Croci, like the previous one, Ass. Goggi, is seen by many as a technician, unable or uninterested in opening a dialogue with politics, neither with the society. They have been cyclically represented, in particular by the press, as ‘elephants’ in a crystal shop. And often put under process by their coalitions: it is not strange that both have been among the most “quoted”, in periods of political crisis of the city council, as possible actors to be replaced.

14 In a very first moment surrounding municipalities seem to be interested to get inside the policy arena actively, though the conflict immediately burst in the first consultation, in cooperating with the city of Milan. The space offered in a second time for consultation is that of the conference of mayors inside the province and then the regional steering committee. Then, when the process keeps on restricting on a Milan based territorial reference, the province of Milan municipalities step back from a process in which they felt as powerless actors: as, declared by the president of the conference of mayors, they feel like having no way to interact with a city acting on its own, and at the same time, among themselves, they could not find a common and shared position. This results in a general but useless contraposition to the city of Milan and in a list of polemic declarations: some of them announce they will react promoting a ticket on their own territory in order to avoid the effects generated by the ECOPASS and at the same time using data that show that traffic is generated all over the province territory by movements and practices which cannot be defined on the base of the model of pendolarism still referring to a monocentric urban area. Other municipalities indeed quote and let emerge the different policies they have already promoted in order to treat locally the problem (for example the adoption of particular asphalt able to reduce the 67

Actually most of them have a difficult relationship with regional policies, too. During the period of emergency policies, in the past and also more recently, some of them refused to apply traffic stops promoted by the Region. On the base of the assumption that while traffic is stopped within their borders and on the local infrastructural network, the regional infrastructural network remained in use, in a clear contradiction. And at the same time that the model of mobility of Milan urban region clearly questions the efficacy of a restriction of traffic based on urban boundaries. Also during the interregional stop to circulation many mayors have decided not to implement it: this is possible because though because road traffic stops are decided centrally, but implemented locally by the final decision of mayors Some of them formally accused the Region arguing about the fact that the responsibility towards citizens is apparently laying on them. Actually the judge gave reason to region. Anyway the recent redefinition of the critic areas provided by the regional law should assign them a new role in the definition of the territories of policies. But as far as now, again, the delimitation seems to be more centred upon technical studies, than on a concerted solution. Many mayors were not aware to be in critical zone until the establishment of the measure. But the critical zone definition is having other effects on regional policies, which could be more positively assumed: for example, Region Lombardy can chose to concentrate FESR funds on Competitiveness Objective and projects relating to mobility, only in critical zones. On the other side Municipalities find a weak support in their reference actor, the Province. Though trying to appear into the process under different roles and forms, the role this intermediate institution can play is very limited, as limited are its competencies and spaces for action. The Milan urban area is still lacking a metropolitan government, even if recently the issue of metropolitan coordination has been re-launched by the intermediate institution, that of the Province of Milan. Historically recent, this institution has kept weak competencies on this, as well as others, fields: nowadays it is trying to play a pivoting role in promoting coordination among municipalities on issues untreatable at the local level. At the same time in the last mandate, its new President, Penati, has re-launched the idea of a metropolitan government, though with scarce success and strength (see chapter 3 for more on this issue). Though present on the scene, we could say that the Province looks like a weak, in some cases absent actor. Its behaviour appears velleitarian and residual. On the one side it has tried at a certain point to anticipate the congestion charge initiative, launching a “Metropolitan Agreement for the reduction of the environmental pollution”, though not pursuing it thoroughly; then it has opposed to it, and has played a role of defence of the necessity of dialogue among the city, the region and the surrounding municipalities, offering its conference of municipalities as a space of interaction. At the end it has turned back to a polemic position against the final version of the project. But rather than its different vision of the problem, what is interesting is its scarce capacity of promoting the dialogue among local institutions and cooperation among them, which is essentially the role the Province is assigned in the institutional structure. On the one side this can be read as a result of the behaviour of the municipality of Milan, whose weight is incomparable with other actors and which is at the end of the day scarcely interested in collaboration with other municipalities and mostly with a province which is governed by the centre-left coalition. Actually the position of the Province is made even weaker, if possible, by the political divergence from the political axis region-city of Milan15.. At the end of the day the Province has a delimited role: though having competences on environment and infrastructure, and thus also the possibility to

production of PM). But most of these policies are very local and scarcely known: the lack of a networking experience among the municipalities is denounced as a fact. 15 At the same time it is true also that at a certain point the Province has stopped to involving itself in the process, as if interested in other problems, as for instance the contemporary construction of the new Democratic Party, which is for the President and for many Assessore a possible future: it must be remembered in fact that most of them were more or less “younger” mayors before this provincial experience and that many seem interested in a further step into national politics: the province, though a relevant one as Milan, is a diving board rather than their arriving point in their political career 68

promote research and policies in this field, it could not manage during 2007 either to obtain the unified ticket on a metropolitan basis for public transportation16.

Civil society under different forms

An active civil society emerges within the scene occupied, also in the press, by institutions and political debate. There are in fact several environmental associations and civil society activated on the subject. On the one side there are what Bang defines the “expert citizens”, those since a long time engaged in participation processes and which have developed specific competences and roles, and of course an organisation: their ideologisation seems less relevant than in the past, and in general they have become not only expert on the issue, but also have officially entered the production of policies. For example Legambiente is promoting, in relationship with both the province and the municipality of Milan, car-sharing initiatives. In several cases these associations seem to be a link between opposite and non collaborating institutions. Some others keep fighting for specific interests, and at the same time proposing principles, as FIAB and Ciclobby, promoting the use of bicycles in all the possible urban spaces and trying to enhance policies supporting cycling all over the city, for example negotiating through specific agreements with public transportation agencies. Both these kinds of institutions have a stable organisation; they promote projects, have communication tools and are active in the press and in the formation of public opinion. Some of them are also producing their own report on the situation and offering new contributions to the public discussions, as we will see in the fourth chapter, often contesting official data or trying to explain them better to citizens (as for example with CHIAMAMILAN0, which for a long time has conducted a real fight against the monitoring produced by ARPA on the base of the old techniques, in order to explain that values were largely over the limits, though measures did not show it, see chapter 4). As a matter of fact they are recognised actors, and as such they have been inserted in the list of the regional consultative table; this is the result of the development of their ability also to deal with steering knowledge (as we will see in chapter 4). At the same time they have essentially a “city” horizon and their role, though active, seems to be rather less clear than in the past, or better less alternative to institutions than in the past. A sort of temporary “peace” seems to have been established among them and institutions, in particular with the municipality of Milan: though not convinced of the real efficacy of the ECOPASS, some appear to be supportive and declare both in our interviews, than in public occasions, that it can be at least a step forward a new environmental culture as well as a way to reduce, even if partially, the severity of the situation. Rather than nothing, also a partial tool can be better: though some of them repeat that other tools could be more effective and less expensive.

Next to these, there are other forms of association: the former MAMMEANTISMOG association, now recently turned in GENITORI ANTISMOG could be more easily described as “everydaymakers”, again with Bang. This association is born from the activation of a small group of mothers, which have decided on the one side to start from their everyday experience (the difficulties of their children to breath), standing far from both institutionalisation and politicisation, on the other to play a role of provocation and stimulus to public institutions and their way to treat and define the problem. The focus of their action is at the same time the achievement of more transparency on both decision making and the production of knowledge, the sensibilisation of the wider public and finally the promotion of a new more legitimate and efficacious set of policies. As other associations, they still highlight the difficult knot in the process due to the relationship ARPA-REGIONE (and keep on officially contesting it on a juridical base), but at the end of the day, they seem to be more interested to produce some results

16 At the same time, with its “STRATEGIC PROJECT” it has tried in 2006-2007 to redefine the local public agenda inside an “urban region perspective” and around the challenge of “liveability” and re-launching forms of support of inter-municipal cooperation, but with limited forces to promote a new governance culture. And neither the city of Milan, nor the region seem to be interested in the. maturation of this role, although some essays are being produced on very specific subjects (housing for example) in order to reduce fragmentation. 69

than in fostering polemics: “what can be done”, despite a deviated interpretation of the problem, is however central in their mind. Their forms of organisation are rather loose, as admits the president of the GENITORI ANTISMOG association, supported essentially by way of a website and some weekly meetings in a school in a city central area; and their capacity of activating a large and stable set of people quite limited. Despite this they can reach through their personal contacts both the political parties, which they aim at stimulating rather than having their partisan support, and they have been able in the last years to be on the press, probably on the base of their personal contacts. Their participation in the process is anyway almost continuous. In fact from a non expert condition they had to develop some forms of expertise, or rather to use their own specific expertise: for example the president is still a ‘mum’, but she is a lawyer and she uses her competences to promote official recourses against the institutions like the region or the city. At the same time, in 2006, they have been involved in a new monitoring project, funded by EU, with some specific interaction problems, but essentially aimed at reframing the way in which PM is measured, thus acting on the definition of the problem, in order to develop new policy approaches. In this sense the Region has informally recognised them, cooperating with them, but at the same time this acknowledgement is situated and limited: in fact they have not been included in the regional steering board, since “they are not considered enough representative”. This despite the fact that, also recently, they have been promoting a collection of signatures to promote alternate circulation which has been adopted by several other associations. Finally, as we will show after, they had to develop or use a specific knowledge in the juridical field: in fact, as other voluntary associations, they have chosen to explore the possibility of juridical action against the institutions, concerning the issue of transparency and legitimacy. This recourse to judicial laws, a sort of” juridification” of the process, can be read as the result of the scarce spaces of dialogue among citizens and institutions: lacking public forms of consultation and discussion, the only way to dialogue at the end of the day, seems to be that of the courts, on a local, national or European level. And actually also the Ombudsman, a role instituted quite recently as a form of defence of citizens interests against the institutions, has stated the necessity of major transparency in public action and decision making.

Both kinds of associations however, in their interviews, reproduce a sense of fatigue in keeping continuously the public scene and sometimes substituting to institutions, both in defending the public interest and producing a new governance culture. This is particularly true if we consider that public opinion and citizens at large are quite sensible to the problem, but relatively active in the process. They are consulted by pools by institutions or associations, and they give different and contrasting answers. They complain about the situation but at the same time they would not leave their cars: they are for the necessity of finding solutions, but they do not seem to be convinced of the efficacy of those proposed. An analysis lead on the official local civic network website (RCM, RETE CIVICA MILANESE) shows the contradictory visions of the problems, which reproduce on the one side the confusion of the institutions, at the same time feed their confusion (showing that it is a very vote sensitive issue linked on the one side to environmental sensibility and at the same time to the problem of the introduction of a new tax). The forum animated and continuously updated by the forum facilitator reproduces some of the main discourses we have illustrated by now. As a matter of fact, despite the forum, civil society at large is rather worried about the situation, relatively informed, but not really present on the public scene. We could thus conclude that civil society is a relative absent actor, though very concerned, which uses most of the time second level information (the press produced basic information, which the wide public cannot access in most cases to official documents) and at the end of the day it is not involved in any kind of project nor of public consultation:. While communication campaign are very narrow minded and weak: no sense of a shared vision and a common challenge, despite a diffuse use of rhetoric on the necessity to engage personally for the public good in some discourses of the Major and the Assessore.

Actually indeed institution themselves produce simplification of the concept of citizenship and public involvement. As a matter of fact citizens are cut into different categories: on the one side we find that the ECOPASS distinguishes among spatial holders and right holders: if generally speaking the right is redefined completely, on the base of the principle that who can pay (the ticket or a new car) has the right to circulate into the city, more specifically among right holders, spatial holders are assigned a specific attention. In fact the notion of citizenship is very narrowly interpreted: the Ecopass is proposed, in its first version, as essentially related to citizens outside Milan using the city, since residents will be recognised special fares. It is like if the problem of traffic would be generated by a misuse and ungoverned use of the city by second level citizens: those commuters which have already restricted right to the city in the lack of a metropolitan government and indeed that feel immediately segregated from the citizens of Milan. This interpretation is quite anachronistic for a city like Milan, whose regional dimension is clearly depicted by both citizens and experts

Actually both on a regional level and more evidently on a local one, local society is assigned spaces of negotiation through the association of interests, which are quite active and also much taken in count by local institutions. Most of them seem to be simply engaged in defending their interests through consolidated specific spaces of negotiation: many of the actors interviewed declare in fact to have good relationships with institutions and to be updated on the issue and very active in defending their view of the problem. As shown by the fact that both in the period of emergency stops, retailers have obtained exceptions and posticipation on the base of their lamentation. In general, though sometimes declaring a new interest for sustainability and promoting initiatives as car-pooling or car-sharing with some institutions, stakeholders actually defend their own interests mostly, and use specific rhetoric concerning the necessity of competitiveness and attractiveness, or rather lament a situation of crisis, in order to replace the interest for environment with economically based evaluations. In this sense for many of them the state of the situation sounds like a necessity to be accepted, impossible to solve. All the association of interests are also recognised a role in the regional table and most of them had been consulted both during the approval of the new regional law and the ECOPASS introduction. Actually most of them have special face to face spaces of negotiations with institutions: and indeed when these spaces seem to be fading away or somehow attacked they do not hesitate to recur to media for making official public declarations. Media indeed offer them a wide space, often amplifying the conflict and simplifying it, rather than minimizing it. As a result public opinion cannot avoid thinking that there are privileged actors and excluded or more relevant ones. All the long political conflict inside the council executive board has been deeply affected by the fear to affect specific interests. And when, at the end of the time, the policy was implemented some actors seemed astonished by their limited space of bargaining in the process. The recent (nonbinding) approval in the city council of a new organisation of logistic traffic in the city could be read as a sign of interruption of this negotiated model which characterises the city.

Finally there are some more actors which cross the scene: first of all institutions and public societies in charge for public transportation: on the one side ATM, the municipality of Milan public transportation agency, on the other FS and FNM. Both have played a certain role in the discussion of the ECOPASS and indeed also a hidden one in the regional context, as well as the societies which hold the concession for highways. ATM for example has been asked by the municipality of Milan to integrate the network and improve its efficiency (a wide polemics raised on data concerning the efficiency of ATM). The same reasoning was done with FNM and FS, which mostly at the beginning of the discussion officially declared their opposition: for the three of them the problem seems to relay on the fact that improving the use of existing public transportations sounds like impossible. In particular FNM and FS declared that the network is already under congestion and that no further weight could be charged on it. Then after consultation with the Regional Governor this opposition faded, but it is clear on the one side that these public bodies have lost part of their “public” connotation, having become more interested in 71

their budget than in the production of public goods (the same could be said commenting the fact that the proposal of a unified ticket for the province was not discussed and that, just in correspondence with the introduction of the ECOPASS, the province was obliged by ATM to raise the ticket for some of the provincial paths). At the same time most of these actors seem to reproduce a traditional approach to public transportation: for example refusing any form of research on the improvement of the network or any kind of redefinition of competences17.

A further kind of actor, still hidden, to a certain extent, is the automobile sector. On the one side the public discussion was characterised by spot interventions of the Association of Italian car- drivers, which actually gave a negative judgement on the ECOPASS. On the other no official intervention was registered in the discussion from the automobile producers: despite the centrality assigned them by both regional Governor and Milan Major in reducing pollution18. The lack of any intervention on this subject by interested actors is balanced by the production of several research reports in which they try to show that PM is essentially produced not by cars, but by residential heating. Others (the Association of foreign cars importers) produced studies to demonstrate how the incidence of euro 3 and euro 4 car in the production of particles is minimal. To validate the results of the study, they involved Professor Veronesi, the most famous Italian oncologist19. A third kind of actors are political parties, which, as we have seen, have played a relevant role both in the approval of ECOPASS and the regional law. The mediation among parties, the conflicts emerged, show the permanent weight they had on local decisions: this weight is essentially far from that they had in the past. And it is quite clear too that only a mutual adjustment could lead to the approval of solutions to the critical environmental situation. But indeed, as we will see in the concluding parts of this chapter, the permanence of old rhetoric and ideologies (according to which environment is a left issue) and the actual conformation of the Italian electoral law and system of political representation seem to be stopping, or at least delaying, every clear form of common engagement for public good. This causes a deep confusion among citizens, since parties, moving in different unexpected directions on the issue, sometimes contradictory, produce further confusion for public opinion, rather than simplifications in the construction of the problem. National facts, in addition to that, indeed affect deeply our case, though within silly and partisan reasons, contributing in producing a fragmented and often still ideological vision of the problem.

2.2 Absent Actors

Apparently we could conclude that there are not absent actors, though, there is a diffuse perception that though different actors are represented in the action arena, most of the times their presence is irrelevant in the single policy arena.

17 On a legal basis as well, there has been a strong discussion concerning the possibility to give local municipalities the possibility to cooperate among them and produce plans for public transportation more able to cope with their local preferences and settling structure. Though the Province has launched this possibility, it was rejected by the court, thus limiting profoundly the capacity of municipalities to deal with a system of public transportation less Milan-centred and able to deal with an urban region pattern. Actually no metropolitan form of coordination or management of public transportation exists: the only real innovation was the construction of the railway link under the city of Milan which is the core of a regional integrated railway system, which is indeed under realisation. 18 The incentive policy promoted by the region and the support to new technologies, as hydrogen cars, are part of an attitude devoted to market solutions; also the communication campaign on ECOPASS states: “freedom of circulation for non polluting cars... “. 19 In Italy there is an historical story of lobbying of car factories, highways holders and logistic enterprises. An automobile sector seems to play a role in national level. Even Region, both from the technical and political parts, laments the lack of approval of particulate filters19 by the Environment Ministry, arguing that the delays are due to pressure from the car manufacturers. Remaining in the market field, other stakeholders are manufacturers of stoves and fireplaces for heating wood. Faced with the introduction of restrictive measures, it started a confrontation between category representatives and regional technicians that led to the publication, in the notes to implementing measures, of some guidelines for the energy efficiency and emissive criteria identification for stoves and chimneys. These indications, as also producers say, may have the effect of guiding the market, with positive effects for production. 72

Actually there are two further actors that could be to a certain extent considered far from the scene: the first is EU. Actually its position has been changing throughout the process. At the beginning, especially in 2006, EU is felt as distant actor: the limits proposed by EU are seen as impossible to be respected and EU is considered as acting on the base of theorical principles which cannot be respected in reality. Some actors denounce the fact that this produces frustration among local institutions, since they do not know how to cope with the situation, without incurring in the system of sanctions. EU is asked to act more systematically, as a “producer” of policies, rather than as a controller. According to other actors as well, EU is distant for other reasons, since it does not assume a role in compelling really institutions to respect the limits: lobbying is denounced in this sense among regional actors and EU in order to avoid sanctions. At the same time the promotion by EU of the EUROLIFENET project could be judged as an innovation: since the project was meant to provide suggestions to citizens on how to avoid risky behaviours, rather than acting always on the part of the production of policies. Thus making EU more present.

At the end of the process, actually EU regains the scene. In particular both the regional Governor and the major quoted EU in turning points of the process of approval of the regional law and the introduction of ECOPASS. In both cases this has sounded rather instrumental. It is true however that both policies have been programmed and realized in a tight time correspondence to the threaten sanctions. The EU's role as policies controller (and even brake) can also be seen against the possibility of intervening through state aid. Some measures in the field of energy savings, which concerned the inability to sell on the regional territory appliances with an energy level below the class A, and which had been agreed with the major producers and distributors of household appliances, have been blocked since declared contrary to Community disciplines in state economic aid field.

A final absent actor is the central state: though present indeed on the background, no symbolic investment has been done on the Lombardy stage. For example the central state has financed consistently, within the Tavolo Milano, the ECOPASS system, with funds given to the implementation for public transportation. But no Ministry has been present in the days of the launch of the initiative, neither has significantly sponsored it through public communication. The absence of government representatives may depend on the different political affiliation between the government then in office and Milan municipality administration. Government is seen as an absent actor to the “market side” because Environment Ministry has not yet homologated the particulate filters (see note on previous page), and covertly accused of being under check by automobile companies

2.3 Observed Modes of Interaction

We could therefore conclude on the base of above described conditions that most actors in the interviews denounce the absence of real dialogue and cooperation among actors: notwithstanding the multiplication of official or non official spaces for negotiation or confrontation, they seem to be only partially useful to cope with the treatment of the problem and the conflicts rising around it. The multiplication in itself seem to be producing a perception of uselessness: relevant decisions in fact seem to be taken outside official consulting spaces. This is particularly relevant for the regional steering committee: on the one side all actors seem to be involved into it, but nobody, especially in interviews, considers it as fundamental in the process. Its existence seem to be more “appearance” than consisting: none of the actors refer to it as strategic and often it is perceived as nothing new from the past.

At the same time the lack of a consulting or negotiating space is often used as an excuse to keep on not cooperating or asking for a new one. Many actors attribute to the absence of a metropolitan government the stall situation: even though positions are not homogeneous. Some actors ask for an institutionalised solution: the secretary of the unions, the president of Legambiente and that of AmbienteItalia, or the president of the province. Some others, more pragmatically, ask for forms of functional coordination on key issues for the Milan urban region, as seen in other EU countries (in Helsinki for example). Others argue that coordination tables work at the best even when they play only a consultative role, under the condition of a strong leadership, able to undertake even unpopular decisions.

2.4 Discourses

There are some major recurring discourses which appear in the action arena, in the declarations and interviews of different actors: we will present them quickly below synthesized in dialectic couples in order to show the problematic co-presence of conflicting points of view:

Emergence and criticity / progressively improving situation if compared to the past. On the one side many actors represent a very critical situation, most of all civil society associations and the press.. On the other institutions, in particular Region Lombardy, through both the Governor, the Regional Assessors and ARPA, has declared in the recent past that the situation is not worst than other ones, “clearly” improved in the last years. The excessive dramatization of the problem by the press and associations is a recurrent rhetoric in both the city government and the regional government, as well as in the associations of interests. This position has been rather contested in the past by civil society associations: more recently also the city of Milan recent position, supporting the ECOPASS, seems to be contrasting with its traditional position. What once could be identified as a well defined contraposition now sounds less clear: also some environmental associations declare that, though Ecopass is necessary, the PM is not the biggest problem. The production of greenhouse effects in this sense sounds more critical (Legambiente states, like the Region and the municipality, that in this sense new technologies are going towards a progressive reduction of the problem, pointing on the change in the car park as a way that will influence deeply the quality of air). This is producing a paradoxical situation in which partisan views are mixing up, in a grey area in which ideological positions fade and ‘reality’ is less and less easy to be understood or at least reduced to common frames of interpretations by public opinion.

The press as central/ the press as partisan: media are accused to play a strong role in producing a continuous alert situation on the one side, on the other communicating in a partisan 74

way policies promoted by institutions. At the end of the day this produces confusion both on the interpretation of the problem, both on the judgement of policies. Many actors ask for more objective information, while many of them relay on the press as a channel for voice and information since public communication is confused, contradictory and partial. So press and media are at the same time privileged channels of information and at the same time too partisan to be reliable. The only place to ‘have a voice’, and the one which is producing conflicts and making the dialogue less and less simple.

An ineluctable situation/many simple solutions/ at least moving… Many of the interviewed actors reproduce a discourse, which is well present too in official documents and in the press. The Milan situation is seen as a special one: no kind of intervention could be the final solution, since the geo-morphological situation seems to be condemning Milan to remain a polluted city. That is why, or the way to, many planning documents try to argue the impossibility to reach limits proposed by EU. According to other actors this is a partisan rhetoric: actors use it in order to stop each possible initiative. Instead both civil society associations, environmental associations and small municipalities in different ways want to show that just by introducing small and local actions something can be done, the situation can be changed. Against the cronicisation of the problem produced by the first kind of rhetoric, arise the critics to “politics”, which is accused to be uninterested and unable to imagine the future. In this sense politics, and its immobility, becomes a part of the problem: the situation is ineluctable not because of the geo-morphological situation, but because of the crisis of politics in Italy. As one MammaAntismog quotes, a Swiss epidemiologue in a recent conference has stated that the pollution levels are indicators of the health of the political system. The result of these different views can be also seen in other terms: polemics are put aside in the case of the ECOPASS. In a climat of growing concern, civil society seem to be ready to accept a compromise: maybe the ECOPASS is not the best solution, but it is always better than immobility and non decision, thus it is better supporting it rather than contesting.

A global problem/ a local problem: the contraposition is quite evident among those who declare that the problem can find a local solution and those who are convinced of the contrary. The interaction among scales, wider and local, is a rhetoric used by many actors to defend their position and framing of the problem. As for example according to some ARPA report part of the Milan pollution problem is related to the Sahara desert dust depositing in certain moments on the Pianura Padana, thing which would make irrelevant any local policies. At the same time ECOPASS has been implemented on a very restricted area as if able to solve the problems of the city-region and no real monitoring has been promoted on what it is happening outside the area “cerchia dei Bastioni”. The problem of the scale and territory of policies is central: institutions seem to be particularly affected by these imbrications of scales linked with air pollution, which makes quite irrelevant sovereignty and territoriality of institutions themselves. This results in a difficult, or impossible, delimitation of the territory of policies and in a stall. At the same time institutions are promoting wide agreements on the “pianura padana” context. Confusion is evident, concerning the fact that the problem has no simple boundaries.

Quality of life/attractiveness: the context seems to be suspended between the rhetoric of competiveness and attractiveness and that related to the necessity of dealing with quality of life. On the one side there is a permanent stress on the necessity “to sacrifice the rest” because of competition: for this kind of actors, the city has to pay a “cost”, and pollution is one of the fees which cannot be rejected. Association of retailers, but sometimes also ASSOLombarda seem to reproduce partially this perspective. On the other side, several reports in the last years, here comprised OECD one and those promoted inside the “strategic project” launched by the Province have highlighted the necessity for a city like Milan and its urban region of competing also in terms of quality of life. In a knowledge based society actually competitiveness cannot renounce to quality of life. As a matter of fact in the last years many world city ranking have shown the low 75

performances of this context in this field: thus notwithstanding, a real crisis is not visible, and that’s the reason for which many actors keep behaving in a traditional way. Politics too, seem to be a victim of this rhetoric, running too often after big projects and infrastructures, rather than promoting a new liveability for the whole area.

The impossibility to verify scientific argumentations/ the evidence of data. The use of scientific argumentation is rather evident and recurring. As we will see in chapter 4 there is a strong competition among those who use data to show that there is evidence about the situation and evidence in the useful solutions, and those who keep contesting the same data, stating that they are not certain and they cannot be verified scientifically. Every part, in our interviews and also on the press, uses its own data to contest others’ data: as we will say in chapter 4 there is a wide production and diffusion of data, percentages, statistics, comparison with other experiences in order to probe its own point of view and debate against the others’ one. Thus, though everybody uses the same data and references, and consider the situation quite clear (with a strong relay on expert knowledge and its importance in the construction of the debate), at the end of the day there are different and not comparable definitions of the problem and of solutions. In this sense, as we will show in chapter 4, the construction of knowledge is central and the situation is characterized by the overloading production of research projects.

Conflicting interests, distrust in institutions: a weak politics/ a weak public opinion: facing these different conflicting frames, institutions, and politics, seem to be too much consensus sensitive and at the same time unable to produce sense and promote convergence on the problem. Politics seem distrusting the intelligence of democracy and the same time there is a growing distrust in politics among public opinion and in citizenship. This is a sort of self-breading circle: politicians do not dare to promote conflicting policies; at the same time public opinion seems unable to support them.

Environment is not right-wing or left-wing: many of the actors interviewed highlight the necessity to overcome a traditional partisan vision on the concern for environment, and at the same time that public opinion and media are still reproducing this simplification and prejudice. Politicians sometime show this statement, sometimes reproduce it themselves.

Comprehensive, strategic view rather than minimal or extemporaneous actions/ the issue of efficacy. On the one side many actors declare the necessity to avoid for the future emergency based policies and local and limited policies. At the same time, they often continue reproducing them or asking for them: the ECOPASS is a clear paradox in itself if considered in comparison with the regional frame…. The problem of particulate matter is simplified in an issue of traffic congestion to be treated in the city centre, while the whole issue of production of environment seem to be obliterated.

3. Identifying case specific governance arrangements

3.1 Rules in use/institutional context

The Italian system is based upon a three tiers system of local government: Regions, Provinces and Municipalities. In addition it also provides the possibility of association among municipalities and it defines the existence of forms of metropolitan government in a number of special urban contexts. In this specific case, we have a Region with about 9 million people (Lombardia), the Province of Milan with about 4 million people in 189 municipalities. Among these the municipality of Milan with about 1.2 million inhabitants. Though the constitution provides the possibility to institute a metropolitan government, Milan is still missing it though metropolitan governance is still on the agenda of local and national debate. On the one side recently the Province in particular has been re-launching this issue, at the same time working hardly to cope with the problems of government linked of a metropolitan region. On the other several experiences of voluntary activation among municipalities have put the attention on the necessity to cooperate in order to face the problems of contemporary local societies inside a city-region where municipal boundaries have no more relevance and fragmentation of powers is generating unsolvable problems.

In this contest, suspended between the necessity of forms (less or more structured) of metropolitan government, also in relation to our specific field of policies, some actors ask for forms of institutionalization of a metropolitan government or special agencies able to deal with problems linked with a metropolitan dimension. Some others ask for less formalized structures. This in order to avoid fragmentation of decision making, but also a hierarchical approach. So if on the one side actors consider a necessity to overcome the veto that each single municipality can play towards a policy or a decision and lament the weakness of interinstitutional cooperation experiences, on the other they look for a governance arena in which different metropolitan actors can have voice and decide, but lament that the existing spaces are more formal that consistent.

There is a diffuse perception that the available interaction spaces are useless and rather irrelevant because of the way powerful actors decide other actors’ roles and spaces for action. In general actors denounce the fact that they have to take part in closed, fixed, and irrelevant policy arenas: most of the time is spent in discussion, but actually most of decisions are made in isolation.. The multiplication of tables, commissions, committees seem to reproduce a rhetoric rather than real cooperation. The multiplication of interaction spaces is also provoking a certain ‘fatigue’: actors meet several times a month, on the same or on different themes, with the same or different actors: most of these meetings do not produce real effects on decision-making. This causes distrust in inter-institutional (horizontal or vertical) cooperation, and in general distrust in institutions themselves among civil society actors, which have limited time and resources and cannot participate to all the organised meetings.

Also looking inside institutions, the same objections could be applied: both in the case of the regional law, and the introduction of ECOPASS, we have seen some tension, between the Council (regional in one case, city council in the other) and the Executive Board. This last one plays a major role, with the support of the Mayor /president but the Council have played a relevant role too, in both cases. The role of the Regional Council is more evident, because it has internally developed and launched the regional law, thus succeeding in supporting the cross- cutting nature of the agreement between the various political parties. Also in the case of the City Council the cross-cutting nature of councillors has had a key role: the first proposal was promoted 77

by an opposition councillors and the measure was re-voted successfully thanks to the votes of some of the centre-left councillors, while in the majority there has been an open controversy about the measure. Thus notwithstanding their nature of "discussion place" is severely limited by strong decision-making role of the executive Board; this seems to be a constant in Italian institutional situation, after the recent reforms.

3.2 Governance Modes/ Governance Arrangements

Next to the official institutional framework, the case is characterised by the presence of some other decision-making arenas/spaces of debate/decision making in which particulate matter is treated, in a more or less effective ways: in different ways they offer some experimental forms of metropolitan governance. The new regional “inter- institutional table” and the “steering committee” The “Inter-institutional table” and the “steering committee” have been instituted by the regional law: they are brand new and it’s not possible to give full account about their results. They have advisory power, not a deliberative one. It is up to the Regional Executive Board to establish, within sixty days after the law is approved, an inter-institutional arena made of provinces, largest municipalities, towns with more than 40000 inhabitants, associations representing local authorities, representatives, of the economical world, social world and any other public and private agencies, in order both to prepare the programming tools, to implement them and to manage the emergency measures. This “Tavolo” also includes a steering committee dedicated to Provinces and largest municipalities, and another dedicated specifically to the Milan area. Actually the distinction between the inter-institutional Table and the steering committee is not so clear: the official convocation is generally referred in terms of "steering committee."

This consulting body has regularly met also during the period of suspension of the regional law, due to the state recourse; actually more than 50 stakeholders have taken part in it. Most of them defined it irrelevant, also because in the first sessions it was used to discuss the guidelines, the principles of the law, on which there is a substantial agreement. At the same time it was asked to discuss on the implementation of some emergency measures, such as exceptional traffic stops: in these occasions a public debate has been raised for the first time on measures which have always been hierarchically imposed and in some cases this space has opened a collective debate concerning measures decided in autonomy by single actors (for example the ECOPASS). Potentially, but it's too early to turn a hypothesis in a statement, the steering committee becomes the "outlet" to move delicate and difficult issues from the final decision maker to a collective debate. The very substance of the decision making process doesn’t change, but is given "public weight" to a new entity, in which each participant is able to show his own opinion in a public debate.

The Milano table Milano table is a Prodi government initiative to respond to a pressing need expressed for years by the northern Italy territory: the central government was accused to forget the most dense and productive area of the country. At the same time, the city of Milan asks to have greater weight in national policies while maintaining a strong decision-making power on its territory. The solution proposed and implemented defines an inter-institutional table composed by representatives of government, region, province and municipality of Milan, with the aim to coordinate interventions, even from an economic standpoint. The table covers different topics, and for some specific issues there are "sub-tables" with government representatives and local Assessors, supported by their own technical staff. Environment, and air quality in particular, are one of these issues. The table is responsible for preparing proposals and intervention strategies, for getting the

signature of documents from all the participants20 and the spending commitments useful to the achievement of its goals. As a matter of fact the Milan Table could be also the occasion for the province, politically closer to the former government (and far from Municipality and Region) to emerge and have a voice. The environmental sub-table represents finally as a unitary strategy both the regional law and Ecopass, seen as measures that, side by side, can make a contribution to the overall reduction in pollutants. Both are reported as "intangible measures", while during the debate the government was asked to finance infrastructures able to solve road congestion. Increased investments were asked too, for the upgrading of public transport, with partial results in terms of effective support.

The Provincial conference of municipalities The Province is still quite a weak level of government. Staying between strong regions and strong municipalities, particularly in a situation like that of Milan with a big city at its core, it must conquer its political space, since this does not just come out directly as the sum of its formal powers which are fragmented and articulated in many fields of competences. A general choice of the current government has been to present their administrative programme as characterised for being the “Province of municipalities”. The slogan wants to underline the intention of looking for the source of power not in the limited areas in which the province can impose its decisions to other actors, but on the contrary in being an institution which is at the service of municipalities to help them in dealing with the many problems that exceed their individual capacity. In order to follow this policy line, the Province is promoting an innovative role of the “conference of comuni”, a conference of the municipalities of the Province, which has an advisory role, by law, on the process of approval of the territorial plan. The aim is that of potentiating this role also in other fields: for this reasons, during the ECOPASS process, the Province has candidated this space as a place of discussion. The current discussion is about the possibility of the Province to transform this conference into a metropolitan conference with a more relevant role (like in Bologna).

Interregional table Promoted by Lombardy Region, It involves also Piemonte, Emilia Romagna, Valle d’Aosta, the autonomous province of Trento and Bolzano, and also Ticino Swiss canton. In February 2007 an agreement for the prevention and reduction of air pollution has been signed between these subjects; at the same time, they have decided to proclaim an immediate (and symbolic) traffic stop on the entire affected area for a holiday day. The main directions of work include: adopting restrictions on road traffic for polluting vehicles, promoting anti-particulate filters, strengthening public transport services, banning fuel oil for house heating, providing information campaigns on the benefits and problems associated with burning wood and biomass. It was also formed a permanent Interregional Technical Table, which will also produce models and scenarios (for policies evaluation). Specific responsibilities have been given to some regions: Lombardy will be the coordinator for mobility proposals, Piemonte will coordinate the emissions inventory (INEMAR built and used in Lombardy, is extended to all regions of the table), Emilia is the coordinator for pollutants diffusion modelling. The works of the table, according to technicians who participate, are slowed by the difficulties of coordination between the various entities.

20 Perhaps the more interesting (and difficult to achieve) proactive element is the signature of a Framework Agreement for Territorial Development (AQST: Accordo Quadro di Sviluppo Territoriale), a tool provided by regional legislation, under which Region, County and Municipalities can accept to work steadily to define policies framework, to monitor progress, involving representatives actors concerned to main projects, and to coordinate infrastructure policies with the strategies of the main players in the public transport. AQST is an interesting tool mainly for two reasons: when signed, it defines resources that each partner will have to vouch for the implementation of the programme and, generally, it is a prerequisite for establishing of a stable management structure to implement policies. Given the difficult context of local coordination, the imbalance between roles of different partners and the lack of participation that we noticed, this solution might be interesting. By now this solution has not been achieved and it is not even clear whether the next Italian government will continue to keep the table open or prefer other means of intervention on Milan area in general.

Despite the availability of these other arenas, actors keep denouncing not only that these forms of interaction are false, but in general that they also set too narrow a definition of the problem, not allowing its redefinition, or a different thematisation and treatment. According to several actors there is a major culpability of politics in this: on the one side there are vested interests which are defended, in not allowing the discussion of a problem (for a long time for example no discussion has been ever proposed on the logistic system); on the other politics seem unable to imagine or propose a “future different from the present”. This in other words could be described as the incapacity of politics (and institutions) to promote forms of reflexive knowledge, and to foster new policies as a result of a reframing process promoted by the interaction of different points of view. In general politics itself is accused to be too much vote-sensitive; thus relaying on consolidated interests, and routines, rather than on innovation. In a period in which political majorities are often residual and weak, raising conflicting issues like a congestion charge can be unsustainable for political forces. Thus they cannot enter the political agenda: this seems particularly true for the environmental issue, which is the focus of many important and advanced laws, but at the end of the day no real engagement is provided. This creates mistrust in institutional settings of interaction and in institutions in general, with the result that actors progressively exit the arena. Their exit is not a form of voice. It is silent and useless move, and at the same time it empties the possible meanings these spaces of consultation can provide. As a matter of fact the lack or uselessness of the existing spaces for consultation is due to the fact they often have just a surface role: new more legitimating and efficacious spaces are being asked.

3.3 Changes

The creation of various spaces for confrontation is the most significant element to be stressed in the last few years. Though these tables are mostly institutional, with a few exceptions: this generates general distrust in the possibility that they could become places where decisions are actually built more democratically. On the one side they present some weak movement towards metropolitan governance, on the other they appear still very immature. At the same time the opening of these places to social representations seem to be an innovation, though limited to an argumentative role which sounds restricted and not aimed at a real discussion among different points of view..

Complementary the context is more and more characterised by a specific leadership style/government style, which seem to be causing mayor problems: both Governor and the Mayor of Milan act in isolation, presenting their actions as the outcomes of their personal involvement. More than in the past, this leads them to look for consensus in terms of personal ‘involvement’ and success, also due to the general national reform of the role of majors, on the one side, and of the role of the Region on the other. This policy style reproduces also a general trend in Italian politics, which is rather questioned and discusses: the crisis of the parties and the personalisation of the political contraposition are clearly represented in the Milan situation. As far as now this leadership style doesn’t seem to be linking with the adoption of a more participatory approach; there are a very few traces of interest in this approach, while essentially consensus seem to be researched in a very traditional and blind way. These government styles are also stressing traditional negotiation spaces: mostly economical actors and representation were used to have protected spaces for negotiating: these are being apparently reduced under the look for consensus of the Mayor and the Governor with rising conflictuality.

If compared to the past, not only politics is questioned, but also the link between politics and experts: on the one side there is a strong interaction among politicians, technicians and public officials. On the one side there are many technicians “borrowed” to the political arena: their knowledge is researched as a way to defend and argument political choice on the base of 80

their specific expert positions, but then they are often criticised since they often seem unable to “behave like politicians”. On the other side the trust in expert knowledge, science and public officials is the result of a long tradition of public administration in Milan and the wider area. But recent scandals and also simple bad functioning have deeply mined it. Producing a progressive divergence among politics and implementation, technical reasoning and politics. Nevertheless there are still strong interactions among production of knowledge, production of policies and assessments, as we have seen, but they are much contested: and this has major results on both legitimacy and efficacy of policies.

This is producing progressively lack of trust in institutions and a specific response among civil society: on the one side citizens try to have a voice and organise in order to context institutions when they do not show to be able to cope with problems. In any case, the Milan situation is showing a particular movement from contestation to practical involvement. Though maintaining a critical approach, civil society associations seem to be more interested in collaborating with institutions in order to have the possibility of influencing somehow policies. Most of them are directly engaged or promoting and asking institutional support for new projects: this is quite interesting since it provides on the one side the basis for a different government style and at the same time, with a reduction of ideological position, seem to be reducing the potential conflicting character of the situation (with a risk of pacification which if on the one side can help solving the problem, could also produce some sort of lowering of the public debate).

In general the concept of citizenship appears stressed. Citizenship- as the right to the city- is innovatively declined under different voices: “right to health”, “right to mobility”, “right to be informed”, “right to be involved”. This different points of view are producing some news in terms of redefinition of the concept: in particular there is an interesting potential (bursting) debate on the multiple (and conflicting) character of contemporary cities (the rights of old people and kids, being contrasting with those asked by working people, retailers, etc.) and on the boundaries of citizenship in a urban region ( are there first class citizenship and second class ones: those living in the Milan city centre and those living in the peripheries, with different rights, though both contributing to polluting ( but also to the good functioning of its economical system- in different ways the whole urban region. All these right to the city are clashing rather than encountering in the ‘reduced’ spaces for public discussion offered by institutions and not only. This has effects also on the issue of production of public good, which cannot be simple to be based on a univocal notion of citizenship. It is not so clear that institutions are aware of this.

4. Identifying the case specific knowledgescapes

4.1 Dominant Knowledge Forms: Content/Claims of Knowledge Forms

Institutional studies and researches projects: a monopolistic production of knowledge?

Quantifying particulate matter concentration in Milan area is basically referred to data acquired and released by ARPA (see § 2.2). There are no other official fonts. In the city of Milan we can find three pollution ARPA testing stations measuring PM10, while others are in other municipalities. Milan municipality is testing new air pollution monitoring stations, but they measure other pollutants, not PM10; Milan municipality has also a mobile monitoring station, with the same technology used by ARPA, used only in specific projects (i.e. testing ARPA data or measuring air quality in areas involved in new urban project). Data produced were and are the starting points of almost existing research projects. They study in depth particular matter following different objectives. ARPA is usually the promoter and project leader of these research programmes: at the same time since 1998, when PRQA (Regional plan for air quality) was promoted, ARPA involves a large number of different experts from universities, research centres, and scientific foundations21, building a scientific network of scholars which has been dealing with particular matter research in the last decades (PRQA, PUMI - Particulate Matter in Milan urban area-, PARFIL- Particulate Matter in Lombardy-).

21 Some of these actors participating in the network through their own specific skill; Polytechnic - DIIAR deals with diffusion models, Bicocca State University - DISAT evaluate the correlation between concentrations of particulate matter and human health, the University of Pavia first and then Brescia, are involved as expert in economic impact assessment, while State University - Physics dep. studying the chemical and physical composition of particulate matter. Other actors play coordination and management role into the research programmes, as well as ARPA and the Lombardy Region, which are supervisors, FLA (Lombardy Foundation for Environment) coordinates the relationships between different players and takes care of communicative dimension. Now we describe synthetically objectives and contents of these research programmes.

PRQA PUMI PARFIL Regione Lombardia X X X ARPA X X X FLA X X X JRC X X Politecnico (DIIAR) X X X Statale Bicocca (DISAT) X X X Università Statale (Phisics dep.) X X Università Pavia (DEPT) X Università Brescia X Isituto Mario Negri X AEM X Snam Progetti X Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei X Stazione sperimentale combustibili X X AMA Milano X Terraria e Systematica (software) X CESI X CBIM X

These three major research projects have set the policy frame in the last years, both of them supporting strictly the production of regional policies and the definition of the problem, in an apparently researched linear relation among research findings and policies. They are characterised in fact by (1) the relevance assigned to the necessity of construction of expert knowledge on the one side (especially pointing on the issue of pollutants composition, sources and monitoring); (2) the focus on the specificity (and intractability) of the Milan-Lombardy context; (3) the suggestion of a set of regional policies options interested to cope with EU directives, notwithstanding this specificity: thus stating the engagement of the Region:

1. the first-PRQA22 (1998-2000)- was essentially dedicated to produce tools for monitoring the quality of air and respecting through new policies admitted thresholds, its main contribution is linked to the creation of the research network, the production of an inventory of pollutants and finally in the structuring of the Regional point of view on the issue. 2. The second-PUMI (2001-2002) - was essentially dedicated to the study of the chemical composition of PM10 and PM2.5 in Milan urban area and the influence of traffic to air

22 This work was both a research project and an action plan (see chapter 6 for a discussion on this hybrid character). Promoted by Region Lombardy and ARPA, its objective was to produce a useful instrument to measure air quality and estimate its evolution. It would support Region to adopt action to maintain air quality under minimum consented threshold, also evaluating the efficacy of measures adopted. There have been two phases; the first one (1998-1999) was a recognition on different elements (study on monitoring system in use, reconstruction of legal frame, definition of emission inventory, diffusion models and identifying critical zones); the second phase was concentrated on scenarios design, on proposals in different policies and sectors and on time planning for implementation. For the first time this research has used the parameter of PM10 instead of the PTS (Suspending Total Dust). Some suggestions from this Plan were transferred into measures contained in the yearly plans of action (especially in 2001’s one), but PRQA was not used as the main tool for programme evaluating action efficacy (or consistency). We can consider two principal results from this work: first, the building of an actor network, in scientific community, which defines the view of the official research about PM10 and, second, the birth of INEMAR, the inventory of emissions. INEMAR allows, through a constantly updated database, to estimate the weight of each source on total emission (data available at regional or provincial level). Currently, the model tracking INEMAR was adopted by other regions of the PO basin and by Region of Puglia. 83

pollution23. It consolidated the working method and extended research, with government funding, to the whole territory of Lombardy through PARFIL; 3. The third-PARFIL (2002-not yet concluded)- is a sort of “research collection”, because It’s composed by different research programmes, focusing on different aspects of particulate matter. It aims at evaluating the contribution of the specific Lombardy environment to the production of particulate and to discover the different contribution to it made by fonts other than traffic. In this sense its findings have been central in the argumentation of the regional law and policies24.

These researches were accompanied in recent years also by other kinds of studies, again promoted by the Lombardy Region and ARPA, on the effects of particulate matter on human health. Considering only researches based on Milan, the most important are ESSIA (health effects of air pollutants in Lombardy region) and VESPA (Assessment of the biological effects of particulate air pollution on human health). While the first project, sponsored in 2005 by the health sector in Lombardy, involving several hospitals and medical research centres, has just ended, the second was defined in Action Plan 2007/2008 and its scientific referent was involved in PRQA, PUMI and in PARFIL. The information about ESSIA and its results have not yet published and we know essentially only the project VESPA objectives: to investigate physical, chemical and biological properties of atmospheric fine particulate matter (PM 1 and 2.5), to identify the elements that have an impact on human health. In both cases ARPA is responsible for data collection: in ESSIA medical research, it provides information on the level of environmental exposure while in VESPA project is designed to provide data detection. In particular, three sites selected for VESPA (cities, mountains, plains), are the same used under PARFIL to estimate the impact of the regional/plain/metropolitan background.

The Municipality of Milan, through the Agency for Mobility and the Environment (AMA), has published in the same years some studies also covering the problem of pollutants reduction. In these research products, as it emerges also from AMA "mission", the issues of air pollution and automobile traffic are intimately linked. This is showing the particular approach of the Municipality on the problem, rather different from the regional one, aiming at showing the complex nature if it. We consider three works particularly significant: (1) the study for the introduction of road pricing in the city of Milan, commissioned to AMA by the Milan Municipality in 2001, when the previous mayor, just elected, had proposed to introduce road pricing, causing many controversies. (2) the participation in CITY-DELTA projects, under CAFE European program and (3) ATMOSFERA – “Sentinella dell’aria”, promoted by ENEA

23 In particular, emission factors were calculated divided by the major types of sources (heating and road traffic), and, for each type, its contribution has been determined depending on the type of fuel and the characteristics of the heating cycle. The most important results were both in chemical/physic characterisation of particulate matter, and in analysing road traffic contribution in air pollution. 24 The Research programme and its participants were identified by the Integrative Framework Programme in the field of environment and energy between State and the Lombardy Region, which was signed by the parties on September 2002. PARFIL is a survey on the nature and mode of spread of particulate matter in the territory of Lombardy. Its object is to collect and process elements to build support policy-tools, to develop interventions to improve air quality and, more specifically, to reduce particulate matter contribution in air pollution. It extends type of emission factors for vehicles (indicating better the technological progress impact and type of fuel) and for heating systems (including measurements for system at work, and not just when they are produced); it proposes analysis useful to broaden the range of particulate marker, with the aim to study their toxicity. It faces the issue of secondary particles and investigates both the pm10 and pm2,5. Concerning dissemination modes and models, PARFIL aims to analyse the spatial and temporal distribution of particles, together with data from weather climate, with the objective of achieving maps with different concentration levels at regional level (integrating existing data). There are no syntheses or final documents available, because the research is still ongoing, but the existing reports propose some partial conclusions: natural background (“basic” presence of particulate matter in all regional territory) is not so far from metropolitan background and it’s the most important part of the whole particulate presence. A strong emphasis is given to climate variables and to relationship between atmospheric phenomena and PM10/PM2,5 concentration. Secondary emissions have a relevant role (so the need to reduce precursors is underlined). A partial result is related to the relevance of burning wood in particulate production (in particular in mountain zones). This element became “law” into “Action Plan” 2006-207: it is forbidden to burn wood (even in domestic chimney) less than 300 meters over the sea level. Now researchers are studying agricultural precursors (ammonia and nitrates first), deepening at the same time particulate composition (primary/secondary; organic/inorganic) and markers presence (useful for toxicological analysis). Another result concerns the use of the same research model also in Tuscany (PATOS)

and Environment Ministry. They all have some common characteristics: they are essentially based on simulation and developing scenarios as tools for decision making; they have produced results which have been considered difficult to be used to argument the policies they suggest; finally they often have not published or diffused25. The linearity of the regional approach is less evident in the City case. Other studies and researches projects

In order to better understand the contents of dominant knowledge forms, it is useful to focus on “research” activities promoted by other actors, not directly referred to the “official holders” of information and knowledge data. The object of these studies is often, not always explicitly, the ARPA data evaluation/verification. We can consider two different stories: in the first one the attack on ARPA data quality is explicit while in the second there’s only a different data collecting, showing a different situation from the one designed by official data.

In 2003 the OMS report on environment quality in several Italian cities was published: Milan had a mortality index due to the pollution level lower than the ones of other cities with comparable levels of pollution (i.e. Turin). Looking at these results, a researcher of Milan Cancer Institute,

25 The first research involved several groups of experts (different from those involved by ARPA also because, in this case, more concentrated on transport and mobility issues) and took into account three price hypothesis applied to three concentric areas of the city (cerchia dei Bastioni, cerchia filoviaria, municipal boundary), calculating costs and benefits, not only economic, in the various scenarios. It was published only in February 2006 "to make a contribution into the debate". The mobility assessor Goggi, at the end of his mandate (the elections were held in May 2006) writes in the foreword that "these conclusions, still valid, can be a useful tool for those who want to re-propose this restricting traffic instrument". In the same text, he remembers how measures and action plans on urban mobility proposed by his administration (such as the Urban Mobility Plan and the Plan Parking spaces) are fundamental promises to the effective road pricing implementation. The study proposed many technical aspects which have recently found their application in Ecopass, but even if the assessments on various assumptions intervention taking into account various factors such as air pollution, in this study road pricing tool has never a decidedly "ecological" meaning. Other indications emerged from AMA study were not taken into account: in the final section "Next steps", the study states that road pricing implementation should be pursued through a consultation process, with focus groups and surveys, directed at understanding how different users group would view the introduction of road pricing. In this context, the issue of air pollution is not central, but the reduction of pollutants concentration is a consequence awaited from the whole rationalization of vehicular traffic. This theme is central in CITY-DELTA research programme, where AMA participates as Italian partner and ATMOSFERA - "Sentinella dell’aria" project, where AMA is a key player. These projects, otherwise i.e. by Parfil, are not very well known and publicized, partly because they are concentrated on simulation models (central activities in AMA work) and their results are difficult to be interpreted. The explicit objective of this research is to provide the Municipality of Milan tools to support decisions. Some instruments have already been tested and made available to decision-makers, even though it is unclear how effectively they are used in planning activities of interventions and policies. Modelling designed by ATMOSFERA and the ones studied in CITY – DELTA are officially "in use”, as well as models for assessing emissions from traffic, scenario and interventions effectiveness studies (such as the study on road pricing mentioned above) and dispersion models to urban and micro scale. The project "Sentinella dell’aria" has the 'goal of controlling air quality in the municipal territory through forecasting in real time (24 or 48 hours) of acute episodes. Theoretically, with the implementation of this project, the municipality of Milan could switch from traditional intervention (focused on emergency) to a preventive approach, supported by scientific basis and adequate technical aids. CITY - DELTA project (2003-2004) has allowed the definition of chemistry and transport modelling through a regional scale into a European comparison of long-term modelling in regional scale. The activity, coordinated by the Joint Research Centre in Ispra, has been activated in support of the Community programme CAFE (Clean Air For Europe) with the purpose of evaluating the answers from the greatest possible number of mathematical models to different future scenarios for reducing emissions, especially related with concentration levels of ozone and fine particulate matter. The future scenarios horizon time has been set for 2010 and work has involved more than 20 European groups on eight different domains of calculation. AMA has taken part in initiatives such as the domain of Milan, a 300 x 300 km2 area centred on the Lombard capital, with the model CAMx ( "Air quality Comprehensive Model with eXtensions). After the experimental phase, the feasibility of applying the model CAMx under the standard support activities of the Municipality was examined and, by now, it is not possible to say if it’s “in use” or not.

At the same time, the Research and Universities Ministry, research institutes in Italy and the European Union itself have promoted in recent years a series of investigations about air pollution involving, even indirectly the Milan area. Among these we remind MINNI (National Integrated Model in support of International Trading on the issues of air pollution), concluded in 2005, promoted by ENEA Corporation (energy and environment) and by the Environment Ministry. It proposed to study the correlations between weather and emissions (how they spread) and to build scenarios to see how, in relation to particular factors, pollutants may be reduced. In this case support for the policymaker is seen as allocation of analytical tools (software simulations) and definition of scenarios. A different project developed in recent years is SITECOS (collaborative project between research institutes; 2002-2006) who planned to carry out monitoring air quality in 10 Italian cities, such as Milan, with the aim of assessing the effects of different climatic and weather- emissive on the dynamics of pollutants between North, Central and South Italy. It deals with air pollution composition and toxicity and with the relationship between pollutants and meteorological/climatic data. It hasn’t produced significant public documents. Studying Milan case, has been involved Bicocca University, already PARFIL participant.

epidemiology centre, asked to examine the calculating method used to determine that parameter. To do this, he obtained that a law court in Turin obliged people in charge of the research project to show publicly calculations. He found that correlation index useful to estimate the number of deaths due to air pollution used for Milan was equal to half of those used in the other cities. He said that there was some problem also with data detection: ARPA uses TEON detector, in accordance with European standards; many tests demonstrate that this kind of detector underestimates value about 30%less than real concentrations (measured with other technologies). Since 2004 ARPA says its data are corrected adding 30% of the relived value.

Since 2001, a local association, called “ChiamaMilano”, (see chapter 2) collects data about air pollutants, as a response to several requests from Milan inhabitants, worried about air quality. The aim of the association is to inform citizens through a “public shop” (a place in the city centre, facing the street) and a web site, where everyone can discuss about city problems. It started using a gravimetric tool in a mobile laboratory and then, from 2004, it uses two air pollution detection stations and a mobile laboratory to measure PM 2,5. This is positioned for two or three weeks in different city parts, depending on citizens calling. Comparing two data series, we can see they are quite similar, but this work (not considered by ARPA and in the entire research project promoted) demonstrate that there’s no completely trust in official data.

Another project is promoted at European level from CITIDEP (Research Center on Information Technology and Participatory Democracy), with a technical partnership with JRC. EuroLifeNet's objective is to build an innovative, cost-effective way to gather environmental scientific data, with citizen education via their direct participation in the data gathering, giving priority to young people. In a first pilot project, high school students gather data on personal exposure to PM2.5, using recent portable technology and protocols defined by scientists and experts interested in the data. In Milan this project was promoted by a local association “Genitoriantismog” (Parents against smog), and involved three high schools in November 2006. It had a strong media impact, as happened when first data from Chiamamilano were published. The reason is that the controversy is not limited only to the official data quality, but extended to the choice of suspended particulates model spread. ARPA, supported by its scientific network, argues that pollutants spread uniformly all over the territory, in the absence of large obstacles (mountains) or items that do precipitate (large basins water). This hypothesis is challenged once again by the working group of Cancer Institute that had already disputed data and then argues that research should be done to verify the danger of exposure to particulates depending on the distance from the emissive source.

This dispute, regardless of its technical sustainability, affects two key elements that characterize the framework of knowledge. First, it’s discussed the fact that the monitoring network is sufficient to provide a descriptive framework consistent with the actual situation. During studies and researches, from PRQA to PARFIL there was actually no propose to increase detection stations number or change them with different technologies. Second, this debate says us that the central element is the possibility to deal with pollution problems: if you can demonstrate that distance from emissive source determines health negative effects, you can study specific policies to protect citizen’s health. The tractability of air pollution theme is central talking about sustainability policies legitimacy; we’ll discuss about it in chapter six.

Lombardy Region replays to these research results saying, correctly, that all its activities comply with the parameters imposed by EU and underlines how it has consolidated its partnership with the JRC, just through an agreement that provides, among others, the activities of verification and monitoring quality of data collected from ARPA. Those who contest the data show how the relationships between the controller and controlled isn’t transparent theoretically when the checked subject pays for checker activities. More interestingly the relationship between Lombardy Region/ARPA and the JRC too could be discussed in the perspective of a necessity of 86

relation to European air pollution policies, the need to respect the limits imposed by EU and the possibility that the limits overcoming precedes heavy penalties. The European legislation provides that in the face of plans and programs for air pollutant containment penalties will be reduced or derogated. The Lombardy Region effort is to demonstrate, on the one hand, the commitment to fight pollution and, on the other hand, the peculiarities of the situation in the north Italy in front of the rest of Europe. As a consequence of these concerns, every research report proposes a premise stressing the fact that the weather and geographical conditions of Po basin make it impossible to achieve the standards provided by the EU26.

4.2 Knowledge Holders

From what we said it is clear that Lombardy Region, mostly in its technical component, and ARPA are the main knowledge holders in regional arena. Not only about expert technical knowledge, but also in terms of legal framework and relationship between different levels of government. The other actors participating in the debate have specific knowledge, but certainly Lombardy Region and ARPA are the main reference, both for policy-makers and experts: the first depend on ARPA and their technical staff or extern expert knowledge27, the second need Regional or ARPA support to develop research28. The consistency of regional policies related to ARPA reports is evident.

Even AMA, next to the City of Milan, appears to play a similar role, though its orientation on modelling to support decisions suggests a different relationship scheme, partly because AMA is actually an instrumental body of the municipality. Therefore it is less clear how the work that AMA does is actually functional to decisions taken by the Mayor and Assessors29.

Some local associations ask for a different "education" of politicians on environmental issues, while between technicians we meet two fundamentally different positions on the need to make politicians more informed and aware; on the one hand, it is argued that it would be desirable to have a greater capacity by part of politicians to use the tools that are made available to them (i.e. AMA and Goggi against the City of Milan), on the other hand it is deemed sufficient that policymakers have the ability to put on the agenda issues perceived as significant and that they put confidence in technical structure that attend them in building decisions.

4.3 Social/Spatial Distribution of Knowledge

26 It isn’t a coincidence that the latest research is deepening the PM10/PM 2,5 composition, with specific attention to the impact of regional or metropolitan background. This communication is essential, along with what remembers that PM10, as Ozone, is the only air pollution component stable in the last 30 years, while all other pollutants, for various reasons, have decreased their concentration. 27 During the regional law building process, politicians involved have "learned" from the region’s technical staff, with the support of its own technical reference, and the proposal submitted by the Board in parliament and then voted what was written by regional technicians. 28 Another example is the construction of a consolidated network in the scientific community in research programmes promoted by ARPA and Region. In this case, the contents of the conclusions, the research pattern and results publication is controlled by ARPA and Region. This fact is consistent also with researchers’ interest because if ARPA provides the opportunity to start, Region should promote policies consistent with the studies’ results. This happened over the years: starting from INEMAR inventory or zoning proposal taken from PRQA up from the prohibitions for burning wood, following the discovery of wood markers in the PM10, especially in mountainous areas. In this context there is no interest in changing the knowledge base (for example by increasing numbers or replacing detection system) or in engaging other subjects of the scientific community. The technical knowledge use is consistent in itself and, as we have seen in the previous paragraph, aimed, both at the effectiveness of local policies and at their legitimacy in international framework. 29 It can be argued if policy makers are actually informed or, in other words, how important it is that they are able to use "decision support" tools given to them. For example arguing choices concerning Ecopass, both in the debate between the various components of the majority, both in the eyes of the public, the results of the work initiated by the previous administration have not been used (although belonging to the same political party) nor it has been proposed to update or validate those conclusions. 87

Knowledge distribution is closely linked to the forms of its diffusion. In general the context is characterised by an overall critical feeling about pollution and air quality, either because of personal and widespread perceptions of critical situation, both because of the way the subject is treated by media. Press role (media role in general) was already mentioned in chapter 1, showing that press provides the main channel of diffusion of knowledge, though media are perceived as partisan and not trustable.

In general civil society contexts the scarce diffusion of officially produced knowledge on the issue and for this reason is engaged on the one side on production of “home-made” knowledge, on the other on the right to be informed on the situation and on policies adopted to cope with the problem.

From the first point of view it is interesting to reflect upon the ways in which information is widespread and policy and measures explained and communicated. Generally speaking, though data are available on the website, they are often not so easy to be understood and evaluated by public30. At the same time official non technical reports, as the Annual report on environment state, published by ARPA, dedicated to communication are often changing in their structure year after year and do not help in comparing policy effectiveness and results31.

30 The PM10 and PM2, 5 concentrations data are public and are made available daily on ARPA web site. Even Lombardy Region has a page dedicated specifically to air quality, but to get data there’s a link directed to ARPA web site. Two features are in common to both sites: there are many insights and pages dedicated to the explanation of climatic conditions and geographical peculiarities of the Po basin. In some cases you cannot access the data without going through one of these information pages. On the ARPA website, you can easily find previous day data for each detection unit, accompanied by a chart that summarizes the progress of the last ten days, but long term data are not immediately available. It is necessary to select period, detection units, type of pollutant and a file will be prepared to mail forwarded on who is making the request; data are sent in an unclear format, difficult to read because the data are just coded strings. It’s easier to access to the same data, reprocessed and made more legible, from the Province of Milan web site or even from AMA web site. It’s interesting to see AMA web site because on the home page you can find air pollution situation (ARPA data) and, written as a “news” (scrolling text) a short evaluation about relationship between weather forecast and air pollution situation. In the same home page you cannot find anything about Ecopass, while you can find links and notices about regional action plans and law. Information about Ecopass can be found only on Milano Municipality web site, on the special pages. Report on Ecopass results are available week by week and they talk about numbers of vehicle entering in Ecopass area; there aren’t scientific deepening and when you follow the link on “Health and environment plan”, looking at mobility themes, you cannot find anything about Ecopass in measures presented. Coming back to data monitoring, we can see a different way to represent data in "Chiamamilano" site. On the home page it offers immediately a link to the “air quality”, and you find immediately graphics that show data in last 20 days. You can see also data collected in past months and years. There is a great attention to data scientific explanation, without explicit traces of controversy with ARPA work. 31 Looking at the Annual reports on environment state, published by ARPA. those relating to the years 2004 - 2005 and 2006 (the latest published), it can be noticed that each report is built according to a different text structure. In 2004 report the dominant theme was the introduction of concentration limits by the EU. First, it’s shown data reduction from 30 years ago. The reports set some targets, not related to the concentration of pollutants, but referred to knowledge aspects: the objective is the subdivision by categories of total particulates. It starts talking about PM 2,5 and estimates incidence of vehicular traffic at around 40%. 2005 Report analyzes the various pollutants factors differentiating urban and extra – urban area. Air quality is the first factor taken into consideration and premises are that climatic and geographical conditions in Po basin are fundamental to determine pollutant concentrations. It underlines how the particulate matter emergency was born by lowering the threshold factors, despite of an overall improvement in air quality during the past 30 years. Theme of precursors is introduced, regarding the impact of farming on the formation of particulates. In the 2006 report, the regional law is mentioned as the main environment strategy. The report is divided by topics and PM10, together with Ozone, is the protagonist of air quality chapter. After premises talking about last 30 years reduction of pollutants and climatic and geographical description of Lombardy, it underlines how regional background provides a strong contribution to the particulate matter concentration. Two other interesting elements: it is estimated that 20% of PM10 emissions is linked to family needs, affecting individual behaviours; explaining the modes through which ARPA makes data public, the report analyses number of inquiries related to PM10, showing air pollution is one of the most solicited, despite the amount of data already available. It is assumed a correlation between amount of information available and acute perception of the problem, also conditioned by press campaigns. The contents of the reports, although available to everyone, are generally spread through press releases at the time of its publication or retrieved during insights on specific environmental issues. An analysis of their contents tell us more on official exposition strategy, then on widespread perception of the problem, because it is rare that someone try to read them. Another means by which guidance on policies and initiatives (and even situation) are communicated is the illustration of the new measures when they become effective. There is a great attention to disseminate messages and instructions relating to the rules in action plans when they become effective. Releases, posters, television services. In addition, the municipalities’ mayors in critical areas must personally sign the ordinance relating to traffic or burning wood prohibitions. This administrative act is often accompanied by communications, addressed to citizens, explaining that rules outlined in detail in the instructions signed by the mayor, were actually decided by the Region. As mentioned in chapter 2, this element is perceived by local administrators as imposed from above because critical areas definition is following only technical criteria. In particular, small towns know they have to block traffic only when critical area list is published. 88

In general, even from who criticise stronger municipal or regional policies, we can find an appeal to a depth technical knowledge and expert knowledge. All actors involved try to use the existing or produced their own expert knowledge (environmental, medical or legal). Access to the production of knowledge in this sense is large, though not easy. Local Associations often use professional knowledge of their members or deepen their knowledge about pollution problems and solution through personal research, studies, building their own network and selecting their reference sources. Even if they know they’re not experts, they use fluently data and information to support their arguments.

At the same time they pay a specific attention to the diffusion of this knowledge: In some cases they develop a specific language, related to awareness campaign, often addressed to children and schools32. A substantial part of these activities is to demonstrate how acting on the individual behaviour is useful to improve the overall quality of the environment. The theme of individual behaviour becomes increasingly central to the debate on possible solutions to combat air pollution. Not only because suggestions in this sense are, by 2005, included in the regional Action Plan, but because the most discussed measures concern individual behaviours: the limitations to the use of cars are accused of being detrimental to the individual freedom both against those who cannot move freely within the urban area (Ecopass), and for those who must replace their polluting cars and does not have the financial means to do so (regional law). Analyzing other forms of "widespread knowledge", "common sense building” plays a relevant role: rather than referring to technical knowledge in order to diffuse concern about the criticity of the situation, there is a large use of simple indicators. Slogans, demonstrations, "concrete" examples (for example: white linen out of windows to demonstrate how the air of Milan is sufficient to dirty them) are frequently proposed by civil associations to the inhabitants attention, being easily understood by the public. Often the consequence of these operations is to ask, in the face of "concrete" demonstrations, "concrete" action contrasting air pollution. This request is also in the direction of the improvement of individual behaviours, but it is often accompanied by the demand, addressed to “policymakers” of drastic measures and solutions.

Finally associations fight for the diffusion of expert knowledge: they accuse institutions not to show data or reports and in order to do that they have developed a specific legal knowledge useful to obtain results in this polemics.

4.4 Excluded/Silent Knowledge Forms

Among knowledge forms brought into play in the definition of particulate matter reduction policies, the less exploited seem to be the economic and technological ones. "The market" plays a marginal role in knowledge production and use. On the one side there is a lack of in-depth analytical reports on the cost/benefits of the measures. The only exception was the depth feasibility study on which Ecopass is implicitly based, even if the economic dimension becomes "vague", in communicating the measure and presenting the results (it’s unknown how much the revenue receipts will be and how incomes will be used to strengthen the public transport system, as promised by the Mayor and assessor even if this relation is not proven). On the other, though there is a wide interest among institutional actors to the technology innovation which seem to be able to solve the problem (the hydrogen technology launched by Formigoni; the car renewal in the Moratti scenarios), there is a weak presence in the public debate of technologically advanced

32 The awareness campaigns, especially when directed to students, require a not trivial cognitive and learning effort. Often interestingly enough campaigns are carried out through collaboration between multiple subjects. FLA (Lombardy Foundation for Environment) and Lombardy Region proposes to school “Oh cielo! Una regione con l’aria da bambino” (“Oh heaven! A region with child air”), based on an idea of “Genitoriantismog”. Chiamamilano, in collaboration with Cancer Institute and Association Teaching Museum, accompanies a series of educational activities and laboratory with the presence of a mobile station in a school bearing (EducAria project). 89

solutions for the reduction of particulate matter. We refer in particular to technology, which is still experimental, applied to construction and urban furniture. While there are reflections on the relationship between technological innovation and pollution as regards cars (and, more recently, stoves and fireplaces for wood combustion), there is no trace of awareness campaigns or initiatives such as funding for pilot projects to support or patents in the field of materials for the construction of spaces, both public and private. There are not even provided specific lines of research in this direction by the main decision-makers and knowledge holders, though the regional law reminds the importance of research and technological development in this field. Yet some medium/small Municipality are experimenting with new types of draining asphalt, whose composition contributes to the reduction of particulate matter and there is a Lombard company who has patented a kind of cement for the coating of facades that catalyzes and precipitate dust suspended. The experiments conducted locally and publicized in the press do not enter too much in the regional or in the public debate.

In terms of excluded knowledge, it is clear also that local and milieu knowledge have limited space and role. Local administrators, beginning, locally to open experimental projects, indicate how difficult it is, in Lombardy and Milan, to work on an effective knowledge exchange between different public actors at different institutional levels. In this context, local administrators’ knowledge is not taken into consideration. Despite small municipalities are often more dynamic and innovative than Milan’s one, this dynamism is poorly regarded by the central institutions. While the region emanates directives that the mayors must sign without having had the chance to discuss them, some mayors complain of not finding spaces to propose solutions locally to contribute to the overall improvement of the situation. The difficult operating table of consultation, mentioned in previous chapters, has a direct impact on the deficit of this particular kind of knowledge.

4.5 Relevance of Reflective Knowledge

We have already mentioned the request of Cancer Institute regard to the methodology of the correlation index used by OMS (§ 4.1); in 2003 "MAMMEANTISMOG" (now “GENITORIANTISMOG”) asked to the court to make public a report on public health written by the Local healthcare public company (ASL). In this case, comparison between actors happens, when it happens, in the press or directly through a judicial battle. This his, on one hand, an example of widespread mistrust in the neutrality and objectivity knowledge producer; in this sense, the mistrust towards the institutions by the subjects that move at the local level, together with little or no importance given from the institutions to local suggestions, makes it very difficult if not impossible to talk about reflective knowledge. The exchange processes are cancelled; there is little willingness to listen to others' positions, which are placed in a "wall to wall" discussion. On the other hand, we can read these cases as “forced reflective knowledge” cases (according to the declination proposed by peter JanKlok) ARPA changed its way to structure data and ASL made its results public.

On the other side, as shown by both Ecopass and the introduction of the new regional law, EU, with much more strength compared to the widespread perception of the problem, has been the true engine of the whole learning and planning action. In this case, we can talk about induced reflective knowledge. The need to understand how particulate is formed, which their components are and how it spreads derives from the need to respond with effective policies to specific rules in terms of reduction targets. You can further argue that without the introduction of limits set by the EU, press and local associations would have had less effective arguments to challenge institutional policies (or the lack of policies definition); as a not direct consequence, perhaps civil society would have been less sensitive and “antagonistic”.

Talking about argumentative reflective knowledge, it seems us to detect traces of it in two elements: in the path of building regional law and in the construction and consolidation of scientific "institutional" network. They are only traces, and we aren’t able to prove their consistency. Perhaps in the first case we can speak of simple learning activities, increasing knowledge through members of regional parliamentarians who took part in the working group. The lack of explicit or profoundly different positions assumed by different political parties before regional law makes it difficult to understand how various components in regional parliament have reviewed their convictions during the debate. Anyway, the participants talk explicitly about the positive results of the debate into the working group. There’s another trace of reflective knowledge in the building law process. The confrontation between regional technicians and exponent of industrial sector (fireplaces and stoves producers) was solved with a positive solution and a mutual understanding about their needs: specific measure in regional law is aimed to reduce particulate matter produced by burning wood and, at the same time, guide line for greater efficiency of wood combustion system give to the producers the possibility to reach new market segments. In the second case, according to the coordinators of the working group (FLA), building a common language to define PRQA produced the result that various research groups revised and articulated their points of view in comparison with the other working group participants. We cannot confirm or refute this hypothesis as it relates to a project that began ten years ago. We try to suggest just one consideration: maybe the working group, consolidated over time, has made more difficult the possibility of occurring of reflective knowledge experiences.

Finally the institution of a steering committee, though consultative role, introduced by the regional law can be regarded as a result of a reflective knowledge form and at the same time as a place potentially generative of reflective knowledge.

4.6 Synergies/ Contradictions between Knowledge Forms

In general there is a difficult relationship with knowledge: what is striking in reading the reports and the declarations is that everybody is ‘certain’ about its point of view and statements. Researchers of ARPA; the municipal Assessore and the regional one, the mayor and the Governor, the associations and the doctors, the different experts. Everybody is at the same time often against the others’ (use of) knowledge, which is always accused to be instrumental. At the end of the day all data, and no data, lose their evidence. No data seem to be completely reliable. This makes difficult every confrontation, since the definition of the problem is one major issue at stake. While every actor is convinced of the necessity to find a solution, most seem not to be sharing also meta-principles. In particular there is plea for convergence of expert knowledge and commons sense, but they often are not able to do it. While everybody is concerned about the state of the environment, every day practices move against official declarations of concern.

The most evident contradiction between knowledge forms is between scientific knowledge (linked to the institutions) and everyday knowledge. Beyond that, related to the modes of knowledge production (as we have seen in the paragraphs above) the contradiction concerns in particular the tractability of the problem: where certain forms of scientific knowledge are evoked to argue that it is impossible to build such effective policies to respond to European parameters, everyday knowledge uses the common perception of the problem to accuse the institutions of inaction. Apparently both these strategies come to the same results, demonstrating how this situation is critical but, while people with everyday knowledge are turning to local institutions claiming successful interventions, the local institutions are turning to higher levels of government (particularly the European Union) before its citizens to show the goodness of its policies. The production of knowledge, the choice to deepen the scientific description of the problem in some

directions, the same building plans and programmes more and more “structural” and increasingly, are consistent with the strategy pursued by local institutions There is also a "hidden" contradiction between technical knowledge and political/institutional knowledge exploring ways, as shown by the way in which studies and research projects are interwoven in Ecopass measure. As already mentioned, some of the main technical conclusions of the study behind Ecopass were adopted by the measure implemented. Even if the nature of the instrument has been deliberately "distorted", transforming it from a device for the rationalization of car traffic in the city centre, to an environmental policy tout court. The political debate, strongly led by the Mayor, has preferred to shift the focus from issues perceived as perhaps more "ordinary" subject to a "hot" one like air pollution, with a declared difficult solution. Probably, but this hypothesis is not verifiable, this choice could help to achieve political goals, as visibility and consensus, and not only locally, but it implies the risk of building a policy without measurable effects33.

4.7 Silent Knowledge/Knowledge deficits

The case presents a constantly evolving and growing production of knowledge. At the same time it can be noticed that there have been some rigidity in this knowledge production, i.e. the non- disputed data detection on which pollutants diffusion models have been built over the years and on which actions and measures were set. Therefore, in front of this apparently overproduction of knowledge, it paradoxically could be argued if there is need for further investigation. And of which kind. These questions relate also to the aims of this production: what is knowledge production aimed to? In which arena and to obtain what? We’ll try to answer this question in Chapter 5, but we can introduce some reflections related to the debate underlying dispute relating to the type of data and diffusion models officially used. We can find two positions about this: the official view is that the depth of knowledge (for example on the secondary particles formation) is useful to formulate more effective attack on multiple particulate emissions fonts, making policies more effective. A different position sustains that, once hazardous particulate to human health has been discharged and the massive impact of emissions from traffic is verified, there’s only the need to adopt highly restrictive measures on the most polluting vehicles movement. The deepening of knowledge, in fact, according to this position, should be done on the evaluation (and monitoring) of the policies effects before on situation knowledge, even if extremely refined. Described summarily these two positions, we can say that one is lacking of the depth knowledge and the type of knowledge the other one propose, and conversely. The arguments in support of either position are not the occasion for comparison, while they repeat the conflict, when theoretically both sides are targeting a more efficient environmental policy.

In this context, we can understand how "alternative" modelling production in diffusion of pollutants is weak. The convergence towards homogeneous diffusion models makes it difficult to think even to the validity of an alternative. However, it is also complex to explore different assumptions about diffusions modelling, even if it’s only to verify their inconsistency. We collected few items that have stressed this element because operational insights and research studies have not been made and it is difficult to identify other actors in the scientific community that could support assumptions different from the official ones34. It’s also rather difficult to

33 Data produced by the City of Milan and developed by AMA talk explicitly about reduction in the number of polluting cars entered in Bastioni circle. This is an estimated reduction compared to a "typical day" detected before the proceedings. The reduction in the amount of particulate matter is not given by relief made in ARPA unit into Ecopass area, but calculated with mathematical models that can estimate the PM10 not produced by vehicles not circulating. There is no direct verification of effectiveness and, according to the model used by ARPA, it would not have sense if we consider the homogeneous diffusion of pollutants into the atmosphere. 34 Only in one case we had access to the proposals today rejected by the Region and supported by epidemiological centre of the Cancer Institute of Milan. These projects are related to the measuring instruments verification through comparative measurements with different methodologies and evaluation of individual exposure, including research on the relationship between exposure and distance 92

survey work or proposals coming from an eventual "silent" scientific community, when these proposals do not translate into research projects or publications. In general it can be noticed the absence of a part of Milan scientific community in the existing official network, which seem to be reproducing consolidated panels of researchers. The situation of fragmentation and contraposition among different actors has helped and could more in the future in let these different points of view emerge. Finally it can be noticed the weak role is given by the regional guidelines to the correlation between air pollution and public health. Actually the topic is not absent from the debate, but it is often marginalised, or under considered. Local associations instead often use publications, studies and research carried out abroad in order to raise public awareness. This choice, operated by institutions, could be attributed to a number of reasons among which the sectorial way in which institutions tend to treat problems: the division between different sectors of the public administration, conferring to jurisdiction to specific departments/areas that deal with health. Though a role can be attributed too, to the need to articulate research programmes aimed to demonstrate the difficult treatment of the problem at EU level, rather than having to deal with clear results in terms of public health.

4.8 Changes in Knowledge Formations

The “ARPA model", consisting in building a consolidated network of research institutes, has been innovative with the PRQA and remains new in the Italian scene. Though, as we have already pointed out, over the years, the consolidation of this experts’ network may have lost the possibility to bring innovative elements in knowledge discourse. We have suggested that this structure of scientific discourse also weakens gradually the ability to provide reflective knowledge; despite these critical elements, we can certainly say that this mode of cooperation has been, over the time, the positive characteristic of scientific knowledge production in Milan area.

Leaving aside the complex relationship between Region and ARPA, which we already widely treated, it is interesting to note that, over the years, the relationship between decision-makers and technicians has developed (trust in the technicians on the side of the regional policy-makers and growing importance of AMA), giving a specific value to technical competence. This factor has probably also affected the evolution, still not accomplished at all, of the originally "naive" model of the relationship between technology and politics, where experts are responsible for the construction of information and tools to be delivered to politicians to make them able to take the right decision. We can gradually observe how the attention has shifted to the role of technicians as decisions makers’ guides. AMA, despite its limits, is now a structural body of the municipality and it’s monitoring and ongoing evaluating of Ecopass results, it participates, alongside with politicians, at various consultation tables and is the reference point of the City refers for every problem of mobility and environment issues.

The relationship with EU has certainly forced institutions to use ever more refined ways of producing knowledge. Limits imposed by the European Union have been the "engine" for the construction of research projects detailed and specific, with a growing attention focuses towards differentiation and identification of the sources which is allowing to differentiate and specify also the measures and to discuss the “over local size”, of the problem. European limits in this sense have been a general engine but have also stimulated a local debate: it could anyway be argued if in order to support their local un-sustainability have produced real cognitive efforts. And weather the reinforcement of the relationships among the Region and the Joint Research Centre,

from emission sources. The same institute has already implemented these projects in collaboration with ARPA Piemonte and now it proposes, without results, to extend them and their methodology even to Lombardy region. In addition to this specific case, 93

authoritative research centre at international level, was only a way to "validate" and show the region’s involvement and engagement in the field.

In recent years there has been also a change in everyday knowledge. The local movements have gradually become more and more aware and experts, both from a scientific point of view and from a legal/institutional one. In addition, restrictions on traffic, "exceptional" measures to reduce road traffic are gradually entering in the habits of the inhabitants, even with some clutch or contradiction. It seems difficult to come back. There is perhaps a gradual increase in awareness of the need to act, even if it’s not to get immediate results, but at least to promote widespread education to environmental protection.

5. Identification of Interfaces/Interaction between Knowledge and Governance Arrangements

5.1 Synergies/ Contradictions between Governance Arrangements and Knowledge Forms

As shown by the third and fourth chapter the action arena is characterized by the co-presence of different policy arenas, each with its norms, actors, governance arrangements. Studying the two main policy arenas we have come to the conclusion that on the one side the prevailing governance mode is a hierarchy mode, with a weak mixture of network mode, in both perspective of bargaining and arguing, and a very little presence of the market. On the one side both policy arenas have been characterized by forms of arguing and bargaining but inside a clear hierarchical governance mode. In general in fact the action arena is controlled by a strong actor which defines by authority all the rules concerning the other actors, acknowledging, legitimating or de- legitimating them. The formal rule system is set by the region, which is assigned by the national law and the regional one, the role of producing knowledge by way of ARPA, and producing and implementing policies, also with ARPA support and monitoring. At the same time the regional law institutes the policy arena, defining strictly actors’ form of involvement and their role, which, has we have seen has an essential consultative one. As far as now the works of this specific consultative body have been very general in principles and no central issue has been raised. The first meeting was essentially set to establish the network, while no specific aim or work program has been promoted and all the few meetings held in 2007 have ended in conflicts among the regional Assessore and other actors involved. As far as now there has not been any attempt to integrate other actors frames and knowledge into the decision making process. In this sense the move towards a network governance mode is rather superficial, since the region decides times and themes to be discussed.

Decision making is essentially based on knowledge officially produced by ARPA, which as we have seen, should be an autonomous body, but actually behaves as a support research structure deeply in touch with the region, both on policy making and monitoring of results. Official Scientific/Expert/professional knowledge in this sense is rather controlled by the institution which is in charge for the production of policies and the monitoring of the situation. We could conclude, that there is an evident alignment between the production of knowledge, its use, its communication, policy making and monitoring. This reduces the arena to a very hierarchical space. Decision making, as such, remains often un-transparent (with related problems in terms of reduced throughput-legitimacy): for a long time also major reports on the correlation among pollution and health have been available to regional institutions but not made public. The same could be said about the first storyline: AMA uses ARPA data, on the one side. On the other the ECOPASS decision making process is characterized by the reference to an old technical study 94

which is not easily available to citizens. In this sense also the ECOPASS storyline is characterized by a hierarchy model, since the policy is launched inside the city executive council and just presented outside, but never really discussed.

We could thus refer to two different ways of using knowledge, both hierarchical: in the case of regional policy, there is an argumentative use for supporting decision making, even if self- referential and used in order to convince other actors (inside a hierarchical approach which looks rather like we could call "patronising"). In the case of Ecopass, knowledge is less used and accessible, but, as above, we can talk about a paternalistic use of it against citizens: the Mayor calls for trust as a founding argument, rather than the scientific and technical arguments, which remain “in Mayor hands”, not available for public discussions. We can read this paternalistic behaviour also when the educational value of measures is stressed, often presented as more important than the results achieved in terms of reducing pollution.

This twofold hierarchy approach produces distrust in the “official” production of knowledge and in the way in which it is used for policy making. This has major consequences. First of all there have been in the past great polemics on the official ‘knowledge’: even though these polemics have been re-dimensioned after the new technologies adoption, doubts persist on the interpretation of data given by institutions with the support of data. There is still a growing call for a third actor as responsible for monitoring the situation, since public opinion, politic opposition and voluntary associations, do not feel ‘safe’ within this hierarchy approach.

This approach results in a hyper production of knowledge by institutions (a large number of studies, all based on the same data, the only official available) always arriving at the same results. And at the same time in a hyper production of plans and directives, which want to codify and order all the policies for reduction of air pollution. Plans and research, presented often in linear continuity, are used as devices to enforce the hierarchy approach. In addition to that the fact of having constituted a much consolidated network of research actors seems to be producing a restriction in innovative form of knowledge.

5.2 Relationship between Modes of Interaction and Knowledge Forms

The policy arenas are therefore very simplified spaces of interaction aiming at simplification the problem, rather than dealing with its complexity: they try to provide a shared vision of the problem, but actually in the action arena this vision is rather contested. If on the one side we find a hierarchy approach, on the other we see the flourishing of different research projects promoted by different actors in order to polemic against the official production of data.

On a more general level, all actors try to compete with the official production of knowledge providing new data or different data; the recourse to scientific-expert-professional knowledge bundle is relevant in this sense for all the actors. With little differences on the type of expert knowledge: for example ARPA uses a technical knowledge related to environmental science, while associations stress more medical knowledge, in order to ‘weight’ the effects of environmental pollution on health. In general the use of scientific knowledge is linked with the necessity to legitimate actors’ role. But at the end of the day institutions which could rely strongly on research results, often seem to be worried and fearful: they could use data to obtain more support from their voters, actually they do not. This seems to be corresponding to the weakness of political discourses in Italy, but maybe has also to do with the scarce efficiency of public action: knowing they have a limited capacity to act, politicians seem aiming at ‘reducing’ the entity of the problem, rather than emphasizing it. It is true also that expert-scientific-technical knowledge produced by institutions is more “quoted” than communicated. So its use is rather

made difficult, than extended. There is also a scarce attention on communication and simplification of expert knowledge. It seems to be quite difficult for politicians to use complex data and give to people certainties. In this perspective expert knowledge does not always seem to be helping in making decisions or explaining them.

On the other, they compete also in terms of steering/institutional/economic knowledge bundle. Since in fact there are very narrow spaces for confrontation among actors, on the one side each actor tries to develop specific relations with internal actors in order to understand what is happening, or how to move. At the same time, when they feel there is no other way to defend themselves, other actors recur to court and juridification: which is seen as the last possibility to fight, passing through newspaper declaration in order to raise the attention among public opinion. The recourse to press is a device to have a voice also for those actors which indeed can count on special negotiation spaces: as associations of interests. When these spaces are denied, they use press to revive them and defend their interests. Institutional actors too, seem to recur frequently to steering knowledge: since policy arenas and public spaces for discussion are more formal than effective, conflict is mediated outside ‘official spaces’. Parties, for example, still seem to provide spaces for mediation or conflict. Or in another cases the face-to-face confrontation seem to be resolutive.

Finally since interaction is essentially provided by media, actors contesting the official knowledge and also solutions linearly attached to it, try to refer to everyday/milieu/local knowledge bundle. One of the most well known sensibilisation campaign launched by the green associations is MALD’ARIA: it consists in the exposition of white linen at windows: the fact they all become very quickly grey is used as a way to let people understand that, maybe scientific knowledge can go on discuss, but actually the problem is there clearly, cannot be denied and something must be done. The ‘everyday’ experience in this sense is played as a strategic device by associations, sometimes also by institutions, to work on the meta-governing sphere. Sphere which is indeed problematic: since local actors seem far from sharing a real priority on environment and sustainability. As we have seen economical logics, and individual interests are still central in local discourses. In this perspective the production of common good is quite difficult: the move towards the “individual” sphere (everybody should take care, we cannot do anything if not on a shared responsibility) is more reductive than enhancing: most institutions ask for personal commitment and engagement, but they are all at the same time engaged in trying to reduce the perception that sacrifice will be personally sustained. Anyway, as a conclusion, everyday knowledge seem to play a significant role which is linked to the fact that policies aiming at reducing air quality pollution are more than others directly linked to the quality of everyday life, and in particular to individual habits and practices.

5.3 Relationship between Governance Arrangements, Knowledge Forms and Learning Processes

Such limited and close policy arenas do not seem able, either interested in providing space for the exchange of knowledge and production of reflexive knowledge. The consultative role assigned to actors in the regional steering committee, do not allow for an open-minded dialogue: the committee has played a role of communication on decisions already taken, as other forms of committee as the one promoted on ECOPASS to “present” it to the other concerned municipalities. At the same time in the action arena the growing polemics produce a sort of non dialogue among forms of knowledge: each actor is so engaged in defending its position through its data and defeating the others’ one, that the battle is too strong to produce reflexive learning. At the same time it is true that the new regional law, providing the steering committee seems to be producing a step forward a new dialogue: anyway the first results are very immature and the

first meetings have seen a very narrow confrontation among different visions of the problem, different knowledge forms and a very limited learning process.

At the end of the day there are some learning processes happening: weak actors have found new ways to obtain some results, though through a process of progressive juridification. On the other side, perhaps more importantly, the most interesting reflexive knowledge result is that concerning the non neutrality of scientific knowledge. Most of the actors are quite convinced that data can be used by actors to show opposite hypotheses. This conscience has matured also towards media, which are not considered as reliable. This learning process seems to be, on the other side, a negative outcome: that of a general distrust in scientific knowledge which is seen as partisan. It is not a case that, at local level, in the city of Milan the two Assessore in charge on the issue, were taken in academic milieu: the symbolic importance of scientific expertise is relevant at the very beginning of the process. But then, at the end of the process, they are personally deeply contested and they are evaluated as unable politicians, rather than experts.

5.4 Changes

If knowledge is always linked with sense making, the improvement of capacities to act and with decision making processes, we cannot avoid concluding that, from the knowledge point of view, the case of Milan sees the production of knowledge as central. In what can be defined as a continuous process of probing knowledge, discursive practices promote case specific bundling processes of knowledge forms and case-specific knowledge contents. Among the different expert knowledge forms we have seen the growing relevance is assigned to medical and health scientific knowledge by certain kind of actors, and on the other side to mobility planning by others or environmental knowledge. At the same time we have seen how these bundles are contested by everyday-milieu knowledge. Not only from the point of view above mentioned (visible effects in everydaylife): milieu and local knowledge are used to context the EU regulation, accused to be unable to deal with local “untreatable” situations. Therefore only local actors could be able to find solutions, while general ones can be contested and inappropriate. This has local relevant consequences: as for example the fact that for a long while EU normative has been contested.

Despite all, certainly, the situation is evolving towards stronger direction to policies construction and knowledge production. The reasons for this mobilization can be discerned in two main "engines": the increased sensitivity to the subject and the gradual narrowing of the statements made by the European Union. In this sense, the protest action, aimed to demonstrate that is not possible to treat locally particulate problems under the terms imposed at EU level, has had the effect, maybe secondary, to accelerate the introduction of "strong" policies for effective treatment of the problem. In Ecopass case this is less evident because the bond is not so strong and determined by an institution hierarchically higher and able to issue sanctions. However, once implemented, Ecopass is becoming a “foreign policy instrument” for Milan municipal council: the recent appreciation from Al Gore for the courage shown by the Mayor in implementing this measure could play a significant role, for example, in Milan application for Expo 2015. As we have seen the Milan case is a very conflictive one. Conflicts on the framing of the problem, and concerning its treatment via policies have been strongly characterizing the local environment. As a matter of fact we cannot help saying that this conflict has been generative of some changes: a new monitoring protocol, a new law, new possible governance arrangements, new models of action (from emergence to structural actions; from plans to tools). How these changes can be read as outcomes of reflective knowledge is not so sure. To a certain extent some of them are possible fields, rather, of eventual reflexive learning processes in the future.

6. Identifying ‘Governance For Sustainability’

6.1 Assessing Sustainable Development in the Selected Case

Referring to “sustainability” in the first perspective proposed by the Conceptual framework, that is to say in a substantive perspective, that aims at assessing the substance of the policy programmes in terms of economic, social and ecological concerns, we could argue that:

• the economic dimension is central in the selected case study. At least from three points of view: on a first level discourses reproduce deeply, through a rhetorical contraposition represented in the dialectic couple attractiveness-quality of life, the preponderance of the argumentations linked with economical competitiveness. Local society seems to be deeply concerned by bias for economic development which ‘obliges’ actors to sacrifice/ forget the issue of quality of life. For Milan to be competitive, in other words, actors are ready to forget about the quality of air. This argumentation is central throughout the debate and has constituted for a long while the strongest one, that which has caused the actual retard in coping with the situation. To a certain extent the last years seem to be proposing the progressive weakening of this argumentation (as shown in the effort promoted by the Province of Milan, in its Strategic project dedicated to the issue of liveability as a consisting component for competitiveness). In this sense the move towards a Knowledge based economy seems to be producing some results: also economical actors are more concerned by the quality of life as a factor to be taken in count. At the same time the economical dimension is as well as relevant on two other levels: the entire ECOPASS story witnesses on the one side that its introduction as been rather contested both in terms of its costs/eventual results both because evaluated for its being a tax. The evaluation of the policy is made in terms of (economical) costs for individuals, rather than in terms of (health) benefits for the society. At the same time, in order to convince public opinion, politicians have stressed particularly their public communication on the fact that the policy was self-financing and generating further resources for investments in the field of public transportation. Though often these declarations have been resulted to be very contested and contestable. Politicians, at the end of the day, seem to be scarcely trusting other kind of argumentations than the economical one and policies result profoundly affected by this approach; • the social dimension, at the same time has resulted to be relatively central. On the one side the last years have seen the growing concern of citizens about health: local voluntary associations have focussed their attention on trying to show the effects of pollution on people’s lives. And both the regional law and the ECOPASS seem to be responsively replying to this mature situation in terms of acknowledgement of the problem. At the same time these new argumentations have entered slowly the institutional discourse and attention, as shown by the delay with which also research projects promoted by the region have assumed this issue. The right to the city as “right to health” of citizens is gaining space in the political debate, even if slowly and weakly (though the city of Milan has also been a partner in the WHO Health cities project). As shown by the fact that policies for reduction of particulate matter are rather presented (in the perspective of public assessment) more in terms of reduction of congestion than in reduction of pollution. On the other side the social dimension has been raised in other terms: for example the social implications of the pollution charge being estimated in the public debate, rather than in the decision making, in terms of restrictions imposed to certain kind of citizens (divided into A-citizens and B-citizens: living in the city centre, or outside; having money to buy new cars or not). Or also, from another perspective when opposing the right to the city of different types of citizens: old people, children, retailers, the public debate has touched clearly the difficult of a policy design having to 98

deal with different rights to the city, which cannot be reduced into a shared common engagement, lacking a meta-principle confrontation. As a matter of fact both the regional law and the ECOPASS seem to be rather immature in coping with this issue. • The ecological dimension is clearly central in terms of declarations in both the Regional law and in the ECOPASS. At the same time, while the regional law, seems to be rather consistent in terms of results that could be produced (it is important to remember that the law is bran new and results must be evaluated in a longer term, most of all since the law must be followed by operative criteria able to put into practice guidelines), the ECOPASS seems to be just partially able to achieve consistent results. Data concerning the first three months of experimentations seem to confirm that results rely mostly on weather conditions: in this sense the ECOPASS is relatively successful. Whether it could provide relevant results in itself is questionable: exceptions made for commercial vehicles, and diesel vehicles, seem to be limiting profoundly its effectiveness.

Referring to “sustainability” in the second perspective proposed by the Conceptual framework that is to say in a procedural perspective, we could propose these reflections:

• The comprehensiveness (implying that sectoral policies or programmes could be able to reflect environmental economic and social concerns according to the CF), of the process could be subjected to different evaluations: the ECOPASS project is a very narrow- minded project. It could be evaluated as a sectoral policy, limiting the aim and meaning of this kind of policy, thus also scarcely taking in count its possible expected outcomes in terms of economical, social, environmental outcomes. If there is a declared attention to the economical sphere, the assessment has been rather contested and imprecise. The same could be said about environmental results, especially in the longer terms: it could be easily questioned that the renewal of the car park could reduce the efficacy of the measure in terms of congestion, and at the same time that results could be obtained with economical incentives. In fact probably the renewal of the car park will produce a reduction of particulate matter production in itself: while the ECOPASS could, eventually accelerate this process, and this is perhaps not economically sustainable, neither socially. Social effects have been scarcely taken in count: support to public transportation seems to be the only answer to this issue. At the same time the pollution charge has been presented in terms the right to pay for polluting, thus losing the possibility to produce a more symbolic public engagement for the city on other fields of policies. The regional law instead seems to be relaying more clearly on a comprehensive perspective: inside its aims we can recognise a wider attention to the three perspectives, though the social one is often the less practised. • In terms of aggregation ( referring to an ex-ante evaluation of the policy from a integrated perspective reflecting the various substantive concerns according to the CF) , we could say on the one side, looking at the ECOPASS, the introduction of a “pollution tax”, rather than congestion charge, has de facto reduced the problem inside a policy measure which seems a narrow and restricted response to the issue of pollution scarcely linked with other measures (an apparent investment on public transportation more declared than realised). At the same time after a season of intensive planning in the field of traffic, the ECOPASS seems to be an isolated measure in the City agenda, though the city is promoting several other initiatives which are clearly linked (or could) to it. From a regional point of view the new law instead seems to be pointing exactly on comprehensiveness as one its major aims: being intended as a framework law. Actually the implementation of the law seems again anyway crushed on the traffic dimension, and scarcely able to integrate different sustainability dimensions. • Finally in terms of consistency (referring to consistency and accord of various elements of the approach according to the CF), we could say that the introduction of the 99

ECOPASS has finally resulted into an only partially consistent measure: it has undergone in fact major internal changes which have limited its expected outcomes (reduction of experimental area, reduction of the costs, a growing number of exceptions also in long terms afflicting results) amplified by external ones (the implementation of public transport questioned by the scarce resources available, urban projects promoted in contradiction with the policy by the same public actor, the opposition of other level of governments causing delays...). All this can be noticed also on the regional scene: the regional law provides elements which could help in terms of achieving major consistency but often betray them in practice: on the one side for example, just on a general level, the law tries to respond to the critical situation, but at the same time it minimizes it and fragments it in a number of factors which seem to be making the problem untreatable. Finally if we consider the two storylines together they are relatively consistent among themselves: they do not really support each other, sometimes they use each other, and sometimes they are in contradiction.

Finally the Conceptual Framework, proposes also a governance approach to sustainability: proposing to reflect, in a “multilevel and multi-actor perspective”, upon the capacity of “public and private actors to define a space of common-sense, to mobilise knowledge from different sources and to establish forms of commitment to and legitimation of decisions”: we will come back on the knowledge dimension in the last paragraphs: but it seems important to anticipate here that the Milan case seem to be hardly providing this space, though there are some movements in this direction: the advisory board promoted by the regional law, the growing public awareness and the new recent collaboration among third sector and institutions. Nevertheless, also from this point of view, the hierarchical approach to the problem, results to be unsustainable. Also because it is generating on the wide side a large (and stressing) discussion (and confrontation), which as far as now, has not been made able, on the contrary, to produce effective results.

6.2 Assessing the Legitimacy of Policy-Making in the Selected Case

Trying to reply to the general question: “Do certain governance modes/arrangements encourage and facilitate or obstruct and hinder the development of polices towards sustainable development?” we could first of all say that the hierarchical governance mode and the following arrangements essentially based on a mixed model of bargaining (hidden or open) and arguing (but with a weak non institutional actors’ role in terms of decision making) seem to be obstructing, rather than facilitating the development of policies able to promote a better quality of air.

In the Milan case in fact, the above described mixed governance mode is based:

• on the one side on a reduced input legitimacy, which essentially is set out in authoritative way and at the same time delegitimized not only by a general distrust in institutions due to more or less evident scandals, but by on a concentration of the competence of research-policy making and monitoring into the same actor. The region could be a very legitimate institution, since its action is very well estimated on various field of action. But the over-layering of roles (decision maker, implementing actor, monitoring actor, de facto knowledge holder), and recent polemics in the beginning of the decade, have profoundly dag into its legitimacy. • On the other on a contested throughput legitimacy, since decision making processes are perceived as un-transparent: research products are not completely easy to access, at the same time the weight of political mediation operated by political parties is still too high, as well as negotiations with specific stakeholders are unbalanced, though visible, in all decision making processes. This causes distrust in institution and policies and a growing

100

recourse to judiciary action on the side of civil society, generating distrust in input legitimacy. • Finally on limited output legitimacy: results are often limited, but even when policies are successful the hierarchy approach in fact is not so able to show its results to public opinion: monitoring and assessment dimension, in both the two storylines we examined, have a very narrow place in the policy-design. They both do not seem to be ready to be verified. The ECOPASS in particular is showing major difficulties in assessing by data its efficacy. In the first experimentation weeks data were given in approximate ways, without allowing people to understand if it was really working or not. This is partially due also to the difficulty of assessing the efficacy of such a kind of policy, since it is also very locally dependent on weather condition and geo-morphological context. But these were the general conditions under which the policy was promoted: institutions, though aware of this constitutive nature, seem to have paid scarce attention to this aspect, maybe counting on a limited attention of public opinion on data. It is a matter of fact that all ex- post public statements have been provided on the base of a very narrow set of available data, on a very limited time-series: both in terms of pollution values, or money rose. And that in general these statements have been made with a limited attention to the local arena: the Mayor has preferred ONU assembly or EU settings to show data, while little attention has been given to citizens. The hierarchy approach in this sense is confirmed by a very poor attention to participation and communication, as if there would not be any trust in public opinion and in the possibility to produce a new shared image of the city of Milan.

6.3 Synergies/Contradictions between Governance Arrangements and Knowledge Forms on the one side and Sustainability and Legitimate Policy-Making on the other side

The case study we have presented is affected by a hierarchical approach, as we have tried to show. This on the one hand seems to be affecting deeply the production, use and exchange of knowledge forms, mostly the production of reflexive knowledge. In so far, though the public arena would offer different bundles of knowledge forms, the preponderance of some actors on other ones (the region and the city of Milan) reduces the use of other forms of knowledge and produces a process of bounded filtering: on the one side civil society is obliged to become expert in the way institutions are (producing similar scientific reports) on the other since it cannot enter the debate it is obliged to produce legal knowledge in order to obtain a voice. Some forms of innovation in the production of knowledge are being produced but with a lot of fatigue, not consistent with results obtained sometimes. Spaces for consultation remain open but reflexive knowledge is very limited, though there are spurs. The coexistence of different points of view, which could generate innovation, instead reproduces distance among actors, which go on debating from far and not easy to be reduced to a common vision of the problem, despite an ongoing and interrupted discussion (produced in different arenas).This discourages social actors, but also institutional ones: they are very interested in cooperating when it seems there are ways to overcome a hierarchical approach, but when they discovered that their efforts are useless, since the real decisions are taken outside the available places of confrontation, they retire and oppose to every possible solution. Positive impulses are in this sense wasted every day and this can just result in reciprocal distrust. And as a consequence of that in a very limited legitimacy. Both single policies and measure, both a whole law can thus become unsustainable.

As a matter of fact, at the end of the day, we can find a there is a lower than expected symbolic investment on the policies promoted, unable to affect the meta-governing sphere, while it should, because of the very contested nature of the problem. Actors prefer to play on a first order 101

governing (showing the capacity to operate actively and contribute locally) and on second order (providing new governance arrangements, without really using them when needed and reducing their role to a consultative one). Legitimacy in this sense is researched on the one side on the field: actors, also the weakest one, try to gain their legitimacy recurring to output, in other words showing results of a policy. This is part of a local regional tradition: “il sapere fare”, rather than theorizing on problems, has always been central in the local discourse, where both institutional and economical actors are always engaged in showing their ability to deal with reality. But this can be very risky: on the one side this ‘diving into practices’ seems to be often unable to produce and follow a strategy (a horizon and a project). Institutions, which are central actors in a hierarchical governance mode, seem to have lost the capacity to look beyond as well as to think about the future. They live too much in the present and risk to lose the capacity of making sense of their actions, and provide sense-making in general. This makes them stay far from a role, which is on the contrary, quite essential in such a kind of policies, of mediation and production of shared principles among different visions of reality. Some actors interviewed have introduced in this sense the metaphor of the broken mirror: institutions are in front of a broken mirror, dealing with a pluralisation of sense to which they are exposed and unable to deal with.

This incapacity of dealing with the meta-governing dimension is crucial in the field of air pollution. Notwithstanding the fact that every actor seems to be more or less worried about the critical situation and that a solution must be found, there is no real shared vision institutions are able to foster and build upon. So their legitimacy is rather eroded. This is shown also by the use of words and tools for action: the story of ECOPASS is a proof, with the wide polemic raised about it being a congestion or a pollution charge. Deciding to talk about a pollution charge Milan administrators have made the first mistake, reducing it to a matter of paying for polluting, the second mistake is linked with the decision of discussing about its nature of tax, just deciding at the end of the process to call it ECOPASS. The all communication campaign was essentially twofold: short communications on facts (what the city has already done to improve the quality of environment) and the necessity to step forward; and a wider campaign on how to pay. The sense of this public enterprise was actually much reduced locally. Public opinion does not seem to be so committed to the principles.

At the same time it is clear the loss of strategic horizon: which can be the results of such a limited action, if compared with the new general frame provided by the regional law? Accepting to keep on for more than one year on a big polemic on such a limited experimentation, the city of Milan seems to be playing an unfair and unsustainable game.

If meta-governing is out of the play, what of first and second order? Much attention we said is put upon second order, but as we have seen on the one side the assessment is every contested from its roots, because of the special link among knowledge holder and power holders. At the same time it is clear as shown by the first steps, that institutions have not been able to provide a process of assessment of their policies. In this sense a little learning process is shown by the evolution of data available on the municipality of Milan: at the beginning data were limited, un-comparable to the previous situation, not taking in count what happened outside the ECOPASS area. Progressively data have had an evolution, but with big rhetoric and argumentative efforts. They had not been projected to show the efficacy of the policy necessary to legitimize ‘on facts’ the policy. This ‘tactic’ dimension too seems to be lost.

Concerning the first governing we have seen and commented the scarce capacity and interest in fostering new forms of governance and interaction among actors, forms of knowledge, frames. If this can be argued by the role assigned to actors in consultative spaces, it can be looked also through another lent. For example considering the contradictory treatment of the territoriality of the problem: on the one side the city of Milan adopts a tool on just part of its territory, on the other the region organizes a trans-regional pact, promotes horizontal cooperation and at the same 102

time defines new critical areas without the consultation of mayors and presidents of other provinces. In both cases we see the difficulty of institutions in dealing with a territory of policies which is difficult, being not only borderless but discontinuous…

At the end of the day, as a conclusion, we could argue that the Milan case seem to propose a switch between the arena of governance and the forum of knowledge: the way in which the first is structured (and restructured) produces on the one side a profound and interesting change in the knowledge landscape which is obliged (we could say) to interplay with governance form in a very fatiguing way. And this is restricting the possible space of reflexive knowledge and innovation in the Governance for sustainability.

103

Bibliographic references

Barbara Czarniawska, Narrare l’organizzazione. La costruzione dell’identità istituzionale, Milano, Edizioni di Comunità, 2000 Luigi Offeddu, Ferruccio Sansa, Milano da morire, Milano, BUR, 2007 Paolo Jedlowsky, Un giorno dopo l'altro. La vita quotidiana tra esperienza e routine, il mulino, Bologna, 2005

Official reports Ambienteitalia (a cura di M.Zambrini), Road pricing: uno strumento di gestione del traffico urbano. Ipotesi per una congestion charge a Milano, marzo 2006 Ambienteitalia, Legambiente, Ecosistema Urbano Italia, giugno 2006 ARPA Lombardia, Fondazione Lombardia per l’Ambiente, Progetto PUMI: Il Particolato Fine nell’Atmosfera Urbana Milanese – relazione finale, dicembre 2002 ARPA Lombardia, Studio modellistica sulla distribuzione del PM10 e dell’ozono sul territorio regionale – Rapporto tecnico, 2002 ARPA Lombardia, Rapporto sullo stato dell’ambiente in regione Lombardia 2003 – segnali ambientali, 2004 ARPA Lombardia, Rapporto sullo stato dell’ambiente in regione Lombardia 2004, 2005 ARPA Lombardia, Rapporto sullo stato dell’ambiente in regione Lombardia 2005, 2006 ARPA Lombardia, La qualità dell’aria a Milano e in Lombardia, presentazione, ottobre 2006 ARPA Lombardia, Rapporto sullo stato dell’ambiente in regione Lombardia 2006, 2007 Comune di Milano, AMA, Studio per l’introduzione del road pricing a Milano, 2002 Comune di Milano, Relazione sullo stato dell’ambiente del Comune di Milano, 2003 Comune di Milano, AMA, Piano Urbano della Mobilità, 2006 Comune di Milano, AMA, Ecopass – primi dati gennaio 2008, 2008 CSST(Centro studi sui sistemi di trasporto), Mobilità e ambiente in una visione integrata di sistema, 2006 Paolo Crosignani, Effetti a breve e a lungo termine dell’inquinamento atmosferico sulla salute umana, Presentazione, 2007 Fondazione Lombardia per l’Ambiente, Progetto PARFIL IL PARTICOLATO ATMOSFERICO FINE NELLA REGIONE LOMBARDIA - PM10, PM2.5 e PM1nelle aree critiche e nelle aree di fondo della Lombardia – rapporto intermedio, 31 luglio 2003 Fondazione Lombardia per l’Ambiente, Progetto PARFIL IL PARTICOLATO ATMOSFERICO FINE NELLA REGIONE LOMBARDIA - PM10, PM2.5 e PM1nelle aree critiche e nelle aree di fondo della Lombardia – rapporto intermedio, 2004 FLA (Fondazione Lombardia per l’Ambiente), Progetto PARFIL, Rassegna on line dei progetti di ricerca sul particolato fine in Italia, 2006 Mammeantismog, Assoutenti, Progetto Eurolifenet – Presentazione, settembre 2006 Provincia di Milano – Direzione centrale ambiente, Relazione sullo stato dell’ambiente della Provincia di Milano – relazione sintetica, 2003 Regione Lombardia, FLA, Piano Regionale per la Qualità dell’Aria (PRQA) – Rapporto finale, giugno 2000 UNRAE (unione rappresentanti autoveicoli esteri), CSST, Studio su mobilità e inquinamento da PM10 in ambito urbano, 2006 Bruno Villavecchia, Strumenti di analisi, misure ed interventi in materia di traffico e riscaldamento, presentazione, novembre 2006

104

Other references Ambiente Italia, The Urban Ecosystem Europe Report, Milano 2006. Arpalombardia, Rapporto sulla qualità dell'aria di Milano e Provincia, anno 2005, 2006Cushman & Wakefield Healey & Baker, European Cities Monitor 2005, London 2005 Espon (European spatial planning observation network), Mapping regional competitiveness and cohesion. European and global outlook on territorial diversities, 2006 European Environment Agency, Towards an urban atlas, Copenhagen 2002. OECD, Territorial Review: Milan, Italy, Paris 2006. Provincia di Milano, PROGETTO STRATEGICO CITTÀ DÌ CITTÀ. Per la città abitabile, scenari, visioni, idee, edited by DIAP/Politecnico di Milano, 2007. Provincia di Milano, Rapporto di Sostenibilità, 2007. Provincia di Milano, Rapporto sullo stato dell’ambiente, 2005, Milano 2006. Provincia di Milano, PTCP, 2008. Standard & Poor’s, Report Card: World's Top 10 Economic Centers, novembre 2006 Pucci P, Pileri P., DIAP, Politecnico di Milano, « Milan. Mesurer le politique de mobilité durable. Une nouvelle frontière pour la gouvernance urbaine ou un exercice fragmenté et autoréférentiel ? » Recherche Mobilité urbaine durable: les politiques publiques a à l’aune des indicateurs ? comparaison européenne sur le rôle et la place des indicateurs de mobilité durable. LET-ENTPYE, 2007

Press review conduced during the period September 2006-March 2008, on the main local newspapers Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica, and monitoring other national newspapers and local ones: 190 articles.

Websites http://www.ama-mi.it/ http://www.ambienteitalia.it/ www.arpalombardia.it http://www.apat.it/ www.atm-mi.it/ http://www.clickmobility.com/ http://www.chiamamilano.it/it/index.html http://www.comune.milano.it/ http://www.comune.milano.it/dseserver/ecopass/index.html http://www.comune.milano.it/dseserver/webcity/Documenti.nsf/webHomePage?readForm&settor e=salaStampaRassegna¬search=1 http://www.eurolifenet.it/ http://www.fiab-onlus.it/assoc/citta.php?id=21 http://www.flanet.org http://www.legambiente.org http://www.mammeantismogdimilano.it/ http://www.meglio.milano.it/ http://www.metropolitanamilanese.it http://www.minambiente.it/ http://www.provincia.milano.it/ http://www.regione.lombardia.it/

105

Interviews

Institutions Milan Municipality, Former Mobility Assessor, Giorgio Goggi Provincia di Milano, Mobility and transport Assessor, Paolo Matteucci Provincia di Milano, Director of the Department of Mobility and Transport, Centro studi PIM, ex President, Luciano Minotti Regione Lombardia, Regional Councilor, Lega Lombarda, Regional Law author, Ennio Moretti Regione Lombardia, Environment Quality General Direction, General Director, Franco Picco Regione Lombardia, contact person in Air quality operative unit, Ennio Rota Regione Lombardia, Regional Council Vice - President, Marco Cipriano National Association of Municipality (ANCI), Regional section vice - president, Achille Taverniti, former-major of San Donato Milanese (MI) Provincia di Milano, Conference of Municipalities, president, Adriano Alessandrini, major of Segrate (mi)

Monitoring and data production agencies Mobility and Environment Agency (AMA) – Milan Municipality, Director of Energy and Environment Department, Bruno Villavecchia Environmental protection Regional Agency (ARPA), Director, Air Department, Angelo Giudici

Representatives of Stakeholders Chamber of Commerce, vice-president, Massimo Sordi Chamber of work, General secretary, Onorio Rosati ASSOLOMBARDA, Association of regional enterprises, Responsable Area Environment and Security, Mariarosaria Spagnolo

Committees and volunteer associations, consumer protection associations Chiamamilano, Beniamino Piantieri Legambiente, Regional President, Damiano Di Simine Genitoriantismog, President, Anna Gerometta Associazione città ciclabili, Member of the Executive Board, Augusto Castagna Ciclobby, president, Eugenio Galli City of Milan Ombudsman, Alessandro Barbetta Assoutenti, Responsible for the Eurolifenet project, Angiolo Rosselli

Research institutes Lombardy for environment foundation (FLA), Responsible for the Department Quality of air and climatic change, Mita Lapi Ambiente Italia, President, Mario Zambrini Politecnico di Milano, prof. Paola Pucci, prof. Paolo Pileri, experts in the field, authors of the research report Pucci P, Pileri P., DIAP, Politecnico di Milano, « Milan. Mesurer 106

le politique de mobilité durable. Une nouvelle frontière pour la gouvernance urbaine ou un exercice fragmenté et autoréférentiel ? » Recherche Mobilité urbaine durable: les politiques publiques a à l’aune des indicateurs ? comparaison européenne sur le rôle et la place des indicateurs de mobilité durable. LET-ENTPYE, 2007 National Cancer Institute, Direttore, U.O. Registro Tumori, epidemiologue, dott. Paolo Crosignani Milan State University, Chemical department, Andrea Piazzalunga. Trt – Trasporti e Territorio, expert of transport planning expert, Patrizia Malgieri

107