Governance of UPF and “Carta di Milano” - chapter 5

5
GOVERNANCE OF UPF AND
“CARTA DI MILANO”

5.1
THE CARTA OF MILAN
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE FOR
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND URBAN FORESTS
RIK DE VREESE, MARK JOHNSTON, CECIL CORNELIS KONIJNENDIJK, ANNA LAWRENCE, GIOVANNI SANESI, FABIO SALBITANO,
PAOLO SEMENZATO, CLIVE DAVIES, PETER DUINKER, NEVIN COHEN, ANDREJ VERLIČ
Rising awareness of the need to integrate environmental concerns into city planning represents a major shift in thinking from the
1970s focus on built infrastructure towards a whole-landscape approach. This approach is a powerful platform for delivering ecosy-stem
goods and services to urban populations. The planning ideal is to care for the urban landscape as a common good and to enable
close-to-nature living to support a high quality standard of life. The natural environment constitutes the structural fabric of the regio-nal
context for urban centres.
270

5 - GOVERNANCE OF UPF AND “CARTA DI MILANO” www.emonfur.eu
Starting around the Millennium previously separate discussions
about urban forestry including its underlying principles started
to fuse with other disciplines dealing with the planning, design
and management of urban and periurban open spaces. This fu-sion
encompassed agriculture, agroforestry, planning & design,
urban development, landscape architecture, biodiversity, socio-logy,
environmental psychology, arboriculture, green business,
and more within the urban context. The result of the discussion
identified ‘Green Infrastructure’ as the best description of the
comprehensive and functional interconnected mosaic of natural
and semi natural spaces.
The 10 urban and periurban forestry principles
1. A green city is a high quality city for all
2. Food security, the right to food and human rights are foundations
towards MDGs.
3. A positive attitude towards nature, greening and forests coupled
with good design and planning will lead all cities to green healthy
conditions.
4. Citizens and urban dwellers are the warrant owners of the green
city.
5. Local authorities are responsible to their citizens for putting in pla-ce
a good governance process which will lead to actions that deliver
the 10 principles.
6. Other national and regional authorities should promote any action
facilitating the implementation of urban and periurban trees, forest
and greening.
7. Participation, partnership and collaboration among public, private
and civil society stakeholders are strategic requirements for an ef-fective
management of sustainable green city.
8. The green infrastructure of the city is a core part of the long term
strategy of the city.
9. An investment in greening and afforesting a city provides a positive
economic return to the community.
10. The green infrastructure is a natural capital that produces direct
goods and services to urban dwellers
The complex of environments which make up Green infrastructu-re
should be viewed within an Integrated Environmental Gover-nance
system. This can be considered as the process through
which all significant environmental consequences arising from
policy decisions are recognized as decision premises. Hence
through an Integrated Environmental Governance system (which
includes many different stakeholders from government, civil so-ciety,
academia and business) policy options can be evaluated on
the basis of their effects.
“Green infrastructure” represents an integrating concept for plan-ning,
designing and managing the components of the urban land-scape,
ranging from single plants (including trees) to landsca-pe-
scale natural and semi-natural ecosystems. The green infra-structure
approach embraces the intrinsic values of the land-scape
[1] as well as the ecosystem services that support the quali-ty
of life in towns and cities.
[1] “Landscape” means an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of
the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors (Council of Europe, Euro-pean
271
Landscape Convention Florence, 20.X.2000)

Green infrastructure includes a formidable number of compo-nents
such as urban forests, sustainable urban drainage, urban
agriculture and agroforestry sites, green spaces, wildlife sites, ac-cess
networks, green roofs, grasslands, gardens and parks, tree
lines and hedgerows, single trees, greenways and blue-ways, wa-tercourses
and ecological corridors.
The European Commission has stated that Green Infrastructure
is “addressing the spatial structure of natural and semi-natural
areas but also other environmental features which enable citi-zens
to benefit from its multiple services. The underlying prin-ciple
of Green Infrastructure is that the same area of land can
frequently offer multiple benefits if its ecosystems are in a
healthy state. Green Infrastructure investments are generally
characterized by a high level of return over time, provides job
opportunities, and can be a cost-effective alternative or be com-plementary
to 'grey' infrastructure and intensive land use chan-ge.
It serves the interests of both people and nature.” According
to this statement the Green Infrastructure approach can claim to
be “the” paradigm for future city and regional policies as well as
the driving framework for strategic urban and territorial plan-ning.
Cities and city regions are complex socio-ecological systems.
They profoundly affect the landscape in complex ways. Governan-ce
styles and processes, ranging from local community empower-ment
through to city-wide management, must account for the
complexities of the Green Infrastructure approach if they are to
be successful. For these reasons, and in support of international
directives (e.g., Millennium Development Goals, Global Com-pact,
UN-HABITAT global campaign on urban governance, Rio
Declaration on Environment and Development), a set of overar-ching
strategic governance principles has been developed to as-sist
policy and decision-makers, practitioners, scientists, citizens
and associations, to adopt, understand and support the concept
of green infrastructure as a vital part of and contributor to sustai-nable
cities.
272

The European Forum on Urban Forestry, at its annual conferen-ce
in Milan in 2013, adopted the following strategic principles.
1. A SHARED VISION FOR THE FUTURE. Beyond cur-rent
urban and regional planning and policy-making, it is
crucial for the long-term sustainability of cities to adopt a
new vision of the future, namely that of Integrated Environ-mental
Governance. This is a comprehensive approach ai-med
at reducing cities’ ecological footprints while enhan-cing
the quality of life of their inhabitants.
2. LINKING SOCIETY AND ENVIRONMENT. The scien-tific
evidence is conclusive that a better environment leads
to an improved quality of life for urban dwellers. Integra-ted
Environmental Governance involves people working to-gether
to maximise the quality of limited green-space re-sources
and participating the stewardship of the urban en-vironment.
Governance structures at higher levels have a
responsibility to facilitate and to provide the resources al-lowing
people to be stewards.
3. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION STRUCTURES.
Communication works best when there is a widely under-stood,
common language and vocabulary. Green infrastruc-ture
brings a new integrated language in the strategic ap-proach
to city and territorial planning. Integrated Environ-mental
Governance establishes such a common language
and fosters its use in a progressive communications pro-cess.
4. AN ENHANCED KNOWLEDGE BASE. Integrated En-vironmental
Governance depends on continuous efforts in
research and innovation to gain critical knowledge for su-stainable
management of green infrastructure and urban
forests. It also acknowledges the fundamental importance
of other knowledge sources such as citizen experiences, the
arts, and spirituality. Green Infrastructure and Integrated
Environmental Governance are not merely for experts:
knowledge can and should be co-created so that Policy ma-kers
and practitioners, together with scientists and the citi-zens,
should adopt and translate together scientific and
technical knowledgein order to bridge the science, policy
and implementation gaps. The key to success in Integrated
273

Environmental Governance is to cultivate and celebrate di-verse
knowledge and integrate them in the pursuit of crea-ting
and managing urban green infrastructure.
5. A COMMON GREEN HERITAGE. The Green infra-structure
approach and Integrated Environmental Gover-nance
provide a framework for “the commons,” one that
goes beyond traditional elements of the landscape such as
forests, rivers, fisheries, and grazing land and embraces al-so
the cultural sphere. Integrated Environmental Gover-nance
calls for the multifunctional benefits of green infra-structure
to be considered a public good, even if the land
on which it exists is privately owned.
6. RINGING THE CHANGES. Green Infrastructure is pla-ced
at the core of sustainable city and regional planning.
Thanks to this assumption, it is the conceptual and opera-tional
framework to deal, in a sustainable way, with the en-vironmental
and socio-cultural changes that concern all
people. Integrated Environmental Governance is a strate-gic
approach to tackling the challenges posed by global
change at the local level. Urban Green Infrastructure is a
core part of a long-term strategy to address environmental
and socio-cultural changes. It is a powerful tool in combat-ting
the negative effects of global change.
7. WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP. By embracing Integra-ted
Environmental Governance, people, together with go-vernment,
organizations, the business community, NGOs,
take great responsibility as stewards of the green infrastruc-ture.
Participation, partnership, and collaboration among
public, private and civil-society stakeholders are pivotal
strategic tools for managing a sustainable green city. Parti-cipants
in collaborative processes must define locally ap-propriate
rules which ensure the highest standards of parti-cipation
in accessing and using the green infrastructure.
8. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LOCAL, REGIONAL AND
NATIONAL AUTHORITIES. Leadership in establishing
and operating an Integrated Environmental Governance
system lies with the nested configuration of municipal, re-gional
and national authorities: it is impossible for indivi-duals
to be the sole or even primary stewards of green infra-structure
because of the large initial costs, the fact that gre-en
infrastructure very often spans jurisdictions and that is
on private property. Regional and national authorities
need to facilitate Integrated Environmental Governance
with policies that support sustainable management of ur-ban
green infrastructure. Clear, equitable, and fair regulato-ry
frameworks are essential at all governance levels, from
local through regional and national to international.
9. NATURAL CAPITAL AND GREEN INVESTMENT.
Green infrastructure produces multifunctional benefits
that far exceed its capital and operating costs. . For examp-le,
enhancing nature’s capacity in mitigating the negative
effects of climate change and providing excellent places for
practicing activities that can prevent physical and psycholo-gical
diseases is far more cost-effective than “repairing” the
rising cost of damages and finding technological solutions.
274

In parallel, Green Infrastructure is a natural capital that
produces goods and services for the community. Food and
nutrition and high quality water are, among all, key pro-ducts
and valuable economic benefits provided by urban
Green Infrastructure. The ecosystem services provided by
the Green Infrastructure have direct and indirect economic
advantages for the daily life of the citizens. Integrated Envi-ronmental
Governance is perfectly suited to the pursuit of
a green economy, which UNEP defined as “an economy
that produces human well-being and social equity, while
reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. In
its simplest expression, a green economy can be thought of
as a low-carbon, resource-efficient and socially inclusive.”
Investments in green infrastructure and urban forestry pay
back enormous dividends in the form of improved goods
and services for urban inhabitants. Many of these benefits
have yet to be quantified, and some, like well-being and
equity, are difficult to measure, suggesting the need for bet-ter
social, ecological and economic analysis.
10. HEALTHY BIODIVERSE AND MULTIFUNCIONAL
ECOSYSTEMS. Green infrastructure provides crucial en-vironmental
services that cities and regions are often unab-le
to provide with conventional (grey) infrastructure. It is
the guarantee for biodiversity and contributes in fighting
urban sprawl and soil sealing by providing healthy habitats
and protecting permeability and connectivity. It includes
areas where farming, forestry, recreation and ecosystems
conservation all operate together in the same space. Inte-grated
Environmental Governance is by definition oriented
to a multifunctional approach and can deliver multiple be-nefits
both to the societies and to the environment.
275

11. CULTURE, JUSTICE AND EQUITY. An essential re-quirement
is to plan and design green infrastructure, and
governance systems, to increase justice and not to exacerba-te
disparities, and to ensure that green infrastructure bene-fits
accrue equitably to all. It is important to understand
and appreciate the different perceptions of green that diffe-rent
racial and cultural groups may have; and it is essential
to ensure that green infrastructure projects do not exacer-bate
spatial segregation or lead to displacement by increa-sing
land values. Events, projects, and opportunities that
highlight the environment and green landscapes are an in-tegral
part of contemporary local culture and they can con-tribute
in building bridges across the generations and
groups. There are many different types and designs of gre-en
infrastructure, and that the design should reflect and be
responsive to the needs of different groups. Integrated En-vironmental
Governance considers “green” as a cultural
strength: green infrastructure, by making urban manage-ment
more cost-effective and sustainable, will contribute
to social equity.
12. URBAN RURAL RECONCILIATION. Urban-Rural
linkages are essential to sustainable regions: green infra-structure
is designed also to enhance and support the eco-nomies
of periurban and rural communities. Integrated En-vironmental
Governance includes urban economic support
for the management of watersheds supplying the city, ur-ban
agriculture projects that are joined up with rural far-mers
or wetlands management programs that produce clea-ner
water or flood protection for downstream rural resi-dents.
It considers as well the role of grey urban infrastruc-ture
in supporting periurban and rural green infrastructure
(e.g., urban retail markets that support rural farm live-lihoods).
276
Click HERE to download the Italian version

5.2
URBAN FOREST GOVERNANCE
ANNA LAWRENCE
This contribution to the manual introduces the idea of urban forest governance, discusses what it is, and why it is important to descri-be,
analyse and evaluate it. It is based on a paper published in 2013:
Lawrence, A., De Vreese, R., Johnston, M., Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.C. and Sanesi, G. 2013, Urban forest governance: To-wards
a framework for comparing approaches. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 12, 464-473.
277

Urban forestry requires innovative approaches to working toget-her
with a range of stakeholders to plan and manage all the re-sources
that constitute the ‘urban forest’, so it is important to
find clearer ways to learn from innovation and experience.
Over the last decade there has been an lot of interest in urban gre-enspace,
trees and forests. This development has focused largely
on the benefits (social, environmental and economic), the distri-bution
of those benefits, and technical aspects of tree and green-space
management. Much less attention has been paid to the pro-cesses,
interactions, organisations, and decisions which lead to
the establishment and maintenance of such resources, and provi-de
the benefits. This complex area of human organisation and be-haviour
is referred to as governance.
There is now much experience with urban forest governance, but
it has not been widely analysed, and the diversity of terminology,
models, scales and focus have made it difficult to share and build
on this experience. We need a shared language, and a common
framework for documenting and comparing models and experien-ces
with urban forest governance, in order to provide our collea-gues
in urban forest policy and management with the evidence
that they need to design effective urban forestry programmes.
To do this we aim first to demystify the term ‘governance’ and
consider its particular characteristics in relation to urban fore-stry.
We then develop a framework for describing models of ur-ban
forest governance, which enables researchers, planners and
managers to compare and apply experiences to their own con-texts.
We test and illustrate this framework by applying it to five
examples from across Europe. We conclude with a summary of
the options which might be considered under each heading of the
framework, and proposed questions for a concerted research
agenda in this field.
Theoretical background
To describe governance we need to start with a shared definition
which allows us to develop a framework. Some authors see ‘gover-nance’
and ‘government’ as contrasting approaches, and the shift
towards non-state actors is an important aspect of urban forest
governance. However as we shall see, local government is also an
inseparable part of the equation so definitions which exclude ‘go-vernment’
are not helpful. To research the value of different ap-proaches
we need to accommodate a role for government in defi-nitions
of governance, and so it is useful to begin with a more de-scriptive
approach, such as the comprehensive definition offered
by Tacconi (2011, p. 240): the formal and informal institutions,
rules, mechanisms and processes of collective decision-making
that enable stakeholders to influence and coordinate their inter-dependent
needs and interests and their interactions with the
environment at the relevant scales.
Another strand of governance literature focuses on quality asses-sments.
For example, ‘good governance’ in natural resource ma-nagement
can be characterised by legitimacy, transparency, ac-countability,
inclusiveness, fairness, connectivity and resilience
(Lockwood, 2010; Secco et al., 2011); others highlight outcome
measures such as effectiveness, or combine outcome- and pro-
278

cess-oriented evaluation of governance, or seek to distinguish
between indicators of rules, application and outcomes of those
rules (Bäckstrand, 2006; Rauschmayer et al., 2009).
However our main purpose here is to advocate a clearer and sy-stematic
method for describing the models. Unless we can descri-be
governance it is impossible to learn any lessons from evalua-tion.
Our framework
Development of the framework was based on both empirical and
theoretical inputs.
Starting with an inductive approach based on experience, our ini-tial
framework was modified through several iterations, presen-ted
at conferences and workshops, and was modified through
feedback. To finalise the framework presented here, we matched
our intuitive aproach with the theoretical approaches mentioned
above. We then tested it by applying it to five case studies from
four countries: Belgium, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom
(UK). We included two cases from the UK, because historically
different legal and administrative systems, and recent devolu-tion,
contribute to differences in urban governance between En-gland
and Scotland.
The result was the table of dimensions shown below (table 1: in-formation
needed to describe urban forest governance).
Variable Summary information
for comparative table
Further options and
details to include in
narrative
Case The name of the case
Type
A label to distinguish between
a single project, a programme,
a plan, a network etc.
The governance model may be
described (e.g. community
managed woodland; local
authority team
Scale Neighbourhood, city, region,
nation
279

280
Further options and
narrative
Context
Trees, forests Street trees, woodlands, parks.
Area if possible.
Description of landscape,
quality and history of
woodlands
People Size of catchment population Ethnic diversity, culture, and
demographics.
Institutional
framework
Policies
National, regional or local
policies, plans and
programmes that affect urban
forestry.
Relevant detail about the
policies, plans and
programmes.
Relevant past policies, plans
and programmes
Planning and regulations
Planning and legal
requirements specific to the
case, and which affect the
implementation of urban
forestry in the area.
The wider context e.g.
national forestry regulations,
and spatial planning systems,
can be described if relevant
(e.g. if the purpose is to
compare between different
national contexts).
Ownership
Of the land; any changes to
ownership required to
implement the programme
and how that is achieved.
e.g. historical change; owner
types.
Access and use rights
Rights to walk / cycle and / or
make use of products from the
urban forest.
e.g. historical context;
campaigns to change rights
Further options and
narrative
Actors and coalitions
Primary stakeholders
List of those who are active in
developing and implementing
the work
The roles of the primary
actors can be described here.
Others stakeholders
List of additional stakeholders
with an interest or influence,
or who use the outcomes.
Additional information on the
stakeholders and their role
can be added.
Partnerships
Formal connections between
organisations to help deliver
the urban forest
Description of the partnership
and the roles of the partners
Power analysis
Amongst the actors and
stakeholders, who makes
decisions? Who gets what they
want, who does not? Is this
through influence, democratic
processes, campaigning?
This section has potential for
detailed theoretical work not
easily summarised in few
words in the table. The
description of conflict for
example may required in-depth
qualitative research.
The decision to include such
work will depend on the aims
of the study.
Resources
Funding Grants received, taxes,
trading.
When appropriate, amount
and type of funding can be
described.
Knowledge and information
How technical information
(such as tree species
composition) is provided and
accessed, whose knowledge is
available and used in making
management decisions.
References to technical
guidelines or design/
management types can be
added. Discuss balance of
expert, lay and local
knowledge.
Delivery mechanisms
Policy tools that support
implementation, e.g.
incentives, grants offered,
projects, staff.
Details on tools mobilised can
be described.

Issues with using the framework
The framework consists of a set of overarching dimensions, with
descriptors under each. These can be used in a formal and syste-matic
way; however this summary must be accompanied by nar-rative
text which expands on, and explains the significance of,
the material represented in the table.
The five case studies (which can be found in Lawrence et al.
2013) provide a range of different examples which can be descri-bed
using the framework. These show how the scale of descrip-tion
can vary. For example, the ‘urban forest’ is defined as the to-tality
of trees and woods in an urban area (Konijnendijk et al.,
2006). But the framework can also be applied to specific woo-dlands
managed by specific groups.
What did we find out about urban forest governance?
Urban forest governance differs widely between and even within
countries. The framework makes it possible to describe governan-ce
consistently and comprehensively in very different situations,
thereby facilitating comparisons. Such comparisons can be ap-plied
both within a given context (the same country, or region) or
across different contexts. By making context and governance
clear it will help researchers and decision-makers to weigh up
the applicability of different approaches to their own context. It
can also be used sequentially, to help in identifying changes in go-vernance
and compare trends across Europe. All five case studies
show moves towards public or community engagement, and to-wards
a more holistic approach for including forestry in wider ur-ban
governance issues.
281
Further options and
narrative
Processes
Discourses
The main various relevant
narratives, perspectives,
conflicts, framing in the
media, described concisely.
Describe narratives, conflicts
and framing relevant to the
description of the governance
process.
Participation, engagement
and conflict management
Ways in which actors and
stakeholders are consulted,
engaged, involved and
empowered, in decisions and
delivery. Conflict management
processes.
Monitoring and evaluation
Ways in which the work is
monitored; contribution to
transparency and
accountability?
References to online reports.

There is a trend towards more ‘governance with government’,
where previously ‘governance by government’ was the norm.
However local government (and sometimes regional and natio-nal)
is a significant and often the central player in urban forestry,
so as mentioned above it is important to include government sta-keholders
in the description of urban forest governance.
Reflections on using the framework
Urban forestry is a multi-level, multi-stakeholder and multi-disci-plinary
field. Applying the framework stimulates reflection and
data gathering about the perspectives of stakeholders, processes,
interests and visions involved, as well as the institutional structu-res.
Some dimensions in the framework cannot be described ob-jectively
from one single perspective. The level of participation,
for example, might appear to be strong to one person, but anot-her
might be more aware of people who have been omitted. So-me
dimensions are objective facts: area covered, number of peop-le;
but stakeholders’ perspectives are highly relevant to the de-scription
of process, conflicts, and participation. The most com-plete
use of the framework would therefore use these categories
to stimulate research on such perspectives.
The challenge in applying the framework is in sketching the who-le
picture, describing the underlying mechanisms (mainly institu-tional
framework, knowledge and information) and in disentan-gling
its complexity. It is also important to remember that gover-nance
changes, and to use this framework as a tool to explore
that change.
References
Backstrand, K., 2006. Democratizing global environmental governance?
Stakeholder democracy after the World Summit on Sustainable Deve-lopment.
European Journal of International Relations 12, 467-498.
Konijnendijk, C.C., Ricard, R.M., Kenney, A., Randrup, T.B., 2006. Defi-ning
urban forestry - A comparative perspective of North America and Eu-rope.
Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4, 93-103.
Lawrence, A., Rik De Vreese, Mark Johnston, Cecil C. Konijnendijk and
Giovanni Sanesi (2013) Urban forest governance: Towards a framework
for comparing approaches. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 12: 464-
473
Lockwood, M., 2010. Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A
framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmen-tal
Management 91, 754-766.
Rauschmayer, F., Berghöfer, A., Omann, I., Zikos, D., 2009. Examining
processes or/and outcomes? Evaluation concepts in European governance
of natural resources. Environmental Policy and Governance 19, 159-173.
Secco, L., Da Re, R., Gatto, P., Tassa, D.T., 2011. How to measure gover-nance
in forestry: Key dimensions and indicators from emerging econo-mic
mechanisms. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 182, 69-82.
Tacconi, L., 2011. Developing environmental governance research: The
example of forest cover change studies. Environmental Conservation 38,
234-246.
282

BOX
WORKSHOP:
GOVERNANCE OF UPF
ELISA BARBANTE
On January 30, 2014 the workshop “Urban forests and gre-en
systems: policy and governance in the Lombardy Region”
was held at Palazzo Pirelli in Milan.
The event was an important occasion for the first inventory
of the urban and peri-urban forests in Lombardy was presen-ted,
and for initiating a debate on the issue of policies and
strategies fostered at the regional level for the field of fore-stry.
The experiences of the Lombardy Region and Slovenia con-cerning
governance were presented.
283

Benedetto Selleri, technical coordinator of the EMoNFUr proj-ect,
spoke of the objectives and work methodology of the proj-ect:
the monitoring network of the urban and peri-urban forests
(UPF), inventory and forest cadastre of UPF of Lombardy, and
three manuals, respectively, for the monitoring, management
and ecosystem services of UPF.
Enrico Calvo - ERSAF, project leader of the EMoNFUr Project,
presented the first “Inventory of the regional urban and peri-ur-ban
forests in the Lombardy Region”, illustrating, in addition to
the methodology used, several of the most significant results
and data. Furthermore, the forest cadastre of urban and peri-urban
artificial forests was presented: a database that will
enable quick and accurate dynamic storage of information rela-ted
to the forest plantations carried out in Lombardy in the last
30 years.
Roberto Carovigno, Agricultural DG of the Lombardy Region,
illustrated the results of a number of initiatives in the forest field
of the Lombardy Region of the years 2000-2013 such as, “Val-tellina
2005”, “Ten great forests of lowland” and “10,000 hec-tares
of new forests and green systems”.
284

Andrej Verlič, technical coordinator for Slovenia, illustrated the
governance of urban forests of the cities of Ljubljana and Celje.
During the roundtable that was attended by representatives of
universities, freelance professionals and associations, the issue
of public-private partnerships in the planning and management
of urban forests was addressed. Beginning with the different ex-periences
and prospects, theories and possible strategies had
been discussed for the realization of mainly participatory and
sustainable systems of governance, even from an economic
point of view.
BOX
285
Click HERE to download the Italian version

Governance of UPF and “Carta di Milano” - chapter 5

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (6)

Mais de Giovanni Poletti

Mais de Giovanni Poletti (20)

Último

Último (20)

Governance of UPF and “Carta di Milano” - chapter 5