Italian Wilderness Association criticizes the environmentalists of the protection committee of the Ernici Mountains, "the lies continue".
The obstinacy with which some environmentalists of Frosinone support certain theories in an uncritical and opinionated manner (never revealing, among other things, their personal details, and hiding behind the so-called "Committee for the protection of the Ernici Mountains", which better they would define Committee for a Park of the Ernici Mountains). Precisely this obstinacy of theirs reveals the ill-concealed reason for their commitment, that is to create the usual bandwagon eats public money and, hypothetically, to ensure for themselves or their association some place in the management, presidency or in the inevitable Board of Directors of the Park itself. These people should understand the functioning of a country's democratic system, since they do not know that a municipal resolution is nothing more than a law at the lowest level of popular decision. To approve it you need a municipal council, which is equivalent to a regional council or parliament, where laws and legislative measures are discussed and approved or rejected and, if approved, they become executive and become "law". A Wilderness Area, they say, can be abrogated whenever you want: it is appropriate to remind them that the same discourse also applies to a Park, be it National or Regional. These are the rules of democracy, which in recent years has been transforming and evolving from representative democracy to participatory democracy, precisely with the mechanism of participation from below by citizens and institutional bodies that are most in direct contact with them!
If there is a general law to refer to for the establishment of a protected area, there are greater guarantees of protection, but the consent of the Municipality is always required, as in the case of the Parks; but this does not mean that it is always a question of "law". Moreover, today the Municipalities for these choices still have legislative support: Law No. 10 of 2013 approved by the Monti government, which confirms an obvious fact, that is, that Municipalities can freely decide on the establishment of local areas for the protection of Nature. . And what are Wilderness Areas if not this? These environmentalists argue that Wilderness Areas are "legally irrelevant" (irrelevant, like municipal deliberations that force citizens to pay IMU!); and they argue, with good reason, that the Wilderness Area does not exist in our legal landscape.
But who has ever said that they are provided for by a law?
And on the basis of which law can a Municipality be prevented, in the regime of its legislative autonomy, moreover for land belonging to the same entities, from designating it?
And do these gentlemen know that although these Areas are not yet recognized in Italy, they are recognized in the world classification of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature by UNESCO?
And do they know that the European Union itself is considering the possibility of doing the same thing?
And do they know that it is precisely by creating these new forms of protected areas that it will then be possible to obtain their legislative recognition?
And what better protection exists than that of an owner (in this case the Municipality) who independently decides to keep his own places?
The Park is nothing more than an imposition to achieve the same thing. In a truly democratic system, isn't consent and sharing better?
These environmentalists argue that Wilderness Areas are "legally irrelevant" (irrelevant, like municipal deliberations that force citizens to pay IMU!); and they argue, rightly, that the Wilderness Area does not exist in our legal landscape.
But who has ever said that they are provided for by a law?
And on the basis of which law can a Municipality be prevented, in the regime of its legislative autonomy, moreover for land belonging to the same entities, from designating it?
And do these gentlemen know that although these Areas are not yet recognized in Italy, they are recognized in the world classification of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature by UNESCO?
And do they know that the European Union itself is considering the possibility of doing the same thing?
And do they know that it is precisely by creating these new forms of protected areas that it will then be possible to obtain their legislative recognition?
And what better protection exists than that of an owner (in this case the Municipality) who independently decides to keep his own places?
The Park is nothing more than an imposition to achieve the same thing. In a truly democratic system, isn't consent and sharing better?
That they were then "badly copied by the very different reality of the United States of America" let it be said to those who have the competence to do so, given that the international WILD Foundation has so far found nothing to say about the Italian (and European ) that the AIW made in Italy.
Where would this diversity fit? It would be enough to read a municipal resolution that approved them and compare it with American law, before speaking. And then, it would also be appropriate to inquire about what the Wilderness Areas are before stating any inaccuracies, not to say bullshit, about them. The AIW has not “interpreted” them by mediating them from America, and where it has done so it is only to adapt them to the Italian land situation.
Nor are they "non-binding agreements" with the AIW: the AIW limits itself to proposing them, not managing them, as they are local autonomous choices and, if anything, reserves the right only to exclude them from its System of Italian Wilderness Areas if the Municipalities then did not respect the approved binding commitments. Even in America the first Wilderness Areas were established autonomously well before (from 1924) a law was passed and then recognized (1964). It is appropriate to remind them that participation "from below" occurs through the sharing of local populations and / or their representatives in the City Council: that is, by those who suffer from constraints; just what the Wilderness Areas have recognized, while the Park Committee has only a participation of acronyms, sometimes represented by one or a few people, almost always from outside the countries concerned: if this is "from below" for them, we can understand what idea they have of a democratic system!
They claim to have left all the urbanized and agricultural areas outside the proposed Park: this is also done by the Wilderness Areas, but without then perhaps providing for the "contiguous bands" as all the Parks are now trying to have in order to expand their management power, then trying to to extend them further and further away as a bear or deer moves away from the protected area: because this is their policy, do not keep the animals with virtuous environmental policies aimed at preserving the environment (read bear) in protected areas , but chasing them with constraints as they drift away! In fact, doesn't this latest proposal for a Park for the Ernici Mountains arise from the presence of a bear that has moved away from the Abruzzo Park?
As for "deceiving the right-thinking", is it not a deception to speak of 59 acronyms, when not even the responsible ones are known and not even the number of people they represent? And also, we do not want to go into the merits of the figures on the protected areas of Lazio, because we have no elements to refute them; but we wonder if these elements have them the anonymous of the Parks Committee, or if they just take as good what "the convent passes": and we know how good the convent is in these manipulations. For example, the law No. 157 on hunting, with regard to the territory to be assigned to the hunting ban, does not speak of percentages to be calculated on a provincial basis but on a regional basis, and including not only the Parks, but the whole regional territory which for any reason is subject to a ban on hunting: and Lazio (and also the Province of Frosinone, so highly urbanized) has certainly largely exceeded the 30% required by law. Making provincial extrapolations was a nice and good trick, but how legitimate can it be? And, in any case, we continue to remind these inexperienced people, that without the consent of the Municipalities and of the, according to them useless, municipal resolutions, today in Italy it is not possible to establish new Parks! But perhaps for them the municipal resolutions are waste paper when they designate a Wilderness Area, and instead they become pure gold when they give their assent to a Park.
As for the agreement between the Ministry of the Environment and the hunting associations, it is not up to us to enter into the merits, but we do not believe that the representatives of the hunters intended it as an assent to new Parks. We repeat, it is not up to us to judge a decision certainly taken with good intentions but perhaps also with a certain lightness, given the continuous exploitation that the anti-hunt environmentalists make of it. And perhaps it would be the case that the representatives of the hunters sensitized the signatories of that agreement to better define its real meaning with the Ministry of the Environment, perhaps with clarifications on the most ambiguous and differently interpretable parts.
Signed Bruno La Pietra National President of AIW
Signed Franco Zunino Secretary General AIW
(January 9, 2015)
Italian Wilderness Association