The meeting was held electronically at 5.15pm on Tuesday 7 May 2024. The topic on which as stakeholders such as Pro Olio we were invited to express ourselves was: “definition of the perimeter and regulatory regime of the new PNM.”. As president of the Association I read the following document: on the definition of the perimeter
There Pro Olio San Lupo points out that the perimeter phase has largely exceeded the legal, technical and regulatory times for the final decision. The perimeter is that indicated by ISPRA in 2021, this meeting cannot violate, in our opinion, the technical document produced by the scientific body of the Ministry of the Environment, also because it faithfully reflects European legislation in reference to the Southern Slopes SCI area of Monte Mutria IT8020009.
On the topic, I shared several notes from the Togo Bozzi Cultural Association, which I personally sent via PEC to MITE, to the vice-presidency of the Campania Region and other bodies. Since the Togo Bozzi Association has decided to intervene exclusively in public and official meetings, I, who am participating for the Pro Olio San Lupo, make my own, and remember, some excerpts:
from the PEC of 10 November 2023
«1 – the qualified technicians of Ispra have rightly included the Municipality of San Lupo in the Matese National Park, since thirty percent of the San Lupo territory naturally falls within the SCI Monte Mutria Area IT8020009;
2 – the definitive perimeter of the Park, duly drawn up by the aforementioned scientific bodies of the Ministry of the Environment, has, in fact, traced the naturalistic boundaries of the Matese area, obviously including the territories already safeguarded by the “Natura 2000 Network”, i.e. by the main operational instrument of the European Union for the conservation of biodiversity, in line with the technical-regulatory consideration reserved both for SCI Areas (Sites of Community Interest) and for Conservation Areas (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs);
3 – said expert assessment highlighted, among other things, the existence of the Sepino-Morcone-Pontelandolfo naturalistic corridor-
4 – the San Lupo City Council in February 2019, taking note of the voluminous work produced by the ministerial bodies, unanimously decided on the convinced adhesion to the Matese National Park.
For the reasons specified, no administrative contortion of strictly local relevance can jeopardize the rights and legitimate interests of the entire district, also because the scientific perimeter established by the Ispra technicians guarantees the full protection of the Matese naturalistic corridor with the permanence of the valuable area mountain of Cerreto Sannita and Guardia Sanframondi in the National Park, in line, moreover, with the need to concretely enhance the archaeological, naturalistic, landscape and geological heritage represented by both the “Lionessa” and the “Morgie Guardiasi”, i.e. an extraordinary scenery environmental admired and recognized by scholars from every corner of Italy.
In conclusion, the Samnite association “Togo Bozzi” invites everyone to respect the regulatory provisions, since the historic municipalities of the interregional district are losing huge ordinary and extraordinary funding due to the incredible freeze suffered by the law establishing the Matese National Park, financed by the Parliament of the Republic since December 2017.»
and as noted in another PEC dated 14 November 2023,
«let’s not confuse the maps» because «the production categories of the District deserve the full valorisation of quality agriculture, local trade and sustainable tourism.»
on the regulatory regime
Pro Olio San Lupo reiterates that it makes no sense to get lost in what can only be the intentions of one or more people given that, as very clearly established by 394, the rules of the Park are established by the Park Community and the Park Community, again for the same 394 it was established after the establishment of the National Park. Everything else can only fuel inaccuracies to the point of becoming information terrorism when spread by members in various capacities within the institutions. As already happened in San Lupo when members of the political majority began to spread ridiculous information (with the PN you can’t redo the front door, you can’t fence the property, you have to redo all the gutters with copper, etc… ). We are certain that the Region does not want to cross the regulatory limits by giving space to conjectures with arguments that are not its responsibility, as has already been done by the San Lupo administrators.
I conclude
San Lupo has been in regression for years now. The data speaks clearly . In the San Lupe area, the presence of people of working age is literally collapsing. Just as the birth rate does not present encouraging data. For San Lupo it is necessary to plan how to give concrete economic value to the few peculiarities that exist. Only economic recovery can curb depopulation. And in San Lupo the economic recovery cannot ignore the primary economy (agriculture-olive growing) to give life to the secondary one (production of extra virgin olive oil) and create the conditions for the tertiary sector (sale of products combined with environmental tourism): the common thread it is the unmissable opportunity of PNMatese. San Lupo cannot die under the short-sightedness of administrators who, eager to flaunt positive budgets and incapable of planning, have subjected themselves to the will of wind power interests (…is this still democracy?!). San Lupo needs Matese’s PN to reverse the regression. An administration, which works for the interests of a few private individuals rather than for the interests of the community and which from its high position frightens citizens with false information, as well as the impactful works of energy conversion businessmen, cannot benefit from stalling , we hope in good faith, of the Campania Region implemented in the name of a phantom and unforeseen facilitation between non-reconcilable programmes.
We expect a rapid HEARING from the Regional Authority as required by the founding rules of the Italian NPs. We have been waiting for this for almost 7 years.
So the issue is simpler than we try to make people believe (“perimeter”, “regulatory regime”).
Does the Region want to implement what emerged from the investigations of the ISPRA technicians or does it want to implement what was requested by the administrators of San Lupo and Pontelandolfo?
Pro Olio San Lupo
