The Borsacchio Guides express their opinion on the redefinition of the Reserve and ask the Region for a discussion. “The Guides of Borsacchio learned from the information bodies of the note released by the President of the Abruzzo Region, Marco Marsilio, regarding a double resolution of the council to implement the indications of the Ministry which had led the region to “freeze” the cutting of the reserve to avoid the appeal to the Constitutional Court. These indications had been raised by all environmental associations and supported by a petition signed by 30,000 citizens. The 300 associations had criticized how the proposal to re-delimit the Borsacchio reserve had ignored the calls and hearings of territorial bodies, such as the Municipality and the Province, too lightly and against the national framework laws”. Thus the Guides of Borsacchio in a statement.
They continue: “We learn from the press that a landscape commission has been launched with the intention of maintaining the reserve on an area of 24 hectares, imposing landscape constraints on the hilly section of the reserve. However, the crucial point remains the scientific one: a landscape constraint is, as the term itself suggests, a constraint that protects the landscape, not the environment and nature. The natural networks present on the sea and on the hills, recognized and in the process of being recognized in the European Union’s Natura 2000 network, were not taken into consideration.
It is incomprehensible how environmental issues can be linked with landscape tools, since these are two totally different levels. This was also clearly explained during the extraordinary City Council by the technician appointed by the centre-right to draw up the Naturalistic Structure Plan (PAN), who underlined how the environmental and landscape constraints are distinct and neither can replace the other”.
“If the Abruzzo Region has no speculative interest in building and we want to give credence to the words of President Marsilio, then we ask ourselves why not approve the PAN, which would also allow significant implementations in the management of the reserve and structures to a greater extent than the current instruments. We are ready for a discussion and we will ask, together with the other associations, to be stakeholders of those who do not vote but exist on this earth: nature.
Many falsehoods have been said, but the facts hold sway. In the observations to the PAN, examined and technically concluded by the Municipality and Region two days before the cutting, numerous requests were made for tourist facilities, SPAs, hotels, ground-based photovoltaic systems, parking on the plain and many other volumes. If it is really the Region’s will to unlock the Reserve, the method is to approve the NAP in the Region. A lot of funds, technicians and a lot of work from the regional and municipal bodies and offices were invested. The almost twenty years of stalemate arose precisely because the PAN was absent and without it stringent transitional rules apply for those who live there, but also for us who protect the environment. Of the dozens of projects proposed, almost none have been activated and we are, for example, losing the conservation of the plover on the coastal part in the absence of rules and management”.
“The landscape constraint, as said by the same technician appointed by the centre-right for the drafting of the PAN, is not an environmental constraint. They are two different things. Removing an environmental constraint is a choice to be evaluated with important and very long scientific studies. It’s a very long job that would still block everyone. So why not approve the NAP, unblock nature and those who live in the area, and then meet again to see if changes or other solutions are necessary.
However, we are available to participate and make our contribution. A reserve is harmony between man and nature, between farmers, citizens, tourists and species of flora and fauna. We are certainly not researchers and we cannot expect anything more than what an environmental association legitimately can. But just as we are not entitled to represent everyone and all instances, others are not entitled to represent everything and are obviously not entitled, like us, to give scientific opinions. We remember the team of researchers from L’Aquila who sent an important note on the environmental value and how every action must be done using scientific parameters, not opinions.
We agree with this thesis. We are open to discussion to find a shared solution. One thing is certain in this matter: our association will not back down and we are ready to call for mobilization.”
“False news has been spread about us by social media pages, spending tens of thousands of euros on sponsorships, praising our earnings, even millionaires. It makes us smile, and it causes anger for many who spend hundreds of volunteer hours spending on equipment without any public reimbursement. We announce that, after the WWF, if other defamatory news is spread, we too will file complaints and announce that we will donate the proceeds to assistance projects for disadvantaged people and other voluntary associations in the area without retaining any of the compensation. We don’t operate for money, otherwise we wouldn’t have been active for almost twenty years in a paper reserve without funding. We work for the territory and to save a minimum of naturalness while waiting for real management and adequate funds for professionals.
We are open to dialogue, to demonstrate that we can live in harmony between man and nature. We are here to say that, if there really are no speculative interests, we are ready for sincere and open discussion. We ask to be heard in the Region, together with representatives of the other associations participating in the appeal. We bring the interest of a community of 30,000 people and of nature”, conclude the Guides of Borsacchio in a statement.
