The Environment and Territory commissions of the Chamber and Senate are engaged in expressing opinions on the appointments (confirmations or renewals) of the various presidents and bodies of the Parks that dot our peninsula. Last opinion expressed, that for the president of the Aspromonte national park. But how many are there and how much do the Parks cost? And is their management effective? The last photo is from the Court of Auditors and refers to 2017. And there is no shortage of findings: we are in front of 22 parks, with its president, board of directors, the executive committee, the community of the park, the board of auditors who remain in office for five years. The institutional activities concern the protection of the territory, the conservation and management of biodiversity, support for traditional economic activities and tourism, methods of using the territory and environmental education. the sector is mainly supported by government transfers.
In 2017, the sums ascertained by the park authorities by way of State contributions totaled 66,2 million, an increase compared to 2016 (63,5 million), with a high incidence on total current revenue equal to 64,3, 68,4 per cent, compared to 2016 per cent in 17. The autonomous sources of revenue are still very limited: in 22 out of 10 institutions they are less than 6 per cent and in 2 they do not reach 2016 per cent. In short, underlines the Court of Auditors in its latest report, "the financial contribution of regions, local authorities and other entities in the public and private sector, even if overall growing compared to 6,7, (from 7,9 million to XNUMX million), remains attested to significantly lower values than that of the State". And therefore the Court “invites park authorities to undertake and/or intensify management policies aimed at finding independent sources of entry".
For personnel, in 2017 the total expenditure was 26,4 million with an increase of 0,4 per cent compared to 2016. But the notes of the Court they also concern the management aspect, because "almost thirty years after the entry into force of the programming framework law, only one park institution - notes the Court of Auditors - that of Aspromonte, has equipped itself with all the programming tools". And therefore the Court of Auditors believes that "the critical situation that characterizes the planning tools, fundamental acts for the management and regulation of protected areas requires regulatory interventions suitable for guaranteeing the definition of the proceedings within certain and reasonable times, also possibly , through forms of silent assent in case of non-approval of the same".
In conclusion, the examination of the entire system of park authorities "highlights critical aspects, both in relation to the regulatory structure, with particular reference to the delays in the appointment of the Presidents and the failure to adopt programming tools, after almost thirty years from the entry into force of the framework law, both of a managerial and economic-financial nature, the general irrelevance of own revenues; problematic profiles connected to the debt exposure and the situation of structural economic deficit of some”.
