I – The Framework Law on Protected Areas and the role of National Park authorities within a system of interweaving competencies

1The Italian Constitution does not provide for any specific provisions on environmental issues as a whole, least of all on parks and protected areas. In this regard, however, reference can be made to some general principles (Articles 9, 32 and 117, para. 2, letter s), Const.), enriched by the insights of constitutional case law. This set of indications not only allows for the establishment of the field of expertise of both national government and regional authorities, but also affects territorial governance and, therefore, the governance of national and regional parks, not to mention protected areas [1].

2This paper is meant to offer a detailed study of both the purpose and the scope of application of the above-mentioned regulations with particular focus on problems arising from the governance of protected areas. It also takes into account the changes that occurred over the years in the relationship between the national government and regional authorities [2]. At the regional level, in particular, questions concerning administrative matters, more specifically the complex task of finding a balance between nature conservation and social-economic development, are directly involved [3].

3In Italy, the management of protected areas has gone through dark age until the 1990s, based, until that time, on a rudimentary system strongly anchored to elite hunting activities (let’s consider royal hunting reserves, for example). The Framework Law on Protected Areas dates back to twenty-eight years ago, precisely to the Law No. 394 of December 6, 1991, adopted to comply with the theory of nature conservation. According to it, protected areas are defined as territories of special environmental significance that are worthy of special protection. For this reason, such territories are subjected to a specific protection and management regime for their conservation for the present as well as future generations. It follows that protected areas are labeled as environmental legal assets; as a consequence, they are protected as goods of an intangible nature, ontologically disjointed from every single part they comprise, that belongs to the whole community [4].

4Over the past decades, the adoption of the law at issue was followed by several administrative rulings on the management of protected areas such as rulings defining both the objectives and forms of implementation of the collaboration among national government, regional and local authorities, rulings on the establishment of the borders of protected areas, on the establishment of temporary borders, on safeguarding measures, managing bodies as well as on the authorization to implement maintenance tasks [5]. Undoubtedly, Law No. 394/1991 should be given special credit, from a purely technical viewpoint, mainly for two reasons: the safeguard of territorial productive purposes and the promotion of multi-functionality [6]. Moreover, one must not forget that Article 11, Law No. 394/1991, prohibits hunting in national and regional parks, drawing on the principle of the environmental protection of wildlife. Such prohibition is strengthened by a set of limitations for the protection of wild species [7]. The prohibition, however, should be based on the general legislation on public hunting practices in national and regional parks [8], although the Supreme court of cassation made clear that the prohibition of hunting shall be understood in the wider sense and not only about wild fauna. Additionally, this shall contribute to avoiding unlawful hunting practices [9]. It follows that the prohibition also applies to regional parks, although there are no specific guidelines as to the establishment of their perimeter [10].

5That being said, it should be kept in mind that the principle of participation of local authorities [11] was lawfully established regarding the delimitation of the borders of natural protected areas, according to Article 22, Law No. 394/1991. To be consistent with this regulation, the regional provision of Campania on protected areas was deemed to be unconstitutional due to the lack of reference to the above-described principle along with the lack of reference to the right to resort to conferences, as is a possibility provided for by state legislation [12]. The regulatory framework on protected areas was updated by the recently introduced redistribution of responsibilities laid down by Constitutional Law No. 3/2001 [13]. The constitutional court, in turn, reaffirmed its jurisdiction on so-called crosscutting subjects [14] as listed in Article 117, para. 2, Const. In that way, the court reaffirmed also that environmental safeguarding is no more than “a constitutionally safeguarded value” that “involves a set of responsibilities at the regional level, if necessary, yet entrusting the national government with the responsibility of establishing national safeguard standards”. Moreover, “state exclusive jurisdiction is not compatible with specific interventions by regional authorities on the ground of their own jurisdiction” [15].

6Similarly, a delicate balance governs the relationship between the need for full independence characterizing the whole protection system of natural areas, on the one hand, and on the other hand, regional territorial planning powers [16]. Particularly, it is evident how the planning system of park authorities revolves around a crosscutting responsibilities concept, in which regional authorities may participate only “by mutual agreement”. This means not only that regional authorities cannot enforce their planning diktats as to matters concerning national parks, but also that such an organizational set-up resists the extension attempts of regional competencies, causing environmental protection to remain an essentially national question, within the jurisdiction of national governments [17].

7Taking also into account the various management levels as well as the various protective measures of ecosystems, it emerges that the role of park authorities is influenced by both international and European biodiversity regulations. Just as significant is the influence that such regulations exercise over national law. Moreover, mention should be made of the failed attempt to reform the Framework Law on protected areas [18], which will be discussed later.

8From a merely administrative point of view, at the time of the adoption of the above-mentioned law, the jurisprudence regulating state employment was shaped by old post-constitutional regulations, namely the Presidential Decree No. 3 of January 10, 1957, and the Law No. 312 of July 11, 1980, the Law No. 241 of August 7, 1990, on the procedure of access to administrative documents, and the Local Autonomy Law No. 142 of June 8, 1990, were considered back then as disruptive innovations. Legislative Decree No. 29 of February 3, 1993, later incorporated in Legislative Decree No. 165 of March 30, 2001, on public employment, was still miles away from being adopted. The last decree should be given special credit due to the creation of a “new” office, which is the director. Credit should be likewise given to the three so-called Bassanini Acts of 1997 and 1999 introducing a drastic separation between politics and management. Moreover, it must be highlighted that such a separation was quite an achievement for the Italian public administration after only forty-five years from the adoption of the republican Constitution of 1948, yet it does not apply to park authorities, since they are conceived as territorially local authorities without policy making powers (general purposes and self-determination).

9The European legislation on environmental and fauna protection dates back to the period when Law No. 394/1991 came into force, in the wake of both international treaties and national legislation. Particularly, the so-called Habitats Directive No. 92/43/CEE of May 21, 1992, dated only shortly after the above-discussed Italian Framework Law on protected areas. The Habitats Directive deals with issues concerning the variety of national regulations, procedures, responsibilities, localization documents of each Site of Community Importance (SCI), as well as the variety of conservation, protection and development measures [19]. Therefore, several habitats of community importance are identified as falling within the so-called Special Area of Conservation (SAC) to receive proper protection. SAC, in turn, is the basis for the so-called Network of Nature Protection Areas 2000. At the same time, its aim was to protect several animal and vegetable organisms (as listed below) of utmost importance due to their scarcity or relevance within the ecosystem. However, it should be kept in mind that the above-described legislative framework encountered a significant delay before coming into force due to the lengthy cataloging process of all of the protected areas. Such a process, indeed, required the consultation of the lists drawn up by every single member state. In Italy, the European directive at issue was implemented only through of Presidential Decree No. 357 of September 8, 1997, later modified and completed by Presidential Decree No. 120 of March 12, 2003.

II – The governance of park authorities and the need for legal experts as directors

10The organization of park authorities revolves around the figure of the president, being not only the main decision-maker, but also the legal representative. Along with him, the organizational structure sets up proper technical directorate which is not responsible for general conservation measures, but rather for merely administrative ones. More specifically, the management of park authorities must be based on a balance between territorial conservation and environmentally friendly activities [20].

11Accordingly, the first wording of Article 9, para. 11, Law No. 394/1991, provided that the Italian Minister for the Environment should appoint park directors “after passing a special public competition […], assigning a private-law contract for a period longer no more than five years, renewable only once. Candidates shall be entered on a list of suitable people for the office at issue”. According to such wording, the director’s office occurred to be accurately regulated from both legal and economical viewpoint within a separate jurisdiction from the one concerning the role the president had to carry out.

12Nevertheless, through Article 25 of Law No. 426 of December 9, 1998, the above-mentioned regulation was reviewed. Changes introduced back then are still in force as follows: “Park directors shall be appointed, by means of a decree, by the Italian Minister for the Environment from a group of three candidates as proposed by the Council Directive. Candidates must be entered on a specific register kept by the Ministry for the Environment containing a list of suitable people. Access to the register is granted after passing a special public competition. After the appointment, the President shall sign a private-law contract with the newly appointed president, valid for a period no longer than five years”.

13That being said, the register of park directors was introduced only in 1999, containing the names of both incumbent directors and those appointed in 1994. The register was published in 2004; it contained 265 directors’ names. Later on, it had never been updated every two years as laid down in the above-mentioned Ministerial Decree [21]. As a result, once the names of deceased members were removed, the majority of directors whose name appeared in the register were retiring or had already retired due to reaching retirement age, or they were not eligible due to other legal reasons such as criminal convictions or similar incompatibilities.

14After all, it should be kept in mind that there was a major lack in terms of substantive conditions, as Article 2, para. 26, Law No. 426/1998, provides that “the Minister for the Environment shall issue a decree within sixty days after Law No. 426 came into force to lay down requirements for the registration of eligible candidates […] as well as detailed rules for the execution of public competitions”.

15Eighteen years (!) had to pass for such a legislative gap to be filled in, on September 23, 2016 [22], it was finally issued with a ministerial decree. In the decree at issue, distinguishes between professional experience and educational or scientific qualification [23]. Additionally, due account must be given to “professional experience concerning environmental and biodiversity protection as well as problem-solving skills as to managerial, administrative and accounting matters”. In that way, priority is given to professional experience or educational-scientific education gained in the management of national parks and protected areas.

16The register of eligible candidates was updated only recently, after the Ministry for the Environment issued, in January 2017 [24], a notice of open competition. As a result, 578 names were registered in February 2018 [25], after the directorial decree concerning the approval of the new register came into force.

17Particularly, a few aspects regarding the selection procedure of park directors are listed in the above-mentioned decree. Firstly, the office of the park director is entrusted to successful candidates in an essentially fiduciary way, after a preliminary selection. Candidates must meet the prescribed professional requirements, previously verified by means of a competition based on qualifications culminating in the registration of eligible candidates in a special register. It follows that, to be elected, it is not necessary to pass a competition. Any possible dispute arising from the appointing procedure falls within the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, which have the power to judge, incidenter tantum, public competition administrative acts and, if required, to disapply them [26]. As a consequence, park directors find themselves in a service relationship with the Ministry for the Environment (which has appointing power), but also in a managerial relationship with park authorities (park presidents sign contracts with park directors). Juridically, the regulatory status of the office of the park director is the same as head physicians as to the procedure of appointment and employment contract. As regards compensation in the event of professional, biological and existential harms resulting from a hypothetical deskilling situation to the detriment of the employer [27], legal measures take place as usual in such circumstances.

18Nevertheless, unfortunately, an obsolescent closed group of directors not well-prepared for legislative changes-to-be generated exclusive small elites despite a large number of eligible registered candidates before the last update carried out in 2018. Such exclusive groups switched out with each other to constantly maintain their supervisory power over the twenty-five national parks currently recognized in Italy, waiting for the establishment of five further parks [28]. A special case is both the nature reserve and presidential estate of Castelporziano [29]. Moreover, it has been recently reported that many park directors received remunerations higher than 150,000 € per year despite a disproportionate organizational commitment along with likewise disproportionate management responsibilities [30]. However, critics arose from the professional association AIDAP [31]. That being said, the fact remains that it would be the case of a serious infringement in the field of public administration if it was proved that it took place, not to mention the repeated infringements of the Framework Law. After five years, indeed, office extensions or confirmations were still frequently granted by park presidents or temporary commissioners with no renewed public competition, with all due respect for the “strict supervision” of the Ministry for the Environment.

19The changes introduced in the normative framework of park authorities have been quite upseting. Nowadays, park directors are required to know the fields of public contracts, administrative procedures, public accounting, personnel management, transparency, occupational safety as well as, lastly, environmental impact assessment. It is therefore clear that new park directors are no longer “environmental experts”, from which it follows that the academic qualifications of directors currently holding the office or that held the office in the past are no longer compatible with new office requirements.

20The park directors are just required to be good public administration managers with solid administrative-juridical preparation. A background in the liberal arts is also well-seen. It follows that there is no point for park directors to have expert knowledge of the environmental pathology of wild fauna nor botany, by way of example. Knowledge in such areas of expertise is instead required by the employees of park authorities. Park directors, instead, are asked to adopt measures complying with several regulations (which was unimaginable back to the time when the register of park directors still existed), also given the business management of park authorities, because of a competitive perspective [32].

21On top of that, almost thirty years have passed since the adoption of the Framework Law, yet challenges are still emerging regarding each institution provided for by law, park authorities in the first place. Their independence, indeed, has been gradually weakened in favor of the greater political involvement of the technical bodies they rely on. Problems also keep emerging as regards both Establishment Plan and Regulations as well as sui generis sources of legislation, whose late approval has often led to a deficiency of effective legal protection. Lastly, mention should be made of the frequent practice of giving permissions instead of restricting them to allow a non-discretionary procedural assent. At the same time, tensions between the principle of safeguarding protected areas and sustainable development cannot be overlooked [33].

22The law adopted in 1991, moreover, does focus its attention on the greater objective of natural preservation, while it fails to respond to all needs related to natural conservation. Indeed, there seems to lack of so-called wildlife management parameters (National Park System) that are in force not only overseas but also in international sphere generally speaking, for more than fifty years and counting. The risk consists of forcing wildlife management within fenced enclosures, in other words fencing natural areas for sole protection purposes, thereby preventing the implementation of active measures, in favor of merely omissive, managerial ones. Examples include scientific research activities aimed at the preservation of biotic communities along with the conservation plans of every single protected area.

23It is sufficient to note that the principles contained in the report entitled Wildlife Management in the National Parks of the so-called Leopold Commission dating back to 1963 [34] are still new to the Italian legal framework. This draws the attention to the urgency of an extraordinary update of the legislation given a shift from sole natural protection to wildlife management, in the widest sense of the term [35].

24It is appropriate to recall that the Leopold report was the first concrete plan for the management of park visitors in the US as well as the surrounding ecosystem in compliance with clear, codified principles; various regulations contained in the report were incorporated in the official standards of the National Park Service. Furthermore, the idea that national parks should convey an image of the US that had to recall the founding of the country turned out to be successful not only in the public opinion but also in the mass media [36]. In that way, it was established that one of the main principles national parks have to comply with is to bear historical memory.

25Nevertheless, the Leopold report, on the one hand, undoubtedly stands out for its visionary traits in terms of the primordial preservation of nature, on the other hand, it was also harshly criticized in the years following its publication. Some scholars consider it a milestone as to the modern management of protected areas, others instead put forward consistent criticism concerning the presumed substation of scientific criterion in favor of a vague feeling of nostalgia. Above all, much criticism concerned the fact that the supporters of the report at issue completely overlooked the unspoken reference to a primordial US explored by “white men” as well as their historical presence on the territory of Native Americans.

26Returning to the European context, the role of the EUROPARC federation is quite appreciable in terms of facilitating international cooperation as regards all management aspects of protected areas in general. As it recognizes the principle of natural boundlessness, the main objective of EUROPARC consists in improving the natural heritage we all share [37]. At the same time, the federation cares for exchanging expertise, skills as well as ever better measures in order to enhance the future development of both policies and governmental programs, particularly within the European Union, aimed at placing the protection of parks and green areas at the very top of its agenda, not to mention, last but not least, the creation of new protected areas [38].

III – The failed attempt to renew the Framework Law on Protected Areas and the “new” role of park directors

27In the XVII legislature, a draft law amending the Framework Law of 1991 [39] was proposed to grant “overall administrative management of park authorities as required to park directors, who, incidentally, shall act consistently by Article 5 of Law No. 165 of March 30, 2001”. The decree just mentioned concerns both office organization and labor relations. It follows that park directors shall supervise the implementation of “objectives set by both president and directorate, according to Art. 17, para. 1, letters from d) to e-bis) of Law. No. 165 of March 30, 2001”, regarding personnel evaluation and resource allocation. Moreover, park directors shall “implement all kinds of acts implied, even with external relevance”. That being said, it should be kept in mind that administrative jurisprudence recognizes park presidents as having the right to give clearance – although this is completely ignored by the Ministry for the Environment.

28Indeed, clearance is provided and regulated by Article 13, para. 1, of Law No. 394/1991. The grant of concessions (nowadays planning permissions) is subject to prior clearance by park authorities, even in the absence of the prior approval of both plan and park guidelines [40]. Concretely speaking, coordination problems arise as regards landscape and urban planning. The implementation of Law No. 42 of January 22, 2004, containing “the Code of Cultural Heritage and the Landscape”, raised, as a matter of fact, coordination issues with sector-specific regulations that are, in turn, strictly related to landscape ones, with special reference to the Framework Law and its amendments. Specifically, the heart of the matter lies in the dilemma of whether park plans should replace landscape planning or vice versa [41].

29It is no surprise that by analyzing the jurisprudential framework consisting of Law No. 394/1991 and relevant regional regulations, controversy emerges over two crucial, conflicted turning points [42]: on the one hand, the recognition of protected areas, on the other hand, the permission given by managing authorities to pursue due activities within the perimeter of protected areas. Specifically, by analyzing the regional regulative framework, a general inclination towards administrative streamlining may be noted, at times in full compliance with constitutional jurisprudence [43], at times instead in full noncompliance. After all, streamlining administrative procedures by entrusting to park authorities both inquiry and decision-making powers as to actions to be carried out within the perimeter of protected areas, should be always combined with basic grants in terms of the proper weighing of public, landscape and naturalistic interests [44].

30Park directors – who should not be understood as chief executives – are appointed by prior public competition, to which the following candidates have access: “public officials, civil servants with at least five years’ experience in a given scope of expertise, people with proven experience in the administrative or environmental field, people who have already worked as directors of national or regional management authorities for at least three years, but also candidates who gained professional experience in the management of protected marine areas at least three years long”. As a result, given previsions in terms of time off work and salary could be easily foreseen.

31However, according to changes that were supposed to be introduced in the previous legislature, public selection would have unfolded as follows: a three-member committee composed of two experts appointed by the Park Authority and one by the Minister for the Environment. Such commission would have reduced the number of candidates to just three. Then, the president of the Park Authority would have chosen the park director with absolute discretion.

32From that point of view, the weakest link in the chain seems to be the president. Indeed, according to the above-described procedure, the winner of the public competition would have turned out to be chosen discretionally instead of strictly by curricular experience as well as on the results of juridical-administrative proficiency tests.

33Besides, it can be pointed out that park directors have all been more or less charismatic so far, whereas park presidents have been quite distracted and remiss in the performance of their role [45] due to other public offices that they hold simultaneously (for example, mayors of municipalities forming part of the territory of protected areas). Another argument concerns the fact, already elaborated on, that nowadays the office of the park director has completely changed to such an extent as to require an administrative-legal expert and not a good naturalist or biologist anymore. Naturalistic competence is instead required for other park offices, which, in conformity with the law, should fall to both park president and directorate administrative guidelines.

34As to the directorate, it is sufficient that the Minister for the Environment strictly adheres to the relevant law concerning the professional competence of directorate’s members rather than appointing people according to party interests.

35As regards instead the office of park president, Article 9, para. 3, of Law No. 394/1991 provides that it is the Minister for the Environment, by means of a decree, to appoint park presidents in mutual agreement with regional presidents and presidents of the Autonomous Districts of Trento and Bolzano, according to the territorial scope of every single protected area. Nevertheless, in case of a lack of agreement, national governments have repeatedly resorted to a special commissioner [46] to fill such an administrative gap. The constitutional Court, however, highlighted that it is not up to the national government nor the Minister for the Environment, on its behalf, to appoint the extraordinary commissioner, as, above all, it is required that national government authorities find an agreement with each region at issue. Such agreement, if necessary, can require long and arduous negotiations in compliance with the principle of cooperation [47].

36According to the above-discussed, un-adopted reform, the Ministry for the Environment would have had to appoint the commissioner from “a group of three candidates with proven professional experience in the field of public or private institutions management, selected by the Minister himself”. It is difficult not to delete such a generic and empty formula, which could easily fit every single Italian citizen, without introducing, as a consequence, changes to the previous statu quo.

37What has happened is no more than another missed opportunity to set a solid criterion as to curricula evaluation in the general terms of nature conservation. In the last years, “qualified experts in the field of protected areas and biodiversity” stood out within park directorates, which seems to confirm that the above-outlined prevision turned out to be disregarded [48]. The only significant thing is the remark according to which “the office of park president is essentially incompatible with every elective office as well as with administrative offices in public institutions”.

38Regulations referring to Article 79 of Law No. 267 of August 18, 2000, the Local Government Act, concerning permits and licenses for local authorities as well as public and private employees, seems instead highly questionable. Indeed, the role of park president appears to be hardly combinable with other employments, especially demanding ones in terms of time and commitment. Likewise, the explicit non-application of the prohibition from their assigning research projects or advisory tasks to both public and private quiescent employees (Art. 5, para. 9, Decree Law No. 95 of July 6, 2012, converted in Law No. 135 of August 7, 2012) turned out to be questionable as well. The prohibition also covers prominent management tasks. Such exception not only lacks rational explanation given the expenditure control plan for 2012 but also conflicts with the lawful right of park presidents to receive comprehensive allowances amounting to two thousand five hundred euros per month at the expense of park authorities, as established by the Ministry for the Environment.

IV – The interdependence of environmental law and ecological sciences for sustainable development

39At this point, it is appropriate to highlight an essentially technical aspect that has to do with the governance of protected areas. Such aspect concerns the growing need to strengthen and revise the cooperation between two disciplines that are thoroughly intertwined, yet mutually still reluctant and suspicious of one another: environmental law and ecological sciences [49]. By analyzing relevant international sources on this topic, it becomes apparent that ecological sciences have embarked, some time ago, on a journey of dialog and cultural integration not only with earth and life sciences but also with the humanities and social ones. Specifically, such forms of integration and collaboration take place within trans-disciplinary research platforms such as Environmental Science, Earth System Science, the Science of Earth Stewardship and Sustainability Science, just to mention some of them. Transcending their boundaries, ecological sciences have deeply changed throughout the time, achieving important discoveries like the recently developed theory of planetary boundaries or the adoption of the so-called model of social-ecological systems [50].

40Speaking of this, another aspect of greater interest, especially for park directors, is the challenge to redefine, upon an updated scientific basis, the concept of sustainable development [51]. In these terms, it happens that ecological sciences are quite inclined towards the assimilation of law principles. In parallel, environmental law seems to be equally inclined towards ecological sciences, as proved by international literature on this topic [52]. According to a recent trend, indeed, eco-juridical principles are gradually being more and more put into practice, leveraging the so-called evolutionary interpretation of those administrative acts on which environmental law relies, at international, communitarian as well as comparative constitutional levels. Examples include the principle of non-regression, resilience, ecological integrity, ecological proportionality, and ecological landscape restoration. All of these are, indeed, “eco-legal” principles by law. At the same time, they prove to be capable of integration with ecological principles [53].

41Some legal experts envisage even the foundation of a new law branch based on the comprehensive integration of social-ecological systems. They also wish for the redefinition of the key concept of rule of law, which should properly reflect the rule of ecological law, that is rule of law for nature, in other words [54]. Last but not least, they think it is necessary to introduce the legal concept of ordre public écologique [55]. Others, instead, stress that environmental law and ecological sciences find themselves during a continuous co-evolution process, from which “emergent features” keep arising. The expression “emergent features” refers to principles, concepts, and systems that neither environmental law nor ecological sciences would have ever discovered on their own, by means of separate research [56]. After all, recent administrative acts are living evidence of a sort of inclination of environmental law towards ecological sciences. Let us consider, by way of example, the VII Environmental Action Program (EAP) of the European Union for the period 2013-2020, approved on 20 November 2013 by means of Decision No. 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and the European Council. Not by chance, the VII EAP, which bears the significant title “Live well within the limits of the planet”, is expressly based on the recently developed ecological theory of planetary boundaries [57]. Reference should be also made to the final statement of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) that took place in Johannesburg on 4 September 2002 (so-called Rio+10) [58] as well as to the resolution of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) that took place in Rio de Janeiro in 2012 (so-called Rio+20). As a result, a paper was issued entitled “The Future We Want”, approved by means of General Assembly Resolution No. 66/288 of July 27, 2012. Said paper served as a boost for various national and international public debates on crucial topics concerning the future of our planet. These include, first of all, the arrangement of new “Global objectives for sustainable development” and, secondly, the foundation of a “high-level political forum for sustainable development” [59].

42Taking into account all the changes described above, it could be asked, reasonably, whether or not in Italy there are proper premises for the development of ecologically-oriented sustainable law, although current circumstances are headed in that direction. It is sufficient to mention the principle of “legal protection”, contained in the Framework Law on Protected Areas, as an example of a meeting point between law and ecological sciences. Other examples are Article 117 of the Constitution, which refers to ecosystem preservation, and the new wording of Article 3-quater of Law No. 152/2006, which, in turn, outlines the duty to comply with the principle of sustainability. Last but not least, it cannot be overlooked that a significant part of the environmental Italian jurisprudence openly supports an ecosystem-based approach [60], not to mention the ecologically-oriented perspective included in Law No. 394/1991 [61]. All of these efforts go hand in hand, from a more general viewpoint, with the plan of introducing specific education for future protected areas’ employees (so-called Park Schools), considering the crucial role they play in biodiversity conservation and valorization. For the time being, they have to deal with no due professional knowledge and support.