A resounding rejection of the Caccia Bill

The document approved on 23 July by the Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces on the draft hunting bill might, at first glance, seem anything but a rejection. The text endorses “the objective of updating the relevant legislation” more than thirty years after the passing of Law 157 of 1992, offers cooperation during the implementation phase and even states that the examination of the bill “did not reveal any proposed amendments to the text”, apart from a few administrative and practical difficulties. This is the diplomatic caution typical of a body representing local authorities governed by different political majorities, which does not intend to challenge the need to update the regulations governing hunting.

Having made this preliminary point, the assessment changes: in reality, the rejection appears resounding, once one looks beyond the standard formalities. The subsequent observations, in fact, address some of the most significant provisions of the reform and largely coincide with the criticisms put forward by ISPRA and the specialists heard by the Chamber of Deputies. The Conference highlights risks of breaches of European law, increased hunting pressure, a weakening of monitoring, insufficient scientific basis, dangers to non-target species and a loss of administrative capacity in data collection. Draft Law 1552, approved by the Senate on 23 June and now under consideration by the Chamber of Deputies as Bill C. 2984, is in fact facing very severe criticism regarding the measures chosen to implement it.

The main point concerns the removal of the national restriction on the first ten days of February. The Conference states:

"The removal of the deadline set for the first ten days of February for the close of the hunting season could constitute a direct breach of Article 7 of the Birds Directive, as removing the 10 February deadline would mean hunting birds during their pre-breeding migration, thereby undermining the conservation of the species."

This criticism strikes at the very heart of the argument that removing the 10 February deadline would simply restore the regions’ freedom to adapt hunting calendars to local conditions. The hunting calendar cannot be determined solely by an administrative or political decision – and certainly not at a local level – because it must take account of measurable biological events: the breeding season and the return of migratory birds to their nesting areas. Article 7 of the Birds Directive requires Member States to ensure that migratory species are not hunted during pre-breeding migration. To this end, the European Commission uses the ‘Key Concepts Document’, which compiles the best available information on the start of migration and the breeding periods of individual species; the Court of Justice has also clarified that full protection must be guaranteed during these phases.

The date of 10 February is therefore not some sort of regulatory superstition. Rather, it is a uniform deadline that reduces the risk of overlap between hunting activities and the return migration. Its removal eliminates a national safeguard and shifts the burden onto individual regions to determine, on a species-by-species basis, whether an extension is compatible with the Directive. The risk increases because the draft bill allows the first ten days of February to be exceeded and, at the same time, diminishes the weight of ISPRA’s opinion, with which local authorities would no longer be obliged to comply.

On this point, the correspondence with the scientific assessment is almost verbatim. At the hearing on 14 July in the Chamber of Deputies, ISPRA pointed out that the amendments allow the Regions to extend the hunting season for migratory species beyond the first ten days of February and transform its opinion from binding to merely advisory. According to the Institute, the combination of these two provisions risks causing conflicts with the European Commission, precisely because the Directive prohibits hunting during pre-breeding migration and the breeding season. This same contested claim – raised by the Regions themselves – involves transforming administrative flexibility into the power to extend the hunting season, whilst the technical judgement of the competent national body loses its weight.

A second point of agreement concerns the reopening of facilities for capturing birds intended for use as live decoys. The Conference points out that bird-trapping and the capture of birds have been suspended for around twenty years, following a European infringement procedure, and warns that their reopening would once again expose the State to EU proceedings. ISPRA has made the same point: the capture of wild birds for use as live decoys has been deemed incompatible with the Birds Directive and has already led to Italy being found in breach by the Court of Justice. This is therefore not a matter of the harmless revival of a local tradition, as suggested by part of the communication in favour of the reform, but of reactivating a practice for which the existing European legal precedent is already unfavourable.
With regard to fixed hunting posts, too, the Conference rejects liberalisation without a territorial assessment. The draft bill removes the limit linked to the number of authorisations issued in the 1989–1990 season and transfers the regulation of hunting hides to the regions. Regional authorities are calling for the maximum number to be determined through wildlife and hunting planning, taking into account hunter density and the protection of migratory routes. ISPRA notes, in the same vein, that removing the limit may increase pressure on migratory birds. The distinction is important: assigning responsibility to the regions may be consistent with their role, but this responsibility must be exercised on the basis of a planned limit, not result in the absence of any limit at all. The official text of the draft bill, in fact, entrusts the regions with the authorisation of hunting posts without retaining the previous national cap.

The Conference also objects to the removal of the requirement to choose a single form of hunting. According to the document, the possibility of practising multiple forms of hunting may increase hunting pressure and make monitoring more difficult. ISPRA takes a less restrictive stance on this point, deeming the change acceptable in light of the decline in the number of hunters, but acknowledges that it may increase the pressure associated with certain specific hunting methods. Here too, the limitation of the argument that the overall reduction in the number of hunters would justify any expansion of their individual options becomes apparent. Pressure on wildlife depends not only on the total number of licences, but also on the distribution of hunters, the hunting methods used, the length of the season and the capacity for monitoring.

Another set of comments concerns land-use planning. The draft bill generally opens up areas belonging to the state, regional and public-sector forest estates to planned hunting. The Conference calls for hunting access to remain subject to specific ecological assessments and safety restrictions linked to other forms of land use. The fact that a forest is publicly owned provides no information whatsoever on its capacity to withstand increased pressure, on the presence of sensitive species, or on its compatibility with hiking, forestry work and recreational activities. Management that claims to be scientific should be based on the characteristics of the sites themselves, whereas a blanket opening up of the land reverses the order of assessment: first the land is made available, then any reasons for restricting its use are sought.

In the same vein, the Regions criticise the exclusion of the Provinces from certain functions, as this reduces local adaptability and undermines data collection. They also contest the power of substitution jointly entrusted to the Ministries of Agriculture and the Environment when regional administrations fail to submit the requested information within three months, deeming it disproportionate in relation to obligations that require data collection and processing. They propose prior consultation and reasonable timeframes. This objection concerns the knowledge infrastructure underpinning the reform: whilst the draft bill advocates a more modern approach to management, it risks diminishing the role of local authorities responsible for collecting the information necessary for that management.

The Conference also notes that replacing the clear threshold of 40 per cent of the land concerned with the phrase ‘the majority of the territory’ introduces legal uncertainty and makes it more difficult for landowners and local communities to oppose restrictions. This point, too, undermines the idea of a reform limited to wildlife management efficiency. The expansion of hunting activities affects land use, safety and landowners’ ability to participate in decisions concerning their own land; making it more difficult to object does not improve the scientific quality of management.

Of particular significance is the objection to the fixed distance of five hundred metres stipulated for the derogation relating to the starling. The Conference states that it can find no scientific basis for this figure and highlights the risk of further European sanctions. As with the efficacy of homeopathy and complementary therapies, a distance laid down in a law does not become rational simply because it is set out in a parliamentary text. The derogations provided for in the Birds Directive must meet specific conditions, be selective and justified by the need to prevent actual harm. The radius within which culling is authorised should therefore be derived from data on the type of crop, the distribution of the birds and the effectiveness of the measure. In the absence of such evidence, the 500-metre threshold constitutes a legislative limit lacking the necessary link to the phenomenon it is intended to regulate.

The most contentious point, after the one concerning the calendar, relates to wild boar hunting on snow-covered ground. The Conference expresses ‘concern’ about the possibility of authorising driven hunts and identifies ‘a serious threat to the survival of small resident wildlife’. It adds that the snow eliminates any chance of the animals escaping and can turn the activity into indiscriminate and non-selective culling, affecting even young and pregnant females. ISPRA – and indeed anyone with even a basic understanding of the ecology of the species affected by hunting – had already highlighted the possible indirect effects on non-target species.

This point directly challenges the claim that any expansion of wild boar hunting should be presented as a management measure: the fact that a species needs to be controlled does not, in fact, render the method employed and its effects on the rest of the animal community irrelevant. A driven hunt involves the movement of people and dogs, disturbance and pursuit in an environment where snow makes escape more difficult and the animals easier to spot. Selectivity – which should distinguish wildlife management from a mere increase in shooting opportunities – thus becomes the central issue. The regions responsible for authorising and organising these activities state that the provision may have consequences incompatible with the principles invoked by the reform itself.

The similarity between the text from the Regions and that from ISPRA is particularly instructive. The Institute also stated that hunting that is properly planned and based on scientific criteria can be compatible with conservation, and deemed it reasonable to update a law drafted in the early 1990s. However, it concluded that several amendments to the draft bill are not consistent with the objectives of biodiversity conservation: they do not reduce the take on species in an unfavourable conservation status, they increase certain pressure factors, they expose Italy to conflicts with European regulations, and they weaken the role of the national technical body.

The Regions’ position follows the same structure: agreement on the need for reform, disagreement on key parts of the proposed reform. For this reason, the document cannot be used as an endorsement accompanied by a few requests for administrative adjustments. The timetable beyond 10 February, the trapping of decoyed birds, hunting from hides without a planned limit, the proliferation of hunting methods, the opening up of state-owned forest land, the derogation concerning starlings and driven hunts on snow form the core structure of the measure.

The institutional significance of this assessment is clear. It is the Regions that draw up hunting calendars, plan land use, authorise activities, collect data, organise inspections and deal with disputes. When these very bodies perceive that a regulation may breach the Birds Directive, increase pressure on migratory species, hinder monitoring or result in non-selective culling, Parliament does not receive an external protest, but rather the assessment of the administrations responsible for implementing the law.

Following the views of ISPRA and the experts heard in the Chamber of Deputies, the Conference of Regions has therefore confirmed that the main objections to the draft bill do not stem from an ideological opposition to hunting. They concern the regulations’ compliance with EU law, their scientific basis and the possibility of implementing them without compromising wildlife conservation. The reform is being challenged at its very core by the technical and institutional bodies on which it is supposed to rely in order to function.

The political significance of the affair was grasped with remarkable clarity even by Caccia Magazine, a publication entirely dedicated to the world of hunting. The article of 27 July begins by noting that, apart from environmentalists, the opposition parties, Forza Italia, Arcicaccia (!) and ISPRA, the only groups still supporting the bill passed by the Senate are Fratelli d’Italia, the Lega and a section of the hunting associations. The magazine’s conclusion is unsparing: “this front, which is dwindling week by week, cannot count on the support of the regions and autonomous provinces.”

This is not the view of an animal rights organisation. It is the opening piece chosen by the editorial team of a hunting magazine. When even the hunting press reports on the bill’s isolation and acknowledges that the regions are refusing to back it, the propaganda about a modern, scientific and widely supported reform no longer holds water, and the text appears for what it is: a mere slapdash ploy to scrape together a few more votes ahead of the general election.