"The National Wildlife Recovery Fund from one million euros ". The Minister of the Environment announces this through some press agencies and on his social profiles, Sergio Costa. An amendment to the stability law establishes that the establishment of a National Fund for the recovery of wildlife with an endowment of one million euros per year is envisaged starting from 2021. The Fund is intended to support the protection and care of wildlife by environmental associations recognized under thearticle 13 of law n. 349/86, which have this purpose in their Statute and manage centers for the care and recovery of wildlife, with particular reference to species of community interest.
The rule provides that the methods of use of the Fund are defined with decree of the Minister for the Environment and for the Protection of the Territory and the Sea to be adopted within six months from the date of entry into force of the law, after consulting the Minister of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies and the Minister of Health. Within ninety days from the entry into force of the law, the Regions and the Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano they will have to transmit to the Ministry of the Environment the list of the centers for the recovery of wildlife operating in the territory managed by the associations. The hunting world represented by the Recognized Associations (Italian Federation of Hunting, National Free Hunting Association, Enalcaccia, Arcicaccia, ANUUMigratoristi, Italcaccia, Game Producers Authority) and from CNCN - National Hunting and Nature Committee, considers the satisfaction of Minister Costa inappropriate, especially when he considers that the recognized environmental associations - the only recipients of the resources of the newly established fund - are no longer alone in defense of the unavailable assets of the State.
Perhaps the Minister does not remember that from the promulgation of the L. no. 157/1992 to date, first the Provinces and then (after Delrio) the Regions have invested resources, men and means for the management and activity of provincial centers, according to a specific role of managers of the wildlife heritage that falls under the same law 157 , for recovery, treatment, rehabilitation and reintroduction of wildlife specimens into nature, unavailable assets of the state. It is enough to scroll through the budgets of the provinces and metropolitan cities and now those of the Regions to realize this. Among other things, it should be pointed out that the sums committed up to now - in the absence of any government funding - came and come from the own resources of the same PP. AA. and therefore also from part of the regional hunting concession fees paid by hunters.
It will be advisable that the Ministry, in drafting the announcement, pays adequate attention to the fact that there are species of wild fauna for which there are Community control obligations for eradication purposes. It would not really be the case to take home an infringement procedure from the EU when, instead of trying to eradicate coypu and gray squirrels from our habitats, the same species were the object of care and reintroduction in nature. Among other things, given that we are talking about limited resources, in the absence of priority criteria and protocols, we may risk not having the money to treat real emergencies, i.e. those that characterize typical species of our national wildlife panorama. Having said that, some questions arise spontaneously: why can only the Environmentalist Associations recognized pursuant to article 13 of law no. 349/86?
What will be the requirements foreseen in the call for the allocation of funds? It would not be more appropriate, with a view to inclusion rather than exclusion, to also consider those realities that are already engaged by law in environmental restoration and wildlife protection activities (ATC - territorial hunting areas, Alpine districts, Park authorities , etc.)? Like Cabin of National Direction we cannot fail to pay attention to highlight all the limits and criticalities of this initiative which, despite appearances, always seems to favor the same interlocutors and not open to associations and realities of different nature, which are however concretely active in the protection of fauna.