La Constitutional Court confirms the legislative approach of the Tuscany Region on the control interventions of ungulates in protected areas and on levy of the transfer in derogation for the protection of agricultural crops such as olive trees, vines and fruit. “There is a double reason for satisfaction - comments the vice president and councilor for agri-food Stephanie Saccardi - for this decision of the constitutional judges. First of all because in this way it will be possible to continue to ensure timely responses to the Tuscan agricultural world, particularly affected by the economic crisis caused by the pandemic.
And then also for the positive implications that the ruling could have at national level, placing Tuscany as the leading region in trying to resolve critical issues related to fauna and the impact it has on agriculture and the environment ". The national government had raised the question of legitimacy of articles 24 and 30 of law 61 of the Tuscany Region of 15 July 2020 “Management and protection of wildlife in the region. Changes to Regional Law 3/1994 " citing objections of unconstitutionality in the parts relating to the control of ungulates in protected areas, as an invasive rule of the exclusive state competence in the matter of environmental protection.
La The Tuscan Regional Authority with the modification of the law it had in fact provided that in the regional parks and in the protected areas the manager should adopt control plans for ungulates that had to take into account the sustainable densities and the actual damage to agricultural crops, also adjacent to its borders and woods. In case of default and in the presence of damage to agricultural production, even in the neighboring areas, the Regional Council intervened pursuant to article 37 of law 61. The law was also challenged in the part in which the Tuscany Region specified that the limit to the withdrawal of the species in derogation, such as the cancellation, does not accumulate with the total number of other migratory fauna.
The Constitutional Court recognized instead that the control of ungulates in protected areas it does not lead to a lowering of the level of environmental protection prescribed by the state legislature, on the contrary, placing itself in a perspective of greater guarantee of the conservation of the overall balance of the protected area which includes the presence of man. Furthermore, due to the default of the park manager regarding the activity of control of ungulates, noted that the regional legislator has appropriately intervened, thus protecting both the ecological balance within the protected areas, and the agricultural productions in the neighboring areas, both the others compromised by the excessive proliferation of wild boars. Finally, the Council also clarified the non-cumulability of the species in derogation with the daily bag of the other migratory species (Source: Arch Hunting).