Introduction 

On June 23, 2026, the Senate of the Italian Republic approved Decree-Law No. 1552, introduced by Senator Luvio Malan, with 80 votes in favour, 56 against and 2 abstentions. The Decree-Law, currently under consideration by the Chamber of Deputies as Bill C. 2984, aims to substantially amend Law No. 157 of February 11, 1992, entitled “Regulations for the protection of warm-blooded wildlife and for hunting”.

The approval of the Decree-Law comes at the end of a committee review process that lasted over a year. 

The process sparked an intense debate on environmental policy and the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems, involving both civil society organizations and the academic and scientific communities. 

Indeed, a network of 48 environmental, animal rights and scientific organizations, including ENPA, GREENPEACE, LIPU, OIPA and WWF, addressed an urgent appeal to the attention of the Senate’s joint 8th Committee (Environment and Public Works) and 9th Committee (Industry and Agriculture), calling for the Decree-Law to be halted. This mobilization was further supported by more than 400,000 signatures collected against the Decree-Law and the 60,000 signatures, collected as of September 2026, in support of a popular initiative bill aimed at abolishing hunting and eliminating the abuse of free access by armed individuals onto other people’s private properties for hunting purposes.

Likewise, the academic and scientific community has taken a strong stand against the reform: a coalition of 12 scientific organizations, including the Italian Centre for Ornithological Studies (CISO), signed a letter addressed to the highest offices of the State, denouncing the risks and inconsistencies with European directives and established scientific evidence. The letter also called for compliance with Article 9 of the Italian Constitution, which establishes the protection of the environment, biodiversity, and ecosystems among the fundamental principles of the Italian legal system. The following considerations are primarily drawn from the aforementioned appeal and letter. 

The main amendments and critical issues raised by Decree-Law No. 1552

According to the criticisms raised by the scientific and environmental organizations mentioned above, the proposed reform would bring about a significant reversal of the objectives underlying Law No. 157/1992. The law was originally conceived to protect wildlife by regulating hunting as an activity potentially at odds with its conservation. Yet the Decree-Law would instead assign hunting a regulatory function that is unprecedented in the Italian legal system. This is apparent from the title of the proposed legislation, which refers to “Regulations for the Management and Protection of Warm-Blooded Wildlife and for Hunting,” as well as from Article 1, paragraph 2, which establishes that hunting activities “contribute to the protection of biodiversity and the ecosystem”.

As highlighted in the documentation dossier accompanying the Decree-Law, this shift stems from the need to balance two distinct interests: the protection of nature and human activities. However, regulating hunting as a conservation tool appears to lack a sound scientific basis. The scientific literature demonstrates that hunting, even when conducted through selective hunting practices, does not replicate the mechanisms of natural selection. On the contrary, it inevitably alters the demographic structure of animal populations, sex ratios, and genetic variability, primarily targeting healthy and adult individuals or those displaying characteristics considered particularly valuable for trophy-hunting purposes. These alterations are further compounded by indirect effects, such as behavioral and physiological changes resulting from the presence of hunters and hunting dogs within the ecosystem.

As reiterated by the Italian Theriological Association (ATit), conservation of biodiversity involves a complex set of technical and scientific activities, including monitoring, planning, habitat management, regulation of hunting harvesting, adaptive management, and continuous assessment of its effects. In this context, hunting activities represent only one of the tools that may potentially be employed in the process and should be used as an extrema ratio by specially trained personnel and only in the absence of “other satisfactory solutions,” in accordance with the principle of residual hunting set forth in the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (Art. 16) and the Birds Directive 2009/147/EC (Art. 9).

Under the proposed framework, however, ordinary hunting, understood as a private and recreational activity subject to individual choices, would be illegitimately placed on the same level as the public function of wildlife management. The latter is an exceptional measure carried out by the State or the Regions for reasons of road safety, public health protection, or to address ecological imbalances. Another point of concern relates to the substantial reduction of the influence given to the opinion of the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA), in favor of greater ministerial or regional discretion in establishing hunting seasons, determining the list of huntable species, and defining methods for wildlife control (amendments to Articles 18 and 19 of the current legislation). Under the reform, ISPRA would assume a purely advisory role, alongside the Technical Committee for Wildlife and Hunting, another consultative body composed primarily of representatives of stakeholder groups.

In this way, the Decree-Law strips ISPRA of its essential role in independently ensuring technical accuracy and methodological consistency in wildlife management plans at the national level.

Replacing independent scientific opinions with political and administrative assessments risks undermining the methodological rigor and empirical basis of decisions regarding wildlife protection. This downgrade is particularly evident in the amendments proposed to Article 18(2) of the law, concerning the extension of the hunting season. The Decree-Law does not only allow individual Regions to depart from the opinions of ISPRA and the new Committee, once they provide their own justification, but also removes the temporal limit prohibiting hunting beyond the first ten days of February. By extending this period indefinitely, the reform sets aside a fundamental safeguard provided for by the current legislation: protecting wildlife during the post-winter period of energy recovery and, in particular, during the delicate reproductive stages of mammals and the pre-breeding migration period of birds.

Another area of far-reaching reforms introduced by the Malan Decree-Law concerns the expansion of the territory available for hunting. Several amendments have been proposed to achieve this objective. For example, by amending Article 10 of Law No. 157/1992, concerning wildlife and hunting management plans, the Decree-Law modifies the criteria for allocating agricultural, forestry, and pastoral land designated for the protection of wildlife. More specifically, the Decree-Law provides for National and Regional Parks to be included in the calculation of these protected areas. Since these areas are already subject to their own protection regime, however, their inclusion would artificially fill the percentage of territory allocated to such protection, effectively preventing additional areas from being excluded from hunting activities.

Furthermore, the new paragraph 3-quater of the same article provides for the possibility of concluding agreements within the framework of the Permanent Conference between the State and the Regions to define measures aimed at bringing protected areas back within the statutory limits, whenever they exceed 30% of the territory. In practice, this would set a maximum ceiling for the proportion of each Region’s territory that may be protected.

This is compounded by the new Article 10.6, which opens up areas belonging to the State, the Regions and other public bodies’ forest estates to hunting planning, further reducing wildlife refuge areas.

The weakening of territorial restrictions and the expansion of the discretion granted to public authorities in wildlife management continue with the amendments to Article 14, which allow the creation of extremely large Hunting Territorial Areas (Ambiti Territoriali di Caccia, ATCs), that can be potentially extended to encompass the entire provincial territory. Such an expansion undermines planning at a smaller territorial scale, which would instead allow for rigorous monitoring based on local biological specificities.

At the same time, the Decree-Law amends Article 21 by narrowing the prohibition on hunting at mountain passes, areas of crucial importance for migratory routes, and referring their identification to an interministerial decree based on cartographic criteria. This amendment overlooks the specific need to protect migratory birds during a particularly vulnerable stage of their annual biological cycle and risks compromising the overall functionality of ecological corridors through unregulated human disturbance, in conflict with the obligations arising from the Nature Restoration Law (Regulation (EU) 2024/1991) regarding the restoration of ecological connectivity.

Overall, while European guidelines seek to increase the areas of land and sea under legal protection, setting a minimum threshold of 30% (EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030), and to reconnect ecosystems (Nature Restoration Law), the Malan Decree-Law appears to be moving in the opposite direction. In fact, the Decree-Law seeks to expand the range of areas excluded from such protection, establishing a maximum ceiling and imposing administrative fines on anyone who prevents, obstructs, or delays wildlife control activities (Art. 31). This measure not only risks restricting the expression of dissent by environmental activists and landowners opposed to hunters entering their property, but also appears to be at odds with the recommendations set out in the 2017 National Action Plan to combat offences against wild birds. That document, on the contrary, recommended strengthening penalties in order to deter poaching and ensure that sanctions were proportionate to the severity of the damage caused to wildlife.

A further liberalization of hunting practices involves the removal of the maximum numerical limit on authorizations for fixed hunting blinds and of restrictions on the use of live decoys, provided that they are born and raised in captivity and fitted with an identification ring (Art. 5).

This is accompanied by a relaxation of the restrictions on the possession and sale of captive-bred birds used as decoys for hunting purposes, which could indirectly encourage the commercialization of live decoys, poaching, and the illegal use of nets, as reported by LIPU and CISO.

The means used to carry out such activities are also subject to a relaxation of restrictions under Article 13. Specifically, the Decree-Law broadens the range of tools that may be used for the harvesting and selective hunting of ungulates, including optical and optoelectronic devices, with the exception of those classified as military equipment under Article 2 of Law No. 185/1990.

Finally, with regard to the mobility of hunters across European territory, the Decree-Law further relaxes restrictions on hunting harvest, by establishing that hunting licenses issued by EU Member States or by countries belonging to the European Economic Area be recognized as equivalent to the Italian license (Article 22). Furthermore, specifically in relation to ungulate hunting, a qualification issued by a regional administration would be valid throughout the entire national territory (Article 13, new paragraph 6-ter). This equivalence appears to overlook differences in training programs established by the various Italy’s Regions, as well as the significant heterogeneity in management practices, habitats, and wildlife communities across European countries.

Italy’s previous cases and the possibility of new European litigation

The potential conflicts with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC), highlighted by scientific and civil society organizations, are not merely theoretical concerns, but have already prompted a clear stance from the European institutions.

As early as December 2025, the European Commission sent a formal letter to the Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security, expressing serious concerns regarding Decree-Law No. 1552.

While acknowledging that the legislative process was still ongoing and that the proposal could be amended, the Commission sought to draw attention to several aspects of the Decree-Law in order to prevent potential conflicts with EU law, particularly with the aforementioned Habitats and Birds Directives. More specifically, the letter raises concerns about the extension of the hunting season, the weakening of ISPRA’s scientific opinion, the use of optical devices for ungulates hunting, and the liberalization of the use of live decoys, with the resulting risks of poaching and the facilitation of illegal trafficking.

The letter also expressly refers to EU Pilot (2023)/10542, regarding the “failure to comply with European nature law in relation to a series of hunting-related issues in Italy,” including the failure to implement the 2017 Action Plan to combat offenses against wild birds and the illegal trade in birds used as live decoys.

In February 2024, the European Commission sent Italy a letter of formal notice (INFR(2023)2181) for failing to implement the measures required under the Habitats Directive to monitor and prevent the accidental capture and killing of protected marine species by fishing vessels.

Similarly, under infringement procedure INFR(2023)2187, the European Commission called on Italy to comply with rules on the protection of wild birds and the use of lead in ammunition. In particular, Brussels accuses Italy of violating the Birds Directive under Articles19 and 19-ter of Law No. 157/1992, as they authorize the Regions to adopt culling and capture plans within protected areas, and thus areas where hunting is prohibited, during periods of general hunting bans or hunting closures. With regard to the use of lead in ammunition, the Commission instead alleges non-compliance with the REACH Regulation (Regulation (EC) 1907/2006, subsequently amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/57), which prohibits its use in concentrations exceeding 1% by weight in or near wetlands, with the aim of protecting waterbirds, the environment, and human health.

Despite the attempt to address the infringement procedure through the so-called “Salvainfrazioni” Decree-Law (No. 131/2024), the procedure remained unresolved. The decree provided for compliance with the Habitats and Birds Directives, the identification of wetlands by ministerial decree, and stricter penalties for those using lead ammunition in such areas. However, on November 14, 2024, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion, stating that these amendments and the envisaged extraordinary plan continued to contain provisions that were incompatible with the Birds Directive and the REACH Regulation.

Finally, these incompatibilities are further confirmed by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-157/89, concerning the conservation of wild birds. In particular, the Court found that the Italian Republic had failed to fulfill its obligations under Directive 79/409/EEC (now Directive 2009/147/EC) by authorizing the hunting of various bird species during their breeding season, as well as of several migratory species during their return to nesting sites. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed that the protection of wildlife during the most vulnerable stages of its biological cycle requires uniform implementation by Member States, regardless of individual political or administrative assessments made at national or regional level.

Conclusions

In this context, the concerns raised by scientific and environmental organizations regarding the progressive deterioration of biodiversity protection, which would be irreparably and exacerbated by the eventual final approval of the Decree-Law, do not appear unfounded. Similarly, concerns about the possibility of the European Commission opening a new infringement procedure are supported by the note sent by Brussels in December 2025.

The Malan Decree-Law is, moreover, only the latest in a series of legislative initiatives, often carried out through decree-laws and amendments to budget laws, aimed at reshaping environmental protection rules in response to economic, political, and administrative considerations.

The reform does not merely amend the existing legal framework; it also seeks to fundamentally redefine the role of hunting, presenting it as a means of protecting and conserving the environment itself and, therefore, as an activity to be encouraged and subject to less stringent regulation. This approach, however, risks transforming the way Italy relates to wildlife.