Meeting in Rome
In recent weeks, the President of ARCI Hunting national Christian Maffei and the Head of the Scientific Committee Gabriele Sperandio, accompanied by Dr. Angelo Giuliani, coordinator of the Committee itself and by the lawyer. Giuseppe de Bartolomeo, National Vice-President of the Association, met ISPRA in the person of Dr. Piero Genovesi, Head of the Wildlife Coordination Service, at the ISPRA headquarters in Rome. A constructive meeting to define a sharing strategy between the institution entitled by the State to scientific research and the agricultural, environmentalist and hunting world and with the other components involved in the management of homeothermal wildlife, an unavailable state heritage. An articulated and extensive debate developed during the meeting which made it possible to focus above all on the need to relaunch the participation processes based on mutual respect for the roles of the identified institutional subjects and in respect of mutual autonomy.
The role of ISPRA
For our Association, the technical-scientific role of ISPRA, today more than ever, must be strongly emphasized in the interest of wildlife as a common good. Given the global crisis affecting the planet, it is essential that politics give priority to the opinion of independent science from political conditioning. The necessary developments in sharing with stakeholders cannot ignore a significant investment in information, training, education and communication processes aimed at all the social components involved. Precisely on this aspect, the historical delay, all Italian, on the value of homeothermal fauna as a heritage to be preserved in the interest of the richness of biodiversity has been underlined.
Back in 1977, law 968, for the first time, established that wild fauna assumed the juridical status of res communitatis and that "... hunting is allowed provided it does not conflict with the need to conserve game and does not cause effective damage to agricultural production…”; in 1992, even more, with the law 157 in article 1 paragraphs 1 and 2 it was sanctioned that "wildlife is an unavailable patrimony of the State and is protected in the interest of the national and international community" and that "The exercise of hunting is permitted provided it does not conflict with the need to conserve wildlife and does not cause actual damage to agricultural production”. Therefore, the direction on which to move the theme of management is clear: conservation as a priority element, sustainable extraction in compliance with the European framework, mainly for migratory birds. Wildlife management throughout the country. Everything had to be guaranteed by the scientific opinion of the only national institute, then INFS, today ISPRA. In the extensive discussion it was underlined how most of the supporting elements of Law 157/92 were, in fact, disregarded with serious repercussions on management issues (see ungulates); on the issues of the scientific approach to the matter (almost total absence of wildlife observatories and regional databases); not to mention the total absence of the cultural investment of hunting and environmentalist associations deriving from and intrinsic to Law 157/92: the deleterious and quarrelsome level of the debate, often characterized by notable unscrupulous intellectual dishonesty, vulgar and sometimes defamatory.
It seems that the only investment has been on ignorance and demagoguery. This framework includes the distortion that has led to an instrumental use of the opinions of ISPRA, by law not binding, in the context of the now constant clash in the Regions on the hunting calendars. An all-political conflict, which some hunting associations like, which has brought management from the classrooms of the scientific departments to the judicial ones. The courts are not the place for good wildlife stewardship! All this has done nothing but produce even more lacerations and detachment between our world, science and public opinion, creating worrying levels of deviation and disregard of the principles sanctioned by the legislation and even more strengthened and qualified, most recently with the amendments of the Constitutional Charter (Article 9 and Article 41), which attribute further importance to the issues of protection of the environment, animals, biodiversity and ecosystems. Another point dealt with was that of faunal productivity aimed in particular at species of hunting and non-hunting interest. The social cost deriving from the legal status of wildlife cannot fall solely on farmers, creating often significant economic problems. Having said this, it is underlined that ARCI Caccia proposes to define a planning framework to be shared with the scientific world and to be debated with agricultural and environmentalist associations in relation to the Community provisions contained in the CAP and in other European measures. Furthermore, ARCI Caccia intends to open a discussion table with all agricultural and environmentalist associations to define future strategies in the interest of the national and international community and future generations. The proposal of the Faunistic Technical Committee as recently proposed does not go in this direction as it cannot represent the place for discussion that we have in mind (source: Arci Caccia).