The accounting of the Natural capital it is a very complex exercise, still being perfected, but important since it is aimed at measuring the variations of Natural Capital in the European Union and in the individual Member States and to integrate the economic value of the Ecosystem Services offered by natural goods to our communities into the international accounting and reporting systems. The IV Report on the Natural Capital of Italy, presented last May 22, has been defined as a "beacon in the ecological transition", which will have the task of guiding the Italian strategy in the management of Recovery Plan.
The Natural Capital Committee that prepared it also stated that "ours must be the first generation capable of leaving the natural systems and biodiversity of Italy in a better state of what we have inherited ", identifying 2020 as the baseline and setting the very ambitious goal of obtaining, by 2030, the halt to the loss of biodiversity, the inversion of the processes of its degradation and the first results of a great "public work" of restoration of terrestrial and marine environments. An undoubtedly desirable vision, but certainly very difficult and complex to achieve. If we look at the results obtained by the National Strategy for Biodiversity in the last decade, an unfortunately worrying picture emerges, with the failure to achieve most of the objectives defined by EU strategies and directives.
On the other hand, it must be noted that even at the international level none of the so-called Aichi Targets of the ten-year World Biodiversity Strategy 2011-2020, approved at the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the International Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Nagoya-Aichi in Japan in 2010, it was fully achieved (according to the OECD for a substantial funding gap) and the picture of the state of planetary biodiversity has worsened further. In any case, the starting picture in our country, outlined by the Red List of ecosystems, identifies as many as 29 terrestrial ecosystems at high risk out of 85 (34%). On the negative side, it should be noted that the Report identifies in the flat areas from Northern Italy to Puglia the most degraded areas as regards the conservation of ecosystems. In fact, in the space of about a century the width of the forests in our country has practically doubled, thanks to the expansion of the forest often to the detriment of agricultural areas and fauna linked to open environments, including rock partridge, gray partridge, red partridge, quail, lark and numerous other species of small passerines.
Stopping this overall trend will certainly be one of the most difficult challenges to face. However, the Natural Capital Committee believes that our PNRR (National Recovery and Resilience Plan) also represents an extraordinary opportunity for a change of course in the restoration of ecosystems, both terrestrial and marine, which obviously are the basis of our well-being and health. all. This would also correspond to the commitment outlined by the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021-2030 aimed at tackling the problems of adaptation to climate change and the risks that make our socio-ecological systems more vulnerable. For Federcaccia, however, some other critical issues are noted in the Report. With regard to the identification of degraded ecosystems, we find out of place the reference to the Covid 19 epidemic, which in the Report was associated with the most compromised areas, while the incidence rate of the infection was also high in different areas, such as the Valley d'Aosta and the Province of Bolzano (ISTAT data).
Furthermore, the choice to use only the class of birds as a reference for the enhancement of ecosystem services is partial and has not in any case been carried out in a completely objective way. For example, in the enhancement of these services, it is noted that mammals are not taken into consideration. Excluding these and other taxa (for example insects, which are very important for the pollination service and have long been in serious crisis precisely in the agro-ecosystems, hence the consequences also on the conservation status of birds), neither the share of their natural capital nor the numerous correlated ecosystem services, of extreme importance, are accounted for.
Secondly, a more complete approach to the enhancement of Natural Capital implies an economic evaluation of ecosystem services that also involve hunting and the management of habitats and wildlife species for hunting purposes. In particular (CICES V5.0) the services of: a) "Procurement" ("supply chains" of wild fauna meat), b) "Regulation and maintenance" (maintenance and management of populations and wildlife habitats), c ) "Cultural" (satisfaction obtained from the recreational-experiential uses of wildlife species and nature, which include hunting, together with fishing, birdwatching, naturalistic tourism, etc.). The result of these omissions is therefore an evident underestimation of the economic value of ecosystem services in their evaluation and integration in the accounting systems of Natural Capital. It is hoped that this shortcoming can be overcome in the near future also by including specific skills in the "Natural Capital Committee". In fact, sustainable hunting is not only fully compatible with the provisions of the numerous international Conventions and Directives, but it is the engine of environmental investments, habitat improvement and restoration, species reintroduction, control of problematic and alien species (among the main causes of biodiversity degradation), vigilance against illegal activities (another important threat factor) and free volunteering.
Nonetheless, hunters pay very large regional and national taxes which should be specifically reinvested in natural assets. In the Report, the theme of birds does not address the conservation and research actions undertaken by the world of hunters, for example with the environmental restoration of wetlands, which amount to not less than 24.000 hectares in a study of only 4 regions, and the environmental improvement actions carried out by the Territorial Areas of Hunting, Alpine Areas and Wildlife Hunting Companies and the studies published in recognized scientific journals. As regards the assessment of the conservation status of individual species of nesting birds in Italy, the IV Report considers it satisfactory when the population data show a long-term persistence perspective, its abundance and distribution are stable or increasing and the habitats used by the species are considered sufficient in terms of extension and quality to ensure their long-term persistence.
Following the principles of Habitat Directive and applying the FRV index (favorable reference value), more restrictive criteria are applied than the concept of risk of extinction defined by the IUCN Red List. In fact, even species defined by the Red List as “Least concern” (LC) are thus considered to be in an unfavorable conservation status. The interaction between species does not seem to be considered in this analysis, which determines cyclical increases and decreases among the various bird communities. Finally, it is worth asking what is the real congruence of the picture expressed by the IV Report, given that the population data and the reference areas for assessing the status of nesting birds are those of the old Italian Atlas Project dating back to the 1994.