The service proposed last April 30 from TG5 (20 pm edition) on the elephant selection hunt in Botswana - closed in 2014 and reopened in 2019 due to the counterproductive results due to the sudden increase in poaching and the inevitable culls necessary to limit damage to agriculture - offers the opportunity to reflect on the "useful" role of hunting in managing withdrawals and to ensure the conservation of wild species, even if they reach densities that are difficult to match with the needs of coexistence with rural populations.
We cannot ignore, in this case, that in 2050 the African population is expected to reach 2,5 billion inhabitants, about double the current one and 11 times more than in 1950. Faced with this scenario, the risk for the conservation of African fauna is very strong and the solution will certainly not rest in the presence of parks alone! Instead, it is essential that local communities, even in Africa, can perceive wildlife as a resource capable of generating benefits (the so-called ecosystem services) and not just a source of insecurity and problems of coexistence. For those who are serious about conservation, the “wise use” of resources and the involvement of local populations are the pillars on which the success of biodiversity protection policies is based.
Let us not forget that elephant populations in southern and eastern Africa have registered significant increases (IUCN, 2008), such as to represent a serious threat to fragile local economies and feed the risk of uncontrolled poaching for self-defense of the inhabitants of the areas. expanding rural areas. As in the famous case of the Cecil lion, killed in perfect lawfulness by an American dentist in Zimbabwe in 2015, even in the case proposed by TG5, the selective removal of two elephants by other wealthy Americans has caused a cry of "massacre". Given that there is a great difference between the two cases, with respect to the impact that these wild animals can have on the economy of local populations, it should not be ignored that the real risk for the conservation of African fauna derives, in that Continent as elsewhere, from the uncontrolled demographic development of human communities.
Today, more than ever, there is an urgent need for sustainable development policies also in Africa, such as to enhance in the first place the great natural heritage still fortunately present, in such a way that it does not affect the fragile local agricultural economies. It is in the interest of all, of the Africans in the first place, but also of us Europeans, as we can well understand. Hunting has been described in various forms as an important tool for controlling animal populations which, correctly included in wildlife conservation strategies, can help reduce the pressure on rural areas, making it more acceptable to modern societies. The sustainable use of wildlife is fully in line with the objectives of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB, 1992), which includes the sustainable use of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of the renewable benefits resulting from its wise use, for the benefit of local communities.
But there are many international Conventions and Agreements that refer to the sustainable use of wild species. In them it is clear the idea that sustainable use refers contextually both to the conservation of biodiversity and to the support of the communities that depend on it. And this in reference to the needs, aspirations, socio-economic services and cultural values that communities aspire to and intend to pass on to future generations. Awareness of such opportunities is an increasing phenomenon today in North America and also in Europe, where the consumption of wild species can be seen as ecologically much more sustainable and naturally renewable than man-made resources (e.g. game meat natural instead of that of cattle or farm chickens).
Let's not forget that the Ungulates in Italy have increased by about 200 times from the post-war period to today, for environmental and management reasons, and currently an estimated 2 million heads (especially wild boar and roe deer), which have about 85% of the territory potentially suitable. This natural capital cannot fail to be managed in a sustainable way, to conserve it and to benefit from the ecosystem services that it is able to provide annually, limiting the impact on habitat and agriculture, and preventing the onset of epizootic diseases such as African swine fever. In all this, hunting and hunters are indispensable "tools". And there is real concern about the ongoing demographic decline. In several countries, researchers are studying the role of hunters in various wildlife management practices as well as the contribution they make to environmental protection.
But their recruitment and their numerical conservation are also being studied. Research on the number trend of hunters is particularly common in North America, where funding for wildlife conservation depends significantly on hunting license fees. In any case, there are species (eg wild boar, elephant) that more than others need to be kept under control, in a sustainable way and for economic reasons of coexistence with rural communities. The tools available are mainly two, obviously usable in synergy according to the specific cases, but substantially opposite from an economic point of view:
- the enhancement of the use of hunting (taxes, meats, induced activities, traditions, etc.) as a management and containment factor, or
- the need to incur large expenses to remunerate / compensate personnel in charge of carrying out prevention activities and in any case implement killing / capture interventions for wildlife control purposes.
The "non-intervention" in this field basically does not exist, at least on a large scale, but as is usually seen not even in parks, much less in Africa and in an imminent perspective. When, on the other hand, as it seems, an approach of sustainable development is not followed, since traditional schemes of continuous industrial development closely linked to the so-called "consumer society" are pursued, then the indignation for the selective hunting of wildlife reveals itself as a greenwashing operation, for marketing or contingent political purposes, but without a real interest in achieving a lasting improvement in the living conditions of rural communities. Approach, to be honest, abused in Western societies and in Italy in particular. The above considerations outline a conservative vision of natural resources devoid of emotional content and constitute a declination of the ecological transition applied to the conservation of wildlife.