In an article by Sara Gandolfi published in Corriere della Sera on 9 July with the title "Hunting is a threat to 1.341 wild mammals", an anticipation of the IPBES Report on the sustainable use of wild species was reported, drawn up by a pool of experts from 139 UN member states.
The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is an independent intergovernmental organization established to improve communication between science and policy on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The actual Report will only be ready at the end of the year, but at the moment a summary has been released for the political decision-makers. The analysis is carried out worldwide and mainly concerns the countries that on the one hand are richer in biodiversity, both animal and plant, and on the other hand are more dependent on the exploitation of renewable natural resources.
The Study and Research Department of the FIdC had previously participated in the revision of the drafts of the six chapters of the IPBES Report (for a total of over 900 pages), highlighting aspects related to hunting and the sustainable use of wildlife. For example, the very definition of “hunting” was intervened, which in the Report was defined as “the lethal category of taking land animals that leads to the killing of the animal, as in hunting for trophies”. It was therefore observed that a more modern definition of "hunting" can be understood as the set of activities that aim to take possession of a wild animal for different purposes: food, economic, recreational, amateur, scientific, cultural, traditional, etc. Furthermore, according to an ecosystemic approach, “hunting” is also a fundamental means of using the “ecosystem services” provided by nature and to enhance the “natural capital”.
The same activities related to sustainable hunting, habitat management for hunting purposes and reintroductions / repopulation, according to CICES V5.0 criteria, are a source of increase in ecosystem services offered to the Community, namely: "Supply services" (such as for example quantity of meat, value of game, etc.), "Regulatory services" (such as conservation investments, protected areas, habitat protection, species protection, control of invasive and problematic alien species, monitoring of wildlife diseases, compensation for damage to agriculture, contribution to the containment of climate change, etc.) and "Cultural services" (experiential and physical use of animals and the territory, hunting ecotourism, expenses related to hunting and dog lovers, hunting companies, and much more ).
The draft of the IPBES Report also highlighted that in recent decades an ecological movement has developed more and more that is ideologically against hunting and does not accept the capture or killing of wild animals for ethical reasons. In the face of this, it was pointed out that scientific progress is increasingly capable of supporting biologically sustainable hunting practices. Furthermore, hunting can also be a growth driver for populations of huntable species. An example of this is the case of ungulates, which had a strong increase after the Second World War in Europe and Italy, and are at the origin of the expansion of the wolf range.
Returning to the article that appeared in Corriere della Sera, if we look closely in the summary of the IPBES Report, we can read that unsustainable forms of hunting are identified as a threat factor for 1.341 species of wild mammals (worldwide), of which 669 species they are classified as "threatened", but it is also clear that there are approximately as many (672) hunted species that in reality are not classified as "threatened" at all. The Author notes that "between the lines you can always find a sign of optimism", but evidently in this case the positive data has not been grasped, namely that about half of the 1.341 species of mammals mentioned do not fall within the classification of the species " threatened ".
The IPBES Report is nevertheless interesting. On the one hand, it makes an effort to draw a picture of the situation, also highlighting critical issues; on the other, it frames the sustainable use of renewable natural resources in compliance with the needs of local populations (especially rural areas), who have the right to have their expectations, needs and traditions met, among which there is very often the hunting.
The document also captures an unexpected cultural passage, namely the fact of indicating to governments and public decision-makers that in order to conserve wild species (animals and plants) and ensure their sustainable use for the future, sector policies must see how the main actors are precisely the populations most directly involved and the stakeholders.
Obviously there are great differences between continents, states and peoples, but the basic approach is that of greater involvement and greater respect for the expectations of rural populations. Development is considered sustainable even when it does not give rise to discrimination and social conflicts, such as between the populations of metropolises and those of rural areas, or between the expectations of the richest populations and those of the poorest populations. There is still concern about the situation of hunting for food in tropical areas, where this activity has been negatively affected by profound socio-economic changes, which have shifted the collection of wildlife from subsistence to a more intensive trade in game meat (a major factor including health risk). Conversely, we read, where hunting is well managed, the impacts on the abundance of wild species are lower and sustainable, to the point that it can also be considered useful for the achievement of biodiversity conservation objectives.
This is the goal of modern hunting and that Federcaccia promotes. The IPBES Report confirms this approach and Federcaccia expresses great satisfaction.
Faunistic and Agro-Environmental Studies and Research Office