During some meetings and technical tables i FACE representatives and among these the Coordinator of the Federcaccia studies and research office Dr. Michele Sorrenti, President of the FACE working group on Birds and Habitats Directives, have heard with surprise the European Commission cite hunting as "an exception" to the wild bird protection regime enshrined in the directive 147/2009 / EC, called "Birds". From a reading of articles 1, 2, 4 and 7, a completely different reality appears, in which hunting is considered an integral part of the Directive.
We can therefore only welcome with satisfaction the news of the parliamentary question to the Commission presented by Vice-President of the Intergroup "Biodiversity, hunting, rural activities" of the European Parliament, the Honorable Marco Dreosto, by the MEPs Casanova, Da Re, Tovaglieri and Lancini, whom we thank for their attention and sensitivity to hunting issues. In fact, Article 1 of the Directive specifies that the text "establishes rules for the exploitation of wild birds", as well as Article 2 states that the level of populations is maintained compatibly with scientific, ecological and cultural needs, taking into account the economic and recreational ones. Hunting activity is therefore included at least twice, in cultural and recreational needs, as well as partly in economic ones. But that's not enough.
Article 5, which makes clear the need for Member States to adopt a protection regime for birds, begins precisely with "Without prejudice to Articles 7 and 9", that is, those that regulate hunting (Article 7) and exceptions (Article 9). Indeed, Article 7 establishes the rules by which the birds in Annexes 2A and 2B can be hunted, assigning to the Member States the obligation not to compromise the conservation efforts made in the species distribution area. In all these articles the hunting activity is therefore foreseen and considered a reality of the European Union, to be regulated according to the principles of wise use, but certainly cannot be evaluated as an exception to the protection regime. The Commission's interpretation therefore appears forced and to be clarified.
This can explain the recent positions taken by the Commission, more restrictive than in the past, taken for example on the species of the AEWA agreement (pochard and lapwing for Italy), or the request for a moratorium for turtledove in Spain and France, or the EU PILOT procedure in France on catches with mistletoe. Federcaccia hopes for a clarifying response from the Commission on this point as soon as possible.