Suchergebnisse

The ENETWILD consortium (www.enetwild.com) has implemented an EFSA‐funded project whose main objective is to collect information and model the geographical distribution and abundance of wild boar throughout Europe. This is of particular concern owing to the spread of African swine fever from Eastern areas. In January 2018, ENETWILD organised discussion workshops for 70 experts in the field of the ecology, management and epidemiology of wild boar. Three workshops addressed the following questions: (1) what kind of data is needed to develop wild boar abundance maps?; (2) how can estimates of boar abundance be harmonised between regions?; and (3) how can the collection of wild boar distribution and abundance data be improved? In order to collect data on the presence/absence and abundance of wild boar obtained from different sources (administrations, hunters, naturalists and researchers), it is necessary to work on the generation, collection and processing of data in a harmonised manner, thus enabling the information to be comparable and used at a European level. The use of information on hunting statistics (number of animals hunted and hunting effort per surface unit) is particularly essential. The strategy is based on, firstly, collecting existing non‐harmonised wild boar data in the short‐term (occurrence and hunting statistics) by collecting the more accessible data. As a second step, ENETWILD distributed a questionnaire on how and where the data concerning hunting statistics are collected throughout the different Countries or regions in Europe. The objective of this questionnaire was to identify those places in which hunting statistics are still disaggregated (at the highest spatial resolution), with the purpose of standardising the means employed to collect hunting data in Europe. The following step consisted of the appropriate collection of data, using a data model and supported by a data‐sharing agreement.

In order to define the spatial interface between wild boar and domestic pigs in Europe, the ENETWILD consortium (www.enetwild.com) described in a preliminary report the different sources of data for domestic pigs at European scale, and developed a preliminary risk map of possible spatial interaction between both groups. This modelexplored and assessed the use of pig distribution data from Gridded Livestock of the Worlddatabase (GLW), FAO. However, in some specific countries used as cases, the GLW predictions did not reliably represent the pig abundance distribution within countries. The currently available census data of livestock at the European Union level (Eurostat) is limited to the spatial resolution at NUTS2. While Eurostat ensures that data can be potentially comparable,there is still needed to resolve definition issues regarding better spatial resolution (level of aggregation of information) and the pig production systems. In this context, the objectives of this report are (i) assessing the spatial interface between pigs and wild boar over Europe using the best quality data available (Eurostat data and ENETWILD spatial models). We(ii) secondly assessed the interface at higher spatial resolution, distinguishing pig production types in countries where data was available. Based on comparisons at different scales and quality of data, we propose future steps in both data collection and modelling approach.Precisespatial resolution of pig data is not available at European level yet, and the discrimination of extensive vs. intensive farms, backyards vs. commercial; outdoor vs. indoor, is essential to quantify and perform risk analyses separatelyfor each production system and/or considering this relevant source of variation in risk at the interface. The development of a framework to collect harmonised and standardised data at European scale athigher resolution is needed. ; Peer reviewed

External Scientific Report. ; The 2nd ENETWILD Annual General Meeting took place on 5-6th October 2021, bringing together experts, stakeholders and ENETWILD collaborators in online workshop discussions. First, workshop discussions contributed to the analysis and proposal of approaches for a harmonized European-wide wildlife monitoring framework able of sustaining coordinated decision-making. Secondly, participants identified the key challenges that managers face in making decisions for wildlife in Europe and data needs for policies. Finally, we illustrated these challenges with the case of wild boar as a model species widely distributed across Europe. Inputs from the participants were collated into a plan of proposed steps and objectives for the mid-term (5-year time frame) to achieve progress on harmonised, coordinated, and integrated wildlife monitoring at the European level, which requires the contribution of experts from the early stages. Specific proposed actions include the creation of a trans-disciplinary authority at the European level, effective points of reference for data collection and sharing at different administrative levels and countries, a standing committee to coordinate and exchange experience and capacities on data collection between countries, and expert groups for problem solving, with proper EU financial support, establishing regular policy meetings. . To provide useful results, wildlife monitoring must ensure proper design and data analysis for subsequent science-based management and best allocation of management resources. The 'Observatory' approach (a representative network of intensively monitored sites) can provide long-term systematic and representative insights, normally more feasible for comparative studies, providing less biases and support for decision-making. For international decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research, experts should define the foundations of a common European wildlife decision-making framework (inter-institutional and inter-sectorial). The development of a European legislation on wildlife management may represent an opportunity for addressing the abovementioned steps, identifying data priorities matching the needs of the various European Directorates, Agencies, and monitoring frameworks. ; EFSA-Q-2020-00669. ; Peer reviewed