Suchergebnisse

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