Report of the 2nd Annual General Meeting of ENETWILD 5-6th October 2021

EXTERNAL SCIENTIFIC REPORT APPROVED: 10 December 2021 doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-7053 www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 1 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as authors. This task has been carried out exclusively by the authors in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the authors, awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. Report of the 2nd Annual General Meeting of ENETWILD 5-6th October 2021 ENETWILD-consortium 1 , Pascual R, Acevedo P, Apollonio M, Blanco-Aguiar JA, Body G, Casaer J, Ferroglio E, Gomez Molina A, Illanas S, Jansen P, Keuling O, Palencia P, Plis K, Podgórski T, Ruiz Rodriguez C, Scandura M, Smith GC, Vada R, Zanet S and Vicente J. Abstract 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 decisionmaking 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. © European Food Safety Authority, 2021 Key words: wildlife data collection, wildlife management legislation, wildlife monitoring, international coordination, science-based decision-making, wild boar, human dimension Question number: EFSA-Q-2020-00669 1 www.enetwild.com Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 2 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Correspondence: [email protected] Disclaimer: The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. Acknowledgements: We acknowledge EFSA ALPHA and DATA units, all participants of the 2nd Annual General meetings and ENETWILD partners. Suggested citation: ENETWILD Consortium, Pascual R, Acevedo P, Apollonio M, Blanco-Aguiar JA, Body G, Casaer J, Ferroglio E, Gomez Molina A, Illanas S, Jansen P, Keuling O, Palencia P, Plis K, Podgórski T, Ruiz Rodriguez C, Scandura M, Smith GC, Vada R, Zanet S and Vicente J, 2021. Report of the 2nd Annual General Meeting of ENETWILD (5-6 October 2021). EFSA supporting publication 2021:EN7053. 92 pp. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-7053 ISSN: 2397-8325 © European Food Safety Authority, 2021 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 3 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Summary The ENETWILD consortium (www.enetwild.com) has implemented an EFSA-funded project since 2017, whose main objective is to collect information regarding the geographical distribution and abundance of wildlife throughout Europe to subsequently create geospatial tools to be used in further risk assessment. ENETWILD 2nd Annual General Meeting took place online on the 5th and 6th of October 2021 with 110 experts and policy makers from 24 European countries in the field of ecology/management and animal health/epidemiology of wildlife. The participants, from different levels of administrations and organisations, reviewed current data collection frameworks and approaches and discussed specific questions presented by the organisers. Under the premise that wildlife monitoring should be an inherent part of the process of informed management, this meeting addressed the necessary steps towards improving harmonised national and international wildlife monitoring for coordinated wildlife decisionmaking in Europe. The specific objectives were (i) to analyse and propose approaches for a harmonised Europe-wide wildlife monitoring framework for collection of data and/or metadata able to sustain coordinated decision-making, (ii) to identify the key challenges that managers face in making decisions on wildlife in Europe, which often occurs under informal decision processes rather than using informed frameworks and (iii) using wild boar as a model species widely distributed across Europe, to get insight into dealing with the complexity of international management decision making. Three workshops and a round table were organised to discuss the following subjects and/or address these aspects: Workshop 1. Towards harmonised national and international wildlife monitoring to support coordinated decision-making in Europe. Objectives: (i) to identify problems in inter–institutional and inter–sectorial coordination at the international level in relation to wildlife monitoring, (ii) to list, organise and rank actions to improve coordination. Workshop 2. From data collection to policy: international decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research. Objectives: (i) to identify the main gaps in knowledge about European wildlife management, incl. the human factor, relevant to wildlife policy, and (ii) to list, organise and rank actions to incorporate science and decision-making processes into wildlife management in Europe and in an international context. Workshop 3. Proposal of guidelines for a coordinated pan–European wild boar ASF management plan. Objectives: to draft a proposal of guidelines for a coordinated European wild boar ASF management plan. Round table. One world, One health: need to integrate existing monitoring initiatives. Opportunities, gaps, and challenges. Inputs from the participants were collated by ENETWILD organisers into a plan or list of proposed steps needed in the mid-term to achieve relevant progress on harmonised coordinated and integrated wildlife monitoring at the European level. Within a 5-year time frame, considerable progress can be made if European administrations and countries drive the initiative, with the early contribution of experts. A summary of relevant inputs derived from workshop discussions include:  Creation of a trans-disciplinary authority at the European level.  Effective points of reference for data sharing at different administrative levels and countries.  Coordinated distribution of roles, including international monitoring frameworks, to make it possible for data to be summarised from different sources, aggregated, used, and reported.  Creating a Standing Committee to coordinate and exchange experience and capacities on data collection between countries. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 4 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s).  Creating a network/group of different experts of varying backgrounds that can act as consultants to politicians. Specific working groups of mandatory interdisciplinary composition for problem solving.  Production of a harmonised monitoring framework at an international level, involving active working groups as stakeholders and periodic evaluations of the management plan. The EU should take advantage of what is already built (international monitoring frameworks).  To develop a common inter-administrative annual report on wildlife monitoring statistics at the European level.  There is need for funds to effectively mobilise relevant long-term monitoring data and to produce monitoring guidelines at an international level.  This legislative initiative should be complemented by a communication and engagement strategy to motivate and raise awareness of the importance of wildlife monitoring and management, clearly defining aims at different levels, from local to international.  Training to overcome dispersed local monitoring efforts. For international decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research:  Relevant gaps in knowledge related to wildlife management can be addressed with a mid/long-term approach.  For this purpose, we recommend organising an international conference of experts to define the foundations of a common European wildlife decision‐making framework (inter-institutional and inter-sectorial). This is relevant to defining what and how to monitor after setting common objectives at the EU level.  To produce useful results, wildlife monitoring must ensure proper design and data analysis for subsequent science-based management and the best allocation of management resources. The 'Observatory' approach (alone or combined) can provide long-term systematic and representative insights. Citizen science can be integrated with professional monitoring to improve wildlife data collection and better inform management, if it provides good data quality and availability. However, this requires continuous funding to develop proper communication targeted to specific audiences. To provide an adequate legal foundation for informed policy making, the development of a European legislation on wildlife management is needed, which could fill the gaps in managing common species and considers the multiple sides of wildlife related conflicts. This is beyond current directives (“Habitats” and “Birds”) that mainly focus on conservational aspects, although it must be integrated with them. Wildlife-related conflicts (including the human dimension), methodological approaches to measure/monitor processes, population control and the role of hunting are key issues to develop in such a directive. This legislative framework would represent an opportunity to develop wildlife information and data flow at the European level. Data priorities, matching the needs at the European level, should be established under the guidance of this directive and harmonised procedures/protocols for wildlife monitoring and data formats should be available to the various European Directorates, Agencies and Authorities that require geographic-based biological data, as for monitoring frameworks. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 5 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Table of contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................1 Summary .......................................................................................................................................2 1. Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor .................................................................6 2. ENETWILD and the 2nd Annual General Meeting perspectives.................................................6 3. The 2nd Annual General Meeting of the ENETWILD project ....................................................8 3.1. The objectives and expected outcomes of the meeting ..........................................................8 3.2. Organization: Workshops and round table ............................................................................9 3.3. Discussion during workshops ............................................................................................. 22 3.3.1. Discussion contents of Workshop 1: towards harmonized national and international wildlife monitoring to support coordinated decision-making in Europe ............................................. 22 3.3.2. Conclusions of Round table: One world One health: need of integrating existing monitoring initiatives .......................................................................................................................... 42 3.3.3. Discussion contents of Workshop 2: from data collection to policy: international decisionmaking by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research ........................................................................................................................... 43 3.3.4. Discussion contents of workshop 3: proposal of guidelines for a coordinated European wild boar ASF management plan ............................................................................................... 59 3.3.5. Conclusions of the 2nd Annual General Meeting of ENETWILD .............................................. 70 3.3.5.1.Workshop 1. Towards harmonised national and international wildlife monitoring to support coordinated decision-making in Europe .............................................................................. 70 3.3.5.2.Workshop 2. From data collection to policy: international decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research .......................... 74 3.3.5.3.Workshop 3. The case of wild boar management in Europe: Proposal of guidelines for a coordinated European wild boar ASF management plan....................................................... 77 4. Final remarks .................................................................................................................... 81 International decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research ................................................................................................... 82 Do we need a European legislation on wildlife management? .......................................................... 82 5. Literature ......................................................................................................................... 84 Annex 1. Detailed program of the II AGM of ENETWILD. ................................................................ 85 Annex 2. List of participants (names and affiliations) registered in the II Annual General Meeting of ENETWILD. ...................................................................................................................... 88 Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 6 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 1. Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor This report is a deliverable of the specific contract 8 related to the framework contract” Wildlife: collecting and sharing data on wildlife populations, transmitting animal disease agents” (Contract number: OC/EFSA/ALPHA/2016/01) awarded by EFSA to Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. The specific contract 8 required the organisation of a general meeting with relevant stakeholders and a related report of the outcomes of such meeting. 2. ENETWILD and the 2nd Annual General Meeting perspectives Through ENETWILD (www.enetwild.com), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) funds this project to collect comparable data at the European level to analyse risks of diseases shared between wildlife, livestock, and humans. These data are also essential in conservation and wildlife management. In January 2018, the ENETWILD project was publicly launched and organised discussion workshops for 70 experts in the field of ecology, management, and epidemiology of wildlife (ENETWILD consortium 2018a), and three questions were addressed: (1) What kind of data are needed to develop wildlife abundance maps? (2) How can estimates of abundance be harmonised between regions/countries? and (3) How can the collection of distribution and abundance data be improved? The following step by ENETWILD consisted of developing the standards for data and metadata collection (based on international Darwin core, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1841, ENETWILD consortium 2020a), and the appropriate collection of data, using a data model and supported by a data‐sharing agreement. Therefore, important progress has been made in the field of spatial distribution modelling of wildlife at the European level (e.g., https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1871, e.g., ENETWILD consortium 2020b). Guides for reliable abundance estimation of wild mammals (https://enetwild.com/2020/11/23/wildlife_abundance_guide/; e.g., ENETWILD consortium 2018b) and detailed protocols on field methods (https://enetwild.com/2021/03/20/ct-protocol-for-wild-boar/) have been published. A network of population data providers (data and metadata for distribution, abundance, and density) has been established and supported, including training on study design, methods, field protocols and data analysis. Taken together, this is planting the seed for a European network of study sites capable of providing reliable data on wildlife abundance on a long-term basis, the European Observatory of Wildlife (EOW, https://wildlifeobservatory.org/). To contribute to improving European capacities for common, harmonised, and reliable wildlife population monitoring, and its application to policy, the 2nd ENETWILD Annual General Meeting brought together experts, stakeholders and ENETWILD collaborators in online workshop discussions in October 2021. The need for harmonised national and international wildlife monitoring and coordinated decision-making in Europe is justified by the following: - Decision-making is multi-attribute and context-dependent, and there exists uncertainty of the effects of applying different management approaches. Therefore, wildlife managers must deal with complex decisions by collecting information from stakeholders and further gathering the best available science. - Factors that govern wildlife distribution, abundance, their impacts (and associated conflicts) and disease spread are not bound by national borders. Therefore, there is a need to design clear monitoring objectives and approaches that are coordinated at an international scale across Europe. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 7 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). - The final application of monitoring data is in informed management. Therefore, it must be coupled with the definition of management objectives, which may vary within and across local, national, and international scales. - To sum, an international approach to develop sustainable wildlife monitoring and management from a holistic and integrated point of view is needed because:  Management is normally not scaled and proportional to its ecological and socio-economic relevance.  Institutional decisions are not always coordinated both vertically (i.e., from local to international levels) and horizontally (i.e., among interest or sectors at each level) to generate a collective action.  For most taxa, there is a lack of useful data, and where they exist, there is no coordination among European-wide monitoring frameworks to generate harmonised data. This prevents their subsequent use in the implementation of policies at a European level, and therefore, international decision-making is not properly informed. To prepare the objectives, contents, and format of this 2nd Annual General Meeting, the ENETWILD consortium reflected on the requirements for improving harmonised national and international wildlife monitoring and coordinated decision-making in Europe: i. Inter-institutional coordination at an international level.  At lower administrative levels, wildlife managers make their own plan on a short-term basis including day-to-day operational decisions. At higher administrative levels, managers engage in decisions that often disregard local managers. Data flow and communication among them is essential to vertically integrate the planning processes across levels of administrations and to meet agreed goals and objectives. ii. To determine the best approach to wildlife population monitoring and analysis (incl. impacts).  European monitoring efforts are still spatially and temporally fragmented, and taxonomically biased. The lack of an EU-wide general framework for monitoring wildlife particularly applies to terrestrial mammal species (several international organizations already have long experience, for instance, with birds and bats). Focusing efforts and sharing experiences on certain species/taxa as model examples is useful to illustrate that coordinated and mutually learning decision support frameworks are viable, and what the best options to improve national (local) and coordinated international monitoring decision-making are. iii. Inter-sectorial coordination at an international level.  To succeed and achieve objectives, it is essential to engage a broad range of stakeholders with clear responsibilities for the implementation of the necessary measures. The importance or appreciation of impacts can differ greatly between stakeholder groups (Conover 2002), resulting in different stakeholder acceptance (Riley et al. 2002). Given the need to manage impacts without knowing all possible consequences, wildlife managers need to act with the information, knowledge, and opinions on hand. iv. Decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians should be based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research into all aspects of management.  When the technical basis of a decision is not solid, inadequate risk assessment and wildlife management may have negative implications for a wide variety of endpoints including Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 8 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). environmental, economic, social, and cultural. Wildlife management needs to evolve from a population management based only on population estimates and population models, towards impact management (positive and negative). Adaptive impact management is the most logic approach combining management, monitoring, and gaining knowledge simultaneously (Reidinger and Miller 2013). 3. The 2nd Annual General Meeting of the ENETWILD project One-hundred and ten experts from the wildlife health and population sector (including partners and the Advisory Committee) were invited to meet online for the 2nd Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the ENETWILD project from 5-6th October 2021. 3.1. The objectives and expected outcomes of the meeting Under the premise that wildlife monitoring should be an inherent part of the process of informed management, this meeting addressed the necessary steps toward improving harmonised national and international wildlife monitoring for coordinated wildlife decision-making in Europe. The general aim was to improve harmonised national and international wildlife monitoring as an essential step forward for coordinated wildlife decision-taking in Europe. Specifically, workshop discussions contributed to the following objectives: - Analyse and propose approaches for a harmonised European-wide wildlife monitoring framework (for data and/or metadata) capable of sustaining coordinated decision-making.  Expected outcomes: comparison of targets and approaches of on-going European-wide wildlife monitoring frameworks (for data and/or metadata), determine how to harmonise/integrate initiatives to cover data gaps and bottlenecks and integrate national programs. Determine how to make data available to policy. Determine how to engage data users and/or providers (this is a common subject for different European-wide frameworks monitoring biodiversity and their associated impacts/conflicts and ecosystems). Identify the key challenges that managers face in making decisions for wildlife in Europe (often related to the unavailability of useful, standardised, validated monitoring population data), to identify data needs of policies to provide a basis for improving national and European coordinated wildlife monitoring and subsequent decision-making among involved institutions and social actors. - Exemplify with the case of the wild boar, as a model species widely distributed across Europe, the ways to deal with the complexity of international management decision making, in the context of the current African swine fever (ASF) outbreak. The lessons learned in this species (but other cases will be addressed) are valuable to guiding international management for other terrestrial wildlife.  A specific outcome will be the development comprehensive guidelines for a coordinated Pan-European wild boar management. This includes, among other aspects, how wild boar monitoring efforts, currently non-existent or scattered across regions, must harmonise, also applying to other terrestrial mammals. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 9 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 3.2. Organization: Workshops and round table To reach conclusions, the participation of attendees followed a format of online workshops and discussion groups. The first part of each session was introductory and included presentations by relevant stakeholders. Then the participants interacted online and worked as a team to arrive at proposals and conclusions, not necessarily obtaining a consensus conclusion, but rather ideas to work on. Each session concluded with the presentation of the conclusions to the whole group. One expert moderator for each group provided details on the specific workshop, coordination, and directed participants. The duration of discussions was about one hour (with a break time). To guarantee the success of a discussion group: - We provided the background for discussions, moving from more general to more specific information. - Practical online tools were used by participants of each group to share proposals and summarise their outputs (miro.com). - The respective role of each participant in the workshop was detailed by the moderator within each discussion group, selecting one speaker among participants. Participants invited to workshops were representative of policy makers of the EU national and international governmental institutions, international initiatives and projects working on harmonised monitoring of biodiversity and at an international level to represent the sectors involved in wildlife monitoring and management (e.g., hunters), including specific wildlife groups of reference (e.g., international initiatives monitoring certain taxa, such as wild birds or vectors). The workshop took place on two consecutive days (Table 1): 1. Wildlife General: Inter-institutional and inter-sectorial coordination at an international level of wildlife management, and the need for integrating existing monitoring initiatives. 2. Decision-making (including legislative frames) and the specific wild boar section: Management and decision-making systems by wildlife managers and politicians. A detailed agenda including presenters, contents and workshops can be found in Annex 1. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 16 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). a Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), National Wildlife Management Centre. Adlestone, United Kingdom. b Animal health (SANTE.DDG2.G.2), DG for Health and Food Safety, European Commission. c Centre de Recerca Ecològica i Aplicacions Forestals (CREAF). Solsona, Spain. d Czech University of Life Sciences. Prague, Czech Republic. e Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Sassari (UNISS). Sassari, Italy. f Direction de la surveillance des évaluations et des données, Office Français de la Biodiversité (OFB). France. g ENETWILD Project. h EuropaBON Project. I European Co-funded Partnership on Biodiversity. j European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET), European Environmental Agency (EEA). k European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Parma, Italy. l European Wildlife Disease Association (EWDA). m Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Biodiversity Centre. Helsinki, Finland. n German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv). Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Germany. o Institut Català d'Ornitologia (ICO). Barcelona, Spain. p Institute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research (ITAW), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover. Hannover, Germany. q Instituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC), CSIC-UCLM-JCCM. Ciudad Real, Spain. r Instituut voor Natuuren Bosonderzoek (INBO). Brussel, Belgium. s Mammal Research Institute (MRI), Polish Academy of Sciences, Białowieża, Poland. t Martin Luther University (MLU). Halle, Germany. u National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). Utrecht, Netherlands. v Nature Protection (ENV.D.3), DG for Environment, European Commission. w Università degli Studi di Torino. Torino, Italy. x VectorNet Project. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 17 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Figure 3. Characterization of participants of the 2nd AGM as a function of their expertise and institution of origin. The map indicates (shadowed countries) their distribution (33 European Countries plus international organizations and the US). The objectives, tasks and specific questions of respective workshops are indicated next in more detail: Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 18 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). WORKSHOP 1. TOWARDS HARMONIZED NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE MONITORING TO SUPPORT COORDINATED DECISION-MAKING IN EUROPE Objectives: (i) to identify problems in inter–institutional and inter–sectorial coordination at international level in relation to wildlife monitoring, (ii) to list, organize and rank actions to improve coordination. Task to address: participants should identify problems and list actions aimed at improving inter– institutional and inter–sectorial coordination at international level (this includes regional/national as a first link of vertical coordination). Briefly, indicate examples to illustrate contributions. The discussion was organized as follows: A. Breakout groups 1 & 2: Inter–Institutional vertical coordination 1. What different levels of administrations do? List the main objectives and gaps (to be addressed) in relation to wildlife monitoring for each administrative level  Local  Regional  National  International (EU) 2. Main barriers. Identify wildlife monitoring data workflow bottlenecks and disruptions from origin among Institutions and monitoring programs (vertically, from local to International), indicating causes. 3. Improving it. How can we improve wildlife data sharing among administrations/monitoring programs? What channels should be implemented/improved/created for appropriate vertical wildlife data flow and communication across administrations/monitoring programs? B. Breakout groups 3 & 4: Inter–Institutional horizontal coordination 1. What different administrations do? Cross policy-integration in relation to wildlife monitoring. List the main objectives and gaps (that should be addressed) in relation to wildlife monitoring for each administrative area/depts./agency  Environment (wildlife)  Agriculture  Animal Health  Public Health 2. Main barriers. Identify wildlife monitoring data workflow bottlenecks and disruptions among Institutional areas/depts (horizontally, from local to International), indicating causes (inter-sectorial relationships are addressed in a separate workshop group) 3. Improving it. How can we improve wildlife data sharing among administrative areas/depts. (horizontally)? What channels should be implemented/improved/created for appropriate horizontal wildlife data flow and communication across administrations? How can we trigger data mobilization (for a common good) and data sharing, how can data sharing be improved horizontally? Which incentives needed? C. Breakout groups 5 & 6: Inter-sectorial coordination at international level Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 19 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 1. Who and what? Indicate the main sectors (administration, stakeholders) that must be involved and coordinated in wildlife population monitoring (from local to International). What should their main roles be? 2. How your organization contributes to wildlife monitoring in Europe? Aims and relationships with other sectors and Institutions (from local to international) 3. Main barriers. Identify the main roadblocks in relation to collaboration among sectors participating in wildlife monitoring (incl. data workflow bottlenecks and disruptions among sectors), indicating causes. ROUND TABLE. ROUND TABLE. ONE WORLD ONE HEALTH: NEED OF INTEGRATING EXISTING MONITORING INITIATIVES QUESTIONS: How you visualize the steps forward for future biodiversity monitoring in Europe, integrating monitoring frameworks to support policy at the European level? Opportunities, gaps, and challenges, under a One Health context. Participants: - Lluís Brotons (Europa BON-CREAF) - Henrique M Pereira (Europa BON-iDiv) - Marieta Braks (Vectornet-RIVM) - Gabrielle Zancanaro (EFSA) - Paolo Tizzani (OIE) - Graham Smith (ENETWILD-APHA) - Guillaume Body (ENETWILD-OFB) - Ezio Ferroglio (ENETWILD-UNITO) - Mario Reis (ICNF-Portugal) Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 20 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). WORKSHOP 2. FROM DATA COLLECTION TO POLICY: INTERNATIONAL DECISION-MAKING BY WILDLIFE MANAGERS AND POLITICIANS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH Objectives: (i) to identify the main gaps in knowledge about European wildlife management, incl. the human factor, relevant to wildlife policy, and (ii) to list, organize and rank actions to incorporate science and decision-making processes into wildlife management in Europe and in an international context. Task to address: participants should identify the main gaps in knowledge about European wildlife management relevant to wildlife policy identify, and secondly, list, organize and rank actions to incorporate science and decision frameworks into European wildlife management. When appropriate, briefly, indicate examples to illustrate contributions The discussion was organized as follows: A. Breakout groups 1 & 2: Data (knowledge) gaps 1. Gaps in knowledge. Indicate specific gaps in knowledge about European wildlife ecology (e.g., population parameters), management, population control and social acceptability relevant to policy 2. Multiple objectives. List objectives (e.g., environmental, public health, agriculture, use, animal welfare) among administrations and objectives that impede the design and application of the highquality (science based) management  Environment (wildlife)  Agriculture  Animal Health  Public Health  Use (consumptive / non-consumptive)  Animal Welfare 3. Negative impacts of “misinformed” management. List (potential) negative impacts of current management schemes (which are mainly informal) which would be solved with a more scientific basis. B. Breakout groups 3 & 4: Science-based management: towards decision support frameworks 1. Towards decision support frameworks (structured decision-making approaches, SDM). In a real world, how to progressively implement wildlife decision‐making frameworks in a common complex regional, national, international, inter-institutional, inter-sectorial frame? (list actions). Actions may differ at (or be specific to) regional, national, and European levels. 2. Integration of disciplines. How to move from multi and inter-disciplinarity to trans-disciplinarity in decision-making at different levels? Which disciplines do you miss in informed decision making? 3. Decision making based on impacts. How to evolve from a population management (based only on population estimates and population models) towards impact management (positive and negative)? List actions. C. Breakout groups 5 & 6: Science-based management: the value of monitoring in wildlife management 1. Adaptive management. List actions to improve adaptive management at different levels. Indicate what are the main constraints at an international level. How can science and monitoring data meet policy? 2. Monitoring approaches. List PROS and CONS of each approach, to determine the added value of combining them with a European perspective. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 21 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). WORKSHOP 3. PROPOSAL OF GUIDELINES FOR A COORDINATED PAN–EUROPEAN WILD BOAR ASF MANAGEMENT PLAN Objectives: to draft proposed guidelines for a coordinated Pan–European wild boar ASF management plan. Task to address: participants will propose the main aspects for guidelines for a coordinated PanEuropean wild boar ASF management plan in relation to points offered during discussion. The background will be the analysis of the WB management plans drafted by several European Countries (presented in a previous talk). The discussion was organized as follows: A. Breakout groups 1, 2 & 3: multi-institutional and sectorial approach required to develop and implement a European action plan 1. Multi-institutional and sectorial cooperation at the European level. Indicate, with a long-term planning-based perspective, even in ASF-free areas, the Institutions and sectors whose cooperation is required to control the wild boar populations and ensure efficient prevention and response to ASF risks, and their respective roles, functions, duplications at different levels (from local to European). 2. International cooperation. How to enhance cooperation on wild boar and ASF with neighbouring regions and Member States for the agreement on national-wide and cross-border measures? (list action, examples). 4. Awareness raising campaigns. Indicate aspects to include in awareness raising campaigns planned to target the following audiences?  official  veterinarians  private veterinarians  commercial farmers  non-commercial farmers  hunters  forestry guards  Public B. Breakout groups 4, 5 & 6: Specific contents of the plan (measures to adopt) 1. Supplementary feeding. How wild boar baiting/artificial feeding should be regulated? Propose specific measures, and briefly mention examples. 2. Monitoring the effectiveness of the plan. What indicators will you use to monitor the effectiveness of the measures set in the plan in the long term? 3. Propose specific measures. Add more specific measures to be include in the plan in relation to those already listed by DG SANTE (as indicated in the dossier):  To increase hunting pressure on the populations of wild boar  To promote an increase in the number of hunters  To increase means for crop protection (reduce food sources to wild boar) Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 22 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 3.3. Discussion during workshops Next, we transcribe the outputs as they were reported by participants during discussion sessions, separately for the 3 workshops and the round table. A summary of conclusions is presented in a separated section, following by several final remarks. For the workshops, we merged and integrated the conclusions, proposals and recommendations obtained by different breakout groups that addressed the same questions in parallel (see organization of workshops above). 3.3.1. Discussion contents of Workshop 1: towards harmonized national and international wildlife monitoring to support coordinated decision-making in Europe To identify problems in inter-institutional and inter-sectorial coordination at international level in relation to wildlife monitoring, to list, organize and rank actions to improve coordination, discussion was organized as follows: A. Breakout groups 1 & 2: Inter–Institutional vertical coordination 1. What different levels of administrations do? List the main objectives and gaps (which should be addressed) in relation to wildlife monitoring for each administrative level Participants addressed this question in terms of what needs to be done at different administrative levels, and their interplays, to improve inter–Institutional vertical coordination in wildlife monitoring. Several gaps were identified corresponding to different administrative levels (local, regional, national, international, all levels), which could also be structured transversally: legislative framework, communication and engagement, information and data flow, training, and harmonization, and availability of resources. The outputs of this working group and session are presented in Table 4. Table 4. Outputs of breakout groups 1 and 2, question 1, workshop 1. Harmonized national and international wildlife monitoring to support coordinated decision-making in Europe. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 23 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Local Regional National International Legislative framework • Harmonized mandatory reports (National and European) on hunting and inland fishing • Monitoring (and methods applied) at local management unit (e.g., hunting ground, preserved areas) must be regulated/compulsory • Lack of supervision (ultimately, on the local scale) • Current national laws and EU norms must be adapted/created to harmonise the monitoring of common species (e.g., ungulates) and subsequent decision making. • Old fashioned administrative systems are not trustable • There is no European Directive on wildlife management, which should include a view (and stakeholder participation) beyond conservation (which is covered by the HABITAT and BIRDS Directives). • Establishment of harmonized data formats, for the various legal frameworks that require geographic-based biological data (HABITATS, BIRDS, INSPIRE, WFD, etc.) • Clear legislation of the EU on the total and free access to biological data collected in projects financed or co-financed by European funds. Communication & engagement • To motivate hunters/people who are aware of the importance of wildlife monitoring, but also other stakeholder for monitoring (beyond hunting statistics) • To provide feedback of the results to the local people (which is often missing) • Appreciation on the important role of hunters (cascade from National to local level) • Clearly define aims at different levels (from local to International) • Data collected (e.g., hunting statistics) are useful not only to guide hunting policy, but for other purposes (conservation, risk assessment) • Information, flyers, apps, etc, that facilitate the correct identification of species Information/data flow • Reliable hunting statistics (trust in hunters) and mapping management units • Mere hunting bags are not sufficient: effort, effectiveness needed • Regions do not want to share their data • Need to integrate different kinds of data from local scale: • Lack of point of reference for data sharing • The database is not updated (data coming from • Countries and/or Institution s/projects/monitoring frameworks do not want to share data Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 24 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). • Calibration of hunting statistics vs animal density • Locals do not want to share their data • Need for covariables like use of artificial feeding, other management actions, fruit forest index, ... • Apps, that guarantee the correct flow of data (population abundance, hunting statistics, damages) from origin and are useful to implement at local level, a properly designed monitoring system (this is what is important, apps are just a tool to improve data collection, flow and storing from the field). • Quantify the damages to crops in a standardized way Difficulties to track all independent initiatives acting in a region • Modernise and digitise hunting bag and monitoring systems (Apps, data repository and spatial viewers) regions) and is difficult to access • Data are not interoperable across Europe as common standards are not applied • Assumption that national workflows are functional • Transparency of data • Identify national data managers and coordinate them from reporting (should be obligatory, see above) • Articulation with other initiatives at the macro scale: e.g., GBIF • Centralised and organized (control of data) databases at both levels • Lack of timely reporting (back to local auth) of results from previous hunting season • Report/communicate with national focal point • Local knowledge is often not integrated in the analysis of wildlife monitoring • Database to gather all results connected to lower and higher levels • Review and update to lower levels all modifications of monitoring • Database often only referenced to harvested animals • Appoint national focal point for international monitoring frameworks (e.g., ENETWILD, bird Intl. organizations, etc.) • Flexible and ample information systems (published data, administrative report data, environmental DNA data, mortality events, etc). Training, harmonization • Dispersed monitoring efforts • Uniform planning of the hunting data and census activities (same methods, periods, etc.) • Evaluation of the sensitivity of the population estimates • Methods and monitoring tools to collect data (e.g., hunting statistics) are not harmonized across Europe • Develop awareness for need for open data and long-term approaches • Be conscious on what needs to be monitored and how • Develop proper training to carry out the monitoring to locals: e.g., hunters • Harmonization of monitoring activities at regional level. • Good database, but only info of harvested animals (bodyweight, trophy mass, Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 25 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). age ..). No other method to evaluate species abundance and density - no additional monitoring done • No clear definition of the objectives (crop damages? biodiversity? density? forest regeneration?) • Training on the important role of hunters (cascade from National to local level) • Apart from hunting statistics-based methods, no other method to evaluate species abundance and density - no additional monitoring done • Methods to monitor population are not uniform and/or validated (reliable), and should be practical and multi-species • Parameters of interest net to be agree by taxa, region, etc: demographic and pop. structure data, reproduction success, condition (fitness indicators), occurrence (incl. road killed), disease surveillance • Missing live monitoring systems beyond hunting bags in most regions/countries • Importance of collecting data at the same spatial and time level Resource availability • Regional administration providing local authorities with common tools for local hunting data reporting (e.g., apps) • Training must be funded • Quantify resources of the administrations in mitigating damages • Resources for execution of monitoring every year • Long term strategy beyond initiatives such as project ENETWILD • Clear definition on the financial resources available for biological monitoring, and criteria for its attribution Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 32 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). To many and diverse players follow different approaches • Nonharmonised protocol to be used by all players • Establish methods for all to follow ENVIRONMENT <-->ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT <-->AGRICULTURE ENVIRONMENT <-->ANIM. HEALTH ANIMAL HEALTH <-->ANIM. HEALTH Barrier Cause Solution Cause Solution Cause Solution Cause Solution Data collection • Populations change due to natural and anthropogenic reasons • Establishment of easy to implement monitoring programs (i.e., camera traps) Resource availability (no budget for wildlife monitoring) and long-term approach • Populations change due to natural and anthropogenic reasons • Establishment of easy to implement monitoring programs (i.e., camera traps) and funding support Data sharing and dispersed information • Dispersed information in different Institutions • Make data online available for downloading and queries • Create a common observatory online. Annual reports • Limit of local administration in digitalisation process • Use of phone app and other user friendly and broadly used digital tools Coordination between different administrations • Do not have channels to interchange farmer believes (about species abundance) with reliable data of species abundance • Create the channel for sharing abundance data of a species to agriculture administrations • Lack of centralisation of wildlife AH information to veterinary authority • Dialogue with and pressure on political actors Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 33 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Training: different levels and responsibilities • More training that must be harmonised • Use initial examination of wild game as a passive/active surveillance tool To many and diverse players follow different approaches • Nonharmonised protocol to be used by all players • Establish methods for all to follow Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 34 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). C. Breakout groups 5 & 6: Inter-sectorial coordination at international level 1. Who and what? Indicate the main sectors (administration, stakeholders) that must be involved and coordinated in wildlife population monitoring (from local to International). What should their main roles be? The outputs of breakout groups 5 and 6 in relation to this question are show in Table 8. Table 8. Outputs of breakout groups 5 and 6, question 1, workshop 1. Harmonized national and international wildlife monitoring to support coordinated decision-making in Europe. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 35 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Stakeholder/ roles Detection wildlife (occurrence) Damage recording and prevention Estimate local densities Supply exact area data, effort data Hunter coordination Centralizing collected data, data sharing facilitation, training Data on populatio n and trends and habitats for protecte d species within PAs Data on invasive species in protected areas Data on populatio n and trends of threatene d species Promote social participation Reportin g reliable methods and tools for wildlife monitori ng Validate reliability of data providers Independ ent analyses of data avoiding stakehold er skew Observations (citizen science platforms) including Invasive alien species Define national monitoring schemes. Define and control national monitoring system impact on process of adoption law and sublaw in wildlife manageme nt Summariz e data (collecting data from different sources, national: reporting on internatio nal level) Farmers X X Local hunters X X X Hunter associations (reg, nat. levels) X Park Staff X X X NCOs X X Academia X X X X Citizens X Landowners X X Government organization (ministry etc.) X X X International biodiversity organizations (GBIF etc.) X Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 36 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 2. How your organization contributes to wildlife monitoring in Europe? Aims and relationships with other sectors and Institutions (from local to international) The outputs of breakout groups 5 and 6 in relation to this question are show in Table 9. Table 9. Outputs of breakout groups 5 and 6, question 2, workshop 1. Harmonized national and international wildlife monitoring to support coordinated decision-making in Europe. Organization How EEA EEA facilitates the harmonisation of country data and provision to the policy makers and public and assessment of EU picture based on data reported by countries. This picture feeds the policy framing and implementation at EU level ¿? Collecting and analysing nationwide monitoring data on many different species (Est EA) MAMMALNET-EFSA MAMMALNET: a project to promote citizen science, allow citizen to generate their own project using camera trap (MammalWeb) or reporting at European level ENETWILD (14 Institutions) - EFSA ENETWILD; European consortium. promoted by EFSA Collect information on wildlife distribution. Data providers, mainly formed of national and regional governmental institutions IREC Spanish research institute collaborate with governmental institutions transferring knowledge about wildlife, disease, and other impacts and with hunters and wildlife managers MRI PAS (the same applies for ENETWILD partners in their respective regions)  applying for and running the projects, which allowed to establish network between scientists in the eastern countries to promote data sharing  Monitoring wild boar population by using camera traps and hunting statistics  applying for and running projects, which establishes networking between scientists in the eastern countries to promote data sharing  Collecting and analysing nationwide monitoring data on many different species (Est EA)  participating in ENETWILD and MAMMALNET projects  Collecting data through Camera traps. Calibrating monitoring methods.  giving a scientific background and analysing results of monitoring  Participating in the countrywide monitoring of the wolf and lynx  Association for Nature "Wolf" (Poland) monitoring the wolf and lynx population in Northern and Central Poland Country-level (Poland) monitoring of wolf and lynx numbers, informing nature conservation agencies of the state and NGO's University of Belgrade University of Belgrade (Faculty of Forestry) participate in many projects and collect data about different species, and prepare final reports and scientific works for ministry and public EuropaBON EuropaBON helps to bridge the gap between the existing reporting streams and data sources on the one hand and the biodiversity data needs of policy-makers and authorities responsible for policy implementation on the other hand University (KKNU) University (KKNU) collect field and published data, provides reports (papers, communications) concerning abundance, develops and implements monitoring schemes ITC - University of Twente ITC - University of Twente is collaborating closely with the local authorities (Province), local hunters and the Dutch ministry of health. We have just started so we hope to contribute further via ENETWILD 3. Main barriers. Identify the main roadblocks in relation to collaboration among sectors participating in wildlife monitoring (incl. data workflow bottlenecks and disruptions among sectors), indicating causes" The outputs of breakout groups 5 and 6 in relation to this question are show in Table 10. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 37 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Table 10. Outputs of breakout groups 5 and 6, question 3, workshop 1. Harmonized national and international wildlife monitoring to support coordinated decision-making in Europe. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 38 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Farmers <-- >Hunters Scientists <--> Hunters Scientists <--> Scientists Scientists <--> Citizens Governments <--> Citizens Multi-organizations Governments <--> Hunters Governments (policy makers) <--> Scientists Barrier Cause Solution Cause Barrier Cause Solution Cause Solution Access to hunting in farms and lack of collaboratio n Farmer impeded access to hunting areas and different interests Agreeme nt on and use, based on scientific approac h Access to hunting data or data are filter or distort the data Fear of criticism Fear to radical environmen talist Other may use their data for hunting Fear of obligations Joint planning Better information. Allow better manageme nt strategy Educating hunters and sharing the results with them Data asymmetry, where, what, how Different resources by Countries Tools or financial support to help data collection Contradictin g data on specific species Hunters do not report real numbers or show wrong data policy makers need to have access to robust Different monitorin g methods? Share data and communic ation /cooperati on among stakehold ers Collaborat ive science Hunters want to hunt more (beyond limits from ministry Many hunters have limited knowledg e about monitorin Separate hunters and monitoring staff Enough financial support from governmen t for Data not available (no access rights, data not collected, data not made available publicly...) Better collaboration between. these sectors to coordinate policy-relevant research; use of open access journals; use of open data platforms Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 39 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). scientific data that address relevant policy questions g systems and their importanc e training hunters No data sharing Data collected does not reach those who make analyses or decisions Data collectors (farmers, hunters, park staff) do not want to report There are no regular reports about number and distribution of wildlife species Fear of publicatio ns by others Lack of awareness of data repositories This is only shortterm - data sharing becomes a requireme nt? Data itself is dispersed in different platforms, reports etc. Not enough resources , no motivatio ns, troubles with the species presence Some hunting ground users do not collect data Develop clear and streamline d data workflow, dedicated platform for data gathering Funding, strict rules and punishmen t in case of fraud Create a data collection framework so that all hunting grounds can upload their data No time to do more work Lack of awarenes s of data repositori es Data sharing becomes a requireme nt? More data on specific species, unreliable data Observer bias - Larger/ more visible species reported more often Calls for underrepr esented species monitorin g Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 40 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Lack of data Lack of interest in data collection Lack of awarenes s of apps Promotin g the data collection and showing the "scientific " impact of the citizens Publicity Data are not used Some researche rs don’t trust in this approach Test the utility of this approach Gov not have access to all data Privacy rule can be an important issue in some countries Lack of awarenes s of data sources Same rules in different countries Improved contact with correct people Monitoring data not accepted by landowners Fear for applicatio n of conservati on measures that will impose restriction s Good communicati on /Consultatio ns on measures involving all interested partners Mistrust between organisation s Hunters do not believe Mistrust of science Training on the process to produce scientific data and Loss of income or standing They all need to benefit from sharing Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 41 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). scientific evidence assess their reliability Promoting multiorganizatio nal cooperatio n Conservatio n projects implemente d by NGOs not relevant to local conservatio ns problems Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 48 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 3. Negative impacts of “misinformed” management. List (potential) negative impacts of current management schemes (which are mainly informal) which would be solved with scientific basis. The outputs of breakout groups 1 and 2 in relation to this question are show in Table 12. Table 12. Outputs of breakout groups 1 and 2, question 3, workshop 2 international decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research. Health Illegal Management and population control Genetics Decision making Social conflicts • Promote animal dispersion = disease spread; if lacking knowledge and management plan • Favour wild animals approaching humans/dome stic animals -- > disease risk • Normally overabundanc e arise for certain species. However, in an ecosystem context, others are displaced • Negative acceptance by population due to lack of context awareness • Black market of meat • Illegal trade of wild animals • Illegal hunting activities --> higher risk for disease spread (not controlled) • Population control used by hunters to increase the hunting period instead of resolve problems Overfishing/hunting of species complemented with stocking due to exceptionally low stocking success and high harvest expectations. Reduced knowledge of the natural differences of the maximum sustainable harvest between different target species • Are wildlife crossings operative/successful • Establish hunting quotas without density/abundance data • Not incorporating impacts on another species/environment • Hunting: wrong predator control • feeding wild animals • Culling is effective for disease control?? • Genetic depletion due to habitat fragmentation / habitat loss • Genetic introgression when animals are translocated • Ignorance and own political interests of decision makers • Incipient knowledge and support in the decision process of the adaptative management of inland fisheries • Lack of true support and engagement to management plans, due to difficulty and lack of honesty in the formulation of objectives and indicators to be used in the adaptative management plans of inland fisheries • Social confrontation: rural vs urban, hunters vs farmers, vets vs ecologists, etc • Do not know what happens nearby when not coordinated (misinformed) at local, regional, national, and international levels, respectively • Impact on human activities: road accidents, agriculture B. Breakout groups 3 & 4: Science-based management: towards decision support frameworks 1. Towards decision support frameworks (structured decision-making approaches, SDM). In a real world, how to progressively implement wildlife decision‐making frameworks in a common complex regional, national, international, inter-institutional, inter-sectorial frame? (List actions). Actions may differ at (or be specific to) regional, national, and European levels. The outputs of breakout groups 3 and 4 in relation to this question are show in Table 13. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 49 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Table 13. Outputs of breakout groups 3 and 4, question 1 workshop 2. International decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 50 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Local Regional National International (Europe) INTERINSTITUTIONAL - Making the locals prouder about the nature values that they have - Creating a local network and engage them and give space on decision making - Let people know what regional and national administration need to be done - Involving locals on wildlife monitoring and management - Working with conflicting/competing interest groups is hard - sometimes dependent on one of two individuals with an open approach who are willing to lead - Report to regional/national administration faults of the proposed system to improve it - Measure the damage, is it acceptable? - What is the conflict? integration of (local, regional) politicians into the process at the early beginning - To provide effective connections with regional government - Measure the density of species associated with conflict (wildlife, domestic animals, humans) - Collaboration between administrations is required - Mandates of decision makers should be clear - Act as a link between national/international administration and local administration/people - Need to strongly reduce the influence of cultural, social, and political issue in the decision-making process - Establish collaboration between local and regional authorities - Increasing capacity of the regional agency of protected areas and municipalities on wildlife conservation and management - To organise problem specific working groups - Learn from the stakeholder groups still existing/working successful - Clear mandate to a national scientifical technical authority needed (in term of data collection and definition of management guidelines) - Is hunting only a variable or rather an objective? need to clarify - Data analysis, decision, then more data to assess and correct the decision. - Fact vs politics - if no-one is complaining politicians can ignore the facts - More interaction between ministryes of health, agriculture, and environment - Definition of cost benefit outcome to each stakeholder group - Does action sit within a legal framework? - Provide monetary support for framework - Learn from examples - It is easier if there is already a 'club' to join, and which can provide help, and individual countries can save time/money - Complicated, because of, above all, cultural and socio-economic differences among countries - Improve feedback from the local/national administration to improve the plan - Harmonize policy along migratory routes and neighbouring countries - Take the EU habitat directive/Natura 2000 approach as blueprint for an EU-wide wildlife management - What happens at national borders? - Exchange of information across borders - To share a common policy in problem solving - Guidelines on conflict solving - Set clear legal regulations INTER-SECTORIAL - Contribute to the baseline data of wildlife presence, distribution, and wildlife human conflict - Interchange information about different perspectives between stakeholders (farmers, hunters, conservationists) - Some people want to pursue their own interests - they are not all collaborative: - Empowering stakeholders - How to best communicate between conflicting groups - Agreed objectives - Providing good and sustainable policy on wildlife conservation and management - Using across nation comparisons and guidelines often makes approaches to managing conflict less decisive - Providing support and sharing good experience on wildlife management to translate them into the local context - Information exchange on all levels to consider regional specific - Learning from other countries Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 51 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). understanding the reasons why? process to make them more collaborative - To organise local groups of stakeholders - Establishment of local consultative groups - Establish goals/objectives before starting to identify actions - Explain the overall goals of the international approach to the local stakeholders - After all above, to Report on damage, control and outcome OTHER - Need for feedback of information and decision making - Mandates of decision makers should be clear - Human dimensions and stakeholders should be more than proforma / mock ups - Bring rural problems closer to urban people - Extrapolation of densities may introduce bias providing measures of variation - Standard errors, confidence intervals help with understanding bias - Collaboration between regions / federal states - Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 52 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 2. Integration of disciplines. How to move from multi and inter-disciplinarity to trans-disciplinarity in decision-making at different levels? Which disciplines do you miss in informed decision making? The outputs of breakout groups 3 and 4 in relation to this question are show in Table 14. Table 14. Outputs of breakout groups 3 and 4, question 2, workshop 2. International decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research. How to General approach - Are we working top down or bottom up? Which is the best way at solving these problems, usually need both (figure below). - Define the wildlife acceptance capacity for each stakeholder group and identify the overlaps - Secure long-term guidance of stakeholder groups by external moderators - Political dimensions International multi and interdisciplinarity to trans-disciplinarity - Create a trans-disciplinary authority (or something similar) at a European level with the aim to provide non-binding management guidelines and methodological/scientific support - Create a network/group of different people with different background that can act as consultants to politicians Get multistakeholder buy-in - Listen and give feedback to the target groups - Sharing data and knowledge - Add disciplines as project partners not sub-contractors - Ensure long term funds to redirect researcher time toward other work than funding research - Funding sources to ensure that social science included in all project proposals. - To create working groups of mandatory interdisciplinary composition for problem solving - Active stakeholder involvement - Do not be stuck to official contact that in some cases lack of lateral thinking. People from Administrations must analyse the results of plan proposed by scientist and evaluate the tools needed for its application - Give advice and perspective - Creating an open and transparent system Improved communication - Publishing scientific findings in a more 'less-scientific' way in stakeholder magazines - Produce a "plain English" summary for all scientific papers. - Training scientists to speak to public - Change how scientific careers are measured - include elements of outreach as well as scientific papers Missed disciplines and tools - Soft science such as Sociology and communication - human dimension but adapted to the cultural biodiversity of Europe and not simply borrowed from the North American context. - Lack of communication of technical information to the public - Communication skills are strongly needed - Lack of transparency - Behavioural nudges rather than instructions - Social science - Economic disciplines - Politic disciplines - secure long-term guidance of stakeholder groups by external moderators: mediation skills required, trained moderators, communication specialist - Use of platforms (as the wildlife platform in Bavaria, https://www.wildtierportal.bayern.de/service/149519/index.php) and in English Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 53 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 3. Decision taking based on impacts. How to evolve from a population management (based only on population estimates and population models) towards impact management (positive and negative)? List actions. The outputs of breakout groups 3 and 4 in relation to this question are show in Table 15. Table 15. Outputs of breakout groups 3 and 4, question 3, workshop 2. International decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research. General approach - Monitoring + reporting impacts -- effective use to guide actions - Include impacts as performance indicators in management objectives / evaluation - When do governments intervene? for what purpose do they make payments or offer other types of assistance? a common approach/principle across all wildlife management would be helpful. In Scotland we are not consistent across species, and this fosters mistrust between land managers and government - Increasing quality of impact for data collection (es. georeferencing impact) - Defining and monitoring numerical indicators of social conflicts - Adopting management goals focused on impact instead of population Define goal - Not to consider population densities as final goals - ensure that the financial framework is directed towards this goal - To set a realistic limit to impacts and to behave consequently - Define objective in terms of impact - Ensure we measure positive benefits Deals with human decision makers - Scientific education of the public - very long-term goal - Challenge initial emotional responses - Identify the fears of EU member states to contribute to an international wildlife management approach Applied research - Scientific research on action-impact relations - scientific research on externa effects - one health - Consider wider impacts than the single case - Join up decisions with other obligations, e.g. biodiversity goals, climate change requirements etc. C. Breakout groups 5 & 6: Science-based management: the value of monitoring in wildlife management 1. Adaptive management. List actions to improve adaptive management different levels. Indicate what are the main constraints at international level. How can science and monitoring data meet policy?" What and how to monitor - Setting of common objectives at EU level - Lack of harmonized monitoring frameworks at international level - There is no uniform methodology (differences between countries are large) - knowledge about the uncertainty of the monitoring - Monitoring impacts should be integral to planning management - Identify and agree on indicators to be monitored on population and habitat status - Policy must have active working groups (science and managers) groups as stakeholders - Periodical evaluations of the management plan Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 54 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Data collection, sharing, flow and validation - Population / habitats / disease monitoring protocols needed - Subsequent data validation - Easy access to repositories - Data from different areas must be available at the same time and in comparable form to inform management - Facilitate the transformation of raw data into usable data (e.g., densities) - IT tools available to connect from local to international wildlife managers - International standing committee to coordinate and exchange experience between countries - Data must be bidirectional: Collector – Manager - Agile and dynamic data flow - Data need to be plausible and well-characterised with uncertainty - Unified systems need to be applied - All this block: periodical evaluations & population monitoring Communication - Policy-makers need to understand the data and their uncertainty - Need of valuing of data/science by policy decisions makers - Consult with stakeholders on the objectives - Explain to stakeholders how the process works (monitoring data are used to adapt the management) - More Dissemination/communication of monitoring information to public Financial support - How to obtain and ensure long-term financial support - At national level is necessary to have government/ministry support 2. Monitoring approaches (“Observatory” versus widely available less harmonized data). List PROS and CONS of each approach, so as the added value of combining both with a European perspective. The outputs of breakout groups 5 and 6 in relation to this question are show in Table 16. Table 16. Outputs of breakout groups 5and 6, question 2, workshop 2. International decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 55 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). APPROACH 1 APPROACH 2 Pros Cons Pros Cons - Can provide long-term insights - Systematic - Representative - Relatively easy to analyse - Unique option for some species - Good quality data - Information ca be aggregated at higher level - Allow more feasible comparative studies - Harmonized data - Less bias when used for decisionmaking - standardized protocols - High cost - Need for good collaboration with "fieldworkers", i.e., population managers - Information can be less-widely shared - Costs => Use only the most important data - Areas that are representative now might not be in the future - need for highly trained people - Lack of trust between scientists and managers - Generalization from very limited local info - Needs centralised funding/management - Provides 'quick and dirty' but useful insights - Low costs of obtaining - Engages data providers, giving them a stake in wildlife - Involves wider constituencies - Large scale data available - Long term data already exists - No need for high expertise - Only one available in many countries and at a wide scale - Provide information on the most relevant parametrised trends - Easily accessible 'historical' data - Often very difficult to analyse - Seldom representative - Data collection methods often unclear - No clear relation between info and real population status (density, abundance) - Mainly difficult to be accepted by endusers - Information maybe not fit for purpose - Data quality questioned by policymakers - More expensive than most people realise - Indicators are often contradict to each other - Not available in all regions Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 56 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). - Hunters are a potential that is not sufficiently used and active - Can capture long-term population changes/adaptation/interactions (seasonal, annual) - More useful for risk factor analysis - More accurate observations - Infrastructure needed - Vulnerable to loss of (e.g.) government support - It requires specifics skills - Lower spatial coverage - Need to secure long-term funding - Population estimation (number, sex and age) is very difficult and often imprecise - challenging design - Responsibilities differ between countries - Resource (local; persons, budget, etc.) intensive - Lower geographical coverage - Number of observation points to receive a representative sample not easy to estimate - Data sharing (often scientific projects or approach) - Difficult to integrate all data in one platform - Observation points must be at the right place (selection) - Easier to collect and convince active vectors to do it - Preliminary data to analyse trends. - Several information can be collected by hunters as citizen-scientists - Hunting statistics can be improved in many countries - Might be enough to identify an emerging risk or increased mortality - wider geographical coverage - Data from many countries available - Scientific recommendations should be not omitted - Not resource (person, budget, etc.) intensive - Spatial, temporal and preferencerelated biases - Bias on comparative studies - Historical data not necessarily digitised - Long lag to recovery data, slow data process - There are large differences in hunting statistics methodology between regions, as well as countries - Game populations are dynamic and variable in short periods - Data rigor is different across countries - Hunting and official (national) statistics are very often different - Accuracy might be not good enough to support decision processes - Less accurate observations Both approaches combined - Other data sources involve more people in the whole process, engaging the public - Observatory data can calibrate more widely available info - Other data sources fill in gaps between observatories - Requires complex analyses to combine disparate data types - Difficult to have oversight of the whole data-collection process - More "actors" --> more bureaucracy Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 57 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 3. Citizen science. How can we integrate/pair citizen science and professional monitoring models to improve wildlife monitoring and better inform management? The outputs of breakout groups 5 and 6 in relation to this question are show in Table 17. Table 17. Outputs of breakout groups 5 and 6 question 3, workshop 2. International decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research. Data quality and availability Motivation Make it easy and affordable Communication - Data collection must be "Open access" provided by Competent Authority o involvement of researcher in CS, reducing barriers to data sharing o promote open data: accessibility to raw data - Validation of citizen science data - By defining the most needed set of info, i.e., not putting pressure to collect too much information - Need to reach data collectors and mobilise them (see motivation) - Technical issue: IT tools - - Promote regional /local networks to involve data collection. Bottom -up approach - locally promote specific objectives. i.e., ask recreational users for observations in national parks - Involve citizens in objectives, make it "personal" - Maintain engagement. Incentives? Rewards? (pay or reward citizens who are very active) - education of citizens - Approach stakeholders that are using technology (e.g., hunters and camera traps) - promotion of monitoring on TV, radio, and newspapers - Create added value for the citizens to report (e.g., risk maps) - Include citizens/participants in all the process (from the design of the monitoring protocols to interpretation of results) - Clearly show the importance of contribution of citizen data to monitoring and management - As for citizen science for disease surveillance:  Promotion by veterinarians (pet owners might be more interested in monitoring wildlife than other citizens)  Veterinarians as intermediaries between - Finance data storage/hosting - finance devices for data collectors e.g., camera trap/ audio - Tools to learn while doing., e.g., using AI - Use of simple technology to collect data (App with mobile phone) - Enable different tools (aps, monitoring scheme) for easy reporting in situ - Professional monitoring should be simplified to the extent that the required accuracy is not lost - - More education at school level (Young), Incorporate CS in early steps in schools - Use academia and its students; Use professional associations and their partners - Publicity/ outreach are major (unrecognised) overheads - Involve social scientists - Increase proper communication with endusers, convince citizen scientists that their data make a difference - Integrate knowledge and experiences (also data) from several citizenscience projects - Urgent need to recognize hunters as important collaborators. Promote citizen science at targeted groups of people (fishermen, farmers etc) Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 64 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Official veterinarians Private veterinarians Commercial farmers Non-commercial farmers Hunters Forestry guards Public Others  Appropriate training  Communication with other stakeholders and scientists  Official veterinarians need to know about wildlife ecology, wildlife needs, and hunter opinions  Private vets can be an avenue to farmers, hunter  Early detection  Antibiotic treatment awareness  Economic cost derived from an ASF outbreak  Their responsibility  General awareness  Avoid demonizing wild boar  Educate on impact of WB and biosecurity measures (in and out)  Early detection in high-risk farms  Economic cost derived from an ASF outbreak  Non-commercial farms survival despite ASF  Their responsibility  early detection/dead animals  Educate on impact of WB and biosecurity measures  Informative seminars on biosecurity/preventive measures  Biosecurity risks. Hunting--> farm  Distribute specific brochures/fliers for hunters or hunting associations  Include hunters in discussions and decisions  Ensure associations of hunters inform hunters in socials networks  Why population regulation is needed  Information on the specific situation regarding WB and the spread of the disease, and why it justifies an extraordinary hunting policy and practice  Educate about disease spread, importance of reporting  Hunting biosecurity  Report dead animals; do not manage ASF but wild boar when possible  Make ASF part of the regular hunting related topics  Being a good example for private hunters  Collection of carcasses wildlife data (early detection)  Train and engage them on their importance on wildlife disease monitoring  Biosecurity measures (hunting)  Distribution of brochures/fliers about ASF spread  Communication about the need for regulation (animal rights activists)  Especially, in areas with a large influx of travellers  What to do if you find a dead boar  Early detection  Distribution of brochures/fliers about ASF spread  Newspaper blog social media for hikers etc  TV advs  Awareness raising in schools  Measure and assess behaviour changes induced by education  Multi-level approach: from already trained public to occasional public: University students (vet, agro, bio, Athletes  General information and awareness on ASF to other possible "stakeholder’s (hikers, mountain bikers, etc.) Environmental associations  General information and awareness on ASF to environmental associations to counterbalance the action of animal rights activist Governments  Making governments aware, that animal rights activists may sabotage measures (e.g., destroy traps) => finding ways how to counteract Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 65 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s).  Train and engage them on their importance for wildlife diseases monitoring  Feeding wild boar is bad...and forbidden (or should be) zoo, human medicine, ..)  Training them on the basic aspect of WB management  Informative seminars on biosecurity  Explain them the leading role can have in early detection and management of the disease in the rural environment  Training them on the basic aspect of wild boar management  Actively support them for knowledge/information sharing through a phone network Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 66 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). B. Breakout groups 4, 5 & 6: Specific contents of the plan (measures to adopt) 1. Supplementary feeding. Feeding is the “core” management instrument for wild boar in many hunting grounds in Europe. How wild boar baiting/artificial feeding should be regulated? Propose specific measures, and briefly mention examples. Wildlife baiting is defined as intentionally placing food, or nutrient substances to manipulate the behaviour of wild species for the purpose of attracting them to a specific location to enhance hunter harvest, trapping, or other purposes (viewing opportunities; capture, treatment). European legislation stablishes non-sustained feeding, limited food only for attracting wild boar for trapping and/or culling - not exceeding 10kg/km2/month. Supplemental feeding consists of intentionally placing any food for use by wildlife on an annual, seasonal, or emergency basis with the intent of providing additional food sources to wildlife for different purposes: in emergency situations when natural foods become unavailable, to reduce damage to agriculture and threats to human health and safety; to enhance recreational opportunities, to improve the condition of animals or density. Supplementary feeding practices are difficult to control in the real world. In addition, its use for wild boar may be beneficial in certain cases (reduce damage to agriculture and threats to human health and safety). The table below (Table 20) indicates current wild boar management in different European countries, as reported by participants. o Need to compile feeding practices in Europe (using definitions above) o Greater monitoring of food distribution o Measure effect on movement. Data on real effects of feeding on WB ecology and life-history traits are needed o Control fenced areas o Considering ASF measures: baiting is essential for intensive harvest, but supplementary feeding should be banned throughout Europe o Density vs body condition as indicator of overabundant population and potential supplementary feeding o If supplementary feeding is banned it would help to address climate change agenda - and have public support Table 20. Outputs of breakout groups 4, 5 and 6 question 1, workshop 3. Proposal of guidelines for a coordinated European wild boar ASF management plan. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 67 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Supplementary feeding banned - Austria - Germany. Allowed baiting and supplementary feeding to avoid crops damage. - Italy - Lithuania - Slovenia. Allowed baiting and supplementary feeding to avoid crops damage. - Spain (except in certain regulated cases) Supplementary feeding banned only in ASF areas (Member states) - Estonia - Poland - Serbia Baiting allowed (in practice may “treacherously” overlap with feeding) - Estonia. Baiting sites registered with the obligation of putting a camera trap on site (and providing the coordinates) and make recordings available for inspection by governmental agency. Baiting restricted to 5kg on ground (max 100 kg in automatic feeder). Not exceeding XX (kg/site per month) - Germany. Baiting and supplementary feeding are allowed to avoid crop damage. Supplementary feeding if not to avoid crop damage, is strictly forbidden. In Germany, different regulations are in place due to federalism, and, in fact, field control of regulation is difficult - Italy. Baiting rare, connected to selective hunting with rifle; supplementary feeding still used although not illegal) - Slovenia. Baiting and supplementary feeding are allowed to avoid crop damage. Supplementary feeding if not to avoid crop damage, is strictly forbidden. Baiting restricted to 1-2 kg per day/station, and baiting stations restricted to 1/200-300 ha of forests). ASF measures have not caused changes in supplementary and baiting, but diversionary feeding is now banned. No info on effects of feeding but amounts of food is minor comparing to either quantity of mast seeds or amount of food at maize fields. No restriction - Ukraine, seems not restricted since ASF Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 68 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 2. Monitoring the effectiveness of the plan. What indicators will you use to monitor the effectiveness of the measures set in the plan in the long term? The outputs of breakout groups 1, 2 and 3 in relation to this question are shown in Table 21. Table 21. Outputs of breakout groups 1, 2 and 3 question 2, workshop 3. Proposal of guidelines for a coordinated European wild boar ASF management plan. Measure Indicator How Population control WB densities Camera traps, ENETWILD Abundance indexes Animal signs, vehicle collisions, crop damage, hunting bags Harvest Number of individuals Statistics data Decrease of impacts Euro/100ha damage to agriculture Car accident/year/100km paved road Properly record crop damage (taking account total amount of product rather than cost), monitor all car accidents ASF surveillance Probability of detecting an ASF case Veterinary analysis of hunted animals, data monitoring, recreational and professional hunters Number of found dead carcasses reported/km2 Biosecurity Cases resulting from poor hunting biosecurity Surveillance, epidemiological investigation (difficult), Nº pig farms implementing specific biosecurity plans Number of outbreaks in domestic pigs linked to hunting activities or interaction wild boar Disease eradication Time incursion-eradication index Active and passive surveillance (found dead and carcass search) Several agreed indicators are needed at the European level, and subsequent correct reporting and data (results) sharing. It is important to involve and to raise the profile of hunters in different aspects to monitor the effectiveness of the measures set in the plan in the long term, this would help and contribute to positive view of them. It is important to define the goals of a recreational hunter with respect to ASF prevention/eradication, considering limited time and performance. The combination of both recreational and professional hunters is used, for example, used in some cantons in Switzerland. Also, the use of recreational hunters for help in transect surveys can be used for ASF monitoring. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 69 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 3. Propose specific measures. Add more specific measures to be included in the plan in relation to (those already listed by DG SANTE indicated in the dossier)  Increase hunting pressure on the population of wild boar: - Promote complementary hunting methods (useful in security zones where firearm hunting is prohibited): bow hunting has issue with perception of humaneness, trapping is commonly avoided by hunters. On the other side, implement financial/other stimulation for recreational hunters. Also, provide a better education of hunters about ASF. - Change legislation, establish hunting strategies that for reduction rather than conservation of the species. A clear definition of infection, buffer and white zone should also be provided. In Estonia, there are compulsory hunting quota for every hunting club. - Invest in research alternatives (e.g., non-lethal fertility control, introduction of wild boar predators) and creation of contingency plans - Implement a rapid reaction hunting force, which can operate on behalf of authorities, in hunting grounds operated by private and/or recreational hunters  Promote the increase of the number of hunters: - Reduce hunting costs if management goals are reached, plus use of professional hunters or substantial economic incentives to hobby hunters - Change public attitudes about hunting and hunters, increase public awareness of the role of hunters and on the cost related to the use of professional hunters, plus promote commercialization (e.g., big game carcass collection centres in remote areas) and consumption of game meat (lowering the prices, advertising it as a sustainable protein source) - Hunter training programmes for younger people, women - Facilitate the collection of wild boar corpses and veterinarian analysis, avoiding abandonment of carcasses, as well as increase the preparedness for controlling disease outbreaks  Increase means for crop protection (reduce food sources to wild boar): - Facilitating hunting actions within crops, promote hunting for fear strategy in agricultural areas, effective hunting, and crop protection by night vision devices - Promote relationship between local hunters and farmers - Responsible farming (e.g., corn fields far from forest), finance electric fences, establish an unfavourable environment around cultivated fields or select more defensible areas for sensitive crops - Link payment of crop damage to the right of hunting in bordering areas, and take preventive measures - Inform people about the dangers of feeding wild boars in cities and surrounding areas and prevent access to garbage - Is crop really an issue? In some countries they are so large that fencing is impossible, and farmers do not care about damages Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 70 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 3.3.5. Conclusions of the 2nd Annual General Meeting of ENETWILD Experts, stakeholders and ENETWILD collaborators addressed through discussion the necessary steps towards improving harmonised national and international wildlife monitoring for coordinated wildlife decision-taking in Europe during the 2nd Annual General Meeting of ENETWILD. The approach underlying the discussions was that wildlife monitoring must be an inherent part of the process of informed management and that focus must be necessarily international. Next, the conclusions are summarised around specific questions. In another section below, the main final remarks in relation to the development of relevant progress on harmonised, coordinated, and integrated wildlife monitoring at a European level in the short/medium-term, are presented 3.3.5.1. Workshop 1. Towards harmonised national and international wildlife monitoring to support coordinated decision-making in Europe In this workshop, discussions contributed to analysing and proposing approaches for a harmonised European-wide wildlife monitoring framework (for data and/or metadata) capable of sustaining coordinated decision-making. The comparison of different targets and approaches of on-going Europewide wildlife monitoring frameworks was essential to: - Identify how to harmonise/integrate initiatives to cover data gaps and bottlenecks and integrate national programs - How to make data available to policy - How to engage data users and/or providers (this is a common subject to different European-wide frameworks monitoring biodiversity and their associated impacts/conflicts and ecosystems) Inter–institutional VERTICAL coordination The MAIN GAPS that should be addressed in relation to the coordination of wildlife monitoring across administrative levels, from local to European, refer to:  Legislative framework, since at the European level we are not prepared for current problems associated with wildlife (e.g., common species) and management is often not trusted by stakeholders. It is essential to implement modern wildlife management to address this challenge, also considering the social dimension. For these reasons, legislation should provide adequate legal foundation for informed policy making. There is no European Directive on wildlife management, which should include a view beyond conservation purposes (which is covered by the HABITAT and BIRDS Directives) to contribute to solving conflicts while supporting informed wildlife management that modern society demands.  Communication and engagement to motivate and create awareness on the importance of wildlife monitoring and management, clearly defining (and disseminating) aims at different levels, from local to international levels.  Information and data flow needs the establishment of harmonised procedures /protocols for wildlife monitoring and data formats for the various European Directorates, Agencies and Authorities, and monitoring frameworks that require geographic-based biological data. Notable Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 71 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). is the lack of effective points of reference for data sharing at different administrative levels and timely reporting on wildlife monitoring (distribution, abundance, impacts, etc.) beyond the specific cases of endangered species.  Training and harmonisation to overcome dispersed local monitoring efforts. Methods to monitor population are not uniform and/or validated (reliable). They should be practical and multispecies whenever possible.  Resource availability is essential to provide local authorities with common tools for data collection and harmonised, reliable, timely reporting on wildlife monitoring. Long-term strategy beyond occasional initiatives should be supported. We must take advantage of what is already built and operating correctly. As for the identification of and how to overcome the MAIN BARRIERS to WILDLIFE MONITORING DATA WORKFLOW across administrations and monitoring programs, the channels identified were:  Legislation should ensure that true and official statistics correspond to the real situation (e.g., hunting data) so they are reliable for expert monitoring. Establishment of data priorities matching the needs at the European level should be guided by directives.  However, the reliability of hunting statistics mainly depends on recreational hunters, and therefore communication efforts are needed so they perceive this as important for wildlife management.  Dispersed unharmonized wildlife policies lack of standard monitoring guidelines and efforts, which result in patchy data which are not comparable. At each level, there is a need to provide interoperable platforms/databases for data transfer and creating or backing a representative network of key stakeholders BACKED by administrative legitimacy. There is a need of funds for data curation, to effectively mobilise relevant long term monitoring data and to produce monitoring guidelines on an international level. The collaboration and harmonization between countries regardless of internal political organization (some are Federal, other centralized) is key.  Data are rarely properly collected and stored, and are often at an unusable coarse resolution, unverified and delayed for use. Upper administrative levels (European, National) need to establish monitoring systems capable of working at lower (e.g., regional, local) levels, distinguishing science/monitoring from commercial use. Data must be considered of great value and therefore proper resources should be put into collecting and validating them. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 72 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Inter–institutional HORIZONTAL coordination The MAIN GAPS that should be addressed to better integrate policies and wildlife monitoring horizontally across administrative levels (Environment, Agriculture, Animal Health, Public Health), include:  Current interests and monitoring models do not answer multiple questions for other sectors, which requires reassessment involving all administrations, also at an international level. Different conflicts are only regarded as a topic of a given administration (e.g., wildlife damages or monitoring biodiversity seen only as an obligation of Environment).  Separately for each administration, there is lack of expertise and capacity on data collection (e.g., population abundance for Agriculture and Animal Health, or disease surveillance for Environment), transdisciplinary data analysis and use.  Data are not horizontally shared in an easy and effective way (interactive availability for all interested administrations, automated and digitalised). The limited use of collected data can be perceived by stakeholders, including data providers such as hunters, as a negative aspect. As for the identification and how to overcome the MAIN BARRIERS to WILDLIFE MONITORING HORIZONTAL DATA WORKFLOW among administrations and monitoring programs, the suggested channels to improve/implement better wildlife data flow and communication were:  Administrations (such as wildlife, hunting and veterinary services) must develop sustainable data collection to determine populations by establishing among-administration harmonised and easy to implement monitoring programs (establish methods for all to follow such as camera traps, e.g., ENETWILD 2018).  Resource availability (no budget for wildlife monitoring) and a long-term approach is lacking, even more in the case of collaborative programs among administrations.  Data sharing among administrations requires more coordination, making dispersed data available online for downloading and queries. - To interchange different sources of data (produced by stakeholders and wildlife professionals (scientists)) to compare and provide feedback. - To create an inter-administrative common observatory online and annual reports, at a European level (digitisation process), involving different administrations and wildlife monitoring frameworks.  Training at different levels and responsibilities, and most importantly, harmonised among administrations (too many and diverse players). Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 73 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Inter–SECTORIAL coordination Discussion about the identification and DISTRIBUTION OF ROLES AMONG DIFFERENT SECTORS (farmers, local hunters and hunter associations, Park staff, NGOs, academia, citizens, landowners, government organisations such as ministries, international biodiversity organisations and wildlife monitoring projects) concluded that: - Roles in wildlife population monitoring must be coordinated, with specific interactions between administrations and assigned tasks. - Roles must be defined and complemented in a way that National and European administrations, in collaboration with other stakeholders (some already in charge of international monitoring frameworks, such as NGOs) define the national and international monitoring schemes. This coordinated distribution of roles will make it possible for data to be summarised from different sources, aggregated, used, and reported at an international level. To overcome the MAIN BARRIERS IN RELATION TO COLLABORATION AMONG SECTORS MONITORING WILDLIFE (incl. data workflow bottlenecks and disruptions among sectors): - The most important barriers refer to the flow of data because they cannot be generated without collaboration among sectors. If data are not shared or are contradictory, the data collected does not reach those who carry out analyses or make decisions. - To solve these relevant barriers, specific pair and multi-sector proposals were raised (see summary table), which mainly relate to: o Joint planning o Educating non-professional sectors and sharing the results with them o Tools and financial support to help data collection o Harmonise legislation in different countries o Develop collaborative science at a European level to develop an International Observatory of Wildlife trends o Good communication and consultations on measures involving all interested partners o Create a data collection framework so that all hunting grounds can upload their data o Develop clear and streamlined data workflow, and a dedicated platform for data gathering Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 80 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). - It is important to involve and to raise the profile of hunters in monitoring the effectiveness of the measures set in the plan in the long term. - The need of professional hunters is becoming essential for population control and monitoring the effectiveness of actions. SPECIFIC MEASURES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN (apart from those already listed by DG SANTE indicated in the dossier), are related to: - Increase hunting pressure on the population of wild boar, promote complementary hunting and non-hunting methods (some still require research), change actual legislation, and implement a rapid reaction hunting force. These f measures are the most represented in national plans. - However, promoting an increase in the number of hunters (e.g., hunter training programmes for younger people) and increasing means for crop protection (reduce food sources for wild boar) are approaches present only in a few national plans. Among specific measures proposed by the discussion groups, we note the linking of payments for crop damage to rights to hunt in bordering areas. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 81 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 4. Final remarks Harmonised, coordinated, and integrated wildlife monitoring at the European level Here, we elaborate the main conclusions as a list of steps and objectives needed to achieve progress on harmonised coordinated integrated wildlife monitoring at the European level in the midterm (five-year horizon). There is still a need to define (modern) wildlife management with a European focus and aims (as has been done, for instance, in the USA). Considerable progress can be made if European administrations and countries drive the initiative, with the contribution of experts from the early stages. - Coordinated distribution of roles, including international monitoring frameworks, to make it possible for data to be summarised from different sources, aggregated, used, and reported at an international level. Different conflicts are only regarded as a topic of a given administration. However, new monitoring models should answer multiple questions for other sectors (not only their own interests), which requires reassessment involving all administrations and international monitoring frameworks. - Creation of a trans-disciplinary authority at the European level with the aim to provide non-binding management guidelines and methodological/scientific support. - Effective points of reference for data collecting and sharing at different administrative levels and countries to provide timely reporting on wildlife monitoring as a basis for a data collection framework with a clear and streamlined data workflow, and a dedicated platform for data gathering. - Creating a Standing Committee to coordinate and exchange experience and capacities on data collection between countries, progressing towards harmonised database automatization and digitisation. - Creating a network/group of different experts with different backgrounds that can act as consultants to politicians, with mediation skills, trained as moderators and communication specialists. Strong working groups of mandatory interdisciplinary composition for problem solving, which should develop common strategies, with proper EU financial support, establishing regular policy meetings under an existing framework, using a biogeographical region approach, selecting agreed upon data standards, developing information-sharing protocols and best management strategies. - Materialisation of a harmonised monitoring framework at an international level, involving active working groups (science and managers) groups as stakeholders and periodic evaluations of the management plan. The EU must take advantage of what is already established (international monitoring frameworks) and correctly operate in relation to international wildlife monitoring. - To develop a common inter-administrative annual report on wildlife monitoring statistics at a European level. - Resources should be allocated to local authorities and international monitoring frameworks with common tools for data collection and harmonised, reliable, timely reporting on wildlife monitoring. There is a need for funds to effectively mobilise relevant long-term monitoring data and to produce monitoring guidelines on an international level. - Communication and engagement strategy to motivate and create awareness on the importance of wildlife monitoring and management, clearly defining (and disseminating) aims from local to international levels (see below the specific case of hunting sector). - Training to overcome dispersed local monitoring efforts and to and to equalize various existing methodologies and expertise. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 82 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). - To provide useful results, wildlife monitoring must ensure proper design and data analysis for subsequent science-based management and best allocation of management resources (see below). The 'Observatory' approach (alone or combined) can provide long-term systematic and representative insights, normally more feasible for comparative studies, providing less biases and support for decision-making. However, this requires careful dynamic design to achieve representativeness. This approach needs to be centralised and secure long-term funding/management and proper infrastructure. Citizen Science can be integrated with professionals to improve wildlife monitoring and better inform management if it provides high quality and available data. However, this requires continuous funding to develop communication adapted to specific audiences and must involve Information Technology tools and social scientists. International decision-making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research  Relevant gaps in knowledge related to wildlife management can be addressed in the mid/longterm approach. An example of specific research topics to address and propose protocols to do so for wild boar in relation to ASF can be found at https://enetwild.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/Enetwild_report_D3.1_SC8_approved_EFSA_for_publication_website-22.pdf  We recommend organizing an international conference of experts to define the foundations of wildlife decision‐making frameworks (which can be adopted by the wildlife management directive) in the common but complex European frame (inter-institutional, inter-sectorial frame): - To break down cultural and socio-political-economic barriers among countries. - To establish and discuss goals/objectives with institutions and sectors before starting to identify actions, explaining the overall goals of the international science-based approach to the local/regional/national/international stakeholders. - To progress on the involvement of hunting community is crucial since management is not only about monitoring but also execution. Recreational hunting, as it is now, is clearly unable to implement even the best-informed management goals and it is very resistant to change. The need of professional hunters is becoming essential for population control and monitoring the effectiveness of actions. - To reinforce science-based cooperation, certain demonstrative cases to follow and to further expand the approach. - To develop guidelines on conflict solving and recommend legal regulations. - To adopt management goals focused on impact instead of population size and incorporate adaptive management. - To provide recommendations on adaptive management supported by wildlife monitoring at an international level (see above) and to define what and how to monitor after setting common objectives at the EU level. Do we need a European legislation on wildlife management? It arose from discussion that, for an adequate legal foundation for informed policy making, the development of a European legislation on wildlife management is needed. Beyond current directives (“Habitats” and “Birds”) that mainly focus on conservation, this legislative framework would Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 83 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). fill gaps in managing common species and consider the multiple sides of wildlife-related conflicts, including the human dimension. Methodological approaches to measure/monitor processes, population control and the role of hunting are key issues to develop in such legislation. This legislative framework may represent an opportunity to develop wildlife information and data flow at the European level, establishing harmonised procedures/protocols for wildlife monitoring and data formats for the various European Directorates, Agencies and Authorities that require geographic-based biological data, as for monitoring frameworks. Establishment of data priorities matching the needs at the European level should be guided by legislation, ensuring that official statistics correspond to the real situation and are reliable for expert monitoring. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 84 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 5. Literature ENETWILD Consortium, Vicente J, Soriguer Escofet RC, Blanco-Aguiar JA, 2018a. Report of the 1st Annual General Meeting of ENETWILD (Parma, 16-18, January 2018). EFSA supporting publication 2018:EN-1400. 32 pp. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1400 ENETWILD Consortium, Keuling O, Sange M, Acevedo P, Podgorski T, Smith G, Scandura M, Apollonio M, Ferroglio E, Body G, Vicente J, 2018b. Guidance on estimation of wild boar population abundance and density: methods, challenges, possibilities. EFSA supporting publication 2018:EN-1449. 48 pp. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1449 ENETWILD Consortium, Body G, Mousset M, Chevallier E, Scandura M, Pamerlon S, Blanco-Aguiar JA, Vicente J, 2020a. Applying the Darwin core standard to the monitoring of wildlife species, their management and estimated records. EFSA supporting publication 2020:EN-1841. 81 pp. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN1841. ENETWILD Consortium 2020b. Validation and inference of high-resolution information (downscaling) of ENETWILD abundance model for wild boar. EFSA supporting publication 2020:EN-1787. 23pp. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1787 Conover M, 2002. Resolving Human - Wildlife Conflict: the Science of Wildlife Damage Management. Lewis Publishers. Reidinger Jr RF, Miller JE, 2013. Wildlife damage management: prevention, problem solving, and conflict resolution. JHU Press. Riley SJ, Decker DJ, Carpenter LH, Organ JF, Siemer WF, Mattfeld GF and Parsons G, 2002. The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 585-593. Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 85 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Annex 1. Detailed program of the II AGM of ENETWILD. Tuesday, 5th October Morning Session Presenter Chair Introduction to the workshop Chair: Joaquin Vicente (ENETWILD -IREC) 09:00. Welcome – ENETWILD consortium Joaquín Vicente (ENETWILD-IREC) 09:05. European Food and Safety Authority Alessandro Broglia (EFSA) 09:15. ENETWILD project and progress Joaquín Vicente (ENETWILD-IREC) Workshop 1. Towards Harmonized national and international wildlife monitoring in Europe Chair: Marco Apollonio (ENETWILD -UNISS) 09:30-10:30. Introductory Session 09:30. Towards harmonized national and international wildlife monitoring to support coordinated decision-making in Europe Marco Apollonio (ENETWILD-UNISS) 09:45. The need to integrate biodiversity and environment data streams to support policy: a reference framework: Europa Biodiversity Observation Network (EuropaBON) Henrique Pereira (Europa BONMLU) 10:00. Wildlife monitoring and Environmental policy at EU-level. Main policy frameworks: habitats and birds Directives (EU DG ENVIRONMENT) Angelika Rubin (EU DG ENVIRONMENT) 10:15. Wildlife monitoring and health and food safety policy at EU-level (EU DG Health and Food Safety - DG SANTE) Francesco Berlingieri (EU DG Health and Food Safety - DG SANTE) 10:30-10:45. Coffee break 10:45–11:45. Breakout Session: Best approach to wildlife population monitoring and analysis: Inter–institutional and inter–sectorial coordination at international level 11:45-12:15. Reporting back to plenary Afternoon Session Round table. One world One health: need of integrating existing monitoring initiatives 13:15–14:35. Introductory Session Chair: Graham Smith (ENETWILD -APHA) 13:15. The European biodiversity monitoring landscape: Biodiversity Partnership Biodiversa+ (European Co-funded Partnership on Biodiversity) Petteri Vihervaara (European Cofunded Partnership on Biodiversity-SYKE) Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 86 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 13:25. European monitoring of terrestrial mammals: relevance and current frameworks (ENETWILD) Graham Smith (ENETWILD-APHA) 13:35. Standards for wildlife population and disease data and metadata (ENETWILD) Guillaume Body (ENETWILD-OFB) 13:45. European monitoring of wild birds: relevance and current frameworks (Intl. Organizations) Lluís Brotons (Europa BONCREAF) 13:55. European monitoring of vectors: relevance and current frameworks (Vectornet) Marieta Braks (Vectornet-RIVM) 14:05. European wildlife disease surveillance: relevance and current frameworks Ezio Ferroglio (ENETWILDUNITO) 14:15. European monitoring of domestic livestock and diseases: SIGMA project (EFSA) Gabrielle Zancanaro (EFSA) 14:25. Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) and Essential Ecosystem Services Variables (EESVs) to address the specific user needs (EuropaBON) Néstor Fernández (Europa BONMLU/iDiv) 14:35-14:50. Coffee break 14:50-15:50. Round table discussion: Steps forward to future biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Integrating monitoring frameworks to support policy at European level, opportunities, gaps, and challenges Wednesday, 6th October Morning Session Workshop 2. From data collection to policy: international decision– making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research Chair: Jim Casaer (ENETWILD -INBO) 09:00-10:15. Introductory Session 09:00. Decision-making in wildlife management; do we know what we need to support good decisions? 09:15. Workflows and the process of wildlife decision making at European level (EEA-EIONET: European Environment Information and Observation Network) Eleni Tryfon (EEAEIONET: Eur. Environment Information and Observation Network) 09:30. Gaps in knowledge about European wildlife ecology, management, and control Massimo Scandura (ENETWILD-UNISS) 09:45-10:00. Coffee break 10:00-11:15. Breakout Session: Decision–making by wildlife managers and politicians based on scientific knowledge and interdisciplinary research Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 87 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). 11:15-12:15. Reporting back to plenary Afternoon Session Workshop 3. Proposal of guidelines for a coordinated Pan–European wild boar ASF management plan Chair: Oliver Keuling (ENETWILD -TiHo) 13:15–14:30. Introductory Session 13:15. Progress on monitoring of wild boar across Europe Oliver Keuling (ENETWILD-TiHo) 13:30. The management of wild boar in Europe in the context of current African swine fever outbreak: a paradigm for coordinated decision–making in Europe Tomasz Podgorski (ENETWILD-MRIUniv Prague) 13:45. A review of WB management plans proposed by European Countries (presentation of the results of the questionnaire). Joaquín Vicente (ENETWILD-IREC) 14:00-14:15. Coffee break 14:15-15:15. Breakout session: Guidelines for a coordinated Pan– European ASF wild boar management plan 15:15-15:45. Reporting back to plenary 15:45. Summary & Farewell Joaquín Vicente (ENETWILDIREC) Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 88 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). Annex 2. List of participants (names and affiliations) registered in the II Annual General Meeting of ENETWILD. Surname Name Email Countr y Organization Solà de la Torre Jordi [email protected] AD Departamen de Medi Ambient i SostenibilitatGovern d'Andorra Hoxha Bledi bledihoxh[email protected] AL Protection and Preservation of Natural Environment in Albania (PPNEA) Casaer Jim [email protected] BE INBO-Research Institute for Nature and Forest De Waele Valérie [email protected] BE Service Public de Wallonie Licoppe Licoppe [email protected] BE Service Public de Wallonie Mintiens Koen [email protected] BE EuFMD-FAO Stoyanov Stoyan [email protected] BG University of Forestry, Sofia Plhal Radim [email protected] CZ Mendel University in Brno Podgorski Tomasz [email protected] CZ Czech University of Life Sciences / MRI Poland Baudach Franziska [email protected] DE Deutscher Jagdverband e. V. Christoph Staubach christoph.staub[email protected] DE Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut Fernández Néstor [email protected] DE iDiv - Europa BON Hahn Niels [email protected] DE WILCON - Wildlife Consulting Junker Jessica [email protected] DE iDiv Keuling Oliver [email protected] DE ITAW TiHo Pereira Henrique Miguel henrique.pe[email protected] DE iDiv-Martin Luther University (MLU)- Europa BOM Rickowski Fiona [email protected] DE Freie Universitaet Berlin Alban Lis [email protected] DK Danish Agriculture and Food Council Tryfon Eleni eleni.[email protected] DK European Environment Agency Leivits Madis madis.lei[email protected] EE Estonian University of Life Sciences Veeroja Rauno [email protected] EE Estonian Environment Agency Viltrop Arvo [email protected] EE Estonian University of Life Sciences Bernardos Hernandez Pablo [email protected] ES Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación Blanco Aguiar Jose A [email protected] ES IREC - National Institute on Wildlife Research - UCLM Brotons Lluís [email protected] ES CSIC-CREAF Cáceres Garrido Germán [email protected] ES Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación (MAPA) Carrasco Jesus jesus.carras[email protected]om ES Everis Casal Pereira Bran bran.casal.perei[email protected] ES Xunta de Galicia Servizo de Caza e Pesca Fluvial Report of the second annual general meeting of ENETWILD www.efsa.europa.eu/publications 89 EFSA Supporting publication 2021:EN-7053 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the author(s). de la fuente Ignacio [email protected] ES Junta de Castilla y León. Servicio de Caza y Pesca Garcia Beatriz [email protected] ES TRAGSATEC Gómez Azahara [email protected] ES IREC - National Institute on Wildlife Research – UCLM Illanas Sonia [email protected] ES IREC - National Institute on Wildlife Research - UCLM Magalhaes Joana joana.magalhaes@scienceforchange. eu ES Science for Change Montero Ruiz Inmaculad a inmaculada.monte[email protected] ES Junta Extremadura Palencia Pablo [email protected] ES IREC - National Institute on Wildlife Research - UCLM PascualRico Roberto [email protected] ES IREC - National Institute on Wildlife Research - UCLM Prieto Caballero Esther meprie[email protected] ES MAPA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación) Ruiz Carmen [email protected] ES IREC - national Institute on Wildlife Research Serrano Ruiz de Dulanto Mencía [email protected] ES Administración General del Estado, Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación Vada Rachele [email protected] ES IREC - National Institute on Wildlife Research - UCLM Vicente Joaquin [email protected] ES IREC - National Institute on Wildlife Research - UCLM Villero Pi Dani [email protected] ES Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia (CTFC) Body Guillaume [email protected]ouv.fr FR Office Français de la Biodiversité (OFB) Diaz François [email protected] FR World Organisation for Animal Health Jori Ferran [email protected] FR CIRAD Pierre Dussort [email protected] FR PREZODE Tizzani Paolo [email protected] FR OIE - World Organisation for Animal Health Breeze Tom [email protected] GB University of Reading Ewald Julie [email protected] GB Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust Morag Milne [email protected] GB NatureScot Smith Graham [email protected] GB Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) Stephens Philip [email protected] GB Durham University Šprem Nikica [email protected] HR University of Zagreb Beltran Alcrudo Daniel daniel[email protected]rg HU FAO Hovari Mark [email protected] HU FAO REU O'Flynn Colette [email protected] IE National Biodiversity Data Centre