Update on the activity of the European Observatory of Wildlife (EOW) - campaign 2024

Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 APPROVED: 9 Dec 2025 Update on the activity of the European Observatory of Wildlife (EOW) - campaign 2024 ENETWILD-consortium, Guerrasio T, Acevedo P, Alves PC, Apollonio M, Arakelyan M, Arnon A, Beatham S, Berde L, Berdión O, Bicho C, Blanco-Aguiar JA, Bleier N, Blūms K, Burgui Oltra JM, Bužan E, Carniato D, Carvalho J, Casaer J, Conte LA, Csányi S, Dal Mas M, Del Frate M, Della Libera F, Del Val H, De Waele V, Dijkhuis LR, Duniš L, Durova J, Dutta T, Ertürk A, Fernandes N, Ferroglio E, Forti A, Gačić D, Gavashelishvili A, Gruychev G, Guimaraes N, Gutiérrez I, Henrich M, Heurich M, Hillström L, Jansen PA, Janječić M, Ježek M, Kashyap B, Keuling O, Kropil R, Licoppe A, Liefting Y, Martínez-Carrasco C, Olano I, Olejarz A, Ozoliņš J, Palencia P, Platovšek Z, Plis K, Podgorski T, Pokorny B, Radonić M, Rodrigues M, Rodríguez D, Rowcliffe M, Santos J, Smith GC, Sola de la Torre J, Soyumert A, Šprem N, Stoyanov S, Tanjević T, Thomas E, Torres RT, Vergara M, Vicente J, Watthez Q, Wierzbowska I, Zanet S, and Scandura M Abstract The European Observatory of Wildlife (EOW), developed within the ENETWILD project, has been active since 2021 as a collaborative network dedicated to designing and applying standardized protocols for harmonized data collection on key mammal species and their pathogens. By doing so, the EOW enhances the quality and consistency of information available for wildlife management and risk assessment across Europe. Since its establishment, the network has generated data through a camera-trapping protocol based on the Random Encounter Model (REM) for density estimation. Image sequences from camera traps are processed using the Agouti platform, which provides dedicated tools for managing cameratrapping projects. The workflow also integrates photogrammetry and an analytical pipeline that streamlines the direct estimation of REM parameters from acquired images. During the 2024 campaign, 58 study sites across 23 European countries were monitored by 36 institutions. This effort produced density estimates for numerous mammal species. In this report, we present results for the five most intensively monitored species: wild boar, European roe deer, red fox, red deer, and European badger. We also describe efforts to extend the network to areas affected by African Swine Fever (ASF) or located near infected zones, providing valuable information for disease management. Protocol improvements further standardized results generation and reduced human error. Together with the adoption of a new data policy, these advances led to the creation of the EOW database—an openly accessible resource containing REM-based density estimates from EOW sites. Finally, networking activities have been undertaken to build connections with other international initiatives and to promote EOW’s work at international conferences. © European Food Safety Authority, 2025 Key words: harmonized protocol, camera trapping, density estimation, random encounter model, wildlife monitoring Correspondence: [email protected] Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 2 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 are grateful to all people who have contributed to the EOW activities, in particular to Bolat L, Fernández L, Jiménez M, Khanbekyan M, Marini G, Oral S, Ozut D, Piacentini E, Pissarro F, Rodrigues E, Santos A, Sayar AO, Torrijo-Salesa M, Weinmann L. Establishing study site in Latvia was supported by Decision No. 10.9.1-11/24/1843-e (20.05.2024) of the Ministry of Agriculture, camera deployments assisted by Bagrade G, Ornicāns A, Pilāte D and Stepanova A. J Carvalho and RT Torres acknowledges financial support from FCT/MCTES to CESAM (UID Center for Environmental and Marine Studies + LA/P/0094/2020). We would also like to acknowledge the staff of the Cerova Vrchovina Protected landscape, and the local hunters and foresters for their support. We would also like to acknowledge EDIA, S.A. (Portugal) for allowing the implementation of the study in Herdade da Coitadinha farm. Suggested citation: Enetwild consortium, Guerrasio T, Acevedo P, Alves PC, Apollonio M, Arakelyan M, Arnon A, Beatham S, Berde L, Berdión O, Blanco-Aguiar JA, Bleier N, Burgui Oltra JM, Bužan E, Carniato D, Carvalho J, Casaer J, Conte LA, Csányi S, Dal Mas M, Del Frate M, Della Libera F, Del Val H, De Waele V, Dijkhuis L, Duniš L, Dutta T, Ertürk A, Ferroglio E, Forti A, Gačić D, Gavashelishvili A, Guimaraes N, Henrich M, Heurich M, Hillström L, Jansen P, Jenječić M, Ježek M, Kashyap B, Keuling O, Kristaps B, Licoppe A, Liefting Y, MartinezCarrasco C, Olano I, Ozolinis J, Palencia P, Plis K, Podgorski T, Pokorny B, Radonić M, Rodriguez D, Rowcliffe M, Santos J, Smith GC, Sola de la Torre J, Soyumert A, Šprem N, Stoyanov S, Tanjević T, Thomas E, Tinoco Torres R, Vicente J, Watthez Q, Wierzbowska I, Zanet S, and Scandura M, 2025. Update on the activity of the European Observatory of Wildlife (EOW) - campaign 2024. EFSA supporting publication, 10.5281/zenodo.17885129, 54 pp. ISSN: 2397-8325 © European Food Safety Authority, 2025 Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 3 Summary Background: The European Observatory of Wildlife (EOW), established under the ENETWILD project, aims to strengthen Europe’s capacity to monitor wildlife populations by adopting international standards for data collection, refining methodologies for density estimation, and promoting collaborative open-data frameworks for transnational wildlife monitoring and management. As part of this effort, the EOW team developed a standardized protocol for estimating mammal population densities using camera trapping and the Random Encounter Model (REM). A key feature of this protocol is the integration of photogrammetry, which generates a three-dimensional reconstruction of the camera’s field of view through calibration. This enables direct derivation of REM parameters—such as speed, activity, and day range—from recorded image sequences. Image processing and parameter estimation are supported by the Agouti platform, which has been enhanced to streamline the workflow. Since 2021, ENETWILD partners and stakeholders have applied this protocol to estimate mammal densities at an expanding network of study sites across Europe. Objectives: This report summarizes activities carried out during the 2024 EOW campaign, detailing network development, protocol implementation, and results. Particular focus is given to the five species with the most density estimates: wild boar (Sus scrofa), European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), red deer (Cervus elaphus), and European badger (Meles meles). The report also highlights the creation of an open-access EOW database and the release of a new data policy. EOW campaign 2024: A total of 36 institutions from 23 countries monitored 58 study sites—the highest number in a single campaign to date. These efforts produced numerous density estimates, with wild boar being the most monitored species (55 estimates), followed by roe deer (45) and red fox (40). Networking initiatives: The EOW initiative was promoted through presentations at major international conferences, including the IX European Congress of Mammalogy (ECM9), the 14th European Vertebrate Management Conference, the 98th meeting of the German Society for Mammalian Biology, and the International Wildlife Congress 2025. Collaborations with international initiatives such as Euromammal, Snapshot Europe, EUP AH&W, and Commission-supported projects like Biodiversa+ continued through 2024–2025, fostering synergies in wildlife monitoring and disease prevention. Conclusions: Between 2021 and 2024, the EOW expanded its network of study sites while refining methodologies and technological tools. The resulting data, unprecedented in scope, have already been used to improve wild boar spatial models for African Swine Fever (ASF) risk assessments. Notably, nine study sites within infected areas and nine near infection borders provided valuable data for managing this disease. Minor protocol improvements further standardized data and reduced human error. These advances led to the creation of the openly accessible EOW database on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14961352), governed by a new data policy that regulates Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 4 access and collaborative use for scientific publications. The scale and precision of results demonstrate the success of the collaborative approach. Perspectives and recommendations: The network has expanded significantly, but further efforts are needed to establish study sites in every European country and improve representation of the northern bioregion. Outreach and collaborations are expected to attract new participants, further strengthening the network. Continuous protocol refinement will enhance data quality and utility. Finally, new pilot initiatives are integrating REM-based density estimation with data collection on vectors and pathogens, aligning with the broader goal of large-scale harmonized wildlife monitoring in Europe. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 5 Table of contents Abstract .............................................................................................. 1 Summary ............................................................................................ 3 1. Introduction ................................................................................. 6 1.1 Background and terms of reference as provided by the requestor .............. 6 1.2 Scope of the report ............................................................................ 7 2. The observatory approach .............................................................. 7 2.1 Network constitution and organization ................................................... 8 2.2 Protocol for density estimation ........................................................... 10 3. EOW campaign 2024 .................................................................... 14 3.1 Monitored areas .............................................................................. 14 3.2 Monitored Species ............................................................................ 15 3.2.1 Wild boar ............................................................................................... 17 3.2.2 Roe deer ................................................................................................ 18 3.2.3 Red fox .................................................................................................. 19 3.2.4 Red deer ................................................................................................ 21 3.2.5 European badger .................................................................................... 22 3.3 Integrated monitoring ...................................................................... 24 3.4 Discussion ...................................................................................... 25 4. Networking initiatives ................................................................... 25 5. Conclusions ................................................................................. 27 6. Perspectives and recommendations ................................................ 28 References ......................................................................................... 28 Abbreviations ..................................................................................... 32 Annex A – Updated EOW protocol (v. 2.1) for field activities and density estimation ......................................................................................... 33 Annex B – EOW data access and collaborative publishing policy (v. 1.0) .... 48 Annex C – EOW study sites 2024 .......................................................... 51 Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 6 1. Introduction Addressing health risks that arise from interactions between wildlife, domestic animals, humans, and their activities increasingly depends on accurate information about animal populations. In particular, data on species abundance are essential for evaluating the likelihood of pathogen transmission from wild hosts to livestock and people. Diseases such as African Swine Fever (ASF) in pigs and Avian Influenza in birds and mammals are major global threats to animal production systems, having already inflicted heavy economic losses on the pig and poultry sectors. Wild mammals are central to the dynamics of these pathogens: wild boar is the principal reservoir of ASF, whereas smallto medium-sized carnivores are most frequently implicated in the spread of Avian Influenza (ENETWILD consortium et al. 2024a). To improve preparedness and response, European and national institutions increasingly call for reliable density estimates of several mammalian species, which are fundamental inputs for risk assessments linked to disease outbreaks. In this context, the ENETWILD consortium, during its first framework contract entitled “Wildlife: collecting and sharing data on wildlife populations, transmitting animal disease agents” (Specific Contract number: OC/EFSA/ALPHA/2016/01–07) put substantial efforts in evaluating and refining approaches for estimating wildlife numbers. Over recent years, the group has published open-access protocols tailored to wild boar (ENETWILD consortium et al. 2018), wild ruminants (ENETWILD consortium et al. 2020a), and wild carnivores (ENETWILD consortium et al. 2020b). The consortium has also compiled and harmonized hunting statistics, making them a useful source of data for large-scale spatial analyses (ENETWILD consortium et al. 2019). Such analyses, however, require consistent and trustworthy information gathered from a broad range of representative areas and countries across Europe. Among the various techniques examined, automated monitoring tools such as camera traps (CT) offer a practical balance between accuracy and cost, making them suitable for standardized use over wide areas. Building on this, ENETWILD designed a unified protocol that integrates camera-trapping methods with digital tools, enabling applications not only by academic researchers but also by trained professionals in the field. Since 2021, the consortium has started to complement the initial approach, i.e. collating available wildlife data at a continental scale and harmonize them, with a reversed one, aimed at collecting data in a harmonized way using common protocols. With this purpose, ENETWILD started to establish an international framework based on voluntary collaboration in coordinated monitoring at observation sites, that gave birth to the European Observatory of Wildlife (EOW, www.wildlifeobservatory.org, ENETWILD Consortium et al. 2022a, 2022b, 2023a). The EOW has grown year after year recruiting collaborators across Europe, reaching over 30 participating institutions and 44 observation sites in 2023. In the last years, the activity of collecting wildlife abundance data at the EOW sites was paralleled by new activities on pathogens, with the aim to upgrade to an integrated monitoring (wild animals and pathogens) under the one-health paradigm. 1.1 Background and terms of reference as provided by the requestor Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 7 The contract entitled “Wildlife and One Health: wildlife ecology, health surveillance and interaction with livestock, human population, and environment” (framework contract number: OC/EFSA/BIOHAW/2022/01) was awarded by EFSA to the University of Torino, leading a partnership that includes 27 institutions among partners and subcontractors. Being this project developed on the footprint of the previous ENETWILD (2017-2023), from here, we refer to this framework contract as to the ENETWILD2.0 project. The Specific Contract 3 (SC3) of the framework contract refers to “Wildlife ecology, health surveillance and interaction with livestock, human population and environment”. Within SC3, Work Package 3 (WP3 – Data generation) refers to the generation of new data of presence and abundance of wildlife and its pathogens in a network of sites across Europe. Specifically, task 3.1. of WP3 deals with the generation of density estimates through camera traps (CTs) in Europe, especially for wild boar monitoring. Deliverables of this task are: • EOW results (CT based data) from season 2024 of all target species. • Storage of the density data in Zenodo. 1.2 Scope of the report This report summarizes the activities carried out in 2024, in relation to the generation of reliable density data of wildlife (selected species of wild ungulates and carnivores) using the CT-based harmonized protocol implemented by the network of observation sites of the EOW in Europe. The report describes the CT campaign 2024 and the development of the network. Results are summarized for five target species, three ungulates and two carnivores, namely wild boar (Sus scrofa), European roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), red deer (Cervus elaphus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and European badger (Meles meles). Here are also provided details about the efforts made to further improve the protocol implementation raising levels of standardization and automatization, as well as to define an official data policy and to expand networking activities. 2. The observatory approach The main aim of the EOW is to increase Europe’s capacities to monitor wildlife populations by establishing international standards for data collection, offering guidance on estimating wildlife densities, and fostering collaborative, open-data networks to advance comprehensive wildlife monitoring. The EOW is designed to function as an international observatory, bringing together a network of monitored sites where various stakeholders and institutions collaborate on systematic data collection. Each year, participants voluntarily join a specific data campaign (e.g., «campaign 2024»), committing to implement the proposed protocol and providing all necessary information for their selected locations. Once part of the network, they gain access to comprehensive resources, including detailed documentation, online training modules, digital Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 8 tools, continuous guidance from the EOW coordination team and have the chance to be involved in outreach initiatives and scientific production. Applying a standardized, validated protocol ensures that collected data are fully comparable across sites, eliminating the need for later harmonization, unlike datasets such as hunting bags. By participating in the EOW, stakeholders gain access to reliable wildlife density estimates that can be used for a variety of purposes, including setting hunting quotas, mitigating damages, or evaluating disease risks. Data can be compared between regions with different ecological conditions or management approaches, offering valuable insights into population dynamics and the consequences of specific management regimes. More recently, parallel activities have been launched at EOW sites focusing on vectors and pathogens, leading to the promising use of these areas as open-air observatories to monitor possible changes in the circulation of potential biological hazards. This approach is particularly beneficial for administrations and institutions seeking to promote integrated, evidence-based strategies for managing wildlife populations and diseases. 2.1 Network constitution and organization The European Observatory of Wildlife (EOW) was created in 2021 to function as a coordinated international framework for monitoring wildlife species and pathogens. Its foundation built on earlier pilot efforts to apply a common field protocol (ENETWILD consortium et al. 2019), but for the first time it brought together a structured network of study sites. In its inaugural year, 19 sites across 13 European countries tested an experimental approach for estimating wild boar density based on camera trapping and implementing the Random Encounter Model (REM; Rowcliffe et al. 2008), which estimates abundance without requiring the individual recognition of the animals. To support implementation, participants received training embracing survey design, field operations, and data analysis. The outcomes of this first coordinated effort were promising, marking the start of the network’s growth. During the following campaign, in 2022, the observatory included 36 partners, monitoring 48 sites in 28 countries (ENETWILD consortium et al. 2023a). Although the initial ENETWILD project was scheduled to close by July 2023, another EOW campaign was launched that summer, running until December and overlapping with the beginning of ENETWILD 2.0. This transitional year still achieved strong engagement, with 30 institutions contributing data from 44 sites in 22 countries. During 2024 the EOW network faced a further considerable expansion that led to the monitoring of 58 study sites over 23 different European countries. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 9 A central element of the EOW’s strategy has been the adoption of Agouti (Casaer et al. 2019, ENETWILD consortium et al. in press; Fig. 2), an online platform developed and managed by two consortium partners—Wageningen University (WUR) and the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO, Brussels). Figure 1. EOW participation over the years. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 16 The protocol implemented within the EOW network allows to target multiple species optimizing the efforts of the collaborators. In fact, each medium to large mammal present in a study site and having a sufficient number of contacts, can be targeted with the proposed methodology. With this approach, density estimates for multiple species, that most times would have required specific monitoring activities, can be obtained implementing a single and standardized protocol and then digitizing the movements of the target species. The bar graph in figure 7 shows the number of density estimates obtained for different species over the 58 study sites monitored during the 2024 campaign. Figure 7. Graph showing the number of density estimates obtained for a selection of species (wild ungulates, carnivores and lagomorphs) during the 2024 campaign over the 58 monitored sites. It must be noted that not all the requirements stated in the protocol to obtain unbiased estimates were always matched. In this report, we focused on five, relatively common, species with the highest number of density estimates in the network: wild boar, European roe deer, red fox, red deer and European badger. The results described in the following sections only considered the estimates obtained with at least 40 observations. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 17 The results commented in the following paragraphs are reported in the EOW database, available at the following link: https://zenodo.org/records/17083924. 3.2.1 Wild boar During the 2024 campaign, wild boar (Fig. 8) density estimates were provided for 55 study sites from 23 countries, however five of these estimates were obtained from less than 40 observations and were therefore not included in the statistics below. Figure 8. Wild boar (Sus scrofa). The number of wild boar CT sequences obtained during the field activities ranged between 5 and 5864. Five areas did not reach the minimum number of observations. In more than two thirds of the 50 sites considered wild boar density estimates were lower than 10 ind/km2, while only six study sites had densities higher than 15 ind/km2 (Fig. 9). About two thirds of the study sites returned a trapping rate lower than 0.5 events/day, while only three had it higher than 1 events/day. Most of the monitored wild boar populations had a day range between 5 and 10 km/day with only four populations reaching values above 25 km/day. Almost all the considered density estimates had a CV lower than 40% with 17 study sites returning density CV lower than 30%. Only four density estimates had a CV higher than 50%. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 18 Figure 9. Distribution of trapping rate, day range, density and its coefficient of variation (CV) estimated from wild boar CT sequences in 50 study sites in 2024. 3.2.2 Roe deer During the 2024 campaign roe deer (Fig. 10) density estimates were provided for 45 study sites from 21 countries, however six of these estimates were obtained from less than 40 observations and were therefore not included in the statistics below. Figure 10. Roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 19 Roe deer density was mostly lower than 10 ind/km2, and more than half of the density estimates considered were lower or equal to 5 ind/km2 (Fig. 11). Trapping rate was mostly lower than 0.4 events/day, with only two study sites with a higher rate than 0.8 events/day. More than half of the monitored populations had a day range between 2.5 and 7.5 km/day, with the maximum value of 23.8 km/day obtained in one study site in Latvia. Density CV was lower than 45% in all but one study site. For more than half of the estimates the CV value was lower than 30%, with six study sites where it was lower than 20%. Figure 11. Distribution of trapping rate, day range, density and its coefficient of variation (CV) estimated from roe deer CT sequences in 39 study sites in 2024. 3.2.3 Red fox During the 2024 campaign red fox (Fig. 12) density were provided for 40 study sites from 15 countries; however seven estimates were obtained from less than 40 observations and were therefore not included in the statistics below. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 20 Figure 12. Red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Red fox density was mostly lower than 3 ind/km2, and more than half of the density estimates considered were lower or equal to 1.5 ind/km2 (Fig. 13). Trapping rate was mostly lower than 0.2 events/day, with only two study sites with a rate higher than 0.5 events/day. About half of the monitored populations had a day range lower than 15 km/day while only three populations had higher day ranges than 30 km/day. Density CV was mostly lower than 35% and only in three study sites it was higher than 50%. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 21 Figure 13. Distribution of trapping rate, day range, density and its coefficient of variation (CV) estimated from red fox CT sequences in 33 study sites in 2024. 3.2.4 Red deer During the 2024 campaign red deer (Fig. 14) density estimates were provided for 24 study sites from 18 countries; however, one of these estimates was obtained from less than 40 observations and was therefore not included in the statistics below. Figure 14. Red deer (Cervus elaphus) female with calf. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 22 Red deer density (Fig. 15) was mostly lower than 10 ind/km2, and half of the density estimates considered were lower or equal to 5 ind/km2. A single study site, in Spain, showed very high red deer density (>40 ind/km2). Trapping rate was mostly lower than 0.5 events/day, with only four study sites with a higher rate (one with an exceedingly high rate, i.e. >5 events/day). About half of the monitored populations had a day range spanning between 2.5 and 10km/day, with maximum values of 22.6 km/day in a Spanish study site. Density CV was mostly lower than 50% and in more than half of the estimates the CV value was lower than 30%, while only two study sites had it higher than 50%. Figure 15. Distribution of trapping rate, day range, density and its coefficient of variation (CV) estimated from red deer CT sequences in 23 study sites in 2024. 3.2.5 European badger During the 2024 campaign badger (Fig. 16) density estimates were provided for 23 study sites from 18 countries; however, 17 of these estimates were obtained from less than 40 observations and were therefore not included in the statistics below. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 23 Figure 16. European badger (Meles meles). Badger density was mostly <1 ind/km2, but one study site in Belgium and one in Italy had densities of 2.4 and 3.6 ind/km2, respectively (Fig. 17). Trapping rate was mostly lower than 0.05 events/day, with only two study sites with higher rates. Two thirds of the monitored populations considered had a day range spanning between 6 and 10 km/day, with maximum values of 15 km/day in a Spanish study site. All values of density CV were between 30% and 50%. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 24 Figure 17. Distribution of trapping rate, day range, density and its coefficient of variation (CV) estimated from European badger CT sequences in 6 study sites in 2024. 3.3 Integrated monitoring Recent emerging priorities in wildlife disease surveillance have created the need for integrated monitoring approaches across Europe. These methodologies, which merge passive and active surveillance with population monitoring, are essential for enhancing early pathogen detection, evaluating epidemiological dynamics, and assessing the progress or results of disease management interventions. One of the aims of the EOW is to serve as a pilot initiative for integrated wildlife monitoring. The Enetwild consortium, in the frame of specific contract 2, delivered a report focused on the use of eDNA in light of the need for integrated wildlife health monitoring. This study aimed to test several hypotheses to further these goals: firstly, test if camera trap data can effectively inform the selection of sampling sites; secondly, the effectiveness of combining metabarcoding with metagenomic approaches for pathogen surveillance; and thirdly, the development of a harmonized strategy for selecting sampling sites to optimize sensitivity. Using as pilot areas three study sites monitored within the framework of the European Observatory of Wildlife, we had the opportunity of confronting three areas similar in terms of biodiversity (i.e. number of vertebrate species detectable by camera traps), all within the southern and western bioregions of Europe. In these three study areas wildlife trapping rates were coupled with topo-hydrographic data to identify suitable areas for environmental sampling characterized by high and low presence of animals respectively. Water and soil were used as environmental matrices. eDNA extracted from collected samples was analyzed in parallel using metabarcoding and metagenomics. Obtained results confirmed the optimal complementarity of both sample matrix and sequencing Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 25 methodology which greatly contributed to increase detected biodiversity, both for mammals as well as for arthropod vectors and wildlife-related pathogens. The strategy for sampling site selection combining topo-hydrographic and wildlife trapping rate showed no significant difference in terrestrial biodiversity (considering only mammals and birds which are likely to be detected by camera trapping). The possibility of improving species detection (and thus of related pathogens') is suggested when considering only sampling sites close to known areas of high occupancy (Camera traps with high trapping rate). While both methods provide valuable insights, they detect overlapping but distinct subsets of the community, highlighting the importance of integrating multiple approaches for biodiversity assessments. This pilot study represents a significant step toward standardizing eDNA methods and enhancing the efficacy of wildlife surveillance systems. The integration of eDNA-based approaches with prior knowledge of the hydrographic features and watersheds of the study areas, together with prior knowledge of wildlife presence and abundance gives significant guidance to further pursue this line of research to integrate eDNA in wildlife health surveillance. Currently, in the frame of specific contract 3, we plan to expand this pilot experience to a larger number of study sites of the EOW, focusing on sampling a widely distributed species, the roe deer, for pathogen screening, as a demonstrative initiative on integrated harmonized monitoring at European level. 3.4 Discussion The results for these five species show large differences in estimates of activity level and speed between speed. This variation can partially stem from differences in the local circumstances, such as the presence of predators, hunting or intense recreation, all of which are known to influence behaviour. It is however likely that variation also reflects measurement error, such as imperfect photogrammetric georeferencing, low sample size or biased placement. Future surveys should reduce such error by improving the protocol and training. Likewise, estimates of density are large, and sometimes higher than seems biologically reasonable and credible. Here too, there may be biases. The most important bias to consider may be that the tracking of movement paths is biased towards animal passages near the camera, as passages further away often come with invisible or partially concealed feet, hindering accurate tracking. If no entry points are recorded for these distant passages, the effective detection distance will be underestimated. If the far passages are nevertheless included in the capture rate, the density estimate will be inflated. To achieve more accurate density estimates, we plan to experiment with truncation, such that passages beyond a certain distance are included neither in the detection distance estimation nor in the capture rate. 4. Networking initiatives The efforts started during the previous campaigns to establish collaborations with other international initiatives in the field of wildlife disease and disease prevention, continued over 2024 and 2025 ensuring the development of the synergies previously started. Networking activities were aimed at promoting the EOW activities to ensure visibility and to get in contact with new potential collaborators; furthermore, an additional goal was sharing the experience Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 32 Abbreviations AI artificial intelligence ASF African Swine Fever CT camera trap EFSA European Food Safety Authority EOW European Observatory of Wildlife FOV field of view IT information technology MS Member State REM Random Encounter Model REST Random Encounter and Staying Time Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 33 Annex A – Updated EOW protocol (v. 2.1) for field activities and density estimation 1. STUDY SITE SELECTION The following are the criteria for the selection of a good study site for the project: - Study site extension ideally between 2000 - 6000 ha. - It is safe for camera trap deployment. - It contains forest habitat (interspersed with other habitats) - Intensive feeding is not provided to wild ungulates (occasional feeding when the cameras are not in field or baiting for hunting is not a problem) - Hunting statistics are recorded by event (hunting*day) (in case collective hunting is practiced). When ungulates are hunted mainly by communal hunting (drive hunts), fine resolution hunting statistics per event (nº animals shot, sighted and surface beaten) must be recorded (see form attached). - A temporal overlap of camera trapping and hunting activities must be avoided to the extent possible. The optimum situation is hunting activities to start immediately once the camera trap field trial ends, but partial overlapping is possible (e.g., camera trapping carried out in Sep-Oct and hunting is from Oct onwards). 2. STUDY DESIGN Unmarked camera trap density estimation methods require representative sampling, placing cameras randomly with respect to animal movement. This is best achieved by preselecting camera deployment locations using computer-generated random points. Usually, these points should be in a systematic grid with fixed spacing between them across a defined study area (if you don’t have the necessary GIS skills in your team, follow the instructions found at this link: GridMaker). In cases where the study area covers more than one clearly distinct habitat, and especially when animals of interest are strongly attracted to a relatively rare habitat, it may be useful to stratify your grid, selecting a similar number of points in each habitat, rather than planning a single consistently spaced grid across the whole area. Study designs that CANNOT be used to estimate the density of unmarked populations include preferentially placing cameras on animal or human trails, targeting spots preferred by the animals such as water sources, mineral licks, or high value foods, and using bait to attract animals. Using unmarked density estimation analysis on data gathered in these ways will give results that are biased to an unpredictable extent, and therefore of no value. For a study area of 2000-6000 has the suggested minimum number of CT locations is 36 but we strongly recommend monitoring a higher number of locations whenever possible, ideally 60. In fact, a higher number of camera locations will ensure higher precision of the estimates, especially for highly aggregated species. The distance between locations in the study area can vary, however, in cases of larger study areas a higher number of CT points is Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 34 recommended. Each CT should be active for at least 4 weeks, ideally 6 weeks. Unless you have enough CTs to simultaneously cover all the CT points you will be performing more rounds, in this case each round is going to uniformly cover the whole surface of the study area (see Figure 1). To obtain that you can simply select one point every other (or more depending on the number of rounds). The number of rounds should be the minimum possible to monitor all the camera locations. If possible, the grid should cover at least one patch beaten for hunting big game during the hunting season. 3. CAMERA SET-UP • If the exact location is not suitable for the deployment of the CT (extremely steep, too dense vegetation…etc) aim for the nearest suitable point but always aiming for the same environment. If the there is no suitable spot with the same environment of the original one, then aim for the nearest suitable point within 100 m even if the environment is different. If it is not possible to find a suitable spot to set up the camera within 100 m from the original point skip the point. • The CT will be placed on poles or vegetation 50cm above the ground. • The CT is configured with the operation of 24 hours per day and to take up to eight consecutive images (the maximum number possible), with the minimum waiting time (0 sec. if possible) between activations and, when possible, chose the rapid-fire setting (less time between pictures of the same sequence). Use medium sensitivity. Make sure the time lapse between consecutive pictures is not > 2-3 sec. as this might influence the protocol application. • The flash intensity should be set at medium (if possible) to avoid “overexposed photos”. • Check that the date and time are correctly set, and that they are printed automatically on each image. Figure A1. Example of study design. Red dots represent round #1 while green ones represent round #2. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 35 • If CTs are active for about 4 weeks, then no check should be necessary, but if the monitoring period of each camera location is much longer (i.e. 8 weeks or more), then a check of batteries and SD card might be necessary. Please note that at every check a new calibration would be required. Choose a field of vision of the CT that is cleared of vegetation (it is not necessary to be totally clean, but that allows the detection of any wild boar that passes within the first 5 m), being better a north orientation. • A form (see Table 1) must be filled in, collecting the information of each CT during its placement (see below). All the information that is subsequently extracted must keep the traceability of the CT (mark the source camera of each memory card extracted and keep this nomenclature in the folders that are created on the computer to archive the images). Shortly, Enetwild will provide an app based on Smart which will be useful to collect this information in the field. See “Field protocol“ for the recording of the course about chapter 3. 4. CALIBRATION POLE Thoroughly follow the detailed explanation found at this link to make your calibration pole: Calibration_pole_instructions 5. DEPLOYMENT CALIBRATION Once the CT has been firmly set up and all the settings have been checked you are ready to switch it on (please note that it won’t have to be touched again until it is removed or checked) you will take the deployment calibration pictures which are fundamental to allow Agouti to perform the automatic estimation of camera parameters (radius and angle of detection) and animal day range. • Starting about 1m directly in front of the camera, hold the pole with its base on the ground so that it is clearly visible to the camera. Take care to ensure that the pole is held perpendicular to the camera’s line of sight. On level ground with camera line of sight roughly parallel to the ground surface, the pole should be roughly vertical, but if the camera is angled to observe a slope the pole may need to be tilted accordingly (see Fig. 2). Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 36 • Hold the pole still long enough to ensure a clear image (5-10 seconds). In order to indicate when the pole is resting on the ground, give a distinctive hand gesture when this is the case. For example, thumbs up! This is fundamental, as often it is not going to be visible whether the pole is actually touching the ground or not and, if it is not, the picture is not going to be useful. • Repeat this for further pole placements (at least 25-30) across the field of view and away from the camera, with placements spaced about 0.5 m apart. Continue away from the camera to the maximum extent that any animals are likely to be captured, or if possible, a bit beyond. As you reach greater distances, it may help to have a second person next to the camera to keep it triggering. See figure 3 for an example of a good coverage of deployment calibration pictures. Before going to the field, it is important to run trials of the deployment calibration process. Complete the deployment calibration process described above in a convenient location and inspect the images making sure that the results is good. Figure A2. Diagram illustrating a camera set up to observe sloping ground, and the orientation of the calibration pole required to keep it perpendicular to the camera line of sight. Orientation can be judged by eye and need not be measured precisely in the in the field. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 37 • This is another crucial stage of the calibration as you are not going to be able to see how many pictures have been taken and if the pictures are not enough the precision of the estimates for that deployment is going to be low. Make sure you spent enough time on this process and, if in doubt, take some more pictures as the precision of the estimates strongly depend on this process. See figure 4. • Every CT deployment needs its own calibration. If you change the batteries and/or card, which indeed typically changes the camera view in most circumstances, you effectively start a new deployment on the same location. Therefore, the calibration should be repeated when removing the camera, as well as when setting and checking it. • In figure 4 you can see an example of a good distribution of pictures for a deployment calibration. Figure A3. A set of deployment calibration images showing 28 pole positions with good coverage of the detection zone. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 38 See “Deployment calibration” for the recording of the course about chapter 5. 6. TAKING CAMERA CALIBRATION IMAGES The goal is to take pictures of objects of known size at a range of known distances from the camera to calculate the camera model’s intrinsic properties, which then allow us to calculate the distance of calibration poles in deployment calibration. This needs to be done for each combination of camera model and image resolution setting used in the field. It’s best to keep image resolution consistent throughout deployments; if you do this, and use a consistent camera model, you only need to calibrate one camera, once (no need to repeat it if you already did it last year for the same combination of camera model and resolution). The steps are as follows: Figure A4. Example of four schemes of calibration of a single camera trap. Crosses represent all the locations of the calibration pole. Panel A represents an adequate calibration (more than 20 points covering homogenously all the detection zone). Panels B, C and D represent wrong calibrations; in panels B and C the points are not homogenously distributed; in panel D, few points were recorded. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 39 1. Set up the camera in a convenient location in front of a level surface, either indoors or outside. 2. Mark out nine positions at a range of radial and angular distances from the camera, measuring the distances from camera accurately. Fig. 4 gives an example of placement positions, with poles at three distances (1, 2 and 4 m), and a range of angles. It’s not necessary to measure angle, but it should be variable, and within the camera’s field of view (usually about 20 degrees either side of the midline), but you may need to check the field of view for your camera. 3. With a camera positioned in front of the arena and switched on, take images of a calibration pole (making instructions: Calibration pole instruction) at each position on the array, holding up some visible marker of the distance. For example, in Fig. 5, the pole is placed at 2 m from the camera, with distance indicated in metres by the number of fingers displayed. As in the deployment calibration process, care should be taken to hold the pole perpendicular to the camera’s line of sight. Figure A5. Plan view of an example layout for a camera calibration pole grid. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 40 7. AGOUTI PLATFORM 7.1. Project creation Navigate to https://www.agouti.eu/ and create your own account. Then follow the following steps for the creation of a new project: • From the agouti homepage or directly from your email write a message to [email protected]. please include whether you are working in a commercial or non-profit setting. • You will receive a response with an invitation link to your newly created project. Please use the link and notify ag[email protected]l when that’s done. • The admins will make you PI on the project. You can now enter the project from your personal dashboard and get started. 7.2. Project settings • In the main project menu go to “Project settings”. In the “General” page choose the “Default UTC offset” keeping in mind to also consider the eventual daylight-saving time (DST). So, if the CTs are deployed in a country using the DST and during a period of DST application remember to also consider that when choosing the UTC offset. So, for example, in a project implemented in Italy (UTC +1:00) during in summer is going to have the Default UTC offset of +2:00 (Kaliningrad, South Africa), in this way all the projects are going to have the Greenwich standard time. • Below, if you like you can add project description and picture. Further down specify the project owner, PI and organisation. • In the “Sampling design” section select “No bait”, 0 seconds quiet period and “Systematic random”. • In the “Annotation” section the sequence cut-off will be set on 120 seconds by default, and it won’t be possible to modify this setting as it has to be the same for all the projects. • In the automatic annotation box, you can select an AI model to automatically process your deployments. You can either select a “species model” (e.g., “Western Europe species model”, if more versions are available make sure you selected the latest) or the “Generic blank/human model”, that is only going to annotate for you the blank pictures and those with humans, leaving to Figure A6. A camera calibration image with pole in position 2 m from the camera. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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. 41 you the sequences with animals. After selecting a model, a button ‘Annotate by AI’ will show up for each deployment listed on the Annotate page. • In the “Species” page press “Add species list” and select the list for your study area. Once you saved the species will be available for the manual annotation. If you were to record any species that is not included in the list, you can then manually add it using the “add species” button and then browsing the species. • In the “Behaviour” section you can decide which behavioural classes to add to the annotation page. Se “Project_creation_and_settings” for the recording of the course about chapters 7.1 and 7.2. 7.3. Add new deployments In your project, in the “Locations” section you can add the locations of your study site by uploading a CSV file (see “Example CSV” in the top right corner of the page). Within the “Deployments” section, select “Add Deployment” and then select the location from the drop-down menu. If you didn’t already add this location you can add it now by pressing “add sampling point”. You can now press “Select Files” in the window that pops up (or drag all the pictures of the deployment onto the window), then browse to the folder of the deployment and select all the pictures that you want to upload for that camera deployment and press “ok”. Note that files with the same name will be considered duplicates and will not be uploaded, it will be therefore necessary to rename the files that have the same name. If possible, make sure that you have a good internet connection. Especially if the deployment counts many pictures, it might take some time to complete the import. 7.4. Image processing and animal tracking The animal tracking procedure, together with the deployment calibrations is going to allow the calculation of both, camera parameters and animal movements. 1. Upload images and run the appropriate AI detection and classification model. 2. From the “Deployments” section, annotate each deployment. For each AI-defined observation, EITHER: a. Tick the Validate box to confirm the AI-defined species and amount; OR b. Edit the observation to correct species and/or amount. NB amount should be a count of the number times an animal passes through the camera detection zone, which AI will often get wrong. Be careful to pick up cases where animals leave and enter multiple times within a sequence; keeping an eye on the timestamp can help to identify such cases. 3. In the “Observations” section, filter by species (type a species scientific name into the “Scientific” box), then edit observations to digitise animal tracks. In the sequences where a group of animals is recorded you only have to digitize one of them. You can EITHER: a. If the total number of observations after filtering is less than or equal to 100, or you plan to track all observations regardless, edit all the available sequences for this species; OR: b. If you are sampling sequences for tracking to reduce time requirements, and the total number of results after filtering is greater than 100, randomise the Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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 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. 48 Annex B – EOW data access and collaborative publishing policy (v. 1.0) Premise • The European Observatory of Wildlife (EOW) is an open collaborative network collecting wildlife data at observation sites using harmonized protocols. • The EOW was launched by the ENETWILD consortium, funded by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and is coordinated by ENETWILD partners. • Data collection is strategically prioritized to align with specific epidemiological and geographical scenarios, as mandated by the commitments of the ENETWILD consortium, that adheres to the directives of EFSA. • EOW members can join the network on a voluntary basis and undersign an agreement to adhere to an annual campaign for data collection. • Raw and summary data are produced for each study site during the EOW activity. Raw data consists of the collected during field work and all related annotations made during their processing; summary data is cumulative data summarized at the end of each annual field activity (e.g., effort, capture events, recorded species, etc.) or quantities estimated through the analysis of raw data, using the dedicated EOW analytical tools and following the EOW protocols. • By signing the EOW agreement, each member assumes responsibility for the scientific accuracy of the data collected at their respective study sites and retains ownership of the raw data. • Raw data is used to produce summary statistics and estimates through shared protocols and IT tools, and summary data are annually reported to EFSA by the ENETWILD consortium. • All estimates produced by the activity of the EOW are used by ENETWILD for spatial modelling and to respond to the requests by EFSA which supports the European Commission as part of its institutional mandate. • All data generated by the EOW is valuable and can be used for scientific purposes and science-based wildlife management. • ENETWILD and EOW promote the use of collected data and metadata by adopting a participative approach to answer scientific questions, and share summary data and model outputs with the scientific community by embracing ‘open science’. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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 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. 49 Data policy Data access • Raw data obtained from the EOW activities in each study site is elaborated by EOW members and submitted as summary output to the EOW coordination team. • EOW members grant access to their project in the online platform (Agouti) to EOW coordination team to assist in data processing. • Once produced, summary data is shared with the EOW coordination team, which, after verifying its completeness and correctness, adds it to the EOW database, a data repository managed transparently and responsibly by EOW coordinators. • The EOW database is made openly accessible in Zenodo at the following link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14961352. Data becomes therefore downloadable and citable by third parties. • The EOW warmly encourages its members to also make their raw data accessible in an open repository (e.g., in GBIF). This would promote their use and make single datasets citable. Data use • The use of data stored in Zenodo for scientific or institutional purposes does not require a permission; however, users must cite the source (or DOI) in any publication or public presentation. • Access and use of raw data of any specific EOW site must follow a direct request to the data owner who grants permission. Obtained raw data must only be used for the approved purpose stated in the request. • Data use must align with EOW’s mission, i.e. science-based animal health and wildlife management. • Summary data may not be used for commercial purposes or modified without prior written consent by EOW coordination team. Collaborative publishing policy Submitting a paper proposal • All EOW members can propose topics for research papers. This may include collaborations with other initiatives/projects. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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 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. 50 • The proposal should be submitted to the EOW community via the EOW paper proposal file (LINK). • Any new proposal should not be identical (or largely overlapping) with other previously submitted proposals, that are already listed in the shared file. • The submission of a proposal corresponds to a call for the use of data collected within the EOW framework. • The required data and metadata should be explicitly stated in the proposal. • Any EOW member, who is responsible for data collected in one or more EOW sites, can freely join a proposal and provide data and metadata for the analyses. • Only data provided by the EOW members who have explicitly adhered to a proposal can be used for the corresponding publication. • Once the submitted proposal has been joined by EOW members, the proposer will constitute the team of participants, create a mailing list for communications and start data analyses. • Any changes to the initial plans stated in the proposal should be communicated to all participants. • If, after 2 years, a proposed topic has not led to a paper draft, it will be suitable for a new proposal. Authorship and Acknowledgements • The proposer will lead the research and, accordingly, will appear as first or last author in the publication (unless he/she voluntarily renounces this role). • EOW members who contribute with their data gain the right to co-author the paper and may indicate additional contributors from their research team to be listed as coauthors, and people and institutions to be mentioned in the acknowledgements. • Any inclusion as coauthor should be justified by a real contribution to the workflow (from data collection to paper writing) in line with international standards for authorship in scientific publications. • The final draft should be shared with all participants. Any participant can approve it, suggest modifications or withdraw co-authorship. • Any publication deriving from an EOW paper proposal should mention the European Observatory of Wildlife in the Acknowledgments as follows: “This paper was conceived and written within the European Observatory of Wildlife initiative (www.wildlifeobservatory.org), launched by the ENETWILD consortium, in the framework of a project funded by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA tender nr. OC/EFSA/BIOHAW/2022/01)”. Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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 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. 51 • Disclaimer to be added: This paper is published under the sole responsibility of the authors and may not be considered as an EFSA output. The positions and opinions presented are those of the authors alone and are not intended to represent the views of EFSA. For inquiries, please contact: [email protected] Annex C – EOW study sites 2024 Study Site Country Bioregion Institution Vall de Ransol Andorra Western Govern d'Andorra Ordino Valley Andorra Western CREAF Artavan Armenia Eastern Yerevan State University Game Management Unit 8 Belgium Western INBO Marche-en-Famenne Belgium Western SPW-DEMNA Romanija Bosnia and Herzegovin a Western University of Belgrade, Faculty of Forestry Ropotamo Bulgaria Eastern University of Forestry Sredna Gora Bulgaria Eastern University of Forestry Voden - Iri Hisar Bulgaria Eastern University of Forestry Prolom Croatia Western University of Zagreb Bohemian Switzerland National Park Czechia Eastern Czech University of Life Sciences Lukhuni - Ilia State University Georgia Western Ilia State University Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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 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. 52 Tbilisi National Park Georgia Western NACRES Bavarian Forest National Park Germany Western Bavarian Forest National Park Siebengebirge Germany Western European Forest Institute Ebbegebirge Germany Western European Forest Institute Gemenc Hungary Eastern Szent István University Marcarolo Italy Western Department of Veterinary Sciences - University of Turin Mandria Italy Western Department of Veterinary Sciences - University of Turin Varzi Italy Western Department of Veterinary Sciences - University of Turin Alpe di Catenaia Italy Western University of Sassari Parco Nazionale dell'Appennino Lucano Val d'Agri - Lagonegrese Italy Southern University of Molise State Forest Management Unit ‘’Lubans’’ (SFMU Lubans) Latvia Eastern Latvian State Forest Research Institute ‘’Silava’’ (LSFRI Silava) Bjelasica Mountain (NP Biogradska gora) Montenegro Western NGO Wildlife Montenegro Niepołomice Poland Eastern Jagiellonian University Białowieża Forest Poland Eastern Mammal Research Institute PAS Herdade da Coitadinha Portugal Southern EBM - Estação Biológica de Mértola Homem-Pedra Portugal Southern University of Aveiro Médio Côa Portugal Southern University of Aveiro ZCA Santulhão Portugal Southern Palombar - Associação de Conservação da Natureza e do Património Rural Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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 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. 53 ZCM Freguesia de Vimioso Portugal Southern Palombar - Associação de Conservação da Natureza e do Património Rural Covasna Romania Eastern UNISS Studenica Serbia Western University of Belgrade, Faculty of Forestry Cerova Vrchovina PLA Slovakia Eastern TUZVO Sinji Vrh Slovenia Western Faculty of Environmental Protection Oljka Slovenia Western Faculty of Environmental Protection Strunjan Slovenia Western University of Primorska Rižana Slovenia Western University of Primorska and Faculty of Enviromental Protecion Arriola Spain Southern Araba Cazadores Gestión Parc Natural del Montgó Spain Southern Generalitat Valenciana Parc Natural de la Serra Calderona - Porta Coeli Public Forest Spain Southern Generalitat Valenciana Parc Natural del Desert de les Palmes Spain Southern Generalitat Valenciana Parc Natural de la Serra d'Irta Spain Southern Generalitat Valenciana Leitzaran Spain Western Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa Parc Natural El Hondo Spain Southern Generalitat Valenciana Solanillos Spain Southern Rewilding Spain Daimiel Spain Southern IREC Quintos de Mora Spain Southern IREC Riaño Spain Southern IREC Carche Spain Southern IREC Utxesa Spain Southern IREC Rosario Spain Southern IREC La Esperanza Spain Southern IREC Doñana Spain Southern IREC Veluwe The Netherlands Western WUR Kartdag Wildlife Reserve Türkiye Southern Kastamonu University Harmonized wildlife monitoring www.efsa.europa.eu/publications EFSA Supporting publication 2025 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 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. 54 Forest of Dean United Kingdom Western Animal and Plant Health Agency Loch Ness United Kingdom Western Animal and Plant Health Agency