Search

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

The ENETWILD consortium (www.enetwild.com) aims at progressively defining the spatial interface between wild ungulates and livestock in Europe, which is essential to evaluate the risk for shared diseases. This is to provide preliminary risk maps of possible wild‐domestic interfaces at European scale using relatively similar sized regions by compiling, for the first time, comprehensive data for both groups, wild and domestic ungulates in the continent. We spatially represented (i) the richness of species (livestock and wild ungulates), (ii) their specific occupancy and abundance (the latter for livestock), and finally, (iii) their spatial overlapping over Europe. Species richness in animal communities, including wildlife and domestic hosts, may moderate pathogen transmission and disease outcome.. As a first step, we should characterize the diverse assemblages of animal communities at large scale to better understand possible scenarios for further assessment of shared infection dynamics. About 90% of Europe land area hosts from one to five species of wild native ungulates. Therefore, the interface between livestock and wildlife is wide spread over the European continent. Native wild boar, roe deer and reed deer are widely distributed species, present in most possible assemblages of wild/domestic communities over Europe. The richness of ungulate species is high in Central Europe, from West to East, from the Alps (where the presence of mountain ungulates adds richness), extending to countries with important big game tradition and presence of introduced species, and finally, to Eastern Europe (where also typically northern species such as bisons appear)... To sum, we described by pair of species a wide diversity of potential interfaces, which had variable distribution areas.. While the analysis presented herein is purely spatial and at administrative level, the interface between wild and domestic ungulates is influenced by livestock husbandry (e.g., enclosed, herded or free‐ranging, level of biosecurity), landscape and land uses, and wildlife management practices, among other factors, operating locally. Therefore, there is need for a more detailed picture of the interface at European scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] more...