Analysis of wild boar‐domestic pig interface in Europe: spatial overlapping and fine resolution approach in several countries

First published in EFSA Supporting Publications
6 January 2021
Type
External Scientific Report

Disclaimer: 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 no‐t 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.

Abstract

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

Contact
alpha [at] efsa.europa.eu
doi
10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-1995
Question Number