The objective of Open Data and Responsible Information Sharing is to promote transparency, accessibility, reproducibility, and cooperation while ensuring that the sharing of large carnivore monitoring data does not create risks for animals, habitats, local communities, landowners, or ongoing conservation and research activities.
Monitoring data should be shared as openly as possible, while recognising that not all information can or should be publicly available at the same level of detail. In particular, precise locations of sensitive records may require restricted access to prevent disturbance, persecution, illegal killing, or other unintended consequences.
Data-sharing practices should therefore balance openness and scientific transparency with responsible protection of sensitive information. The level of access should be proportionate to the sensitivity of the information and the legitimate needs of the data user.
In summary data should be as open as possible, but as protected as necessary.
Open data principles, sensitive information and data access level
Monitoring data should be made available whenever possible to support scientific research, conservation planning, management, education, and public understanding. Data providers should aim to use standardised formats and clearly defined metadata to facilitate data exchange and reuse.
Where data cannot be fully opened, the reason for restriction should be clearly documented. Restrictions should be based on identifiable conservation, privacy, legal, ethical, or other legitimate considerations rather than unnecessary limitations on access.
Data-sharing agreements should define, where relevant, the purpose of data use, responsibilities of data users, conditions for redistribution, attribution requirements, and procedures for handling sensitive information.
Not all monitoring information should be publicly released at its highest spatial or temporal resolution. Particular care should be taken with information that could increase risks to large carnivores or their habitats.
Sensitive information may include, depending on the species and context:
- precise locations of dens, breeding sites, resting sites, or other sensitive areas;
- locations of particularly vulnerable individuals or small populations;
- precise mortality or illegal-killing locations;
- locations of animals during particularly sensitive periods;
- information that could reveal the location of animals to unauthorised persons;
- personal information about observers, landowners, or other contributors.
Public datasets should therefore use appropriate measures such as spatial aggregation, reduced temporal resolution, delayed release, or controlled access where necessary.
Data Access Levels
A tiered approach to data access can be used to balance openness and protection of sensitive information. For example, information may be classified as:
Open data – information that can be freely accessed and reused without significant risk.
Restricted data – information available to recognised researchers, conservation organisations, authorities, or other legitimate users under defined conditions.
Sensitive data – information requiring a higher level of protection because public disclosure could create a significant risk to animals, habitats, people, or ongoing conservation activities.
Access restrictions should be periodically reviewed. Information should not remain restricted longer than necessary when the associated risk has decreased.
Data Ownership, Attribution and Recognition
Data providers and contributors should receive appropriate recognition when their data are used in reports, assessments, publications, maps, or other outputs. The original source of the data should be clearly identified, and data users should respect agreed conditions for attribution and reuse.
Where monitoring is conducted collaboratively, responsibilities for data management, access, analysis, and publication should be agreed as early as possible. The contribution of institutions, researchers, conservation organisations, field staff, and other data providers should be appropriately acknowledged.
Responsible Publication and Communication
Monitoring results should be communicated in a way that supports conservation objectives and avoids unintended harm. Maps, photographs, social media posts, reports, and scientific publications should be reviewed for the potential disclosure of sensitive locations or other information that could negatively affect large carnivores.
Public communication should distinguish between confirmed findings, preliminary information, and uncertain observations. Results should be presented in a scientifically responsible manner, avoiding exaggerated conclusions that could influence public perception, management decisions, or the treatment of individual animals.
Cross-border Data Sharing
For species whose populations extend across national borders, data sharing between neighbouring countries should be encouraged to support coordinated monitoring and conservation. Where appropriate, countries and institutions should agree on common terminology, data formats, minimum metadata, access conditions, and procedures for sharing sensitive information.