The main objective of the protocol is to ensure that monitoring data collected by different institutions, countries, regions and research teams are sufficiently standardised to allow comparison, joint analysis and long-term assessment of population status and trends. The protocol is designed to be applicable under different ecological and administrative conditions while maintaining a common minimum set of methods, definitions and reporting standards. The protocol may be implemented within national monitoring programmes, cross-border monitoring schemes, protected-area management programmes, research projects and conservation initiatives.
Because the ecology, detectability and social organisation of the four target species differ substantially, not all methods are equally suitable for all species. Therefore, the protocol distinguishes between core methods, recommended for all participating monitoring programmes, and species-specific methods, which should be applied according to the biology of each species.
The fundamental principle is that monitoring should be repeatable, spatially explicit, temporally consistent, ethically acceptable and based on clearly documented sampling effort.
Standardisation, Replicability, Multiple sources of evidence, Spatial representativeness, Quality assurance
- The same definitions for species records, evidence categories, sampling units, monitoring periods, and minimum data fields should be used across all participating teams. Although equipment may differ, methodological principles and reporting standards should be sufficiently comparable to support meaningful comparison and joint analysis
- The monitoring design should allow the same methods to be repeated in subsequent years. Any modifications to survey effort, sampling locations, equipment, or field procedures must be documented, as apparent population trends may be significantly influenced by such variations
- No single monitoring method provides a complete picture of large carnivore populations. Whenever possible, information should be integrated from several sources, including camera traps, genetic samples, field signs, direct observations, mortality records and reports from trained observers.
- Sampling should cover the entire area occupied by the species whenever feasible, rather than being restricted only to protected areas or locations with a high probability of occurrence. If complete coverage is not possible, the sampling area and selection procedure must be explicitly documented.
- All observations and samples should undergo a defined validation procedure, whereby records of uncertain species identification are classified according to the SCALP criteria and must not be treated as confirmed occurrences (Category 1) until sufficient evidence is available
Monitoring design
Monitoring Areas
Monitoring areas should be defined according to the objectives of the monitoring programme and the known or expected distribution of the target species. Wherever feasible, monitoring should cover the wider area occupied or potentially occupied by the species, rather than focusing only on protected areas or locations where the species is already known to occur. This is important for detecting changes in distribution, including range expansion, contraction, or recolonisation.
Monitoring areas should include both protected and non-protected landscapes and should consider relevant habitat and land-use characteristics. Administrative or management boundaries may be used for practical purposes, but the ecological relevance of the monitoring area should remain the primary consideration. For species whose distribution extends across national borders, monitoring should be coordinated between neighbouring countries whenever possible.
Sampling Units
Monitoring areas should be divided into clearly defined and spatially consistent sampling units. A regular grid can provide a practical common framework for monitoring wolf, brown bear, Eurasian lynx, and golden jackal, while the size of the sampling unit may be adapted to the species, monitoring objective, landscape characteristics, and available resources.
Sampling units should have fixed boundaries and unique identifiers and should remain consistent between monitoring periods whenever possible. Different sampling units may be used for different monitoring objectives or methods when scientifically justified, but their definition and relationship to the overall monitoring framework should be clearly documented.
A sampling unit should be distinguished from a sampling location or point. The sampling unit represents the spatial area within which monitoring data are collected and interpreted, while sampling locations are the specific sites where observations, camera traps, genetic samples, acoustic recordings, or other evidence are obtained.
Sampling Design
Sampling should follow a predefined and transparent design that provides an appropriate representation of the monitoring area. Systematic or stratified approaches are generally preferable when the objective is to obtain spatially representative information. Sampling design may take into account habitat, elevation, land use, human influence, and other factors that can affect species occurrence or detectability.
The design should be appropriate to the ecology of the target species. Because wolf, brown bear, Eurasian lynx, and golden jackal differ in habitat use, movement patterns, population density, and detectability, the same general framework may require species-specific implementation.
Locations should not be selected exclusively because they are expected to have a high probability of species occurrence when the objective is to estimate distribution or population trends. Targeted sampling can be useful for confirming presence, identifying individuals, or collecting specific types of evidence, but should be clearly distinguished from representative sampling.
Spatial Coverage
Monitoring should aim to achieve sufficient spatial coverage to represent the range of habitats and geographic areas relevant to the target species. Sampling should include areas of known presence as well as areas where occurrence is uncertain or where range changes are possible.
The level of spatial coverage should be appropriate to the monitoring objective and available resources. Where complete coverage is not feasible, the sampled area and the criteria used to select sampling units should be documented. Areas that cannot be sampled because of accessibility, land ownership, terrain, safety, or other constraints should also be recorded.
Spatial coverage should be maintained as consistently as possible between monitoring periods. Changes in the area sampled or in the distribution of sampling locations should be documented, as differences in spatial coverage can influence apparent changes in species distribution or population indicators.
Temporal Design
Monitoring should be organised into clearly defined monitoring periods that can be repeated over time. The timing and duration of monitoring should consider the biology of the target species, seasonal variation, reproductive periods, movement patterns, environmental conditions, and the characteristics of the monitoring method.
Where possible, comparable monitoring periods should be used between years to support the assessment of trends. Seasonal differences in detectability should be recognised and, where relevant, monitoring should include repeated sampling occasions or predefined seasonal periods.
A lack of detection during a single survey or monitoring occasion should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of species absence. Repeated sampling can improve the ability to distinguish true absence from non-detection.
Sampling Effort
Sampling effort should be sufficient to provide a reasonable opportunity to detect the target species and should be documented in a consistent manner. The appropriate measure of effort will depend on the monitoring method and may include, for example, camera-trap days, survey duration, number of sampling locations, observer effort, acoustic recording time, or number of genetic sampling attempts.
Minimum or recommended effort levels may differ among wolf, brown bear, Eurasian lynx, and golden jackal because of differences in ecology, density, behaviour, and detectability. However, the principles for measuring and reporting effort should be standardised across monitoring programmes.
Successful and unsuccessful sampling occasions should both be recorded. Equipment failures, inaccessible locations, interrupted surveys, and other factors that reduce effective effort should be documented. Any substantial changes in sampling effort between monitoring periods should be reported and considered when interpreting monitoring results.
Monitoring Methods
Monitoring methods should be selected according to the monitoring objectives, ecology of the target species, expected detectability, available resources, and local conditions. Whenever feasible, complementary methods should be combined to improve the reliability and completeness of monitoring results.
Common methods may include camera trapping, genetic sampling, field signs and tracks, direct observations, mortality records, acoustic monitoring, and reports from trained observers. The suitability and relative importance of individual methods may differ among wolf, brown bear, Eurasian lynx, and golden jackal.
Methods and their application should be clearly documented to allow interpretation and comparison of results between monitoring areas and monitoring periods. Where different methods are used between regions or years, the differences should be recorded and considered when comparing results.
Evidence Classification and Validation
Monitoring records should be classified according to clearly defined and consistently applied evidence categories. The classification should distinguish between confirmed records and observations for which species identification, location, date, or other relevant information remains uncertain.
Where applicable, established classification systems such as the SCALP criteria should be used to support consistent interpretation of large carnivore observations. Validation procedures should be applied consistently across participating institutions and monitoring programmes.
Records should be reviewed by appropriately trained personnel before being included in analyses or official monitoring results. Unverified or uncertain records should be clearly identified and should not be interpreted in the same way as confirmed evidence. The validation status of each record should be retained as part of the monitoring data.
Minimum Data and Metadata Requirements
All monitoring programmes should collect a common minimum set of information for each record or sampling event. This minimum dataset should be sufficient to identify what was recorded, where and when it was recorded, how it was obtained, and how reliable the evidence is.
Depending on the monitoring method, minimum information should generally include:
- species and evidence type;
- date and, where relevant, time of observation or sampling;
- geographic location or sampling unit;
- monitoring method;
- sampling effort or duration, where applicable;
- source or observer;
- identification or validation status;
- relevant additional information needed to interpret the record.
Additional metadata may be collected according to the method, species, or monitoring objectives. Data fields should be clearly defined so that the same information is recorded consistently by different teams. Changes to the minimum dataset should be documented to maintain comparability over time.
Data Quality and Documentation
Monitoring data should be recorded and managed in a way that preserves their accuracy, traceability, and usability over time. Procedures for data entry, validation, correction, and storage should be clearly defined within each monitoring programme.
Missing, uncertain, or incomplete information should be identified rather than replaced by assumptions. Corrections to existing records should be traceable, and the original information should be retained where appropriate.
Any deviations from the agreed monitoring design or methodology should be documented. This includes changes in sampling locations, monitoring effort, equipment, field procedures, or data-processing methods. Such documentation is important for interpreting differences between monitoring periods and for distinguishing biological changes from changes caused by monitoring practices.