Simple SummaryWildlife monitoring plans are not uniformly applied in all European countries, even if the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) identified passive surveillance of wildlife as the strategy of choice to investigate the health status of wild animals. The plan in use in the Emilia-Romagna region (Northern Italy) for the past 11 years has allowed for the collection of a large amount of data on the wild boar population. Research has been conducted on diseases for which the wild boar could be a reservoir and/or source of infection for domestic pigs due to their increasingly frequent interfaces (trichinellosis, tuberculosis, brucellosis, african swine fever, classical swine fever, Aujeszky’s disease, swine vesicular disease, and swine influenza A). Although the results do not allow us to make inferences about the resident population due to the sampling method and sample size, they still give us some indications about the strengths and weaknesses of the plan itself. For instance, an active search for carcasses on the territory should be implemented. In order to improve surveillance activities, it would also be desirable to increase the harmonization of sample collection schemes and data organization from a One Health perspective, as recommended by the WOAH.AbstractIn recent years, the growth of wild ungulates has increased the focus on their health monitoring. In particular, the health status of wild boars is relevant for the economic impact on the pig industry. The Emilia-Romagna region activated a wildlife monitoring plan to better evaluate the health status of the wild boar population. Between 2011 and 2021, samples of found dead and hunted wild boar have been examined for trichinellosis, tuberculosis, brucellosis, african swine fever, classical swine fever, Aujeszky’s disease, swine vesicular disease, and swine influenza A.Trichinella britoviwas identified in 0.001% of the examined wild boars; neitherM. bovisnorM. tuberculosiswere found inM. tuberculosiscomplex positive samples; 2.3% were positive forBrucella suis; 29.4% of the sera were positive for Aujeszky’s disease virus; and 0.9% of the samples were positive for swine influenza A virus. With an uncertain population estimate, the number of animals tested, the number of positives, and the sampling method do not allow us to make many inferences but suggest the need to implement and strengthen the existing surveillance activity, as it seems to be the only viable alternative for safeguarding animal and human health.