DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSBOUNDARY MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE PRESPA PARK AREA

Expert Study

Aghios Germanos, Prespa, November 2009 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

This study was funded by WWF-Greece/ MAVA Foundation

Suggested bibliographical reference: Perennou, C., Gletsos, M., Chauvelon, P., Crivelli, A., DeCoursey, M., Dokulil, M., Grillas, P., Grovel, R. and Sandoz, A. (2009). Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park Area, Aghios Germanos, Greece, November 2009, 381pp.

Final editing: Miltos Gletsos (SPP), Yannis Kazoglou (SPP), Christian Perennou (TdV) Cover photo: SPP Archive/ M. Gletsos

Page I

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Study Team

Project Leader: Dr. Christian Perennou, Tour du Valat

Project Coordinator: Miltos Gletsos, Society for the Protection of Prespa

International Lead Experts: Dr. Philippe Chauvelon (Water resources) Dr. Alain Crivelli (Fish and fisheries) Maureen DeCoursey (Socio-economic issues) Prof. Martin Dokulil (Water resources) Dr. Patrick Grillas (Aquatic vegetation and habitats) Rémi Grovel (Forests and terrestrial habitats) Dr. Christian Perennou (Birds and other biodiversity) Dr. Alain Sandoz (Land-use)

National Consultants: Albania: Dr. Spase Shumka Greece: Society for the Protection of Prespa (Dr. Giorgos Catsadorakis, Miltos Gletsos, Dr. Yannis Kazoglou, Irene Koutseri) Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Dr. Svetozar Petkovski

Page II

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Acknowledgments

SPP Scientific Advisors: Expert scientific advice was kindly provided to the SPP by EKBY, Thessaloniki (Dr. Eleni Fitoka on Land-use, Dr. Petros Kakouros on Forests and Terrestrial Habitats, and Dr. Vassiliki Tsiaoussi on Water Resources), by WWF-Greece (Dr. Panagiota Maragou on Biodiversity and on Water Resources), by Dr. George Parisopoulos (NAGREF, Athens) on the Water Resources theme, and by Dr. Michalis Vrahnakis (TEI Larissa) on the Forests and Terrestrial Habitats theme.

TdV acknowledgements: TdV would like to thank Anthony Olivier, Virginie Mauclert and Nicole Yavercovski (TdV), Dr. Yorgos Mertzanis (NGO Callisto, Greece), and Dr. Vassiliki Tsiaoussi (EKBY, Greece), for providing valuable information for the expert study.

National Thematic Experts: The present work would not have been the same without the invaluable contribution of the national thematic experts from the three countries, who actively participated in the transboundary thematic workshops between February and May 2009, and provided scientific and technical input to the 7 monitoring themes in this study. The full list of the participants, and the conclusions of the workshops, are found in Annexes 5.2-5.4.

Transboundary Thematic Workshops: Last but not least, the transboundary thematic workshops were organized and fully supported by the GEF/UNDP Prespa Park project, and we particularly thank the UNDP teams for their contribution and support.

Page III

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Abbreviations

ASPBM: Albanian Society for the Protection of Birds and Mammals, Albania CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CLC: CORINE Land-cover CMS: Convention on Migratory Species (also called Bonn Convention) CORINE: COordinated INformation on the Environment CPUE: Catch Per Unit Effort CR: Critically Endangered (IUCN Red List category) CWS: Central Water Service from the Ministry of Environment, Greece DEM: Digital Elevation Model EEA: European Environment Agency EKBY: Greek Wetlands and Biotope centre, Greece EN: Endangered (IUCN Red List category) ESNR: Ezerani Strict Nature Reserve, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia EU: European Union EUNIS: European Nature Information System FTH: Forests and Terrestrial Habitats FYROM: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia GEF: Global Environment Facility GIS: Geographical Information System GNP: Galicica National Park, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia GPS: Global Positioning System GTZ: Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, Germany HCMR: Hellenic Center for Marine Research, Greece HIO: Hydrobiological Institute of Ohrid, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia HIP: Institute for Health Protection, Bitola, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia HMA: Hydro-Meteorological Administration, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia IEWE: Institute of Energy, Water & Environment, Polytechnic University of Tirana, Albania IUCN: International Union for the Conservation of Nature LEAC: Land and Ecosystem Accounting LR/ NT: Lower Risk/ Near-threatened (IUCN Red List category) ΜΑΡ: Macedonian Alliance for Prespa, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia MBPNF: Management Body of the Prespa National Forest (now PNP-GR), Greece MCWG: Monitoring and Conservation Working Group MDGs: Millennium Development Goals MES: Macedonian Ecological Society, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia MNS: Museum of Natural Sciences, Tirana, Albania MoAFW: Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Water, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia MoEFWA: Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration (Albania) MoEPP: Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia NDVI: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index NPP: Pelister National Park, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia PNF: (former) Prespa National Forest, Greece PNP-AL: Prespa National Park, Albania PNP-GR: Prespa National Park, Greece PPC: Public Power Corporation, Greece

Page IV

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

ΡΡΝΕΑ: Protection and Preservation of Natural Environment in Albania QE: Quality Element (in the context of the Water Framework Directive) REC: Regional Environmental Centre SAC: Special Areas of Conservation - designated under the Habitats Directive SAP: Strategic Action Plan (for the Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park) SPP: Society for the Protection of Prespa, Greece TB: Transboundary TdV: Tour du Valat, France TEI: Technological Education Institute (of Larissa), Greece TMS: Transboundary Monitoring System UNDP: United Nations Programme for the Environment VU: Vulnerable (IUCN Red List category) WFD: Water Framework directive WWF: Worldwide Fund for Nature

Page V

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table of Contents

0. Preface 1 1. Introduction 5 2. Aim and Objectives of the Study 7 3. Short Description of the Study area 9 4. Framing the Monitoring System/Principles, Assumptions, Guidelines 18 5. System Elements and Design 26 6. Water Resources Monitoring 30 7. Biodiversity: Habitats and Species 82 8. Aquatic Vegetation and Habitats 86 9. Forests and Terrestrial Habitats 134 10. Fish and Fisheries 181 11. Birds and Other Biodiversity (Species and Habitats) 233 12. Socio-Economic and Cultural Values 290 13. Land-use 320 14. Evaluation of the Prespa Monitoring System 351 15. Integration of the Monitoring Components-Overview 356 16. Design of the Pilot Application System 367 References 375

Page VI

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

List of Annexes

Note: Numbering of the Annexes corresponds to the Chapters of the present study (e.g. Annexes 6.1 -6.5 refer to Chapter 6); therefore, some apparent gaps in numbering simply reflect that some Chapters have no Annexes.

Annex 4.1: Preparatory Stage (phase A) Report: 1. Aim of the monitoring system Annex 4.2: Preparatory Stage (phase A) Report: 2. Geographical scale at which the monitoring system should operate Annex 4.3: Preparatory Stage (phase A) Report: 3. Significant elements/ values/ issues of concern to a transboundary monitoring system in the Prespa Park, relevant criteria and scope Annex 4.4: Preparatory Stage (phase B) Report Annex 4.5: Preparatory Stage (phase C) Report: Guidelines Annex 5.1: ToRs of international lead experts Annex 5.2: Composition of thematic working groups Annex 5.3: ToRs of thematic working groups Annex 5.4: Conclusions and summary minutes of the Transboundary Thematic Workshops Annex 6.1: A summary of requirements from the Water Framework Directive, and where to find relevant information on state of the art methodologies Annex 6.2: Standard references and normatives for water monitoring Annex 6.3: List of main pesticides currently used on apples in the northern watershed of Macro Prespa Annex 6.4: Indicative list of agrochemicals used in bean cultivation around Prespa Annex 6.5: Sluice gates at Koula, Greece (plan and cross view sections; discharge calculations) Annex 8.1: Protocols for the location and surface area of patches for aquatic vegetation monitoring Annex 8.2.: Protocol for the monitoring of the species composition of wet meadows and reed beds (Braun Blanquet method) Annex 8.3.: Protocol for monitoring the hydrophyte beds Annex 8.4: Homemade Acrylic Secchi Disks Annex 8.5: How to Make a Viewscope

Page VII

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Annex 9.1: Proposed land-use and habitats typology from CORINE Land Cover and from EUNIS classification Annex 9.2: Specific method and protocol related to each indicator Annex 10.1: Monitoring indicator P1, P4, P5, P8 and P10: Fish endemic to Prespa lakes trend Annex 10.2: Indicator P1, P4, P5, P8 and P10: Fish endemic to Prespa lakes trend Annex 10.3: Monitoring indicators P2, P3, P5 and P10: Prespa trout trend and Prespa barbel and nase trend Annex 10.4: Monitoring indicator P9: Quality and quantity of fish eaten by cormorant Annex 11.1: Questionnaire for large carnivores Annex 11.2: Waterbird counting sectors in the Albanian and Greek sectors of Prespa Lakes Annex 11.3: Protocol for the preliminary study and long-term surveillance of Pond terrapin Annex 11.4: Protocol for the preliminary study and long-term surveillance of Balkan stream frog Rana graeca Annex 12.1: Summary of non-nature values Annex 12.2: Integrated Monitoring System for Sustainable Rangelands, Core Indicators Annex 12.3: Millennium Development Goals and Indicators Annex 12.4: List of proposed socio-economic indicators for the Prespa Lakes basin Annex 12.5: Rationale for conserving/ rejecting/ modifying the initially proposed socio- economic indicators Annex 12.6: Comments on the Revised List of Socioeconomic Indicators for the Full TMS (from the first workshop) Annex 12.7: List of Potential Organizations to be Involved in Socioeconomic Monitoring Annex 13: Data/images for land-use monitoring Photo Annex: Photo Documentation

Page VIII

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

0. Preface

The Prespa lakes, Micro Prespa and Macro Prespa, are among the oldest and highest tectonic lakes in Europe. Situated in the Balkans in Southeast Europe, they are shared by three countries, Albania, Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The two lakes are well-known for their globally significant biodiversity, rich cultural heritage and unique landscapes.

Significant developments have shaped the Prespa lakes since the year 2000. They have led, through different pathways, to the present expert study for the development of a transboundary monitoring system (TMS) for the Prespa Park. A brief overview of those developments, and the main stakeholders and actors involved in Prespa, is given below.

0.1. Establishment of the Prespa Park and main actors On 2 February 2000, the Prime Ministers of the three littoral countries gathered in the village of Aghios Germanos, in Greek Prespa, and through a joint Declaration established the “Prespa Park”, the first transboundary protected area in Southeast Europe. Their initiative, which was under the auspices of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, was awarded with the “Gift to the Earth” award by WWF-International. According to the Declaration, the Prespa Park, which spans the whole catchment area of the two lakes, would aim at the protection of the ecological values of the basin, the prevention and/or reversal of the causes of habitat degradation, the sustainable use of the water resources and the adoption of a model approach that could be applied in other transboundary regions. The “adoption of a joint and effective monitoring system” for the lakes and their surrounding catchment is also one of the more specific objectives of the Prespa Park.

Two environmental NGOs which have played a significant role in the Prespa Park Declaration are the Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP) and WWF-Greece. The SPP is based locally in Greek Prespa and has worked for many years in the Greek part of the basin, focusing on conservation research activities, including monitoring of endangered birds, endemic fish and certain rare species of fauna and flora. Both SPP and WWF- Greece had lobbied for the establishment of a transboundary protected area that would

Page 1/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park cover the whole catchment of the two lakes. Following the Prespa Park declaration, they actively participated in the transboundary Prespa Park process and its institutions.

The main institutional body for transboundary cooperation in Prespa is the Prespa Park Coordination Committee (PPCC). It is made up of representatives of the Ministries of Environment, the local Municipalities and the local environmental NGOs from the three countries, as well as a Ramsar/ MedWet permanent observer. The 10-member PPCC, meeting semiannually, is reinforced by a Secretariat consisting of the NGO representatives from the three countries.

0.2. Development of the TMS project One of the first joint enterprises of the PPCC has been the development of a Prespa Park Strategic Action Plan in 2001 (SPP et al, 2005). The necessity of a transboundary environmental monitoring system for the whole Prespa basin, a prerequisite for sound and informed decision-making for the protection, management or development of the basin, was enshrined in the Strategic Action Plan.

Consequently, the multi-annual GEF/UNDP Prespa Park Project, which started in 2007, included in its activities the development of a transboundary monitoring system (TMS) for the Prespa Park (Output 3.1: Monitoring of ecosystem health (biotic and abiotic) parameters strengthens information baseline for adaptive management in all three littoral states). The GEF/UNDP Project is implemented by UNDP1 and with main funding by GEF2 and co-funding by other donors.

Co-funding for the development of the Prespa TMS, according to a pledge by the Greek Government, would come from the Greek side. When the GEF/UNDP Project commenced in 2007, the SPP secured funds from WWF-Greece. The TMS project is hence funded and implemented by the SPP, in full coordination and integration with the GEF/ UNDP Project.

A Monitoring and Conservation Working Group (MCWG), composed of representatives of the primary relevant stakeholder institutions of the three countries was established in October 2007, and has been chaired by the International Transboundary

1 United Nations Development Programme 2 Global Environment Facility

Page 2/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Adviser (ITA) of the GEF/UNDP Project. Among its other activities and responsibilities, the trilateral MCWG acts as a steering body for the TMS project, by guiding the process and ensuring consensus at all stages of development of the transboundary monitoring system. The MCWG convenes one to two times a year with funding and support by the GEF/ UNDP Project.

0.3. Main stages of the TMS project The TMS project started in late 2007 and is expected to be completed in mid 2011. According to the planning, which has been agreed and coordinated between SPP and GEF/UNDP Project and validated by the MCWG, the TMS project is structured in six distinct stages.

1. Preparatory Stage (Phases A, B and C) 2. Expert Study on the transboundary monitoring system 3. Purchase and Installation of Equipment 4. Pilot application of the transboundary monitoring system 5. Adjustment of the transboundary monitoring system 6. Final approval of the system

Stage 1 (Preparatory Stage) was implemented between October 2007 and June 2008 by Tour du Valat and SPP. It culminated in five papers (see Annexes 4.1 to 4.5), which were reviewed and validated by the MCWG:

 A1. Aim of the monitoring system;  A2. Geographical Scale of the monitoring system;  A3. Significant Elements, Values and Issues of concern to the monitoring system  B. Appraisal of the existing situation;  C. Guidelines for the expert study for the development of the transboundary monitoring system.

Stage 2 involves the development of the present study, an expert study on the development of the transboundary monitoring system for the Prespa Park. Stages 3-6 will be implemented based on the conclusions of the present expert study and the guidance provided by the MCWG and the stakeholders of the project, starting in January 2010.

Page 3/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Tour du Valat (France), a research centre for the conservation of Mediterranean wetlands, is the leading Scientific/Technical Consultant for the development of the present expert study, working together with the SPP and national consultants from the three littoral countries.

Page 4/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

1. Introduction

During the development of the expert study, the Scientific/Technical Consultant established thematic working groups, working on:

1. Water (quantity/ quality) 2. Aquatic vegetation and habitats 3. Forests and terrestrial habitats 4. Fish and Fisheries 5. Birds and other biodiversity (species) 6. Socio-economy 7. Land-use

The thematic working groups consist of national thematic experts from the three littoral countries proposed by MCWG, and were led by international lead thematic experts selected and coordinated by the Scientific/Technical Consultant. The thematic working groups met in two rounds of two Transboundary Thematic Workshops (see Paragraph 5.2).

The expert study largely follows the division into the 7 themes. An outline of the expert study is given below:

In Chapter 2, the aims and objectives of the expert study and the TMS are presented. Chapter 3 provides a general description of the study area. The main conclusions of the Preparatory Stage (Stage 1) of the TMS, developed in the period October 2007 and June 2008, are given in Chapter 4.

Chapter 5 presents the main three monitoring sectors: water, biodiversity and non-nature values, as well as the criteria used for the selection of monitoring elements. In the Chapters 6-13 that follow, the seven themes are presented in detail. For each theme, monitoring indicators, methods, equipment, proposals for organizations responsible for monitoring, and budgeting are examined.

Page 5/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Chapter 14 proposes a detailed evaluation scheme comprising annual and five-year reviews.

Although the seven themes can be seen as stand-alone monitoring sub-programmes, communication and coordination between the seven international lead experts, and osmosis with the national thematic experts during the Transboundary Thematic Workshops, has resulted in a much more integrated system. Chapter 15 deals more specifically with this issue.

Finally, an expert recommendation for the pilot application of the TMS, part of which will be implemented during Stage 4 of the TMS project, is presented in Chapter 16.

Page 6/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

2. Aim and Objectives of the Study

The goal of this Full study is to organize a transboundary monitoring system, with “Routine surveillance” 3 as its key aim for the short / mid-term, at the whole Prespa watershed level. It focuses on all key elements proposed in Phase A (Paper A3 “Key elements in the Prespa Park”: see Annex. 4.3): Biodiversity (Habitats and Species), Water (Quantity/ Quality linked to WFD), Non-nature values (Socioeconomic). However, because of traditional dividing lines between experts specialities, the study is organized around 7 themes, covering collectively all those aspects: Fish and Fisheries; Aquatic vegetation and habitats; Forests & other terrestrial habitats; Birds and other Biodiversity; Water resources; Socio-economy; Land-use.

More specifically, the current study: - specifies the parameters/indicators of the future TMS; and where applicable 4 provides or summarizes the baseline information at TB level for the elements selected; - proposes methodologies, type of samples, sampling locations, protocols and frequency common to all 3 countries, so as to ensure TB compatibility of data; - proposes the field equipment and laboratory facilities that are required; - proposes which stakeholders are capable of undertaking the recommended monitoring activities, and highlights training needs, where information exists on actual institutional capacity; - designs a pilot application system, to be implemented in the next stage (“Pilot application”). Following the recommendations made by the stakeholders from the 3 countries during the 2 sets of thematic workshops held in 2009 (Feb/March and May), it short-lists a smaller sub-set of indicators/ parameters, to be tested/ monitored during this pilot implementation; - estimates the budget for operating the monitoring system in the three countries, and precisely specifies the costs of equipment, manpower/ personnel, operation and maintenance needs. The budget estimate will help the TMS coordinators5 to

3 as agreed in Phase A of the Preparatory Stage – see Paper A1 “Aim of the monitoring system”, Annex 1.1. In the long-term the goal of a monitoring system for “Adaptive management” at the watershed level will be pursued, as agreed by the MCWG. See also § 4.1. 4 e.g. for some water parameters, according to the 2000/60 EU WFD. 5 Not designated yet.

Page 7/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

develop proposals for funding the implementation of the system. The budget is specified per year, per 5-year monitoring cycle, and for the special case of the Pilot application year. - proposes a system for evaluating the performance of the TMS, i.e. it describes the evaluation principles, system, criteria and implementers, under which the TMS Coordinators6 will evaluate the monitoring system and its implementation in the future.

6 Not designated yet.

Page 8/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

3. Short Description of the Study Area

3.1. General description of the Prespa catchment The Prespa basin is situated in the Balkan peninsula in SE Europe, and shared between three countries: Albania, Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The total area, comprising the drainage basin and the two lakes, is 1,519 km2 (figure adapted from Hollis and Stevenson 1997).

The basin consists of two inter-linked lakes, Lake Micro Prespa and Lake Macro Prespa, separated by a narrow isthmus. The smaller lake, Micro Prespa, has an area of 47.4 km2, out of which 43.5 km2 belong to Greece and 3.9 km2 to Albania. Macro Prespa has a surface area of 259.4 km2 and is divided between the three littoral countries, the largest share belonging to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Table 3.1).

Macro Prespa has a maximum depth of 55 m, while the much shallower Micro Prespa is no deeper than 8.4 m. However, multi-annual and seasonal fluctuation of the water level (including a severe drop in water level of Macro Prespa in the 1980s-90s), results in varying figures of depth and lake surface area, for both lakes, in different years or seasons.

Prespa is a high altitude basin, the lakes being situated at approximately 850 m a.s.l. and surrounded by high mountains exceeding 2,000 m (Table 1.1). The main mountains are: Plakenska (1,998 m) to the North; Galicica (2,265 m) and Mali Thate (2,284 m) to the West; Mt. Ivan (1,770 m) and Mt. Triklario/ Sfika (1,750 m) to the South/ Southeast; and Mt. Varnountas (2,330 m) and Mt. Pelister/ Baba (2,601 m)7 to the East. Mt. Devas (1,372 m) is found on the rocky peninsula separating Lake Micro Prespa from the southernmost part of Lake Macro Prespa.

Four islands are found in the lakes, two in Micro Prespa and two in Macro Prespa. The Aghios Achillios island in the Greek part of Micro Prespa is inhabited.

7 The summit of Mt. Pelister (2,601m) lies outside the Prespa catchment area. According to topographic maps it is estimated that the highest point of the water divide and the whole basin is Veternica summit (2,420 m) on the ridge of Mt. Pelister/ Baba.

Page 9/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 3.1. Main morphometric features of Lakes Micro and Macro Prespa (adapted from Hollis and Stevenson 1997). Lake surface area and depth vary according to lake level fluctuation. Lake Micro Prespa Lake Macro Catchment Basin Prespa Lake Surface (total) 47.4 km2 259.4 km2 306.8 km2 Lake Surface in 3.9 km2 45.5 km2 Albania Lake Surface in Greece 43.5 km2 37.6 km2 Lake Surface in the - 176.3 km2 FYR of Macedonia Maximum Depth 8.4 m 55 m Mean Depth 4.1 m 18 m Altitude 853 m asl 843 m asl 843-2,4208 m asl Catchment (terrestrial) 189 km2 1,029.1 km2 1,218.1 km2 – all three countries Catchment in Albania 51 km2 162 km2 213 km2 Catchment in Greece 138 km2 71.6 km2 209.6 km2 Catchment in the FYR 0 795.5 km2 795.5 km2 of Macedonia

3.2. Situating Prespa Park Prespa catchment, to the east, borders the valley of Pelagonija/ Pelagonia, which stretches between the town of Bitola in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Prefecture of Florina in Greece (main towns: Florina and Amyntaio). To the west, the Devoll river and the valley of Bilisht separate Prespa from the Korcha (Korçë) plain in Albania. To the north and northwest Prespa is adjacent to the catchment basin of Lake Ohrid.

In Albania, the Macro Prespa area belongs to the Korcha (Korçë) District and all villages in this part belong to the Liqenas Commune. It communicates with the town of Korcha (Korçë) through the Zvezda Pass. A border crossing at Gorica/Stenje connects Albanian Macro Prespa with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The Micro Prespa area in Albania is part of the Devoll District and two of the villages of this area belong to Progër Commune and one to the Bilisht Qendër Commune. It communicates with the town of Bilisht through Treni. The population of Albanian Prespa is 5,325 inhabitants in 12 settlements.

8 Ibid

Page 10/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Fig. 3.1. Prespa Park in the Balkan Peninsula

In Greece, the basin of the two lakes is situated in the Prefecture of Florina, in the Region of Western Macedonia. The villages in Greek Prespa fall under the jurisdiction of the Prespa Municipality (which extends outside the basin too). Through Pervali Pass, Greek Prespa communicates with the towns of Florina to the East (seat of the Prefecture) and Kastoria to the South. Regarding communication with Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, there is no border crossing within the Greek Prespa area. The only way to enter Albania is through the Krystallopigi/ Kapshtice border crossing. To enter the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia there is a border crossing in Niki / Medzitlija, accessed via Florina. The Municipality of Prespa includes 13 settlements within the catchment basin, with a population of 1,537 inhabitants. In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the so-called Prespa Valley has an urban centre called Resen (ca. 8,750 inhabitants), which is the seat of the Municipality of Resen covering the whole area. The main road connecting Prespa with the town of Bitola passes through the Gjavato Pass. The main road to Ohrid valley goes through the Bukovo Pass. Lipona Livada, a high altitude pass on Mt. Galichica, also connects Prespa to the Ohrid catchment. There are 43 settlements in the area, with a population of 16,825 inhabitants.

Page 11/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Fig. 3.2. Relief map of the Prespa Park catchment area

Page 12/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

3.3. Designated Protected Areas The Macro and Micro Prespa lakes and their catchment basin are regulated and protected under a series of national, EU and international legal instruments. In Albania and Greece, more or less the whole Prespa catchment is covered by a single protected area in the form of National Park. In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, on the other hand, the Prespa catchment is much larger and includes at least three separate protected areas, two of them partly extending outside the catchment (Fig. 3.1).

In Albania, the Prespa National Park (PNP-AL), with a total surface of 277.50 km2 covering the whole catchment within Albania, was established in 1999 by the Council of Ministers’ Decree 80/1999. The surface of the PNP-AL includes agricultural land, forests, pastures and meadows, and the whole aquatic area of the two Prespa Lakes on the Albanian side and unproductive surfaces. It is composed by three zones: Protected zone I (strictly protected area), Protected zone II (managed zone) and Protected zone III (development zone).

In Greece, the "Prespa National Forest" (PNF) with a surface area of 194.70 km2 was instituted by Presidential Decree 46/1974. The limits of the PNF covered the whole catchment area with the exception of the peaks of Mt. Varnountas and the upper part of the river valley of Aghios Germanos. Both the PNF and the Varnountas Mountains are Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), parts of the NATURA 2000 Network, according to EU law (Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC). A Management Body of the Prespa National Forest (MBPNF) was created in 2002. The 9- member Council of the MBPNF 9 was appointed in 2003, and 13 staff (scientific and technical) were recruited in 2008. The seat of the MBPNF is at the village of Aghios Germanos. In July 2009, a relevant Joint Ministerial Decision was gazetted, resulting in the creation of the Prespa National Park (PNP-GR) and regulating the measures, land uses and zoning for the protection, conservation and management of the area. The four main

9 Comprising (September 2009) representatives of the Ministries of Environment, Agriculture, Development, Foreign Affairs, the Prefecture of Florina, the Municipality of Prespa, the agricultural and fishermen’s cooperatives, the environmental NGOs, and a special scientist.

Page 13/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Fig. 3.3. Designated National Parks in the Prespa Park catchment area

Page 14/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

protection zones include: 1. Zones of Absolute Protection of Nature; 2. Zones of Protection of Nature; 3. Zones of Eco-development; 4. Sites of Protected Natural formations and Landscapes. The MBPNF has the same composition at the time of writing and a mandate over PNP-GR. From an international law perspective, Greek Prespa falls under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (ratified by Law 191/1974). The Ramsar site covers the surface of Micro Prespa (Greek part) and the reedbeds on its banks, with a total area of 50,78 km2.

In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia the main areas under a precise protection status are the following:

1. Strict Nature Reserve "Ezerani" (ESNR) The Reserve occupies 20.80 km2 of the coastal area of Macro Prespa. The reserve together with the whole part of the lake belonging to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a designated Ramsar site, with a total area of 189.20 km2.

2. National Park "Pelister" (NPP) The oldest National Park in the area (and in the Former Yugoslav Federation), NPP was designated in 1948 covering an area of 125.00 km2. The largest part of NPP lies outside the basin; however, in 2008 its jurisdiction was extended to cover the river valley of Brajcinska River, within the Prespa catchment. NPP has a very diverse flora, and significant fauna.

3. National Park "Galicica" (GNP) In 1958, 227.50 km2 on Mt. Galicica, because of its distinguished natural beauties and characteristic flora and fauna of woods, was designated a National Park. Part of the National Park extends outside the Prespa basin to the shore of Lake Ohrid.

3.4. Abiotic environment The Prespa Lakes are among the most ancient lakes in Europe. They used to be part of the former Dassaretic Basin during the Jurassic period, and they were formed during a karstic collapse during the Tertiary period, together with lake Ohrid and former lake Maliq (drained in the 1950s).

Page 15/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

The basin is divided geologically in two distinct parts: the West and South part of the basin is dominated by limestones and dolomites, and the North and East part by granites and gneiss, which also determinates the distinctive vegetation types in each part. The central part of the depression is filled with alluvial sediments. The basin has no surface outflow, but the presence of limestone on its western part results in underground karstic outflow to lake Ohrid (which lies ca. 150 m lower than Macro Prespa).

The climate of the Prespa Lake area is characterized as mild continental–central European with Mediterranean features. Meteorological time-series in the three counties are limited and do not cover high-altitude parts of the basin. The average annual precipitation is in the 600-900mm range, at lake level, and the average annual temperature lies between 9.5°-11°C. Snowfall is common from October until April. Wind velocities are generally low.

The fluctuation of the water level of Micro Prespa is largely correlated with the diversion (now defunct) of the Devoll River and the withdrawal of water for irrigation purposes. The water level of Macro Prespa has decreased during recent years by approximately 8m, however the causes of this phenomenon have never been fully investigated. It is assumed that successive dry years, in combination with the uncontrolled underground outflow to Ohrid Lake, have resulted in this phenomenon.

The main water management interventions in the area are the following: In 1936, the Aghios Germanos stream in Greece, which flew into lake Micro Prespa through a deltaic formation, was regulated and diverted to Macro Prespa. The Maliq Lake, near Korcha in Albania, was drained in the 1950s. In the 1970s, the Devolli River in Albania was linked to Lake Micro Prespa through 2 artificial channels. Other interventions are low scale, mostly connected to irrigation purposes, and mainly took place during the 1960s. In 1986, a sluice gate was placed in Koula, i.e. at the end of the channel that connects the Micro and Macro Prespa on Greek territory, and was refurbished in 2004.

Water quality in the two lakes is generally good. Micro Prespa is generally classified as mesotrophic to eutrophic, or close to the eutrophic stage. Macro Prespa is classified as mesotrophic. (SPP et al 2005).

Page 16/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

3.5. Biotic Environment The biodiversity of Prespa is very rich and diverse compared to its size, and includes many endemic taxa, as well as species and habitats of conservation concern.

From a phytogeographical perspective, Prespa Park can be classified in the Balkan sub- zone of the Sub-Mediterranean vegetation zone. The areas with aquatic vegetation have special conservation importance. The successive zones from the lakeshore to the watershed line on the mountains are forest formations (lowland woodland vegetation, deciduous oak forests, deciduous beech forests, and mixed beech-fir forests), sub-alpine vegetation of dwarf shrubs and alpine meadows. There is no complete inventory of the flora of all the Prespa area, however many endemic species of the Balkan Peninsula have been detected (SPP et al 2005, Petkovski et al 2008).

Concerning the fauna, dozens of spp. of endemic invertebrates have been registered. The fish fauna is very rich including 23 species recorded, out of which 9 are taxa (species or sub-species) endemic to Prespa. The avifauna of Prespa has both national and international importance, due to its richness but also due to the presence of significant populations of rare species of international importance, such as such as the Dalmatian Pelican, the Great White Pelican, and the Pygmy Cormorant. Among the 60 mammals encountered in Prespa, species of conservation concerns include the Wolf, the Brown Bear, the Otter and the Chamois. (SPP et al 2005, Petkovski et al 2008) Additionally, a July 2009 survey identified 25 species of bats (Chiroptera), 15 of which breeding in the area (Grémillet and Kazoglou 2009).

Page 17/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

4. Framing the Monitoring System / Principles, Assumptions and Guidelines

A summary of the conclusions of Stage 1 (Preparatory Stage: Assumptions, Scientific basis, Principles for the definition of indicators etc.) is presented here with the purpose to introducing the main study and guiding the reader. The full texts of the outputs of Stage 1 are included in Annexes 4.1 to 4.5.

By definition, a trans-boundary (“TB” later in the text) monitoring system should focus on those issues that cannot be properly monitored at national scale only, since species cross borders, and some problems arise in one country while affecting the others too. It will have to consider things from a different angle, and should: (1) concentrate on issues that are not only important from a local/ national point of view, and (2) bring an added value to existing national programs.

In particular, the TB system will not replace the national monitoring systems that are needed in each country, e.g. for reporting as per the EU requirements10 : it can help the national systems (e.g. by bringing in a broader perspective, or extra-territorial data which help interpretation), but it cannot substitute for them.

Furthermore, one reiterated request is for the TB monitoring system to be low cost, which implies that in its early years at least, it cannot focus on more than a few, key aspects. This implies that severe choices had to be made at its inception. However, in a second stage (mid-term), and once the 3 countries have learnt how to monitor together a few elements, the scope can be expanded, depending on the resources available.

4.1. Aim of the monitoring system The specific aims of any monitoring system for a natural area should be, in the long-term, to serve an ever-lasting spiral of improving management, i.e. “adaptive management”. In the case of the Prespa basin, this was reiterated e.g. as part of the GEF/UNDP Prespa

10 or similar requirements resulting to the approximation to EU legislation, e.g. the Water Law in FYRO Macedonia

Page 18/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park transboundary project 11 . However, one of the pre-requisites for this is an effective management body/ mechanism, able to translate rapidly into field action any conclusion resulting from a monitoring programme. As this was considered by the MCWG as still under development during Stage 1, alternative goals for the shorter-term were proposed.

Therefore, Routine surveillance (Option 1 in Annex 4.1) was chosen as the core goal of the TB monitoring system (“TMS” later in the text) for the short / mid-term at least. It consists in obtaining over a few years reliable data on the “normal” range of variation of important parameters, whether environmental or socio-economic. After a certain time, which may vary depending on the issues/ parameters, the range of “normal” or acceptable variations can be established, and the monitoring upgraded so as, for example, ring an “alarm bell” to the manager or decision-maker when the indicator steps out of this range. The ultimate aim is to enable her/him make informed decisions. Such a basic surveillance is crucially missing from the Prespa Park area, at least at TB level. Some routine surveillance exists for some countries and some issues (e.g. Pelicans in GR-Prespa, human demography in AL-Prespa, water quality in GR-Prespa and the part of Prespa in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia etc.), but only at national level. There is currently no jointly agreed and shared TB baseline in Prespa on any of the key environmental values and issues – let alone socio-economic parameters. The TB monitoring system will therefore play a crucial role in helping establish this common ground between all three countries.

However the MCWG recommended that if for some specific aspects the possibility for adaptive management appears already in the short-term, the system should be flexible enough to accommodate this. Furthermore, the 3 remaining options that were proposed initially, i.e. 3. “Knowledge-oriented”, 4. “Crisis management” and 5. “Policy-evaluation”, should not be discarded totally, but instead be retained as possibilities, in case (i) the needs arise, (ii) the prerequisites listed in Annex 4.1 are met and (iii) the necessary budget is available.

4.2. Geographical Scale As adopted by the MCWG, the TMS will focus on the watershed exclusively for most issues (Fig. 4.1). For instance streams within Galicica NP but flowing to Ohrid rather than Prespa

11 UNDP-GEF project Outcome n°3, Output n° 3.1

Page 19/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park lakes, should normally be excluded from TB monitoring. However, the TB system will leave open the option to extend the geographical scope outside the existing known surface catchment - but within the National Parks. This will only be the case for some selected themes/ parameters that need to be monitored beyond watershed borders in order to be meaningful, especially those linked to terrestrial ecosystems (e.g. alpine meadows, large carnivores, forests…).

It was also noted that as for other Observatories/ Monitoring systems (e.g. the Camargue), monitoring data may already exist, but not necessarily at the “ideal” geographical scale. For instance some monitoring is already done at the level of administrative units, which may encompass a broader area than the one needed for the TMS. As it is not always possible, or cost-effective, to extract from it what is related to the ideal area to be considered for a given theme, the TMS may have to use this data as a proxy.

4.3. Significant elements, values, issues for monitoring A number of elements have already been monitored in each of the 3 countries, for a varying length of time. They cover a number of themes such as human demography, socio-economical statistics, climatic conditions, water quality and quantity, biodiversity... However, they address national or local priorities, and usually pay no specific importance to, or are not in a position to deal with, transboundary issues. So, simply “continuing with what has already been monitored” was not considered an option. Instead, the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park (2002) was used as the primary inspiration for selecting key elements to monitor as part of the Prespa TMS. This document analyses in detail all the elements that give value to the area and the main pressures and threats. It also recommends broad policies/ strategies and specific management actions to conserve all the values (see in particular Section C.1.1.). The key elements/ values/ issues derived from the SAP were further completed / amended through visits paid to the stakeholders of the 3 countries between December 2007 and February 2008, and contributions made by MCWG at its meetings. Table 4.1 below synthesizes the final proposal.

Page 20/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Figure 4.1. the geographical scope of the Prespa TB monitoring system, i.e. the Prespa watershed and the limits of protected areas in the three littoral countries

Page 21/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

It should be stressed that the above was considered as the maximum, realistic contents for a first phase of the TB programme. The risk otherwise would be to start with an over- ambitious programme, which would not fit with the “low-cost”, “applicable” requests as formulated by various members of the MCWG.

Table 4.1. Key elements to be considered by the Prespa TMS VALUES Biodiversity: 1. Habitats - surface area, as per Habitats Directive typology - habitat quality for a few key habitats

2. Species 1-2 species (or groups of related species) per taxonomic group

Water - Water quantity & hydromorphology (lakes & rivers) - Water quality focusing on (i) obligations linked to the WFD and (ii) the requirements of key species that depend on water quality (e.g. endemic fish…). Non-nature Possibly a few values (for aspects on which good baseline info already Values exists) KEY ISSUES Specific A few key issues cross-cutting Land-use

4.4. Existing situation As part of the preliminary stage, a meta-database of ongoing or past monitoring programs in each of the 3 national sections of the Prespa watershed was compiled. It is provided in Appendix 1 of Annex 4.3, and its contents, theme-wise, is summarized in Table 4.2 below. The metadatabase only includes parameters that have been monitored repeatedly over time, but not those that were measured for a short period for a one-off study, so Table 4.2 cannot be taken as being exactly representative of the amount of knowledge that exists per topic.

The contents are only indicative, as in a number of cases the data provided does not allow a precise calculation of the n° of parameters monitored (e.g. waterbird monitoring programmes or demographic data).

Page 22/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 4.2. Summary statistics of the existing meta-databases for Prespa ALBANIA the Former GREECE Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 107, incl. an approximation of ca. 100 parameters for General (climate, population…) 15 demographic data 6 Water (Hydrology, pollution…) 27 102 50 Natural habitats 0 14 0 8, plus an unspecified n° of 26, plus an unspecified n° Butterfly species/ Fauna - Flora 31 of Waterbird species Waterbird spp. Agriculture 5 7 4 Socio-economy (others) 2 4 0 Total 65 260 62

4.5. Approved guidelines for the study During the Preparatory Stage (Stage 1) of the TMS project, guidelines for the future TMS, were developed by the study team and approved by the MCWG. The study team following the recommendations of the MCWG divided them into strategic, implementation, and coordination guidelines:

A- STRATEGIC GUIDELINES  Guidelines for the definition of indicators, through which the selected values will be monitored; for the determination of joint indicators and special (national or local) indicators and relevant criteria.  Guidelines for the methods for recording indicators

B- IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES  Guidelines for the definition of institutions to implement monitoring system in each country (one or more?); definition of national resources available or planned to implement the transboundary monitoring system  Guidelines for existing and required equipment  Guidelines and options for a low cost, user-friendly, transboundary GIS for monitoring Prespa basin

Page 23/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

 Guidelines for training to implement the monitoring system; who will provide the training and how.

C- COORDINATION GUIDELINES  Guidelines for the coordinator in each country;  Guidelines for trilateral coordination and administration of central transboundary database; required procedure

The full set of guidelines for the future TMS is available in Annex 4.5. A brief outline of the guidelines relevant to the present study is given below:

The guidelines for the definition of indicators include six families of criteria (Validity; Understandability; Interpretability; Data Availability; Cost Considerations & Feasibility; Transboundary character) breaking down into 20 questions that the selected indicators must satisfy. The criteria and associated questions are also proposed to be used for an ex-post evaluation of the system, and are reproduced accordingly in Table 14.2.

The methods for recording the indicators should have been already tested, evaluated and validated, preferably in Prespa or elsewhere in comparable situations, according to the guidelines. For indicators linked to reporting requirements on EU directives, the methods should be fully conforming. They should be identical, or fully compatible, between the 3 states, and be applicable in Prespa by at least one relevant institution in each of the 3 countries. They must be essentially low-cost, as this is a legitimate expectation for the TMS from all relevant stakeholders. Finally, the methods should be easily taught and implemented by the local institutions, without resorting permanently to expert scientists or high tech laboratories to implement them.

On the selection of the monitoring institutions, the Preparatory Stage of the TMS recommended the following general guidelines: technical capacity; commitment for long- term contribution to the TMS; support/ endorsement by the National Authorities; if possible commitment by the State for funding; possibility (from their statutes or regulations) to cooperate with institutions from other countries; capacity and goodwill to share data; links with management or decision-making bodies; acquaintance with EU

Page 24/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park legislation. More on the institutions to implement the TMS can be found under Paragraph 15.2.

A series of recommendations were developed for existing and future equipment of the TMS. Indicatively, equipment should be compatible with international norms, regularly maintained, visible, used by qualified staff, regularly submitted to inter-calibration, low- cost, environmentally friendly, and proven that it can work in the Prespa conditions.

Concerning the coordination needs of the TMS, according to the recommendations the coordinating agency should show commitment to the TMS, be preferably one of the national monitoring institutions, have trust and recognition from the other institutions, exhibit coordination skills, have experience in international work, and have secured funding in the medium- or long-term. An adaptation of the above criteria is presented in Paragraph 15.3 of the present study.

Page 25/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

5. System Elements and Design

5.1. Selecting the specific elements of the future TMS Following the definition of the key themes and issues to be considered by the Prespa TMS (see § 4.3 above), a set of general criteria was designed (Annex 4.3, § 3.) in order to “filter”, amongst the unlimited possibilities, the specific components that would be central to the TMS, given its specific goal, constraints (cf. “low cost”), links required with e.g. the EU legislation and international conventions, etc.

In short, to be relevant to the Prespa TMS, an element should be:

(a) of relevance to at least 2 of the 3 countries; AND (b) crucial for at least one of these 2/3 countries; AND (c) susceptible to transboundary decision-making and management (d) either (d1) a key « baseline » factor 12 for a territorial study (e.g. human demography, climatic data…); or (d.2) a key element that gives value to the area: e.g. Biodiversity, (Cultural heritage ?); or (d.3) a key threat affecting these values: e.g. pollution, water level dropping, unsustainable uses of natural resources; or (d.4) a driving force of these threats: e.g. pesticide use, lack of a legal framework, non-implementation of existing ones…; or d.5 a response by society to these threats: e.g. change in legislation, reduction in water abstraction, habitat protection measures… (e) practical for monitoring within the predictable conditions that will likely prevail in the mid-term in the Prespa watershed.

In some thematic fields, these general principles could be translated into more specific ones. For instance, specific biodiversity criteria were developed using (1) international lists (IUCN Red Lists, EU Habitat and Bird Directives Lists…) of species/ habitats of international concern (EU or global) which occur in the Prespa watershed, and (2) additional expert advice from experts from the 3 countries, on what are the priorities for a

12 i.e. a general determinant with a potential influence on many aspects of the territory

Page 26/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

TB programme13, as perceived nationally. Such expert advice was deemed most useful for including bottom-up information that global/ EU, list-based approaches may miss.

For Habitats, the MCWG agreed that the TB monitoring system should cover both the quantitative (surface-oriented) aspects where currently baseline data apparently exists only for the Greek and Albanian parts; and the habitat quality on a few habitats, to be selected if possible from those that complied with the general criteria, and at the same time were listed as a “Top priority” by the experts of at least two countries. For species, it was suggested that those to be included should be of high TB conservation concern, i.e. as far as possible, either Globally threatened/ Nearly threatened (IUCN categories CR, EN, VU or LR/ NT), and/ or listed on the Annexes II or IV of the Habitats directive / Annex I of the Birds Directive, and proposed by at least a country expert as a “Priority for a TB system”. Eventually, it was recognized that the potential number of species and habitats meeting all the criteria above might still be too high to prove practical for the first years of a “Routine Surveillance” TMS, hence requiring a final selection process based upon non-technical choices. These were made through initial proposals of international experts, reviewed and amended at thematic expert meetings gathering experts from the 3 countries, in a later (2nd) stage of the project.

For water, it was accepted that the TMS should cover: - key aspects linked to the quantity of water, - water quality, focusing on 2 aspects: (i) obligations linked to the WFD or its approximations, and (ii) the quality required by key species that depend on water quality (e.g. endemic fish…). - hydromorphology, as a crucial component for the WFD and for the good ecological status of the water bodies

For socio-economic (including cultural) issues, the number of potential topics identified for the TMS was very high; however they bore a quite variable relation to the integrity of the Prespa ecosystem. In addition, some of them could not be monitored reliably in practice, e.g. because they are illegal (and thus, hidden) or because reliable statistics are notoriously difficult to obtain as everywhere in the world (e.g. real fisheries statistics). It

13 Important note: the question was formulated in this specific way, to avoid confusion with “What are the national priorities in your country ?”, which would not be within the scope of a TB project

Page 27/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park was therefore decided that the TB monitoring system should skip at least in a first stage all issues that are recorded only for specific protected areas (not TB by nature), and those that are unpractical to monitor properly, e.g. illegal activities. It should instead focus on only a limited number of the problems relevant at transboundary scale, for the sake of realism.

Finally, land-use was put forward as a key, necessary cross-cutting issue which - beyond providing baseline knowledge on % area under agriculture, forest, etc.- can also help assess e.g. changes in surface areas of habitat (at least for broad habitat classes) or in some aspects of habitat quality (e.g. forest density); changes in water quantity aspects (e.g. lake shoreline, directly related to water levels); or the impact of some human activities (e.g. development of new infrastructures). For these reasons, land-use/ satellite imagery is to have a special place in the TMS.

5.2. The system put in place for designing the Prespa TMS In practice, following the definition of the key themes and issues to be considered by the Prespa TMS, the task of setting up the next stages had to take into account the natural divide between expert specialties that exist within a given theme, e.g. “Biodiversity”, “Water” etc. Work covering all the elements previously identified (Table 4.1 above) was therefore split up between 7 thematic areas, lead by 7 thematic international (lead) experts14 : - Water resources (quantity/ quality) - Aquatic vegetation and habitats - Forests and terrestrial habitats - Fish and fisheries - Birds and other biodiversity (species) - Socio-economy - Land-use.

The ToRs of these experts are provided in Annex 5.1. The thematic international experts were Dr. Philippe CHAUVELON and Dr. Martin DOKULIL (Water quality/ quantity); Dr. Patrick GRILLAS (Aquatic vegetation); Rémi GROVEL (Forests15 and terrestrial habitats);

14 a duet of experts in the case of water: Hydrology & Limnology/ Pollution 15 From both the ecological and forestry exploitation perspectives

Page 28/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Dr. Alain CRIVELLI (Fish and Fisheries); Dr. Christian PERENNOU (Birds and other biodiversity; also the Project coordinator); Maureen DECOURSEY (Socio-economy); Dr. Alain SANDOZ (Land-use). They received further assistance from 3 national experts, Dr. Spase Shumka (PPNEA, Albania) Dr. Svetozar Petkovski (Macedonian Museum of Natural History, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) and a team from the Society for the Protection of Prespa (Greece) comprising Dr. Giorgos Catsadorakis, Miltos Gletsos, Dr. Yannis Kazoglou and Dr. Vivi Roumeliotou. Altogether these constituted the project team.

In order to assist the team, small working groups comprising, for each theme, 2-4 national experts from each of the 3 countries were set up (See composition in Annex 5.2 and ToRs in Annex 5.3). Their task was to review the initial proposals (on indicators, methods, protocols…) drafted by the lead experts, comment on them during thematic workshops held in the first half of 2009 (2 per theme; conclusions in Annex 5.4), and validate the final, revised texts. These validated proposals make up exactly the text Chapters 6 and 8 to 13 below; they also provided the vital material for Chapter 16 (Pilot study).

Coordination was ensured so that each expert was permanently aware of what was going on in the other groups that were potentially relevant to him, especially for the Land-use group which had obvious links with at least 3 other groups through the common tool of satellite imagery.

In order to keep the TMS relatively small and manageable, an initial target of no more than 10-15 indicators per group was suggested to all the theme leaders, with a possibility to go beyond only if well justified.

Finally, the overall results comprising this integral study were validated by the Monitoring Conservation and Working Group (MCWG), at its November 2009 meeting held in…

Page 29/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

6. Water Resources Monitoring

Dr. Philippe Chauvelon, Tour du Valat Prof. Martin Dokulil, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Limnology

6.1. Introduction

6.1.1. Analysis of existing monitoring programs Hydrology and climatology There is a monitoring program (staff gauges read each day, or up to 2 or 3 days interval) of lake water levels in both lakes (since 1951 in Albania), but currently no continuous water level measurements are conducted, although basic support devices to receive limnigraphs still exist in both lakes on Greek side (Koula on Micro Prespa, and Psarades on Macro Prespa, now out of water following lake level draw down). The downstream Prespa catchment is covered with a dense network of mostly simple rainfall stations and further climatic data have been regularly observed in the past at the Resen station that has been closed in the past. Evaporation measurements have only been carried out on the Greek shore of the Micro Prespa Lake. So there is a sufficient number of rain gauges with long term series around the lakes, even if their current situation is not always following standards to avoid bias (distance to high obstacles); as it is also the case for the evaporation pan in Aghios Achillios Island (Micro Prespa), not enough isolated in an open space). The main problem is the lack of measurements of precipitation above the altitude of 1100 m a.s.l., that is to say that in 40% of the catchment area (considering the hypsometric curve given in GFA - 2005), we have no information on precipitations or on temperatures. The multi-parameter meteorological station in Koula (Greece) and in Pretor (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) can be used to calculate evaporation using for example the Penman method.

Regular and continuous hydrometric river gauging has only been carried out for two approx. similar sized 60 km² catchment areas on the shores of the Lakes in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Brajcinska river) and in Greece (Aghios Germanos river). The river gauge on Brajcinska River has been in ongoing operation since 1961, the Aghios Germanos river station observing from the late seventies to the early eighties. These stations are rather situated on upstream locations before main water abstraction for agriculture. Public Power Corporation (Greece) installed one on Aghios Germanos river (Greece), because they were planning a micro power station, in Golema and Leva river

Page 30/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

(Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) the main objective for their setting at the beginning was probably we think, to estimate water availability for agriculture downstream. As a consequence, even for gauged rivers, discharge data do not provide the total inflow from the considered river catchments to the lake. Until recently (GFA 2005, Parisopoulos et al. 2009), there were no precise information on the management of the Koula sluices on the channel between Micro and Macro Prespa lakes. The inflow/outflow between Micro Prespa and Devolli river in Albania was documented (GFA, 2005), but the diversion stopped in 2001.

Regular monitoring and proper documentation of water extractions from the lakes and rivers practically did not exist in the past for none of the three countries. Only for a few years indirect data could be documented. Other water demand data had to be based on verbal information (GFA 2005).

Water quality and ecological status of water bodies In order to have more detailed information on past monitoring, the reader should refer to GFA (2005), TRABOREMA (2007) and Perennou and Gletsos (2008). The water quality evaluation for the Macro Prespa Lake and of three surface water sources in the catchment area of the Lake (Golema, Kranska and Otesevo) is based on data, mainly acquired by the institutes from the 3 countries:  Hydrometeorological Institute Tirana, (now renamed “Water Monitoring, Energy, Water & Environment department, Polytechnic University of Tirana”), Albania;  Hydrobiological Institute, Ohrid, (HBO) Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;  Hydrometeorological Administration, (HMA) Skopje, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;  Society for Protection of Prespa, Florina Chemistry Service (FCS) in Florina and Central Water Agency (CWA) from the Ministry of Environment, Greece.

Some of the water quality data on Lake Macro Prespa are available since the 1970‟s, but only in a few stations in FYR of Macedonia and Albania. Apart from hydrometrics, HMA is monitoring some physic-chemical parameters on the rivers and lake shores. During the 1990‟s, finance problems caused institutes from Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to reduce their implication on field measurements. As a consequence during the last decade, in the 3 countries, periods of more intense monitoring, in terms of frequency, number of parameters and stations were mainly

Page 31/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

“project based”, at the national of international levels, but consequently not secured on the mid term. The last important research project focusing on water quality and ecological status of Prespa water bodies was TRABOREMA (2007). The TRABOREMA project proposed at its end a reduced monitoring system, which included a total of 7 stations along the lake shores and near the deepest part of both lakes (2 in Greece, 2 in Albania, and 3 in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). Apart from basic physico-chemical parameters and nutrients (N,P) the derived indicators are mainly based on biological indices using phytoplankton and phytobenthos composition and biomass. Another internationally funded project dealing with water quality in the Prespa area, currently on going is the DRIMON project (Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro and Norway).

There is an agreement on the fact that a sufficient number of physico-chemical parameters should be used and that biotic indices based on phytoplankton composition and relative biomass are the most relevant and convenient indicator of the lakes ecological conditions and eutrophication process; standardized methods were developed by regional inter-calibrations working groups, to be applied in the WFD context. As issues appear more complex and less unanimous as far as phytobenthos is concerned, this compartment should probably not be retained within the TB monitoring scheme in its pilot phase.

Finally, since the sanitary conditions related to bacterial load (e.g. coliforms) are not directly related to the WFD (i.e. they are not an official water “Quality element” to describe the ecological status of lakes, it is proposed to not retain them in the TB monitoring scheme, although their importance e.g. for beach tourism justifies that they should continue to be monitored at the national level.

However, the main objective of the TB monitoring scheme, is to derive indicators for providing a simple, “technical dashboard” for regularly reporting on the trend of the lake ecosystem to stakeholders and decision makers at the TB level, whatever the national monitoring strategies on the long term are. The main concern is not related to the number of parameters, since adding the measurement (analysis) of any particular basic chemical element does not increase much the costs, once the sample is taken. Concerns lie instead with (1) the number of stations and (2) the sampling frequency, and the associated, increased logistical costs.

Page 32/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

6.1.2. Baseline information and research gaps In order to consider what should be a comprehensive and useful set of indicators for water resources monitoring in the Prespa TB Park, we needed to have a better understanding of what is known on the main hydrological functioning of the area. For this purpose we made bibliographic analysis (see references). The most important reference was the Hydrology Report of the “Feasibility Study, Project Preparation & Development of the Transboundary Prespa Park Project” (GFA 2005), synthesizing all available data provided by partners from the 3 countries, and trying to model the water balance at a monthly time step on the long term (1951-2004). Some key results of the water balance study are (GFA 2005): 1) The dramatic drop of the Lake Macro Prespa water level is not necessarily caused by significant changes in the karstic system; 2) Human interferences on the Lake Macro Prespa and Lake Micro Prespa probably do not contribute as main factors to the steep water level declines of the Lake Macro Prespa; 3) With its relatively small storage capacity the Lake Micro Prespa Lake rapidly reacts to overexploitation; 4) The water level decrease of the Lake Macro Prespa is probably caused by natural variations in rainfall, rather than being attributed to human extractions and variations in the “karstic outflow” regime; 5) In the past the outflows of the Lake Ohrid dropped even steeper, as compared to the inflows into the Macro Prespa Lake; and 6) Regional and urban planning should take the possibility of significant water level fluctuations into account; certain uses should be restricted in the water level fluctuations zone.

As lakes‟ water level drawdown was identified as one of the major threat, a water balance as accurate as possible on the long term is necessary (Kolaneci 2004, GFA 2005, Popov et al. 2007), based on a reliable data base which can be further used for modelling. The model to develop will be therefore useful to explore climatic and water management scenarios for the future. The proposed trans-boundary hydro-climatic monitoring scheme will mainly rely on existing or already scheduled/proposed monitoring schemes at the national levels for rivers, because this TB has rather to gather data or partly finance

Page 33/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park functioning than finance heavy investments on the field related to river gauging stations for example.

Another essential point is that in order to assess what are the main sources of pollution and eutrophication conditioning the current and potential ecological status of the lake ecosystem (Naumoski et al. 1997, Patceva et al. 2006, TRABOREMA 2007), there is a need to quantify as much as possible fluxes (nutrients, pollutants), as a consequence, concentrations in the water of tributaries are not enough, we need the discharges of the corresponding tributaries, even if hydrological modelling was not a priority task.

Hydrological balance and water quality issues on the lakes are not independent. In fact, Macro Prespa is a very vulnerable system (Matzinger et al. 2006) because any additional consumption of water has a direct effect on its water level, which in turn affects not only the lake hydraulics but the entire lake ecosystem. A level decrease alone can cause an increase in the trophic state of Lake Prespa. If the external P loads increase simultaneously, the two combined processes can amplify. Such amplification is a realistic scenario in the case of further intensification of agriculture, where water consumption and fertilization increase in parallel. Already observed anoxia in the deeper layers of the lake will most probably have a significant effect on its biodiversity.

Research made during TRABOREMA (2007) project reported average content of phosphorous in lake waters of 17.79 mg·m-3, which clearly emphasize that the limits for water oligotrophy are exceeded. But, the fact that phosphorous content in Prespa Lake waters has doubled in the past 70 years and that measured phosphorous content in the sediment is as high as 65 mg·m-3 with temporal depletion of dissolved oxygen in the water column below 18 meters depth, underlines even more the intensive (possibly dramatic) eutrophication processes that are ongoing. The same references state that the total quantification of phosphorous input in the lake is app. 84 tonnes per year, of which 41 tonnes per year are coming from natural processes and 43 tonnes per year are due to anthropogenic activities.

6.1.3. Connection to EU legislation and the WFD Reporting as per EU requirements will involve different issues, for the key component of water. For water, the requirements of the WFD are straightforward. They still require

Page 34/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park that the list of parameters (quality elements, reference conditions…) is fine-tuned for the water district (i.e. the hydro-biogeographic region) to which Prespa pertains, and validated. This work is currently being done for Greece by EKBY and the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, and is expected to be over by late 2008. Because it has to consider the scale of a whole water district, presumably its results for GR-Prespa can be proposed as a basis for discussion for the whole Prespa basin. For EU reporting, data will have to be collected by the states at site level (i.e. X stations within the GR-Prespa basin, Y within AL-Prespa, etc.), even if it is later amalgamated at the water district level by the State. It can be expected that only a sub-set of this data will be required by the TB monitoring system, the key issue being to select which one. Extracts of the WFD relevant to transboundary aspects or to monitoring are presented in Annex 6.1. Although some provisions are mandatory for Greece only (e.g. § 5. of Art. 3), it should be highlighted that the Prespa TB project could provide an opportunity, if goodwill exists in all 3 states, to be a real TB model by going beyond the minimum WFD requirements as far as monitoring is concerned, and implement “as if” the 3 countries were already EU members.

For this current text, we also took into consideration the deliverables of the project "Network development and monitoring of the quality of surface inland, transitional and coastal waters of Greece / Assessment and classification of their ecological status" of the Central Water Agency which was carried out by the Greek Biotope / Wetland Centre and the Hellenic Centre for Marine Research.

6.1.4. Rationale for monitoring According to the 2000/60 EC Water Framework Directive (WFD) (see Annex 6.1) “the monitoring programmes which must be defined are to:  provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of ecological and chemical status of lakes and other standing waters;  permit classification of standing waters into five classes of ecological status: high, good, moderate, poor and bad;  be based on characterisation and impact assessment carried out for each river basin district;  cover parameters which are indicative of the status of each relevant quality element”. According to the requirements of the WFD, data will have to be collected by the States at site level. Thus, they will have to develop their national water monitoring systems for

Page 35/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Prespa as part of their WFD (or WFD-like) obligations, at their own pace, presumably differing between the three countries. It can be expected that only a parsimonious sub- set of this data will be required by the Prespa TB Monitoring System, the key issue being to select which one.

The Prespa TB Monitoring System on waters developed under this project will follow the spirit of the WFD. It will ultimately give information on the ecological status of waters and not merely measure physico-chemical parameters. It will have to pinpoint the minimum, but needed and critical, number of parameters required in order to have a simple, basic and workable monitoring system, as the basis of discussion on water issues at transboundary level. Hence, the Prespa TB monitoring system on waters will focus on the “least common denominator” set of parameters, irrespective of whether the three States have implemented their individual monitoring systems or not, however with the view that in the longer-term the full WFD systems of the three littoral States will be eventually coordinated.

From the above, and considering outcomes from the preparatory stage (phase A.1) of the Development of a transboundary monitoring system in the Prespa Park area, it is acknowledged that the monitoring of water resources in the Prespa TB Park will be to consider as a surveillance monitoring in the sense of WFD (see Annex 6.1), but without the obligation to include all monitoring elements according to WFD.

6.2. Development of indicators to monitor water resources

6.2.1. Introductive remarks The initial presentation of indicators related to hydrology followed an input-output-stocks logic. After the 1st workshop (Korcha, February 20th, 2009), and in order to make the ranking of priorities more apparent in the TB monitoring process, the participants decided to state first that the lakes water levels were to be the first and essential hydrologic indicators. A number of indicators are designed to describe the dynamics of each lake; instead of having two “twin” indicators in these cases (one for each lake), a single indicator will be retained, itself being split in two sub-indicators corresponding to each lake.

Page 36/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Concerning the coding of indicators, instead of using “W” for the overall set of water indicators, the list will be split in 4 sub-categories as:  WH for hydrology/hydrometrics  WM for meteorology  WQPC for water quality in terms of physico-chemical parameters (WQPR-C for catchment, WQPR-L for lakes)  WQEB for water quality in terms of ecological and biotic parameters (WQEB-C for catchment, WQEB-L for lakes)

6.2.1.1. Hydro-morphological parameters (WH) Morphological parameters Considering the gaps on water balance related issues and the need for a monitoring of physico chemical parameters and dangerous substance, we do not think that the assessment of morphological parameters of rivers is a priority task at the moment. On the other side, a basic and essential up to date morphological description (bathymetry, topography of coastlines) of the two lakes is still lacking. As a prerequisite, concerning hydro-mophological issues, it is agreed that there is still a need for an up-to-date description of lakes bathymetry (particularly for lake Macro Prespa), and to decide which absolute elevation reference should be chosen for dealing with lakes water levels monitoring and related stage/area/volume relationships to be used for hydrological balance purposes. Untill this is done, the relations established in the study of GFA (2005) can be provisionally used.

Hydrology and hydrometrics Evident indicators of the lakes system hydrology are the water levels variations. We consider that the water levels should be recorded continuously in one station on each lake:  The mean daily water level of Lake Micro Prespa should be calculated from water level gauge using the same reference for altitude (Koula, Tren).  The mean daily water level of Lake Macro Prespa should be calculated from water level gauge using the same reference for altitude (Stenje, Koula, Liqenas). Indicator: WH1 “Lake_water_level” Sub-indicators:

Page 37/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

WH11: Lake Micro Prespa water level WH12: Lake Macro Prespa water level

Surface Water discharges We understood that not all main tributaries are gauged continuously. We are not sure that it will be possible in the short term to install water level gauges and establish rating curve (stage/discharge relationships) on all of them.

In order to optimize monitoring, it is important to choose stations where both discharge could be obtained and water quality parameters measured, in order to be able to calculate fluxes to the lakes.

The stations retained for calculation of the indicator should also take into account the representativeness of the considered sub catchment (from land use and geological point of view): the subdivision of catchment areas made by GFA (2005) could be a basis for this (Figure 6.1).

At least, we think that the indicator WH2 “inflow_catchment_ Macro_Prespa”, should be calculated from gauging stations on Golema (also Istocka if possible), Brajcinska, and Aghios Germanos rivers, considering that the gauging stations should be as downstream as possible. As runoff of Micro Prespa Lake is very diffuse we will not include an indicator of surface discharge for it.

Other indicators concerning the water balance of the system must be used:

The surface flow from Micro to Lake Macro Prespa, that is to say the discharge at the Koula channel (incl. flow at the sluices) that should be calculated using adequate hydraulic formula, if necessary calibrated on field measurements, using data from a continuous measurement of water level upstream the sluices, and a precise monitoring of the sluice‟s operation. The outflow from Micro to Macro Prespa is to be retained, but to the surface discharge from Koula channel, calculated from water level and sluice status, a rough estimate of underground discharge through the isthmus should be added, together with springs flow and seepage under sluice works, collected by Koula stream downstream the sluices. Indicator WH3 “Koula_Micro_to_Macro_flow”

Page 38/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

FYR OF

Figure 6.1. Location Map of Catchments for Rainfall-Runoff Simulation (from GFA 2005)

Page 39/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

The monitoring of lake water abstraction for irrigation appears feasible for Lake Micro Prespa (identified pumping stations). For Lake Macro Prespa, it will not be possible because of multiple, mobile and unregulated abstractions (both directly in the lake or from groundwater), so an indicator in this case will be possibly related to the irrigated land use in the catchment derived from remote sensing monitoring (cf. related indicator LS4 “Area of irrigated and non-irrigated crops” under the Land-Use monitoring section). Indicator WH4 “pumping_from_Micro Prespa” Indicator WH5 “Catchment_irrigated_area” (with sub indicators for each lake.)

It appears that groundwater outflow from Lake Macro Prespa to Lake Ohrid, is a significant process for the water balance. We understand the difficulties of quantifying flows in a karstic environment, and there are research gaps within this field (GFA 2005, Popov et al. 2007, Popovska and Bonacci 2007). As it is an important process in the overall Prespa-Ohrid hydro system functioning, and an outflow from Lake Macro Prespa, at least an indicator must take into account the groundwater exchange trough the Galicica mountains.

Quantifying precisely the flow from Lake Prespa to Lake Ohrid is not possible, considering current scientific knowledge on the area. The monitoring of selected spring area discharges into Lake Ohrid (St Naum, Drilon and Tushemish) will only be indicative of the trend of karstic flow between the two hydrosystems (lake and catchment part of Galicica). On the basis that it should be possible to have the discharge continuously from water level gauge and rating curve, we propose to use as an indicator the estimated flow from at least St Naum (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) and Drilon (Albania) springs outlet to Lake Ohrid. Indicator WH6 “karstic_spring_flow_to_Ohrid”

As an important part of catchment runoff is diverted, mainly for agriculture, and then infiltrated to groundwater and/or returned by multiple ditch drainage (with subsequent seepage) to the lake, monitoring the trends of groundwater in alluvial plains appears relevant. One or two piezometers by major catchments (with dedicated sub indicators) should have their levels measured on a regular basis. This indicator is related to the non- karstic part of the catchment area: Indicator WH7 “Groundwater_level”

Page 40/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

6.2.1.2. Climatology/meteorology (WM) Precipitations An important issue, considering climate change, is to assess precipitations on the catchment area above 1000 m ASL altitude, including snow fall (at the moment not measured in elevation higher than Aghios Germanos). To use at least a station based on the high altitudes between 1500 m asl and 2000 m asl, using settlements of the Pelister or Galicica parks for example, should be a good opportunity. Of course it would be better to place more rain/snow gauges in such a way to derive an elevation/rain-depth relation (in order to calculate accurately mean precipitation depth on the catchment). Indicator WM1 “Precip_Catchment”. (sub indicators for each lake catchment area)

More easily, we will have to consider precipitation depths on the lake itself (tits at the altitude around 850-900 m): Indicator WM2 “Precip-lake”, calculated as the spatial average of all existing and reliable rain gauges around the lakes shores (sub indicator for each lake).

Temperature and parameters to calculate evaporation Of course temperature is a basic parameter, indicator of climatic change and variability, the mean temperature at the altitude of the lakes should be retained. Indicator WM3 “air_temperature _Lake”

As an indicator of the evaporation outflow from the lakes, we need at least the calculated evaporation from parameters measured at the altitude of the lakes, or measured pan evaporation. Preference being given to an estimate of evaporation using the Penman method (calculated using air temperature, humidity, solar radiation, wind speed, all available at Koula meteorological station, and sunshine duration measured in Pretor, whose station is scheduled to be updated). Indicator WM4 “lake_evaporation”

6.2.1.3. Water Quality Elements for the tributaries (rivers), groundwater and the lake(s) (WQPC) In order to get an estimate of the direct and diffuse load (fluxes) of nutrients to the lakes and in compliance with the WFD, major rivers, springs and sub-surface flow

Page 41/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

(groundwater) need to be monitored. Essentially, the Water Framework Directive requires that water quality in lakes is classified by biological quality elements, with the support of physicochemical and hydromorphological quality elements. However, not all QE might be necessary in a particular case. The essential minimum variables are indicated in bold.

It must be emphasised that more variables, parameters and measurements are needed during the initial phase of the development of a transboundary net-work and at a higher frequency than later on. For the initial phase the minimum frequency is monthly (fortnightly would be even better) for at least three years. Later on, during the monitoring phase, a reduction in variables and frequency is possible. The reduction in variables will depend on the results obtained. The frequency of observations should not be less than six times per year although the minimum requirements given in the WFD is four times.

Water quality on the catchment and fluxes to the lakes For the same reason as stated above (difficulty to measure inflow from lake Micro Prespa catchment), river indicators are only related to Lake Macro Prespa. These indicators should be calculated in priority on rivers with a gauging station, with the purpose to estimate fluxes to the lake. We will consider separately some basic physico-chemical parameters and nutrients gathered in one indicator (WQPC-C1) and those related to toxic pollutants (WQPC-C2) for tributaries.

Indicator WQPC-C1 “River_Macro_Prespa_physico_chemical” (sub indicator for each selected river)

Measured parameters (in bold: Prioritized) ­ Temperature ­ Dissolved oxygen ­ Electrical conductivity ­ pH-value ­ Alkalinity ­ Total phosphorus ­ Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) ­ Total nitrogen ­ Nitrate and nitrite ­ Ammonia

Page 42/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

­ Optional parameters: Total suspended solids OR turbidity

Indicator WQPC-C2 “River_Macro_Prespa_toxic_pollution” The list of pollutants is not fixed yet, apart Cu and Zn for heavy metals. For organic pesticides it should be relevant to consider the most commonly used molecules in the area for bean (Micro Prespa) and apple (Macro Prespa) cultivation (list not yet available).

Indicator WQPC-C3 “Groundwater_ physico_chemical” Sub indicators for each selected catchment downstream alluvial plain. For groundwater, we retained a reduced set of parameters: ­ Total phosphorus ­ Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) ­ Total nitrogen

Indicator WQPC-C4 “Groundwater_ toxic_pollution” As stated for rivers, the list of pollutants is not fixed yet, apart Cu and Zn for heavy metals. For organic pesticides it should be relevant to consider the most commonly used molecules in the area, for bean (Micro Prespa) and apple (Macro Prespa) cultivation (list not yet available).

Only one indicator was chosen to characterize biological quality of rivers, using Fish as a bio-indicator; it is the same as already included in the “Fish & Fisheries” theme, and is repeated here for the sake of completeness: Fish_Trout_rivers (identical to Fish Indicator n° P2 “ Prespa trout trend” )

Water quality and ecological status of the lakes We will consider separately some basic physico-chemical parameters gathered in one indicator (WQPC-L1) and nutrients (WQPC-L2) separately, due to their importance in eutrophication processes, and those related to toxic pollutants (WQPC-L3) for lakes. Of course, each lake is to be considered separately with sub indicators.

Indicator WQPC-L1 “Lake_physico_chemical” ­ Temperature, ­ pH

Page 43/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

­ Oxygen (dissolved, saturation, deficit) ­ Conductivity/Salinity/mineral content ­ Transparency

Indicator WQPC-L2 “Lake_ nutrients” ­ Total Phosphorus (TP) ­ Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) ­ Total N

­ NO2, NO3 and NH4

Indicator WQPC-L3 “Lake_ toxic_pollution”

The list of pollutants is not fixed yet, apart Cu and Zn for heavy metals. For organic pesticides it should be relevant to consider the most commonly used molecules in the area, for bean (Micro Prespa) and apple (Macro Prespa) cultivation (list not yet available).

The monitoring stations (or a sub set of them) proposed by the FP6 EU project TRABOREMA (2007) and mentioned in the workshop document can be retained. The list of analysed parameters given in this study must certainly be modified since it includes unnecessary variables but is devoid of very important ones such as total phytoplankton. The Trophic State Index (TSI) proposed by Carlson (1977) used in this study must to re- calculated with quantitative chl-a data according to ISO 10260 (1992). For standard references and normatives, see Annex 6.2.

Loading models, trophic delineation, WFD indices and metrics Among other alternatives, the Vollenweider model (OECD 1982) is proposed for initial loading calculations. This model must later on perhaps be modified for the specific conditions to include sub-surface input. Trophic characterization may follow the criteria of Forsberg & Ryding (1980), OECD (1982) or Nürnberg (1996). In addition, the TSI by Carlson (1977) can be used.

Several biological indices, particularly for phytoplankton have been developed for the WFD. According to Illies (1976) the Prespa/Ohrid system belongs to the Hellenic Western Balkan Ecoregion 6. The logic first choice therefore seems to be the index for deep Mediterranean reservoirs developed by Marchetto et al. (2009). Considering that the lakes

Page 44/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park are not reservoirs, and further considering their unique status with a large number of endemic and relict species he main question is what the „reference conditions‟ are for such lakes. If only TP and Chl-a are used, reference conditions are spread all over Europe (comp. Fig. 7 in TRABOREMA 2007).

Against this background, other WFD indices must at least be tested. In fact, it might be necessary to develop a specific index for „relict lakes‟ or at least to modify an already existing index which is based on the trophic preferences of each species (see the review in Marchetto at al. 2009). Several of these indices are a combination of different metrics.

The modified Brettum Index (BI) has the advantage to be very flexible (Dokulil and Teubner 2006). It can be calibrated for almost any variable (N, P, pH, etc.) for which enough information exists. Moreover, no indicator species must be defined „a priori‟. Detailed information for the BI can be extracted from Wolfram and Dokulil (2008). An example for the adaptation of the BI to another region can be found in Anneville and Kaiblinger (2008). A similar index including chl-a is the PSI by Mischke and Nixdorf (2008) for which a calculation software was developed by Mischke and Böhmer (2008). Buzzi et al. (2007) described a similar index for Italian alpine lakes. The Phytoplankton Assemblage Index developed by Padisák et al. (2006) uses a different strategy based on functional groups. Finally, the health of an ecosystem might be evaluated using the EHI of Xu (2005). Relevant information for Macrophyte and Fish indices can e.g. be retrieved from Pall and Mayerhofer (2008) and Gassner et al. (2007).

Indicator WQEB-L1 “Lake_ Phytoplankton” ­ Phytoplankton - composition, dynamics, biomass, frequency of blooms, relative abundance (% ) of blue-green algae

Indicator WQEB-L2 “Lake_ Chlorophyll-A” ­ Chlorophyll-a (Chl a) – as an additional parameter, NOT mentioned in the WFD

Indicator WQEB-L3 “Lake_Macrophytes (identical to Indicator n° WV2 proposed in the Aquatic vegetation theme “Species composition of vegetation in habitat Beds of hydrophytes)”

Page 45/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

­ Macrophytes - composition, biomass, area of encroachment extent in both lakes The above-mentioned indicators on water quality and ecological status of the lakes are summarized in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1. Proposed indicators on water quality and ecological status of the lakes N° Indicator code name Nature: WQPC-L1: Lake_physico_chemical R WQPC-L2: Lake_nutrients R WQPC-L3: Lake_toxic_pollution R WQEB-L1: Lake_Phytoplankton R WQEB-L2: Lake_Chlorophyll-A R WQEB-L3: Lake_Macrophytes (id Wetland veg. n° WV2) R WQEB-L4: Fish endemic to Prespa lakes trend (id n° P2) R

Other biological components relative to ecological status of water bodies Some of the elements monitored under the Aquatic vegetation and Fish & Fisheries cover biological elements that are relevant to the assessment of the ecological status of Prespa. However, for instance, the “Fish & fisheries” report component clearly states (§ 10.2) that it does NOT propose fish indicators in order to assess the health of the lake ecosystem (cf WFD). Instead, they are indicators of the fish community per se, considering its very high value for the preservation of the Prespa biodiversity. However, the data collected might be very useful in the future for establishing a fish index. We therefore propose to retain the indicators P1 and P2 as having potentially a dual role, i.e. for the assessment of the ecological status of the lakes/rivers too (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2. Proposed biological components/ indicators relative to ecological status of water bodies Proposed indicator N° Nature Fish endemic to Prespa lakes trend P1 S Prespa trout trend P2 S

A summary of all currently proposed indicators for water resources monitoring is shown in Table 6.3.

Page 46/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 6.3. Summary of proposed indicators on water quality and ecological status of the lakes N° Indicator Nature* WH1: Lake_water_level R WH2: inflow_catchment_Macro_Prespa P WH3: Koula_Micro_to_Macro_Prespa_flow I WH4: pumping_from_Micro_Prespa P Catchment_irrigated_area (covered under Land-use WH5: P indicator N° LS4 ) WH6: karstic_spring_flow_to_Ohrid R WH7: Groundwater_level P WM1: Precip_Catchment I WM2: Precip_lake I WM3: air_temperature _Lake I WM4: lake_evaporation I WQPC-C1: River_Macro_Prespa_physico_chemical P WQPC-C2: River_Macro_Prespa_toxic_pollution P WQPC-C3: Groundwater_ physico_chemical P WQPC-C4: Groundwater_ toxic_pollution P WQEB-C1: Fish_Trout_rivers (identical to Fish n° P2 ) R WQPC-L1: Lake_ physico_chemical R WQPC-L2: Lake_ nutrients R WQPC-L3: Lake_ toxic_pollution R WQEB-L1: Lake_ Phytoplankton R WQEB-L2: Lake_ Chlorophyll-A R WQEB-L3: Lake_Macrophytes (identical to Aquatic vegetation WV2) S WQEB-L4: Fish endemic to Prespa lakes trend (Ident. to Fish n° P1) S * P: Anthropogenic Pressure; S: State; I: Impact, changes (natural ones); R: Response

In italics: indicators also included de facto in the indicator list of another theme (WH5, WQEB-C1, WQEBL3, WQEB-L4)

Each indicator is reviewed in more detail in the set of 22 text-boxes listed below; the abbreviations for the institutions supposed to be involved are as follows:

Page 47/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Albania - Water Monitoring, Energy, Water & Environment department Polytechnic University of Tirana; used acronym in the tables: WMEWE (former Institute of Hydrometeorology of Albania) - MoEFWA/Agency of Water and Energy

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia - The Hydro meteorological Administration (HMA) - Hydrobiological Institute (HIO), Ohrid - Laboratory for Algae Taxonomy and Hydrobiology (LAH), Institute of Biology, Faculty for Natural Sciences, Skopje, Macedonia. - Institute for Health Protection (IHP)

Greece - Central Water Service (CWS) from the Ministry of Environment - Public Power Corporation (PPC), Department of Hydrology - Florina Chemistry Service (FCS) in Florina - Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP) - Institute of geological and mineral research (IGME) - Greek Biotope-Wetland Centre (EKBY) - Hellenic Centre For Marine Research (HCMR)

WH1: Lake_water_level Nature: R Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: Water level variations of the lake are essential to calculate lake water volume and water balance. Sub-indicators: Lake Micro Prespa _water_level Lake Macro Prespa _water_level Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Evident Method / sources of information: Water level data from continuous (or at least daily) water level (Koula for Micro, Pustec or Stenje for Macro) Institutions supposed to be involved: WMEWE, HMA, SPP Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: There is a need for an agreement on a common altitude reference for water level

Page 48/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

WH2: inflow_catchment_Macro_Prespa Nature: P Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: To estimate the surface water input to the lake from its major tributaries, essential component of the lake system water balance Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: This indicator will be calculated from discharge data coming from 3 states. Method / sources of information: Computed monthly runoff volume from discharge data from Golema, Brajcinska, and Aghios Germanos rivers. Institutions supposed to be involved: SPP, HMA, WMEWE Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: An effort should be made to establish gauging stations and rating curves on all main rivers

WH3: Koula_Micro_to_Macro_Prespa_flow Nature: I Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: To estimate the major part of water volume transferred from Micro to Macro Prespa lake via the Koula channel and through isthmus, key parameter for both lakes water balance. Sub-indicators: Relevance for a Transboundary MS: This indicator characterise a transboundary and a trans-lake flow, it is accessible with limited field investment. Method / sources of information: Computed from water level and sluice position at Koula using adequate hydraulic formula. Institutions supposed to be involved: SPP, PPC Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: The water flow through sediments of the isthmus between the 2 lakes is also to be estimated

WH4: pumping_from_Micro_Prespa Nature: P Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: To estimate the water abstraction from Micro Prespa lake. Sub-indicators Pumped volume from each pumping stations on the lake Relevance for a Transboundary MS:

Method / sources of information: Computed from daily/ monthly pumping duration and pumping stations characteristics Institutions supposed to be involved: SPP, WMEWE Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Page 49/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

WH5: Catchment_irrigated_area (cf Land Use ind.) Nature: P Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: To give an information on irrigation, and therefore on potential water abstraction from Prespa lakes. Sub-indicators: Irrigated area on each lake catchment area Relevance for a Transboundary MS: because it is not possible to calculate water abstraction directly from hydrometric variable monitoring

Method / sources of information: cf land use indicator

Institutions supposed to be involved: SPP, WMEWE, HMA Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

WH6: karstic_spring_flow_to_Ohrid Nature: R Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: To have a simple indicator on the trend of the complex and diffuse underground flow between Macro Prespa and Ohrid lake. Sub-indicators: Discharge of outlet from the St Naum and Drilon springs to Lake Ohrid Relevance for a Transboundary MS: This indicator characterise a transboundary and a trans-lake flow. Method / sources of information: Discharge data from continuous (or at least daily) water level measurements Institutions supposed to be involved: WMEWE, HMA Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Few data, impossible to monitor continuously the sub aquatic karstic outflow arriving to Ohrid. Experimental data from scientific surveys (geochemistry to increase knowledge)

WH7: Groundwater_level Nature: P Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: groundwater level trend in major catchment alluvial plains Sub-indicators: groundwater level trend in each selected downstream alluvial plains Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Mainly to have a trend on impact of irrigated agriculture on groundwater level and flow to lake Method / sources of information: Piezometric level in a selection of wells Institutions supposed to be involved: HMA, IGME, SPP Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Page 50/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

WM1: Precip_Catchment Nature: I Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: To estimate the precipitations on the higher altitudes of the catchments and detect trends. Sub-indicators: Precipitations and snow water equivalent on various rain/snow gauge Relevance for a Transboundary MS: A key issue for water resources in the catchments, should decrease with climate change Method / sources of information: Precipitations/snow measurements at a selection of sites between 1300 and 2000 m asl Institutions supposed to be involved: SPP, PPC, HMA, WMEWE Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: At the moment no monitoring of rain/snow is made at altitude higher then 1200 m asl.

WM2: Precip_lake Nature: I Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: To estimate the direct precipitation depth on the lakes. Sub-indicators: Precipitations on rain gauge around the lakes Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Evident Method / sources of information: Spatial average of Precipitations measurements Institutions supposed to be involved: SPP, PPC, HMA, WMEWE Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

WM3: air_temperature_Lake Nature: I Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: To monitor an important climatic parameter useful for all hydro-ecological issues Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: A key issue for water resources and ecological processes, should increase with climate change Method / sources of information: Daily temperature records of several sites around the lake shores Institutions supposed to be involved: SPP, PPC, HMA, WMEWE Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Page 51/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

WM4: lake_evaporation Nature: I Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: Essential component of the lake system water balance Sub-indicators: Relevance for a Transboundary MS: A key issue for water resources and ecological processes, should increase with climate change Method / sources of information: Calculated by the Penman method, compared to pan evaporation (data of Koula). Institutions supposed to be involved: SPP, PPC, HMA, WMEWE Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

WQPC-C1: River_Macro_Prespa_physico_chemical Nature: P Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring:

Sub-indicators: concentrations/parameter values from sampling sites (Golema, Istocka, Brajcinska, and Aghios Germanos rivers) Relevance for a Transboundary MS:

Method / sources of information: Calculation of discrete fluxes from water sampling (at least monthly), extrapolation from discharge data and empirical relationships. Institutions supposed to be involved: WMEWE, SPP, HMA, IHP, CWS, FCS Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

WQPC-C2: River_Macro_Prespa_toxic_pollution Nature: P Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: Threat to river ecosystems, input to the lakes Sub-indicators: Concentrations (CU, Zn, selected pesticides) values from sampling sites (Golema, Istocka, Brajcinska, and Aghios Germanos rivers) Relevance for a Transboundary MS:

Method / sources of information: Calculation of discrete fluxes from water sampling (at least monthly), extrapolation from discharge data and empirical relationships. Institutions supposed to be involved: WMEWE, SPP, HMA, IHP, CWS, FCS Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Page 52/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

WQPC-C3: Groundwater_ physico_chemical Nature: P Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: Impact of human activities on groundwater quality, contributing to input to lakes Sub-indicators: Concentrations values from sampling sites in selected alluvial plains Relevance for a Transboundary MS:

Method / sources of information: Sampling of water in piezometers Institutions supposed to be involved: WMEWE, SPP, HMA, IHP, CWS, FCS Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

WQPC-C4: Groundwater_toxic_pollution Nature: P Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: Threat to river ecosystems, input to the lakes Sub-indicators: Concentrations (CU, Zn, selected pesticides) values from sampling sites in downstream alluvial plains Relevance for a Transboundary MS:

Method / sources of information: Sampling of water in piezometers Institutions supposed to be involved: WMEWE, SPP, HMA, IHP, CWS, FCS Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

WQPC-L1: Lake_ physico_chemical Nature: R Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: Basic parameters on lake physical and chemical quality trends Sub-indicators: One for each lake Relevance for a Transboundary MS:

Method / sources of information: Multi-parameter probe on the field, and/or laboratory based measurements Institutions supposed to be involved: WMEWE, SPP, HMA, IHP, CWS, FCS Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

WQPC-L2: Lake_ nutrients Nature: R Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: Conditioning primary production and eutrophication processes Sub-indicators: Nutrient (N, P) indicator for each lake Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Risk of dystrophic crisis in lake waters Method / sources of information: Laboratory measurements of different forms of N and P. Institutions supposed to be involved: WMEWE, SPP, HMA, IHP, CWS, FCS Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Page 53/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

WQPC-L3: Lake_ toxic_pollution Nature: R Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: Impact of human activities, toxicity for man and ecosystems Sub-indicators: For each lake Relevance for a Transboundary MS:

Method / sources of information: Concentrations from adequate spectrometric methods Institutions supposed to be involved: WMEWE, SPP, HMA, IHP, CWS, FCS Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

WQEB-L1: Lake_ Phytoplankton Nature: R Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: Monitoring composition, biomass, frequency of blooms, relative abundance (% )of blue- green algae Sub-indicators: Monthly monitoring of phytoplankton along a depth profile for both lakes Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Delineation of Eutrophication. Development of a Biological Index Method / sources of information: At least monthly sampling, along a depth profile, at the same site as for N and P sampling. Institutions supposed to be involved: IHM, SPP, HBA, LEAH Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

WQEB-L2: Lake_ Chlorophyll-A Nature: R Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: Monitoring concentrations of chlorophyll A (and pheopigments) as an indicator of plankton biomass. Annual maximum value reflects peak algal biomass. Annual average reflects the trophic status of the lake. Sub-indicators: Monthly monitoring of chlorophyll A along a depth profile Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Risk of excessive Eutrophication. Boundary setting for trophic levels Method / sources of information: At least monthly sampling, along a depth profile, at the same site as for N and P sampling. Institutions supposed to be involved: IHM, SPP, HBA, LEAH Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Page 54/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Lake_Macrophytes (identical to Aquatic WQEB-L3: Nature: R vegetation theme) Objective / Significance to Water resources monitoring: Monitoring composition, encroachment area, biomass. Sub-indicators: Monitoring of macrophytes along the littoral for both lakes Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Evaluation of littoral Pollution and Eutrophication. Development of an Index Method / sources of information: Sampling, along the littoral during peak season (maximum of standing crop). Institutions supposed to be involved: IHM, SPP, HBA, LEAH Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

WQEB-L4: Fish endemic to Prespa lakes trend (Fish n° P1) Nature: S

Thus, a number of indicators were designed to describe the dynamics of each lake; instead of having two “twin” indicators in these cases (one for each Prespa Lake), a single indicator will be retained, itself being split into two sub-indicators corresponding to each lake. When talking about “the lake”, this is meant to cover both Micro and the Macro Prespa, since both have to be monitored in the same way. The coding of indicators splits them into 4 sub-categories (see also paragraph 6.2.1. and Table 6.3): - WH for hydrology/hydrometrics - WM for meteorology - WQPC for water quality in terms of physico-chemical parameters (WQPR-C for catchment, WQPR-L for lakes) - WQEB for water quality in terms of ecological and biotic parameters (WQEB-C for catchment, WQEB-L for lakes)

6.3. Methods 6.3.1. Description and justification

Page 55/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

The level of description of methods is to remain low enough as the authors are not expected to append annexes of encyclopaedic sizes, nor to provide detailed handbooks or manuals, copyrights are to be respected, that is why reference are given to literature and relevant published ISO standards (Annex 6.2).

6.3.1.1. Hydrometeorology and water quality elements in the catchment NB: coordinates of given points are approximations which were acquired using Google Earth mark coordinate tool (WGS 84 reference system).

Methods For water level recorder in rivers and lakes, we think that a floater system with shaft encoder (data storage for several months, avoids problems of paper, less fragile than pressure sensors) should be used (see example with OTT Hydrometry, or SEBA Hydrometry trade marks).

Discharge measurements should be made using state of the art methods (Boiten, 2000; Herschy, 2008; ISO, 2007; see all ISO standard references in Annex 6.2) according to flow conditions, either using velocity-area method (velocity measurements with propeller based or electromagnetic current meter), or dilution gauging method.

For water quality methods see below (Lake water quality).

The Koula flow through open sluices should be calculated using adequate hydraulic formula considering geometry and management of the sluices (Parisopoulos et al., 2009). More detailed information on the equations that are used (Parisopoulos, com. pers) are found in Annexes 6.5A and 6.5.B.

We do not think that a permanent gauging station should be placed on the Koula stream discharging into the lake. Instead, regular gauging should be made during the pilot phase in closed gates situation, in order to estimate the seepage and spring collected flow, which are estimated to be of ca. 100-150 l/s at the date of our field visit (3rd April 2009).

Using the mean hydraulic gradient (i.e. difference between the 2 lakes water levels /distance between them), together with an estimate of the isthmus sand hydraulic conductivity (K), an application of a simple Darcy law (V=K.i) should be used to calculate

Page 56/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park roughly the seepage flow between the two lakes, at a monthly time step. For K estimates, borehole tests (Sarsby, 2000) should be difficult to operate with the coarse sand of the isthmus without installing before stand pipes. Another more simple even if considered less relevant method should be to make infiltration tests using single or double ring infiltrometer, to derive infiltration capacity on saturated conditions of the surface sand layer , extrapolated as being K with the hypothesis of isotropic conditions within the isthmus. For infiltration tests see: http://www.fao.org/docrep/S8684E/s8684e0a.htm http://soils.usda.gov/SQI/assessment/files/chpt3.pdf

Gauging and water quality stations on rivers

These stations are to be chosen in the most downstream position in order to approximate the discharge entering the lake from the relevant sub-catchment and the final water quality resulting from natural processes and human activities. For all of them a rating curve will have to be established. Discharge measurements are to be made by relevant institutes already equipped and implied in such kind of monitoring in each 3 countries.

Piezometric water levels have to be measured with an electric tape water level gauge. Water sampling made after emptying the piezometer tube with an electric of manual pump, and waiting for water level recovery.

For meteorological issues, the most important thing is to decide if high altitude stations for precipitation should be installed in the catchment, and if yes in what site (One in Baba/ Pelister mountain and another one in Galicica mountain will be preferable), with the technical issue to know if it will be or without electricity supply. Adequate precipitation gauge with low energy consumption and adapted for severe conditions are available with VAISALA TM (Vaisala All Weather Precipitation Gauge VRG101, with heater and wind shield).

For gauging of rivers A team of technicians coming from Skopje would take 2-(3 with flood conditions) full days (including travel) for the selected discharge measurements.

Page 57/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

In period of low flows, 2 operators may be sufficient to gauge the rivers, whereas during floods at least 3 or 4 technicians will be required. (Not applicable in Albania) - Low flows (2 operators possible) - floods (at least 3 or 4 technicians) for secured field measurements

Springs - 2 persons enough for gauging springs outlet in Lake Ohrid. A daily reading of staff gauge by local observer (St Naum, Drilon, Tushemisht)

Aghios Germanos river downstream and Koula stream (sluices closed) (can be gauged in one day including trip from Thessaloniki or Florina/Kozani).

Brajcinska, upstream (only control discharge measurements); curve calibration necessary for downstream station (or if no continuous water level recorder, double gauging must be done, in order to correlate discharge between 2 stations).

Golema Resen gauging station is interesting to characterise hydrological functioning of upper natural catchment, but certainly not representing water inflow to the lake, that is why we propose Golema and if possible Istocka downstream gauging stations, even if they are not easily accessible on high discharge conditions).

Kranska downstream (optional, priority given first to Golema and Istocka downstream station)

Greece: - Aghios Germanos river downstream and Koula stream (sluices closed); can be possibly gauged in one day including trip from Thessaloniki or Florina.

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: - Brajcinska, upstream (only control discharge measurements); curve calibration necessary for downstream station (or if no continuous water level recorder, double gauging must be done, in order to correlate discharge between the 2 stations). - Kranska downstream - Golema Resen (hydrological functioning) of natural catchment

Page 58/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

- Golema downstream - Istocka downstream (Note: the accessibility of these latter 2 stations in case of strong floods should be verified first)

A bridge from which to make the gauging using sinker should be identified first for each river (preferably use dilution method for gauging). A team of technicians coming from Skopje would take 2 full days (including travel) for the selected discharge measurements.

The other gauging stations proposed in HMA (2008) are important per se, but not absolutely vital for the TMS.

Piezometric water level will be measured with an electric tape water level. Water sampling made after emptying the piezometer tube with an electric or manual vacuum pump, and waiting for water level recovery.

6.3.1.2. Lake water quality and biological elements Sampling Procedures There are three commonly-used sampling strategies: random, stratified random, and sequential (Table 6.4). In the case of sequential sampling, which in limnological sampling it is often the easiest, a starting point is chosen randomly, and samples are then taken at set intervals (distance, depth, or time) from that point. Sequential sampling may or may not produce more accurate estimates than do random sampling. However, samples drawn in sequence may be autocorrelated; the next sample in the series may be predicted to some extent by the preceding sample. Autocorrelation poses a problem because samples are not be drawn independently and randomly from a pool of possible variable, and therefore, the statistical number of samples being taken is less than the actual number of samples. Autocorrelation may affect random and stratified sampling procedures as well.

Page 59/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 6.4. Possible sampling strategies for lakes and reservoirs. (the "Typical Sampling" scheme is not necessarily recommended)

"Typical" Random Stratified Sequential Limnological Sampling Strategy

Randomly chosen Sample every lake Choose lake based Chosen Randomly from within a along a transect, on convenience, Lake from geographic geographic region using a randomly access, proximity, or area (ecoregion) or some chosen transect interest other classification starting point

Sample down pre- chosen, equidistant Randomly selected Sample at the dam Randomly chosen sites along transect Site from within regions or over the deepest from lake grid of lake, starting with of lake part of the lake a randomly chosen point

Randomly chosen Sample at preset Sample at the within depth regions intervals, starting surface or at preset Depth Randomly chosen (epilimnion, with a randomly intervals surface to hypolimnion, photic chosen depth bottom zone, etc.

Randomly chosen Sample every two within season, weeks, starting with Sample the same Date Randomly chosen month, or a randomly chosen day every week limnological period date

Randomly chosen Sample every two within period such hours starting with a Sample when you Time Randomly Chosen as daylight or some randomly chosen get there. other division of day. time

Limnologists use one of several methods when sampling with depth: they may sample only at the surface or they may take a series of samples at pre-set intervals from the surface to the bottom of the lake (0 m, 1 m, 2 m, etc.). A “surface” sample can be taken just below the surface (0.5 meters or 1 foot) to avoid surface scums. Another approach is

Page 60/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park to take a single integrated sample with a tube or hose sampler from the surface to some pre-determined depth (euphotic depth or thermocline). All of these techniques have advantages and drawbacks. Sampling at intervals through the entire water column is the standard alternative to the single surface sample. If sampled at sufficiently close intervals, the technique detects gradients within the water column. The technique is also used when constructing a nutrient budget to estimate the total content of a nutrient, such as phosphorus, in the water column. Further details and references can be found at: http://dipin.kent.edu/Sampling_Procedures.htm. Depth samples have to be volume-weighted because each sample contributes differently (Figure 6.2.). This is especially important when estimating concentrations in the water column.

Figure 6.2. Calculating the volume of a layer of water in a lake The volume of a lake or reservoir can be estimated from the morphometric map by measuring the area of each depth interval with a planimeter or image analysis software. The volume of each interval can then be calculated for horizontal slice between depths n and m using the formula given in Hutchinson (1957) and Lind (1979).

V(m-n) = 1/3(Am + An + sqrt(AmAn)(n-m)

where A is the area at depth m or n. The total volume of the reservoir is then equal to the sum of the volumes of each vertical segment. It is a good idea to estimate the volume at very close intervals in the range of the normal fluctuation of the water height to allow the calculation of the volume at any given reservoir

elevation. The accuracy of such volume estimates is dependent on the accuracy of the morphometric map

From: http://dipin.kent.edu/Sampling_Procedures.htm

Transparency (Secchi Disk-depth) Transparency is an indicator of the impact of human activity on the land surrounding the lake. If transparency is measured through the season and from year to year, trends in

Page 61/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park transparency may be observed. Transparency can serve as an early-warning that activities are having an effect on a lake. A Secchi disk is a 20 cm disk which is either white (European standard) or has alternating black and white quadrants (US standard). It is lowered into the water of a lake until it can be no longer seen by the observer. The average depth of disappearance and reapparence, called the Secchi depth, is a measure of the transparency of the water. Transparency can be affected by the colour of the water, algae, and suspended sediments. Transparency decreases as colour, suspended sediments, or algal abundance increases.

It is proposed to use the following Secchi disk method, modified from Davies-Colley and others (1993): 1. Use a disk of 20 cm diameter painted matte white or in black and white quadrants. Use a graduated line, and attach a weight to hold the line vertical. 2. Lower the disk on the sunny side of the boat. An underwater viewer (viewscope) might be desirable. 3. Allow sufficient time (preferably 2 min) when looking at the disk near its extinction point for the eyes to adapt completely to the prevailing luminance level. 4. Record the depth at which the disk disappears. Slowly raise the disk and record it depth of reappearance. The Secchi depth is the average of the depth of disappearance and reappearance. 5. The readings should be made as near to mid-day as possible. 6. The water depth should be at least 50% greater than the Secchi depth so that the disk is viewed against the water background, not the light reflected from the bottom.

Estimating Trophic State from Secchi depth The Secchi disk is a cornerstone of lake monitoring programs : it is inexpensive and provides useful data. However, it does have a number of technical problems which can be minimized by standardizing the equipment (as above) and carefully training. Problems of interpretation generally arise when Secchi disk measurement are subject to interferences from non-algal or non-chlorophyll materials in the water. Although empirical relationships can be established in some lakes and regions relating Secchi depth to algal chlorophyll, these relationships can change seasonally and between lakes. Therefore, these

Page 62/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park relationships will have to be specifically established for Prespa, then used with caution and often re-calibrated.

To use the Secchi depths as surrogate measure of algal chlorophyll or algal biomass, and subsequently, as an indicator of the trophic state of a lake, a number of other potential interferences become very important. The definition of trophic state may vary, but plant chlorophyll pigments are often assumed to be a major indicator of trophic state. In theory, algal chlorophyll should be able to be estimated from Secchi depth because it is a substance that attenuates light in the water column. But in practise, the relationship between the Secchi disk transparency and trophic state variables such as chlorophyll are highly variable for a number of reasons. These varying factors may be related to the method of measurement of Secchi depth or chlorophyll, to variation in the amount of other attenuating substances such as non-algal turbidity or dissolved coloured substances such as humic acids, or to the nature of the algae themselves such as the size or species of the algae or the amount of chlorophyll packaged in the algal cells.

Packaged in algal cells chlorophyll absorbs and scatters light. Secchi depth, therefore, should be able to be used as a surrogate estimator of algal abundance by producing empirical relationships between Secchi depth and chlorophyll. Such an empirical relationship between Chl and 1/SD is derived by plotting and then regressing the logarithm of Chlorophyll against Secchi depth. Empirical chlorophyll-Secchi Disk relationships work best in situations where chlorophyll is the dominant attenuating substance.

Temperature and Oxygen Temperature and oxygen are common and important parameters to characterize lakes for which several methods are in use. Temperature is most commonly measured with a thermometer embedded into the water sampler or by thermistor chains. Oxygen will be quantified by either chemical, electro-chemical or optical methods. Both parameters can be most easily measured together with other variables using multi-probes. The drawback is that these instruments are expensive and need a lot of maintenance including careful calibration. Temperature is the basis of thermal classification and of a lake while oxygen concentration is a important indicator of eutrophication, especially the concentration in

Page 63/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park the hypolimnion. Further explanatory and methodological details as well as references can be extracted and evaluated from http://dipin.kent.edu/Temp_O2.htm#Oxygen.^

Phosphorus Phosphorus is the most widely studied nutrient in fresh waters. It is often found to be (and more often inferred as) the nutrient that limits the growth and biomass of algae in lakes and reservoirs. Whether this nutrient is as universally limiting as once believed is debatable, but certainly there is substantial evidence of its importance in many lakes. Phosphorus in natural waters is divided into three component parts: soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), soluble unreactive or soluble organic phosphorus (SUP) and particulate phosphorus (PP). The sum of SRP and SUP is called soluble phosphorus (SP), and the sum of all phosphorus components is termed total phosphorus (TP). Soluble and particulate phosphorus are differentiated by whether or not they pass through a 0.45 micron membrane filter.

Analysis and limits of detection of phosphorus: Although a number of analytical tests exist for the measurement of phosphorus, the ascorbic acid method described in Standard Methods (EN ISO 6878 2004, EN ISO 15681-1 2004, EN ISO 15681-2 2004, see also Clesceri et al. 1998) is probably the most commonly used test. In this test, the molybdate reagent reacts with orthophosphate producing phosphomolybdic acid, which forms the colored molybdenum blue upon reduction with ascorbic acid. While the compound appears blue, the peak absorbance at 885 nm is in the infrared region. Absorbance is linearly related to concentrations by Beers Law, and this test detects phosphate concentrations of 5 to 1300 µg/L with a cuvette path length of l cm. It is important to have an appropriately defined phosphorus detection limit. For example, a TP detection limit of 50 ug/L will not be adequate for a great deal of limnological efforts

Chlorophyll Analysis Chlorophyll is the green molecule in plant cells that carries out the bulk of energy fixation in the process of photosynthesis. Besides its importance in photosynthesis, chlorophyll is the most-often used estimator of algal biomass in lakes because  it is a measure of algal biomass that is relatively unaffected by non-algal substances,  it is a fairly accurate measure of algal weight and volume

Page 64/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

 it acts as an empirical link between nutrient concentration and a number of important biological phenomena in lakes and reservoirs  it is characteristic of all plant cells Chlorophyll, at least chlorophyll-a, is also relatively easy to measure. This facility of measurement contributes to its popularity, but the resulting values are far more ambiguous than most are willing to admit. The relative concentration of chlorophyll-a within the cell varies with the algal group and/or species, but chlorophyll-a is dominant in all the eukaryotic algae and the prokaryotic blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria).

Collection and Preservation of Chlorophyll Samples: To gather a sample either use a hose sampler for integrated sampling, some sort of water sampling bottle (sampling at discrete depths), or simply lower the sample container over the side of the boat (surface sample). Once the sample is taken, it is either immediately filtered and the filter preserved at 4°C in the dark until delivered to the laboratory for analysis. Alternatively deliver the whole water sample immediately to the laboratory or store the water samples at 4oC in the dark during transport and process them as soon as possible. For processing and analysing chlorophyll samples use standardized procedures. For Europe the standard is now the ISO 10260 (1992). Refer also to the description, procedures and recommendations given at http://dipin.kent.edu/chlorophyll.htm and the references therein. Chlorophyll-a can be used as a QE for the WFD to define the trophic status using the Carlson Index as described in Carlson (1977).

Phytoplankton The Water Framework Directive requires that water quality in lakes is classified by biological quality elements (phytoplankton, fish, zoobenthos, macrophytes and phytobenthos), with the support of physicochemical and hydromorphological quality elements. In this framework, phytoplankton is one of the key quality elements (QE) for the ecological status of lakes indicating especially the trophic level of the pelagic (open water) zone. According to the WFD the parameters of the biological qualitative element of phytoplankton are composition, abundance and biomass. In Annex V of the Directive, the

Page 65/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park taxonomic composition, the phytoplankton abundance and their biomass and the frequency, duration and intensity of phytoplankton blooms are defined as parameters for the QE phytoplankton. Several member states already have developed and implemented monitoring systems and metrics for the assessment and classification of lakes (e.g. Anneville and Kaiblinger 2008, Marchetto et al. 2009, Mischke and Nixdorf 2008, Padisák et al. 2006, Wolfram and Dokulil 2008). Evaluation of phytoplankton abundance and biomass is usually based on the „classical‟ Utermöhl technique (Utermöhl 1958) as defined now in the “Guidance standard on the enumeration of phytoplankton using inverted microscopy” (EN 15204 2006). Against this background, other WFD indices must at least be tested. In fact, it might be necessary to develop a specific index for „relict lakes‟ or at least to modify an already existing index which is based on the trophic preferences of each species (see the review in Marchetto at al. 2009). Several of these indices are a combination of different metrics. The modified Brettum Index (BI) has the advantage to be very flexible (Dokulil and Teubner 2006). It can be calibrated for almost any variable (N, P, pH, etc.) for which enough information exists. Moreover, no indicator species must be defined „a priori‟. Detailed information for the BI can be extracted from Wolfram and Dokulil (2008). An example for the adaptation of the BI to another region can be found in Anneville and Kaiblinger (2008). A similar index including chl-a is the PSI by Mischke and Nixdorf (2008) for which a calculation software was developed by Mischke and Böhmer (2008). Buzzi et al. (2007) described a similar index for Italian alpine lakes. The Phytoplankton Assemblage Index developed by Padisák et al. (2006) uses a different strategy based on functional groups. Finally, the health of an ecosystem might be evaluated using the EHI of Xu (2005).

6.3.2. Periodicity

6.3.2.1. Hydrometeorology In the first year for new gauging stations, one discharge measurement should be made per month. In the 2nd and 3rd year, 6 discharge measurements, i.e. 1 during low flows and the other to be distributed on flood events, e.g. 1-2 in April-May for snow melting and 3-4 from October to December for rain event floods (Table 6.5). Accordingly, the corresponding water sampling for analysis should be made.

Page 66/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 6.5. Periodicity of hydrometeorological monitoring Proposed N° METHOD YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 indicator Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous (at least (at least (at least (at least (at least Lake_water Data logger, daily daily daily daily WH1: daily _level staff gauge readings, readings, readings, readings, readings, hourly hourly hourly hourly hourly data) data) data) data) data) Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous water level water level water level water level water level Discharge inflow_catc from water on selected on selected on selected on selected on selected WH2: hment_Mac level, after gauging gauging gauging gauging gauging ro_Prespa calibration of stations, 12 sites, 6 sites, 6 sites, 4 sites, 4 rating curve discharge discharge discharge discharge discharge measureme measurem measurem measurem measurem nts ents ents ents ents Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous water level water level water level water level Discharge water level on both on both on both on both Koula_Micr from on both lakes, 6 lakes, 4 lakes, 2 lakes, 2 o_to_Macro hydraulic lakes, 6 WH3: discharge discharge discharge discharge _Prespa_flo formula, discharge measurem measurem measurem measurem w gauging for measureme ents of ents of ents of ents of stream nts of Koula Koula Koula Koula Koula stream stream stream stream stream Pumping duration or Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly pumping_fr energy Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume WH4: om_Micro_ consum. during during during during during Prespa from irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation pumping period period period period period station Catchment_ irrigated_ar 1 time per 1 time per 1 time per 1 time per 1 time per Remote ea (covered year during year during year during year during year during WH5: sensing and under Land irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation irrigation GIS Use indic. season season season season season N° LS4 ) Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous water level water level water level water level water level Discharge karstic_spri from water on selected on selected on selected on selected on selected WH6: ng_flow_to level, after gauging gauging gauging gauging gauging _Ohrid calibration of stations, 12 sites, 6 sites, 2 sites, 2 sites, 2 rating curve discharge discharge discharge discharge discharge measureme measurem measurem measurem measurem nts) ents) ents) ents) ents) Piezometric Groundwat level in 12 times per 12 times 12 times 12 times 12 times WH7: er_level selected year per year per year per year per year wells

Page 67/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Data Data Data Data Data Average of collected at collected at collected at collected at collected at Precip_Catc values for WM1: TB level TB level TB level TB level TB level hment selected each 2 each 2 each 2 each 2 each 2 stations months months months months months Data Data Data Data Data Average of collected at collected at collected at collected at collected at values for WM2: Precip_lake TB level TB level TB level TB level TB level selected each 2 each 2 each 2 each 2 each 2 stations months months months months months Data Data Data Data Data Average of collected at collected at collected at collected at collected at air_temper values for WM3: TB level TB level TB level TB level TB level ature _Lake selected each 2 each 2 each 2 each 2 each 2 stations months months months months months Average of Data Data Data Data Data Penman collected at collected at collected at collected at collected at lake_evapo WM4: values for TB level TB level TB level TB level TB level ration selected each 2 each 2 each 2 each 2 each 2 stations months months months months months Sampling Sampling Sampling Sampling Sampling at at same at same at same at same same River_Macr On field and frequency frequency frequency frequency frequency WQPC- o_Prespa_p lab. analysis and dates and dates and dates and dates and dates as C1: hysico_che of selected as 6 as 6 as 4 as 4 12 discharge mical param. discharge discharge discharge discharge measureme measurem measurem measurem measurem nts ents ents ents ents Sampling Sampling Sampling Sampling Sampling at at same at same at same at same same River_Macr frequency frequency frequency frequency frequency WQPC- o_Prespa_t and dates and dates and dates and dates Lab. analysis and dates as C2: oxic_polluti as 6 as 6 as 4 as 4 12 discharge on discharge discharge discharge discharge measureme measurem measurem measurem measurem nts ents ents ents ents Sampling Sampling Sampling Sampling Sampling at at same at same at same at same same Groundwat On field and frequency frequency frequency frequency frequency WQPC- er_ lab. analysis and dates and dates and dates and dates and dates as C3: physico_ch of selected as 6 as 6 as 4 as 4 12 discharge emical param. discharge discharge discharge discharge measureme measurem measurem measurem measurem nts ents ents ents ents Sampling Sampling Sampling Sampling Sampling at at same at same at same at same same Groundwat frequency frequency frequency frequency frequency WQPC- er_ and dates and dates and dates and dates Lab. analysis and dates as C4: toxic_polluti as 6 as 6 as 4 as 4 12 discharge on discharge discharge discharge discharge measureme measurem measurem measurem measurem nts ents ents ents ents

Page 68/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

6.3.2.2. Limnology The assessment of the biological and physico-chemical quality is based on annual averages. The minimum requirements, as stated in the WFD, are four assessment periods. A higher number of observations is possible for better interpretation and feasible to avoid the influence of outliers. The over-all assessment of the lake may be achieved by a three year running average. The standard minimum for the sampling frequency are the four limnological key periods at which sampling has to be done (Table 6.6): - Spring circulation - Begin of summer stagnation (stratification) - Maximum of stagnation (stratification) - End of stagnation (stratification), often at the end of fall, or autumn circulation which might occur in winter

Table 6.6. Periodicity of limnological monitoring Proposed N° METHOD YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 indicator

WQPC 12 times Physico- 6 time 6 times 4 times 4 times -L1 (15th of chemical See 6.3 (every 2nd (every 2nd (see (see WQPC each quality month) month) above) above) -L2 month) 1 time 1 time 1 time 1 time 1 time WQPC Toxicity ? -L3 End of End of End of End of End of August August August August August WQEB 12 times 6 time 6 times 4 times 4 times -L1, (15th of Eutrophication See 6.3 (every 2nd (every 2nd (see (see WQEB each month) month) above) above) -L2 month) 1 time 1 time 1 time 1 time 1 time WQEB Littoral WQ See 6.3 End of End of End of End of End of -L3 growing growing growing growing growing season season season season season

6.4. Equipment Field equipment - Suitable sized boat with engine and winch - Sampling bottle with inbuilt thermometer (2 L minimum)

Page 69/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

- White Secchi disk (20 cm Ø) on marked line with weight - Field instruments for pH, Conductivity, oxygen - Alternatively for oxygen: Winkler-bottles plus Winkler reagents and automatic pipettes - Optional: Multi probe with sensors for temperature, pH, Conductivity and oxygen a.o. - Sample bottles / cool boxes / ice etc. - Waterproof markers / Protocol book / Pencil

Laboratory analysis Chemical species: Standard chemical equipment according to the normatives and Clesceri et al. (1998) Chlorophyll-a: - Filtration tower (glass or stainless steel) - Glass-fibre filters (GF/C) - Measuring cylinders (100, 500 and 1000 ml) - 10 ml tubes and 10 ml measuring flasks - Deep freezer - Ethanol (a.g.) / Water baths - Spectrophotometer Phytoplankton: - Plankton net, mesh size 10 µm for the estimation of algal composition - Brown screw cap bottles, 100 ml for quantitative samples - Lugol solution prepared according to Utermöhl (1958) as fixative for phytoplankton - Neutralized Formaldehyde for phytoplankton preservation - Inverted microscope - Sedimentation chambers according to Utermöhl - Pipettes and small lab accessories

6.5. Monitoring stations Water level of the lakes These water levels are to be expressed in each of the 3 altitude reference systems. Whatever the national monitoring using staff gauge reading on a (sub) daily frequency, which anyway, in the case of Micro Prespa water level management with potential sluices opening is to maintain, for “real time management”, we think that a water level recorder should be (re)installed in both lakes, in a place where lake shores have hard structures or steep slope. In Micro Prespa, this level recorder should be installed in the site of Koula

Page 70/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

(40°48'38.40"N, 21° 4'14.65"E) were a supporting device already exists and could be adapted.

For Macro Prespa (Figure 6.3) such a recorder should be installed in sites to be chosen amongst: - Golem Grad island (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) (40°52'15.25"N, 20°59'15.65"E) - The nearby rocky coast (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) (station referred as “proposed hydrological station n°17”, in HMA, 2008; (approx: 40°54'14.84"N, 20°59'8.80"E) - The former measuring site in Psarades bay (40°49'52.99"N, 21° 1'42.82"E) in Greece, using existing supporting device with some further works to maintain connection with the lake for low levels. - The actual site for staff gauge in Liqenas/ Pustec, Albania (40°47'22.49"N, 20°54'31.75"E) or on the coast of the nearby small island Mali Grad NW of Liqenas/ Pustec (40°47'29.66"N, 20°55'53.26"E).

Figure 6.3. Proposed possible monitoring stations for water level on the lakes and river gauging stations (WH1).

Page 71/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Gauging and water quality stations on rivers - On the Aghios Germanos stream, this station should be placed on the drowned concrete weir constituted by the overflowed road (40°49'47.16"N, 21° 7'15.94"E), since further downstream the shores are too sandy and unstable. If this option is retained, some civil works ought to be done in order to have a hydraulic control station where a stage-discharge relationship (rating curve) could be derived. - Downstream gauging station on Brajcinska river (proposed hydrological station n°1.1 in HMA (2008); 40°53'50.61"N, 21° 6'47.18"E). With a rating curve to establish. - A gauging station on the Golema Reka river, as far downstream as possible would be useful (e.g. see Fig. 1 below : proposed hydrological station n°10.2 in HMA, 2008), for completing data already provided by the updated Resen gauging station (hydrological station n°10 in HMA (2008) - If possible also one in Istocka river in Carev Dvor or downstream (proposed hydrological station n°10.5 in HMA (2008). (See Figure 6.4 below).

Page 72/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

-

Figure 6.4. Location of proposed/ existing monitoring stations (WH2) (extracted from HMA (2008); legend translation S. Petkovski).

Lake stations

Page 73/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Given the complexity of the transboundary situation at Prespa lake, the best solution for a start might be that all three states maintain one or more monitoring stations within their respective lake area. At least one of these stations has to be located at the deepest point of the lake.

6.6. Organizations potentially responsible for monitoring

Albania: - IEWE : Institute of Energy, Water & Environment, Polytechnic University of Tirana (former Institute of Hydrometeorology of Albania) - MoEFWA/Agency of Water and Energy

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: - The Hydro meteorological Administration (HMA) - Hydrobiological Institute (HIO), Ohrid - Laboratory for Algae Taxonomy and Hydrobiology (LAH), Institute of Biology, Faculty for Natural Sciences, Skopje, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. - Institute for Health Protection (IHP)

Greece: - Central Water Service (CWS) from the Ministry of Environment - Public Power Corporation (PPC), Department of Hydrology - Florina Chemistry Service (FCS) in Florina - Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP) - IGME - EKBY - Hellenic Center For Marine Research (HCMR)

6.7. Budget for the pilot application phase

Following discussion with project coordinators, the participants of 2nd workshop (Bitola, May 2009) agreed that although a full list of indicators is proposed for water overall, this report shall only consider the estimation of costs for implementing the pilot phase , i.e. a reduced set of indicators (and within each indicator, of parameters) to be

Page 74/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park monitored/ tested during the pilot application phase (1st year of Prespa TBMS). During the 2nd workshop sessions, a reduced set of indicators was discussed and selected (see Table 6.7). Basically, most of the indicators are retained except those dealing with ground-water (more complex and costly).

Table 6.7. Proposed reduced set of water quality and hydrometric parameters for pilot phase application study N° Indicator WH1: Lake_water_level WH2: inflow_catchment_Macro_Prespa WH3: Koula_Micro_to_Macro_Prespa_flow WH4: pumping_from_Micro_Prespa WM1: Precip_Catchment WM2: Precip_lake WM3: air_temperature _Lake WM4: lake_evaporation WQPC-C1: River_Macro_Prespa_physico_chemical WQPC-C2: River_Macro_Prespa_toxic_pollution WQPC-L1: Lake_ physico_chemical WQPC-L2: Lake_ nutrients WQPC-L3: Lake_ toxic_pollution WQEB-L1: Lake_ Phytoplankton WQEB-L2: Lake_ Chlorophyll-A

Furthermore, during the Pilot application phase, not all the parameters proposed under each indicator should be monitored, or not all indicators tested in all 3 countries. Below is a description of which ones should be tested in the Pilot phase, for the indicators retained.

WQPC-L1: Lake_physico_chemical (every meter down to at least 20m) Secchi depth Secchi-disk (20 cm diameter) each meter Temperature Thermometer inside sampler each meter pH-value portable pH-Meter each meter

Page 75/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Conductivity portable conductivity meter each meter Oxygen concentration Winkler bottles + reagents (lab analysis) each meter

WQPC-L2: Lake_nutrients (at 0.5, 5, 10, 15, 20, (30) meter) Total phosphorus (TP), report as P Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), report as P Total nitrogen (TN), report as N

Nitrate (NO3-N)

Ammonia (NH4-N) Silica (Si)

WQEB-L1: Lake_Phytoplankton (composite sample from 0.5, 5, 10, 15, (20) meters) – Do not sample deoxygenated depths during summer!! Counting and sizing using Utermöhl technique During the pilot phase application (until proper training will be conducted for an Albanian team) the quantitative analysis will be made only by teams from The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece.

WQEB-L2: Lake_Chlorophyll-a (depth and remark as above) Extractive technique using ethanol (ISO-method)

Frequency for all the above indicators: Monthly from May – September, October – April every 2nd month (bi-monthly) Sampling station for all: minimum one (1) station in each of the three countries involved

WQPC-C1: River_Macro_Prespa_physico_chemical: Temperature pH-Value Conductivity Oxygen concentration Total phosphorus (TP) Total nitrogen (TN)

Nitrate (NO3-N) Suspended solids (SS)

Page 76/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

1 sampling and gauging (to implement WH2 and WH3) by month for 3 rivers: - Aghios Germanos (and Koula channel for gauging) in Greece - Brajcinska river (downstream) and Golema river (downstream), in The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Apart for high altitude precipitation stations and water level recorders for lakes, for which we propose to acquire equipment within the TBMS, other parameters will be derived from existing or already scheduled stations at the national levels. (This was decided particularly when thinking about river gauging stations, for which initial investment may reach high costs because of possible hydraulic design and needed civil works).

Within TBMS, the group decided to propose the acquisition of 2 pluviometers (totalisator, heated, with data logger) to be installed on high altitudes (1500-1800 m) in the eastern catchment (Baba/Pelister mountain) and in the Galicica mountain (western catchment), for which precise locations remain to be chosen. The new meteorological and hydrometric station (acquired on UNDP funds) on Golema river in Resen will be on operation in the coming weeks.

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, through its Hydrobiological Institute of Ohrid, (financed at the National level during pilot application phase) proposed to establish a permanent field station on the shores of Lake Prespa using an existing house, where equipment could be stored and 2 to 3 persons located when necessary, this in order to reduce logistic costs.

A proposal was made by the Albanian Institute for Energy, Water and Environment (IEWE) expert to take advantage of water sampling during the pilot application phase to conduct an Oxygen 18 isotope tracer study (update of the experiment made in 2004), in order to validate (or not) the hypothesis on the origin of underground water flow arriving to lake Ohrid from its eastern catchment (proportion coming from catchment runoff/infiltration and from Prespa lake waters) (the estimate analysis cost for this monitoring during one year is 5 k€).

Page 77/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

As hydrometric measurements on streams require specific and rather costly equipment, together with operator experience, especially for flood conditions, we consider that this monitoring should be implemented by organizations already involved in such activities, the operator has still to be designed for the Greek part; for cost estimation, we made the assumption that team for hydrometric measurement will come from Thessaloniki. Standard unit costs for water parameters As a first step, indicative rates for each measurement of individual parameters are given in Table 6.8, for Austria (Prices are based on single samples, include sampling, transport and storage; reduction of up to 20% possible depending on the number and frequency of samples per year). Estimated costs (in euros) for the pilot application of the reduced set of parameters per sample analysis are given in Table 6.9.

Table 6.8. Indicative rates for each measurement of individual parameters Method Parameter Unit EURO (Normative) used DIN 38404 Part 4 Water Temperature °C 5.60 (modified) DIN 38404 Part 5 pH-Value -log [H*] 12.50 (modified) EN 25814 (ISO 5814) Oxygen Concentration mg L" 15.20 (modified) DIN 38408 Part 23 Oxygen saturation % - (modified) DIN EN 27888 (ISO Conductivity (25°C) µS cm-1 7.40 7888) (modified) Secchi depth m EN ISO 7027 (modified) 5.60 DIN EN ISO 6878 Abs. 4 Soluble reactive Phosphorus (as P) µgL-1 14.10 (modified) DIN EN ISO 6878 Total soluble Phosphorus (as P) µgL" 39.10 (modified) DIN EN ISO 6878 Abs. 7 Total Phosphorus (as P) µgL-1 39.10 (modified) DIN EN 26777 Nitrite (as N) µgL-1 12.20 (modified) As EN ISO 10304-1 und Nitrate (as N) µgL-1 12.20 -2 (modified) DIN 38 406 Part 5 Ammonia (as N) µgL-1 15.20 (modified) Total Nitrogen (as N) µgL-1 - 50.10 DIN 38 409 Part 2 Total suspended solids mgL-1 16.50 (modified) Chl-a extractive, µgL-1 44.7 spectrophotometrical Phytoplankton composition 1 h 67.3 Phytoplankton quantitative 1.5 h 101.0 (Utermöhl)

Page 78/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 6.9. Estimated costs (in €) for the pilot application of the reduced set of parameters per sample analysis lake river physico chemical and biology Secchi 5.6 temp 5.6 5.6 pH 12.5 12.5 conductivity 7.4 7.4 Oxygen 15.2 15.2 TP 39.1 39.1 SRP 39.1 TN 50.1 50.1 NO3-N 12.2 12.2 NH4-N 15.2 15.2 Si 12.2 TSS 16.5 16.5 Chl A 44.7 Phytoplankton analysis 167.4 Total 442.8 € 173.8 €

Toxic pollution To implement during the pilot phase: WQPC-C2: River_Macro_Prespa_toxic_pollution WQPC-L3: Lake_ toxic_pollution

Each country has at least a laboratory with adequate chromatographic equipment to detect and measure organic pollutants. Only a subset of used molecules (for bean and apple cultivation) will be monitored during the pilot phase, to be selected from the lists provided in Annexes 6.3 and 6.4, depending on the budget available. Based upon the costs provided by a French private laboratory, toxic analysis will cost ca. 800 euros/sample, including screening of all main organo-chloride pesticides (Presence/ Absence) and measurement of concentrations for only 5 pesticides and 2 heavy metals (Cu, Zn) per sample. If costs prove lower in some of the countries, rather than decreasing

Page 79/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park the Unit cost per sample in the overall budget, it is suggested instead to increase the number of measured molecules. It should be highlighted that in order to implement the hydrometric and meteorological indicators below, logistic costs were considered as already included in gauging and river sampling costs, so the specific costs in the tables below (Tables 6.10 and 6.11) only include data handling and database updating, on the basis of 1 day technician + 1 day engineer per month, for each institute involved1.

WH1: Lake_water_level WH2: inflow_catchment_Macro_Prespa WH3: Koula_Micro_to_Macro_Prespa_flow WH4: pumping_from_Micro_Prespa WM1: Precip_Catchment WM2: Precip_lake WM3: air_temperature _Lake WM4: lake_evaporation

Table 6.10. Summary of budget for the 1st year pilot phase study Former Yugoslav Greece Republic of Albania Macedonia High altitude pluviometers Investment (heated pluviometer+logger) (2) 16,000 Installation of altitude pluviometers (2) 1,260 Water level recorders Investment water level recorder 2,700 2,700 2,700 Installation of water level recorder 1,285 630 576 Hydrometeo data updating 5,340 1,320 1,320 Lake water quality field monitoring 13,815 6,210 5,634 Lake water physico chemical and biol 7,974 3,987 3,987 Lake toxic pollution analysis 14,400 7,200 7,200 River flow and sampling 19,500 12,120 6,912 River physico-chemical analysis 2,088 4,176 0

1 Spreadsheets used for detailed calculation of costs available upon request

Page 80/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

River toxic pollution 9,600 19,200 0 Isotope analysis for groundwater flow 5,000 Total 1st year pilot phase 76,702 € 74,803 € 33,329 €

The costs above translate into the following budget for the first 5 years of the TMS for the water resources, only for the Indicators that will be monitored during the Pilot phase (replicating them every year). The cost for monitoring all the other indicators has not been estimated, and should be added on top of the budget shown in Table 6.11.

Table 6.11. Summary of budget for 5 years of the TMS theme “Water resources” (only Indicator of the pilot phase budgeted in the present table)

Former Yugoslav Greece Republic of Albania Total Macedonia

A- Total investment 3,985 20,590 3,276 27,851 costs

B- Running costs 72,717 54,213 30,053 156,983 per year

Total 1st year - 76,702 74,803 33,329 184,834 Pilot phase

Total 1st 5 years of 367,570 € 291,655 € 153,541 € 812,766 € TMS (A + 5xB)

Page 81/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

7. Biodiversity Monitoring: Habitats and Species – Introduction

7.1. The context The Prespa lakes and surroundings are a key biodiversity area in the Balkans. This wealth was summarized within the Prespa Strategic Action Plan (SPP et al., 2002), and further updated during the 1st Stage of preparation of the Prespa TMS (Petkovski et al. 2008). The area hosts e.g. 8 endemic fish species, the largest colony of Dalmatian Pelicans in the world, at least 27 species of local1 endemic aquatic invertebrates (plus 23 others, endemic of the Balkans), at least 18 species of local2 endemic terrestrial invertebrates (plus 14 others, endemic of the Balkans), many Balkan endemic plants etc. Biodiversity will therefore be a key component of the Prespa TMS.

Focal topics for monitoring Biodiversity include the status and trends of biological diversity, threats, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem goods and services. Proposed indicators should ideally, and eventually in the long-term, be related to trends in the abundance and distribution of selected species, especially threatened and/or protected species, livestock genetic diversity, trends in invasive alien species, ecosystem coverage, connectivity and fragmentation of ecosystems, impacts of climate change on biodiversity.

7.2. The legal framework The key overarching framework for all work to be carried out on Biodiversity in Prespa is made up by the twin Directives EU 79/409 (“Birds”) and 92/43 (“Habitats”3), completed by the EU Communication “Halting the loss of Biodiversity by 2010”. National legislations in the three countries provide additional, vital guidance in all three countries, as do a number of other conventions or initiatives (see below). Even though only Greece is so far an EU member, the other two countries are candidates and have already initiated an approximation towards EU legislation - a prerequisite for EU accession. Moreover, Albania has already joined the European Environment Agency4 (EEA), and as such is committed to regularly report on a number of issues, including

1 of the 2 lakes and rivers of the watershed 2 of the watershed 3 which in reality covers not only habitats, but also all plant and animal species except birds, which have their own, specific directive (79/409) 4 Although set up under the aegis of the EU, the EEA is open to non-EU members; e.g. Turkey and Switzerland are currently members

Page 82/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Biodiversity. Similarly, the Macedonian Information Centre in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is already officially reporting to the EU (EEA) as per the required monitoring standards, and the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning permanently highlights the need to focus on biodiversity elements of particular EU relevance, i.e. species and habitats included in the Annexes of the Birds and Habitats Directives.

Article 11 of the Habitats Directive states that “Member States shall undertake surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species referred to in Article 2 with particular regard to priority natural habitat types and priority species”. A proper interpretation of the Habitats Directive implies an obligation to monitor habitats and species in designated SACs5, such as Prespa in Greece: once they have established their SACs, member states have to manage them for conservation, which implicitly includes management-oriented monitoring. Reporting to the Commission is not identical to monitoring: thus, even for reporting at national level the member states may have to implement some site-specific monitoring.

The Birds Directive is less specific on monitoring, and simply provides that “1. Member States shall encourage research and any work required as a basis for the protection, management and use of the population of all species of bird referred to in Article 1. 2. Particular attention shall be paid to research and work on the subjects listed in Annex V. …”, with Annex V suggesting as some of the key subjects “(a) National lists of species in danger of extinction or particularly endangered species, taking into account their geographical distribution. (b) Listing and ecological description of areas particularly important to migratory species on their migratory routes and as wintering and nesting grounds. (c) Listing of data on the population levels of migratory species as shown by ringing.” Monitoring key bird species in Prespa is therefore implicit under § (b) of Annex 5.

In addition to EU directives, especially for the 2 non-EU candidate countries, the Bern Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats6 is highly relevant, through the Emerald Network set up by the Council of Europe as part of its work under this Convention. This ecological network was launched in 1998, to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats in Europe. It is to be set up in

5 Special Areas of Conservation – designated under the Habitats Directive 6 came into force on June 1, 1982

Page 83/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park each Contracting Party or observer state to the Convention. For the EU members, the Emerald Network is identical to Natura 2000 (there is no difference in typology but only in codification). For the candidate countries to EU accession, they are bound to implement and communicate the Natura 2000 results to the European Union by the day of the EU accession. For these countries, the Emerald Network project represents a preparation for, and a direct contribution to, implementation of the Natura 2000 programme.

Besides EU-related obligations (and its Emerald network counterpart in non-EU countries), four main other conventions related to Biodiversity are in theory relevant to the Prespa TMS too. However in practice, monitoring/ reporting is promoted at national level only, without going into site-scale (like Prespa), and so the development of the Prespa TMS could not benefit much, in practice, from their recommendations. They are:

The Ramsar Convention is the key convention relevant to Prespa. All 3 countries are parties7. The key obligation is to maintain the ecological character of the designated wetlands, and implicitly to monitor this ecological character. Wetland monitoring, incl. of biodiversity components, has attracted considerable attention in the Ramsar framework.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (see http://www.cbd.int/) implies Contracting Parties have to report on a national – not site – basis on the condition of their biodiversity.

The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS, also called Bonn Convention) (http://www.cms.int/documents/convtxt/cms_convtxt.htm) does not specifically mention monitoring the species it covers, but only monitoring the effectiveness of the specific Agreements set up under the Convention. Monitoring of specific species may therefore be required under the CMS, but at a population/ species level and not at site level.

The CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is an international agreement between governments. Its

7 So far, Greece has designated Micro Prespa as a Ramsar site, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has designated its share of Macro Prespa, while in Albania designation of the whole Prespa watershed is under way for several years now but has not been completed yet.

Page 84/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

aim is to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.

7.3. Dividing the Biodiversity work Because of its importance in Prespa and of the traditional dividing lines between fields of expertise, biodiversity monitoring has been split up into 4 specific chapters (Chapters 8 to 11 below), each developed by 4 different lead experts : - Aquatic Vegetation and habitats - Forests, forestry and other Terrestrial habitats - Fish and Fisheries - Birds and other biodiversity (species).

Among them, the “Fish and Fisheries” and “Forests, forestry, terrestrial habitats” also had an explicit mandate to cover the related socio-economic aspects, i.e. the use of these natural resources, thus interacting potentially with the socio-economic theme. Contacts between the leaders of these groups therefore helped ensure that the results were not overlapping, but complementary.

Page 85/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

8. Aquatic Vegetation and Habitats

Dr. Patrick Grillas, Tour du Valat

8.1. Introduction

8.1.1. Analysis of existing monitoring programmes There is very little monitoring focused on aquatic habitats or aquatic plant (sensu lato) species. The most relevant programmes identified in Shumka et al. (2008) are the following (Table 8.1):  Inventory of wet meadows in the Albanian part of Micro-Prespa (2006 only) as part of the inventory of Albanian wetlands  Monitoring (2002-2011) of the structure and species composition of wet meadows on 4 (10) sites in the Greek part of the shore of Micro-Prespa  Monitoring of tall helophyte growth in spring (Typha angustifolia and Phragmites australis) on 9 littoral sites

In addition, an inventory and mapping of wetland plant associations in on-going in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The photo monitoring of habitats (SPP) and the survey of medicinal plants in Albania were not considered here as no information were provided on them.

Beside these three habitat programmes, other monitoring are relevant to wetlands as they provide information on the lakes (water chemistry, algae, fishes etc.) or on the pressures they receive (land use, agriculture, population, sewage treatment plants, etc.).

Page 86/381

Table 8.1. Existing monitoring programmes for wetland habitats and plant species (extracted from Shumka et al. 2008)

web (e.g. (e.g. scale N° ofN° pages, THEME of data Ref. Ref. N° articles) Remarks regularly Periodof published measured monitored Periodicity monitoring monitoring Availability Geographic parameters in chargein of Organisation Main sourcesMain Reports, Parameter(s)

ALBANIA

ECAT Inventory of Marjeta (Wet meadows in Micro Micro Year 2005 Annual Published and Albanian wet Mima/ECAT Prespa) Prespa EKBY meadows Tirana Natural Habitats GREECE Not Society for Monthly (5-7 available the 11 Photo-monitoring 1991-present 1 times/year) until Protection of published Prespa (SPP) Wet meadows - functional group cover: high emergent Not helophytes (density, height Annually (in Micro available 12 and basal diameter), wet 2002-present >4 SPP summer) Prespa until

Natural Habitats meadow species, published hydrophytes, prairie species, litter, bare soil

9 High Emergent Helophyte managed 2004-present Not growth in spring (Typha Twice/month littoral (will continue available 15 angustifolia and Phragmites in spring 5 sites SPP another 3-4 until australis density and (April-June) (Lake years) published height, water depth) Micro Fauna/Flora Prespa)

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Priorities for monitoring wetland habitats and plant species The priorities for monitoring habitats and species (Table 8.2) have been identified during the preliminary phase of the project.

Table 8.2. Priorities identified for monitoring wetland habitats and species (from Petkovski et al. 2008) HABITAT Cover in Prespa catchments (%) Former HD Rationale Yugoslav Name Albania Greece Code Republic of Macedonia

3170 * Mediterranean temporary ponds DH-P 0.1 0.1

* Alluvial forests (Alnion-glutinoso- 91 E0 DH-P <1 0 incanae)

+ Natural eutrophic lakes with 3150 Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition type DH 1 0.6 1.8 vegetation

+ Mediterranean tall humid grasslands 6420 DH <1 0.5 of the Molinio-Holoschoenion

+ Hydrophilous tall herb fringe 6430 communities of plains and of the DH <1 0.2 0.1 montane to alpine levels

3190 - Open water - pelagic zone of lakes IMP 17 16.8 21.6

72A0 - Reed beds IMP 2 17 3.1

72B0 - Large sedge communities IMP <1 0 SPECIES

DH-Annex II, Bern Aldrovanda vesiculosa rare ? Convention- Annex I Habitat (HD) Code: code of the habitats in the EU Habitat Directive (92/43) or, if absent, in CORINE- Biotope; Rationale: DH-P = listed as priority species in the Habitat Directive, DH= listed in the Habitat Directive, IMP= habitat considered as important but not listed in the HD, DH-Annex II= listed in annex II of the Habitat Directive; Cover in Prespa catchments (%): in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania it was produced using experts’ knowledge so the % values are approximate; in Greece, the % area of Prespa basin under each habitat was calculated by SPP from GIS data of the Ministry of the Environment on Natura 2000 habitats. The rationale identifies Priority Habitats (DH-P) and non-priority Habitats (DH) in 92/43/EEC Directive, and other habitats important for the wildlife they harbour and their functional role in the landscape (IMP).

Page 88/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Only one wetland species, Aldrovandra vesiculosa, has been listed as a conservation issue as “Rare” under the IUCN criteria (Table 8.2). However, this species is not considered as globally threatened in the IUCN Red List (http://www.iucnredlist.org/, November 2008). It is nevertheless listed as priority species in the Habitat Directive (Annex II, of EC interest and requires the designation of special areas of protection), and as strictly protected in the Bern Convention (Annex 1). This species is in decline in most of its European range and is clearly the most important plant conservation issue in Prespa wetlands. Most of the other species are widespread and the importance of wetlands can be found mostly in their use by fauna and to a lower extent in the habitats.

Eight wetlands habitats were considered for monitoring including two Priority Habitats (Mediterranean temporary pools and Alluvial forests of the Alnion-glutinoso-incanae). There were also three Non-Priority habitats (Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition type vegetation, Mediterranean tall humid grasslands of the Molinio- Holoschoenion, and Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the mountain to alpine levels) listed in the 92/43/EEC Habitat Directive. In addition, three habitats are considered for their great value in the conservation of wildlife (habitat of fauna of major interest) in the Prespa lakes.

Some habitats needed further clarification related to the identification and location of some habitats.  The presence of Mediterranean temporary ponds in Prespa catchments was questioned at this altitude in the preliminary phase of the project (see Petkovski et al. 2008). A control was performed during a field visit in March 2009 on two of these pools although a complete vegetation assessment could not be made at this early date. The ponds, located among the wet meadows of Micro Prespa should not be considered as Mediterranean temporary ponds. As their vegetation was eutrophic, not vernal and exhibited similarities with that of the reedbed and of the wet meadows vegetation. Therefore this habitat was not retained per se in the monitoring scheme but was lumped with a wet meadow type of vegetation that was considered for monitoring.

Page 89/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

 The correct identification and location of some of the habitats in the temporarily flooded area of the lake is questionable (HD codes 6420 and 6430). Three types of herbaceous vegetation (habitats in the sense of the HD) have been identified around the lakes: “large sedge communities” (HD code 72B0), “Mediterranean tall humid grasslands of the Molinio-Holoschoenion” (HD code 6420) and “Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and the montane to alpine level” (HD code 6430).  On the map of the HD habitats for the Greek part, there is some confusion on the habitat “Open water” (3190). The code corresponds to another type of habitats in the Habitat Directive (HD: “Lakes of gypsum karst”).

8.1.2. Connection to EU and national legislation Among the eight (8) habitats pre-selected for possible monitoring (Table 8.2), 5 are listed in the Habitat Directive of the EU, and therefore in Greece, of which 2 as Priority Habitats and 3 as Non-Priority habitats. However the priority habitat “Mediterranean temporary ponds” has been mistakenly listed and is not present in the project area. National legislations in Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia do not afford protection to the habitats per se and to the aquatic plants found in Prespa area. The species Aldrovanda vesiculosa is strictly protected in the three countries by the Bern Convention (Annex I: strictly protected flora species) and in Greece by the Habitat Directive (Annex II).

8.1.3. Baseline information Data on aquatic (hydrophilous) vegetation and wetland habitats found in the Prespa Park exist only for the Albanian and Greek part of the catchment basin. There are no data available for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia part of the area but an inventory is on-going. According to Pavlides (1997) and Mersinllari (2000), the aquatic vegetation at the Albanian and the Greek parts of the lakes can be classified into three main types of communities): Free-floating hydrophytes (Lemnetea), b) Rooted submerged hydrophytes (Potametea) and c) Helophytic vegetation. A national inventory of wetlands in Albania covers Prespa area. However, no vegetation map is available for Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. A habitat map exists

Page 90/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park for the Greek part of Prespa covered by the PSIC (code) but this map includes many mistakes for wetlands and cannot be used as a management/monitoring tool. In the catchment, the presence of Mediterranean Temporary ponds is questioned and requires further investigation.

8.1.4. Rationale for monitoring The habitats and the species that were selected for monitoring during the first phase of the project could possibly lead to a high number of indicators and were considered as beyond feasibility. It was thus proposed to make a further selection considering the information available, the potential of the habitat and species for assessing ecological change at the scale of the Transboundary Park and the functional role of the habitats for the conservation of species. On this basis, three types of wetlands have been retained with a priority 1 (see Table 8.3), and two types of wetlands considered as important for the EU (DH) were assigned with a priority 2 (to be considered in a further stage if resources allow). The inclusion of Aldrovanda vesiculosa would require a preliminary assessment of the status of the species, and is not considered for the time-being. Two types of habitats have been rejected as not relevant for this monitoring scheme because one habitat is not present (Mediterranean temporary ponds) and the other one (open water) is better addressed in another monitoring themes (“Water resources”).

The beds of submerged and floating hydrophytes include, but should not be restricted to, the habitat “Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition type vegetation” (HD code 3150). More diverse types of beds of hydrophytes could possibly be found (e.g. Chara beds) contributing to the functional roles of this type of vegetation. The beds of submerged and floating hydrophytes are important for storing nutrients, as spawning habitats for fish and invertebrates, refuge for invertebrates and young fish, feeding habitats of many species such as fish, terns, pelicans, etc. Furthermore, the priority species Aldrovanda vesiculosa is included in this vegetation type which contributes to the assessment of the status of water bodies (Water Directive).

The “wet meadow” type of vegetation type has been created by lumping 3 habitats supposed to be present at the margins of the lakes “Large sedge communities” (HD code 72B0),

Page 91/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

“Mediterranean tall humid grasslands of the Molinio-Holoschoenion” (HD code 6420) and “Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and the montane to alpine level” (HD code 6430). The correct identification and location of some of the habitats in the temporarily flooded area of the lake is questionable (HD codes 6420 and 6430). However, beyond the exact phytosociological identification of the vegetation of the wet meadows and their potential EU importance, the wet meadows in a functional sense (grassland temporarily flooded by the seasonal rise of lake water) are very important for the wildlife especially as spawning grounds for fish and as feeding habitats for priority bird species. They were therefore considered for monitoring as a general type of vegetation without consideration of their exact identity in the phytosociological and CORINE classifications.

The reedbeds are a key habitat for the wildlife, especially for birds but also for amphibians, and invertebrates. It is the nesting habitat of threatened species of birds for which Prespa Transboundary Park is important (e.g. Pelicans, Pygmy cormorant, etc.). Furthermore the reed beds play an important functional role in storing carbon and trapping nutrients from the catchments, thus contribute to reduce the influx of nutrients into the lakes and eutrophication.

Aldrovanda vesiculosa is included in Annex II of the Habitat Directive (of EU interest and requires special areas of protection) and in Annex I of the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (1979). The species is known only from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia where it was not found in 2008 as a result of the decrease of the lake level. That species could possibly be at present threatened by extinction in the study area. It was considered that in this situation the monitoring of A. vesiculosa cannot be implemented before an assessment of the status of the species at Prespa is made. It is therefore recommended that during the preliminary stage of the implementation of the monitoring of Prespa Transboundary Park, an active search of the species will be organised in the three countries. The inclusion of Aldrovanda vesiculosa in the monitoring scheme will be considered during this assessment.

Page 92/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.3. Priorities and rationale for monitoring the wetlands habitats and Aldrovanda vesiculosa HABITAT Rationale for monitoring Priority for Habitat name Legal Functional Present Wetland type monitoring (+ HD Code) protection role knowledge Natural eutrophic Good baseline Beds of lakes with High for information on submerged Magnopotamion or DH water quality Micro, less Priority 1 and floating Hydrocharition type and fauna information on hydrophytes vegetation Macro Prespa Mediterranean tall humid grasslands High for fish Insufficient in exact of the Molinio- DH and birds location Holoschoenion Wet meadows Priority 1 (6420) Large Sedge High for fish communities none and birds (72B0) Location known, High for insufficient Reed-beds Reed beds (72A0) none water quality knowledge on Priority 1 and fauna changes and management Preliminary DH-Annex assessment Aldrovanda Aldrovanda II, Bern Possibly extinct, needed before Small vesiculosa vesiculosa Convention data insufficient including into Annex I the monitoring scheme Largest patch in Former Yugoslav Republic of Alluvial forests: Macedonia where Small for Alluvial forest Alnion-glutinoso- DH-Priority threatened; Priority 2 Prespa incanae (91E0) scattered in fragmented patches in the other countries Hydrophilous tall herb fringe Eutrophic communities of Small for Fragmented in herbaceous DH Priority 2 plains and of the Prespa mountainous areas wet prairies montane to alpine levels (6430) Important Not relevant: Open water - but directly addressed in Open water pelagic zone of none Insufficient addressed by the "Water" lakes water quality theme Mediterranean Mediterranean temporary temporary ponds DH-Priority Small Not present not relevant pond (3170)

Page 93/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

The Alluvial forest Habitat is an important habitat currently threatened by the lowering of the water level in the Macro Prespa Lake. However, it does not cover significant surface areas and is significantly present only in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It is present only in small patches along streams in the other two countries and was given a lower priority for monitoring. The monitoring and conservation of the remaining patch of this habitat should rather be considered at national scale in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The rationale for including this habitat in the list was supposed to be for addressing water quality issue (covered in another dedicated theme). This habitat was therefore not considered for monitoring.

Assessment of these habitats and species has to be made at the transboundary level as they refer to international conservation issues. On a functional basis, the sound management scale is the wetland complex made by the two lakes because water quality issues cannot be addressed properly at the sub-catchment level and because the quality of habitats for wildlife should be considered at the whole wetland scale especially for mobile species (e.g. fishes, birds).

The recent changes in the management of water levels in Micro Prespa (i.e. construction of the new sluice between the two lakes in the Greek part) is likely to have impacts on the distribution of vegetation along the shores and consequently on wildlife in case the water level of Micro Prespa does not fluctuate seasonally following the “natural” course. In perennial vegetation and especially in reed beds, long-delayed impacts of management practices (after 10-20 years or more) are well known. Monitoring of these key wetland habitats can allow for early detection of changes and support management decisions.

8.1.5. Research gaps There are gaps in the available information. These gaps concern primarily (1) the extent and location of the wet meadows, the priority habitats and species, (2) the relationships between management practices, ecosystem dynamics and the conservation status of priority habitats and species, and (3) some lack of clarity/questions on certain habitats:  Distribution/location, number and condition of priority species

Page 94/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

The monitoring of habitats and species requires a preliminary assessment of their abundance and distribution. This information is not available yet for most habitats.  Management The distribution and abundance (cover) of habitats is the result of the interaction between local ecological characteristics and of both direct and indirect impacts of human activities on the lakes and wetlands and their catchments. The knowledge on the relationships between habitats and management is limited. Management experiments using grazing have been conducted on the wet meadows and their value for water birds (feeding habitats). More research would be needed on:  The management of wet meadows  The long term consequences of the management of water levels in Micro Prespa (in case stabilisation is selected instead of seasonally fluctuating levels)8 are not known both on the wet meadows and on the reed beds  The causes of the replacement of Phragmites australis by Typha angustifolia are not known although high water levels and wild fires are supposed to play an important role; this is of importance as the value of Phragmites communities for wildlife seems much higher than that of Typha stands.  The ecological requirements for Aldrovanda vesiculosa  Prescriptions for alternative (sustainable) management of land including catchment and natural resources of wetlands  Baseline information on aquatic and wetland vegetation: identification and mapping of communities

During the preliminary phase of the implementation of the monitoring programme some preliminary baseline information should be collected:  A comprehensive map of the different types of wetland vegetation (e.g. hydrophyte beds, wet meadows, reedbeds, forested wetlands, etc.) should be made at the scale of the Transboundary Park. Beside its own interest, it will allow the final identification of the monitoring sites for reedbeds and wet meadows.

8 However, the management plan for Lake Micro Prespa (implemented for 2007-2012 by the SPP and the MBPNF) foresees that the water level does fluctuate between seasons aiming at attaining high levels for the flooding of wet meadows in spring-early summer and lowering of the levels by mid-summer to allow for the management of littoral vegetation at specific wet meadow sites by means of cutting and grazing (Malakou et al. 2007). Thus, minimum water levels are recorded in late autumn following the natural cycle of such lakes.

Page 95/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

 The location of populations of Aldrovanda vesiculosa should be a prerequisite to the monitoring of that species. The species should be actively searched in its potential sites in the two lakes.

8.2. Development of indicators

8.2.1. Baseline and general indicators The monitoring of the habitats and species aimed at identifying (1) changes over time in their location, extension and cover (abundance), and (2) the likely root causes for the changes eventually measured. The selection of indicators has been made at two levels, firstly general indicators of the vegetation at the global scale (Prespa) and secondly of individual habitats and species. The selection of indicators has been developed considering the most important factors that control the plants communities and species, the possible trends resulting from ecological change (natural processes) and the most likely threats. Attention was also given to possible causes for ecological changes and possible indicators for these causes (pressures).

Indicator 1: Map of vegetation The evaluation of changes in the extent, location and cover of habitats and species requires the establishment of a reference. Considering that no assessment of these characteristics exists at the moment, a coordinated TB map of (wetland) vegetation of the lake area and the wetlands of the Prespa catchment in the three countries is necessary. This preliminary map does not need to be very detailed and should characterise the physiognomy of vegetation. A scale of 1/25,000 to 1/50,000 should be sufficient. The map will be needed for the location of sampling site for monitoring wetlands. Furthermore, a number of indicators can be extracted from the map such as the number, extent and location of patches of wetland types and landscape parameters (distance, neighbouring habitats, etc.). The vegetation map should include land use in the catchments which is one the most important driver for ecological change in the wetlands. The map should be updated every 5-10 years with possible more frequent updating on priority habitats.

Page 96/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

8.2.2. Selection of indicators for species and habitats

8.2.2.1. Beds of submerged and floating hydrophytes (priority 1) Description of the habitat The beds of submerged and floating hydrophytes include the habitat which corresponds to lakes and ponds with mostly dirty grey to blue-green, more or less turbid, waters, particularly rich in dissolved bases (pH usually > 7), with free-floating surface communities of the Hydrocharition or, in deep, open waters, with associations of large pondweeds (Magnopotamion) (EUR-27, July 2007). All types of submerged and floating vegetation have been added. Different types of plant communities can be identified among this type of vegetation according to light availability, substrate transparency and depth of water, pH and nutrient levels. One mesotrophic type dominated by floating macrophytes (Utricularia spp, Ceratophyllum spp) is the habitat of the priority species Aldrovanda vesiculosa. The depth limit of this type of vegetation is around 6-7 meters in Micro Prespa (K. Stefanidis, unpublished data) and is not known in Macro Prespa.

Main threats Eutophication of water is the main threat for this habitat. It usually results from intensification of agriculture in the catchments and/or the inflow of sewage waters into the lake. It leads to successional changes towards more competitive plant communities. However hyper-eutrophication can lead to the total loss of submerged macrophytes which are replaced by planktonic algae. Submitted to moderate eutrophication changes in the mesotrophic type can be little noticed with a slow reduction of the characteristic species and progressive replacement by various competitive species (e.g. Potamogeton spp). Changes in the water level should result in the shift of the plan communities; however rapid changes could be assimilated to a disturbance and lead to temporary loss of submerged vegetation. Drawdown will lead to the temporary disappearance of the habitat. Locally invasive plant species (e.g. Lagarosiphon, Ludwigia, Myriophyllum) can out-compete the characteristic species of the habitat.

Page 97/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicators The main potential indicators for this habitat could be (Table 8.4):  Extent and location of the habitat Measuring the extent and location of this habitat can be difficult and costly requiring long time devoted to field work. The distribution of the plants is controlled primarily by the depth and transparency of water and by the substrate. A feasibility study for the use of remote sensing for assessing the distribution of the habitat should be explored.  Species composition of the vegetation The species composition at given sites constitute a suitable indicator of ecological change, especially those related to depth, transparency and nutrient.

Table 8.4. Indicators for the beds of submerged and floating hydrophytes

Hypotheses for Indicators Name Indicators (state) Remarks ecological change (pressure) Change in water level Eutrophication Surface area of the Beds of Change in water (domestic or habitat; submerged quality agricultural

and floating Encroachment of exotic pollution); Species composition hydrophytes invasive species (e.g. Drawdown; of vegetation Lagarosiphon, Siltation Ludwigia)

8.2.2.2. Wet meadows (priority 1) Description of the habitat The wet meadows are loosely defined as temporarily flooded herbaceous riparian vegetation located at the edges of permanent lakes or rivers; they are located between the reed beds in deeper conditions and usually by terrestrial vegetation including agricultural fields. Wet meadows are usually species-rich communities resulting from the suppression of the dominance of tall helophytes, often by grazing or cutting. The wet meadows include the HD habitat “Mediterranean tall humid grasslands of the Molinio-Holoschoenion” (6420) and “Large sedge communities” (72B0). Other plant communities can probably be found into this type of vegetation. Wet meadows are important spawning habitats for fish (especially Carp), feeding habitat for bird species such as the two species of pelicans, Ibis, herons, geese, migrating waders, etc.

Page 98/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Main threats The wet meadows can be destroyed by the intensification of agriculture which implies drainage of the wetlands in winter. When unmanaged or when grazing is stopped, reedbeds rapidly develop, often followed in the driest areas by shrub encroachment which can lead to the replacement of the wet meadows by wet forest dominated by Salix, Fraxinus, etc. (see Alluvial forests). These habitats can be different stages of post disturbance succession (flood, cut of forest, abandonment of grazing, etc.).

Indicators The main indicator for this habitat should be (Table 8.5) the:  Extent and location of the habitat  Species composition of the vegetation and the abundance of nitrophilous, tall helophytes or shrub/tree species indicating a shift towards different plant communities.  In addition, monitoring of land use and groundwater level can allow assessing the pressure from human activities. Grazing, when moderate, contributes to maintaining the habitat.

8.2.2.3. Reed beds (priority 1) Description of the habitat Reedbeds are species-poor plant communities dominated by tall helophytes (rooted plants emerging from the water with erect shoots) such as the Common reed, Phragmites australis, Cattail (Typha spp) or Scirpus spp. Most often only one species heavily dominates the vegetation. These species differ in their tolerance to flooding and anoxia and to grazing. Reedbeds occur in a wide range of ecological situations at the margins of all kinds of water bodies including areas of open water, ditches, and wet grasslands. They can stand permanent or transient flooding but the soil should remain wet during the warm season. In shallow temporary flooding, reedbeds can be transient habitat which tends to be colonised by alluvial forests.

Page 99/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.5. Indicators for wet meadows

Hypotheses for Indicators Indicators Name Remarks ecological change (state) (pressure) land use (e.g. Transformation into Location and grazing pressure), intensive agricultural surface area of agriculture, drainage areas (annual crops) the habitat (level of the groundwater table)

land use, agriculture, Intensification of the Species N input, grazing management of composition, pressure, drainage pastures (N addition, abundance of (level of the overgrazing) nitrophilous species groundwater table) Wet meadows Extensification of the Species management or composition, land use, grazing abandonment of abundance of tall pressure, harvest of pasture resulting in helophytes (e.g. reedbeds reedbed Phragmites, Typha encroachment spp, Salix spp)

Location and Habitat created by water management, Shrub / forest surface area of opening in riverine drainage (level of the encroachment the habitat, or humid forests by groundwater table) cover of shrubs floods or wood cut

Reedbeds are important habitats for their role in aquatic ecosystems with a large production, and important functions such as water treatment and stabilization of shores. They are key habitats for the wildlife hosting a large variety of invertebrates and being preferred or unique breeding habitat for many species of birds including priority species in the EU and the key species at Prespa (e.g. Pelicans, Herons, passerine species, etc.). The value of reedbeds for wildlife and especially bird populations depends on the dominant plant species, Phragmites australis being the most favourable species.

Main threats Reedbeds can be destroyed by the combination of eutrophication and stabilization of the water level through slow long-term (decades) processes that remain often unnoticed. The fluctuation of water levels seems to be very important for the aeration of rhizomes. Destruction can be done by mowing below water level or mowing followed by increased

Page 100/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park water level. Flooding of the aerial shoots of Phragmites is also detrimental to that species. Similarly wild fires in autumn followed by increased water level have potentially a strong impact on Phragmites and probably less on other dominant species. In low oxygen availability Phragmites australis is often replaced by Typha spp or Scirpus spp. Grazing leads to a fast transformation of reedbeds into wet meadows.

Indicators The main indicator for this habitat should be (Table 8.6) the  Extent and location of the habitat  Species composition (dominant species) (mapping of patches of different dominant species)  In addition, monitoring the water level is essential to understand long term dynamics. Monitoring the land use is useful to understand anthropogenic pressure. Monitoring wild fires would be useful to understand patch dynamics.

Table 8.6. Indicators for the reedbeds (72A0)

Hypotheses for Indicators Name Indicators (state) Remarks ecological change (pressure)

Remote sensing Grazing Replacement by wet and/or reference Cover of the habitat pressure, meadows points along land use transects

Water level Reed die-back Cover of the habitat of the lake, Transects water quality Reed beds Encroachment on the Water level Location on transects Transects lake edges of the lake

Changes in dominant Wild fires, species (Typha, Species composition, water levels, Remote sensing Phragmites, Scirpus, dominant species etc. etc.)

Page 101/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

8.2.2.4. Aldrovanda vesiculosa (preliminary assessment) Description of the habitat Aldrovanda vesiculosa is an aquatic species often non-rooted, with slender shoots found in non polluted dystrophic waters (rich in dissolved organic matter), with a slightly acidic pH (around 6), reaching high temperatures (20-30°C) during summer (shallow water bodies). The species is known for its irregular presence in time. It is floating near the water surface often mixed with helophyte populations (e.g. Phragmites, Typha, Carex spp) where these plants could play a role in decreasing the energy of water (waves, current) and/or in decreasing the amount of incident light.

A. vesiculosa is known only from one site in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia where it was not recorded in 2008, possibly negatively affected by the decrease of the water level. The species was not found in the Greek part of Micro Prespa either. The distribution of A. vesiculosa is insufficiently known and its presence should be carefully assessed especially in Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Main threats The main hypotheses for ecological change are the following:  change in the distribution (increasing or decreasing)  change in the abundance (taking into account inter-annual natural variability)  decrease of the strength of the plants

The main potential drivers for ecological changes could be:  changes in the abundance of the helophyte stands where A. vesiculosa is found (see reed bed monitoring)  decrease of water quality especially increasing nutrients (N & P), increasing pH (eutrophication from agriculture and urban areas)  changes in the water levels of the lakes  increase of summer temperature (climate change?). This is probably of minor importance for A. vesiculosa but this could be checked with water temperature in stands of A. vesiculosa which should rarely exceed 30°C.

Page 102/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicators The indicators for monitoring populations of A. vesiculosa should be the location and the extent of the populations (Table 8.7). However, before a monitoring programme for this species could be set up, an assessment of the extent and location of its populations should be made in both lakes during the pilot phase of the implementation of the project.

Table 8.7. Indicators for Aldrovanda vesiculosa Hypotheses Indicators SPECIES for ecological Indicators (pressure) Remarks (state) change

Vegetation map; Helophytes at the location of A. vesiculosa Requires Changes in the populations; preliminary Location and Aldrovanda distribution Decrease of water quality assessment extent of vesiculosa (increasing or (increase N, P & pH) or water of the populations decreasing) levels; location of Increase of summer populations temperatures (?)

8.2.2.5. Alluvial forests (91E0) (priority 2) Description of the habitat Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) comprises woods dominated by alder Alnus glutinosa and willow Salix spp. on flood plains. The habitat typically occurs on moderately base-rich, eutrophic soils subject to periodic inundation. The habitat can also be found at the edges of rivulets, springs and in areas regularly flooded by the rise of the groundwater. The habitat is diversified according to hydrology (speed of flow, size of the river, etc.), soils (granulometry), etc.

Such woods are dynamic with openings often created by catastrophic floods; they should thus be considered at large scale being part of a successional series of habitats that includes open communities, mainly fen and swamp, of earlier successional stages. On the drier margins of these areas other tree species, notably ash Fraxinus excelsior and elm Ulmus spp., may become abundant. In other situations the alder woods occur as a stable component within transitions to surrounding dry-ground forest, sometimes including other Annex I woodland types. These transitions from wet to drier woodland and from open to

Page 103/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park more closed communities provide an important facet of ecological variation. The ground flora is correspondingly varied. Some stands are dominated by tall herbs, reeds and sedges, for example Urtica dioica, Phragmites australis, Carex paniculata, and Filipendula ulmaria, while others have lower-growing communities with Ranunculus repens, Galium palustre, Chrysosplenium oppositifolium and Caltha palustris.

Main threats The main threats that the alluvial forests face are usually:  hydraulic works changing the natural flow regime  plantations (usually of poplars)  transformation of the forest into pastures These threats may result from changes in the hydrological regime of the river (possibly driven by embankment, drainage, dams, etc.) and the destruction of the habitat for different uses (mostly grazing or poplar plantations).

Indicators The main indicator for this habitat should be the surface area of the habitat and of the different patches of other successional stages (Table 8.8). It would require a preliminary assessment and mapping of the present situation. Different indicators can be extracted from these maps including the surface area of the target habitat, the % of loss, the % of the different successionnal stages, etc. Detailed measurements of the species composition of the forest (including herbaceous vegetation) would allow identifying the dynamics and possible negative trends (e.g. encroachment of other types of trees, such as hardwood species).

Page 104/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.8. Indicators for Alluvial forests (Alnion-glutinoso-incanae)

Hypotheses for Indicators Name Indicators (state) Remarks ecological change (pressure)

Flow regime Surface area of the (number of habitat and other Succession towards dams, successional stages; hard wood (drier) embankment, Species composition of Requires channelization, preliminary Alluvial the forest etc.) mapping of the forests habitat and of (Alnion- Species composition of Plantation of poplars Land use patches of the glutinoso- the forest different incanae) Surface area of the successional habitat and other stages Destruction for successional stages; Land use pastures Species composition of the forest

8.2.2.6. Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (6430) (priority 2) Description of the habitat Wet and nitrophilous tall herb edge communities, along water courses and woodland borders belonging to the Glechometalia hederaceae and the Convolvuletalia sepium orders (Senecion fluviatilis, Aegopodion podagrariae, Convolvulion sepium, Filipendulion). Hygrophilous perennial tall herb communities of montane to alpine levels of the Betulo-Adenostyletea class (EUR-27, July 2007). These grasslands are exposed to temporary floods and characterised by the absence of direct anthropogenic impact (nutrient input, grazing, mowing). They can encroach on abandoned pastures. They are dynamic and progressively shift towards alluvial and riverine forests. Therefore these grasslands, being a transient stage among a patch dynamics, should be considered at a wider scale. They can also be found at the edges of forests and along forest roads.

Main threats These grasslands are threatened by anthropogenic activities such as grazing, mowing, nutrient addition, drainage or other changes in the hydrological regime.

Page 105/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicators The main indicator for this habitat should be (Table 8.9) the:  Extent and location of the habitat.  Species composition of the vegetation and the abundance of nitrophilous or shrub/tree species indicating a shift towards different plant communities.  In addition, monitoring of land use and groundwater level can allow assessing the pressure from human activities.

Table 8.9. Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels (6430) Hypotheses for Indicators Name Indicators (pressure) Remarks ecological change (state)

Transformation into Land use (e.g. grazing Location and intensive pressure), agriculture, surface area agricultural areas drainage (level of the of the habitat (annual crops) groundwater table) Hydrophilous Intensification of Species tall herb Land use, agriculture, N the management of composition; fringe input, grazing pressure, pastures (N abundance of communities drainage (level of the addition, nitrophilous of plains and groundwater table) of the overgrazing) species montane to Habitat created alpine levels Location and by openings in surface area Water management, Shrub / forest riverine or of the habitat; drainage (level of the encroachment humid forests by cover of groundwater table) floods or wood shrubs cut

8.2.3. Synthesis of proposed indicators A synthetic table of indicators for monitoring wetland habitats and species is summarized below including the ranking of priorities (Table 8.10). This table includes indicators selected for wetlands habitats and species and establishes the links with other indicators selected in other groups that could be used as “Pressure” indicators.

Page 106/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.10. Synthetic table of indicators proposed for monitoring wetlands habitats and species at Prespa Transboundary Park (priority 1 only) Link with Indic AQUATIC VEGETATION INDICATORS (code No Nature* name WV/ Wetland Vegetation) (Pressure indicators)**

Location and surface area of patches of the habitat LS1, LS2, W11, WV1 S “Beds of hydrophytes” W12, W16-21 Species composition of vegetation in habitat “Beds of hydrophytes” (many possible variables: cover of W11, W12, W16- WV2 S characteristic/opportunistic species, of 21 annuals/perennials, of exotic species, etc.)

Location and surface area of patches of the wet LS1, LS2, W11, WV3 S meadows W12

Species composition and structure of the vegetation of the habitat “Wet meadows”; several LS1, LS2, W11, WV4 possible variables: height of vegetation, cover of S W12, WV7 nitrophilous species, cover of characteristic/non characteristic species, cover of shrub species, etc.

Location and surface area of patches of the habitat LS1, LS2, W11, WV5 S “Reedbeds” W12, WV7

Species composition and structure of the vegetation of “Reedbeds”; several possible LS1, LS2, W11, WV6 S variables: cover of shrubs, cover of W12, WV7 characteristic/non characteristic species

Direct management of “Reedbeds” (wildfires, WV7 P harvest, etc).

Location and surface area of populations of W11, W12, W16- WV8 S Aldrovanda vesiculosa 21

* Nature refers to State (S) or Pressure (P) indicators ** Links refer to potential pressure indicators that are included in the other monitoring themes (LS = Land-use theme; W = Water Resources)

Page 107/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

8.3. Methods

8.3.1. Description and justification The indicators are focused on the dynamics of three types of plant communities that are considered of importance of the conservation of the wetlands of the site and their biodiversity:  Beds of hydrophytes are defined as plant communities dominated by hydrophytes rooted or non-rooted in the sediment with submerged and/or floating leaves.  Reedbeds are defined as plant communities dominated by tall emergent helophytes such as Phragmites australis, Typha spp, Schoenoplectus lacustris.  Wet meadows are defined as plant communities dominated by grasses, rushes or sedges that are located at the edge of water bodies and that are normally flooded during part of the year-cycle by the rise of the water level of these water bodies.

The indicators selected (Table 8.10) are of three different types: (1) the distribution over space (location and surface area) of vegetation types, (2) the species composition of vegetation and (3) the survey of management/land use. Correspondingly, three types of methods will be deployed for monitoring these three types of indicators.

The methods proposed for monitoring the vegetation follow Jensen’s (1977) protocol based on “Observation units” which are made of sectors of the margin of the lakes and three (3) transects vertical to the shore.  The number of “Observation units” is calculated by a formula using the surface area and the perimeter of the lakes; the location of the sampling units is identified by a systematic approach (Figure 8.1). When the number of “observation units” is too high, a random stratified sub-sampling is made based on the morphology and the land use of the shores which are two important factors that can influence the distribution and species composition of the hydrophyte beds. Thus, the final identification of the “Observation units” requires a preliminary study of the banks of the lakes.  Each transect extends from the interface land/water until the maximum depth of colonization of submerged rooted vegetation; the transect is 2m wide along which

Page 108/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

vegetation is collected using a rake or a grapnel depending on depth. The use of a “viewscope” (see Annex 8.5) can help in clear waters to estimate the abundance and to locate patches of submerged hydrophytes at shallow depth. Diving allows for a more detailed study of the submerged vegetation but this method is considered as too demanding and costly for the monitoring of Prespa hydrophytes.

This approach is recommended by the European Committee for Standardization, project of norm prEN15460 (version January 2006), by the CEMAGREF, France (Dutartre & Bertin 2007) and by the Bayerisches Landesamt für Umwelt (Handlungsanweisung für die ökologische Bewertung von Seen zur Umsetzung der EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos, version February 2007). It should apply for the hydrophytes beds but needs some amendments for the reed beds and wet meadows which are specific targets of the monitoring.

Distribution and location of patches of vegetation The distribution of vegetation types (plant communities) and their species composition are good indicators of the status and dynamics of ecosystems. Plant communities in a given region are distributed as mosaics (Whittaker & Levin 1977) which are usually the result of the combination of natural processes and human activities. Changes in the distribution and location of the different patches provide information on the underlying forces that control the vegetation. These changes have consequences on the wildlife, for the species using the different patches as habitats for feeding, reproduction etc. The changes in the distribution of the vegetation can be progressive following directional change in the environmental conditions (e.g. climate, water level of the lake) or can be massive as a result of dramatic change in environmental conditions e.g. (major natural disturbance such as land slide) of more often inland use (e.g. management activities with direct impact on the vegetation such as clear cut of forest, conversion of natural habitats in agricultural fields, fires, extension or grazing). In the former case changes are usually predictable and affect all patches of vegetation. The monitoring of the changes in the spatial distribution of the vegetation can thus be achieved implementing a monitoring along a gradient (transect) parallel to the direction of expected ecological change (e.g. along topographic gradients). In the latter case,

Page 109/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park changes are far less predictable in time and space and must be assessed through a wide survey of vegetation. This is usually done through remote sensing.

The topography and the resulting hydromorphy is usually the first environmental factor that affects the abundance and distribution of species in wetlands. The location of the habitat should thus be evaluated primarily with respect to the topography and flood conditions (e.g. Odum 1988, Grace & Pugesek 1997).

The indicator “Distribution and location of habitats” is thus defined in two distinct indicators: (1) the location and surface area of the patches of vegetation on a GIS (2) the depth distribution of the plant communities along depth gradients (expected to move along with water levels of the lakes).

Species composition and structure of plant communities The species composition and the structure of a plant community refer respectively to the list of species and to the relative abundance of each species within a multispecies assemblage of plants. For wetlands habitats (reed beds and wet meadows) the species composition is measured on precise surface areas which are considered as sufficient for a representative collection of species (e.g. Whittaker & Levin 1977). Abundance of plant species in herbaceous plant communities is usually measured by its cover. The number and size of individual plants (or ramets, shoots) are also used for research purposes in herbaceous communities and commonly used in forests. The cover of individual species in herbaceous communities can be measured by different methods ranging from a global estimate “by eye” until using a cover pin frame. In submerged plant communities, the abundance of the species can be measured by direct access to the vegetation in shallow water. In deep water scuba diving is needed for direct observation; often alternative methods are used such as sampling by rakes and grapnels that provide an indirect access to the vegetation and allow estimating the relative abundance of the species.

The different methods differ in their costs (time and training requirements) for implementation and in the unavoidable biases associated; the selection of method is therefore made considering the objectives of the project, the resources available and bias

Page 110/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park that can be accepted. In multi-observer projects the variance between observers is an important potential bias to consider. However, in trend analysis, bias can be minimized by the implementation of standardized methods. Considering the need for cost-effective methods, the multi-site character of transboundary Prespa and the multi-observer context of the TMS, the use of cover estimate with large cover classes such as in the Braun-Blanquet method is recommended for herbaceous communities and the Jensen method for hydrophyte communities.

8.3.2. Sampling methods Location and surface area of patches (see remote sensing) For the calibration of the remote sensing classification, 30 points in patches of at least 20x20m (preferably 60x60m) will be identified in each type of vegetation (Annex 8.1.A). When vegetation is distributed in narrow (<20m) belts, the protocol needs to be modified: for each point 3 samples (20m distance between samples) will be selected in the middle of the belt making sure that the vegetation type remains the same in the 3 samples. For validation and test of the rate of errors, 30 additional points (similar than for calibration) will be randomly selected in each type of vegetation (hydrophytes, reed beds and wet meadows) and the coordinates extracted for field control. In June or July, each point will be visited and the type of vegetation will be identified on the field along with water depth measurement. Among reed beds the feasibility of the separation of Typha and Phragmites dominated patches should be tested and thus a subset of points should be taken in each type of vegetation. A map of the vegetation types that will be monitored is needed for finalizing the protocol and the distribution of the sampling units (Jensen 1977 protocol).

Depth distribution of plant communities In each type of plant communities the sampling of the plant communities should be implemented along topographic gradient (= water depth and duration of flooding). The limits of the extension of each type should be measured along this transect.  For reed beds and wet meadows, several reference points (at least 2) must be carefully installed in a way that will allow replacing them if they disappear (e.g. combining GPS location and distance and compass angle from 2-3 permanent

Page 111/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

structures of the landscape (Annex 8.1.B). The limits of each type of vegetation will be measured as the distance along this gradient. Ten (10) transects should be made per lake.  For hydrophytes, the depth distribution will be studied along with the study of the species composition along transects distributed in Observation units. Three transects (minimum distance between transects 50m) will be made in each Observation unit (Figure 8.1). Transects will be identified from the inner side of the reed bed (or any vegetation type at the edge of the lake) orthogonal/vertical to the shore. The vegetation will be collected by boats along these transects using rake and/or grapnel (see method and data sheets in Annex 8.2). The coordinate of the ends of each quadrat should be extracted from the GIS and points located with a GPS. The

Figure 8.1. Systematic protocol for the selection of “Observation units” (OU) for the monitoring of hydrophytes; each red cross is the centre of a potential Observation unit; a sub-sampling is implemented among these OUs [from Dutartre & Bertin (2007) in application of Jensen (1977)].

Page 112/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

transparency of the water should be measured (Secchi disk depth) at the end of each transect. Sediment should be characterized along he transects following a very coarse classification (gravel, sand, silt, clay, peat, etc.).

During the preliminary phase the maximum depth of colonization of submerged hydrophytes should be assessed in both lakes in order to finalize the details of the protocol.

Species composition of plant communities In wetlands (wet meadows and reed beds) the species composition of the vegetation will be measured on quadrats (at least 5 per type of vegetation and transect) evenly distributed along the transects defined above (see Annexes 8.3 and 8.4). The same transects should be used for both reed beds and wet meadows. At least 10 transects should be installed per lake (total = 20 transects). For each patch of vegetation on each transect, 5 permanent quadrats should be installed at regular distance along the transect; the distance between quadrats and their exact location should thus be defined after a preliminary assessment of the distribution and extension of the patches of vegetation. The surface area of the quadrats must be over the minimal area which is defined from a species-area curve (e.g. Kent & Coker 1992). The following surface areas are proposed for each type of vegetation: Reed beds: 16m² (4x4m) Wet meadows: 1m² (1x1m)

In each quadrat the cover of the total vegetation will be estimated by eye (including that of bare ground and litter) per strata when several strata can be easily identified (e.g. reed beds with short species below tall helophytes or hydrophytes with submerged and floating species). For wet meadows the height of the vegetation will be measured in addition using a graduate stick and a polystyrene frame (Approx. 20 x 30cm, 0.5-1cm thick) with a hole in the centre. The height of the vegetation is measured as the level where the frame is stopped when placed on the vegetation. The height of the vegetation is measured at the centre of the quadrat fitting the frame to the stick. The cover of each species will be estimated “by eye” in each quadrat using Braun-Blanquet scale (Table 8.11).

Page 113/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.11. Abundance index for species in herbaceous communities (from Braun-Blanquet method) Value Cover (%) + <1 1 1-5 2 6-25 3 26-50 4 51-75 5 76-100

For hydrophytes, the vegetation is measured in each Observation unit along 3 transects orthogonal to the shore with 50m between the transects (Figure 8.2). The number of transects per Observation unit could be reduced to 1 but the number of 3 is preferred for enhancing the statistical strength of the protocol.

Figure 8.2. Implementation of transects in each Observation unit [from Dutartre & Bertin (2007) in application of Jensen (1977)].

Page 114/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Vegetation of the littoral zone The vegetation of the littoral zone will be measured at the central point of the Observation unit which will be located using GPS. The vegetation will be sampled in a littoral strip of 1- 10m depending on the slope of the shore. The width of the census area and the substrate will be measured. Indices of abundance will be given following Table 8.12.

Table 8.12. Abundance index for the species in the vegetation of the littoral zone Index Description 1 Few individuals 2 Few small patches 3 Frequent small patches 4 Large discontinuous patches 5 Large continuous patches

Vegetation of the profile orthogonal to the shore Along each transect the vegetation will be sampled from the edge until the end of the presence of the hydrophytes on about 30 points regularly distributed. The GPS location, the water depth and the substrate will be noted for each sampling point. On each point the vegetation will be sampled using a rake or a grapnel depending on water depth on about 2m width. A “Viewscope” can be used instead of a rake at shallow depth if water transparency allows. The abundance of each species will be noted on each sampling point according to a 0-5 scale (Table 8.13). The estimated time for an Observation unit is about 2 hours (from 0.5 to 4 hours) with two persons depending on the size of the transects and the diversity of the vegetation.

Page 115/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.13. Abundance index for the vegetation harvested on each sample point along transects Index Description 0 Absent 1 Few pieces of shoots 2 Frequent pieces of shoots or rare complete plants 3 Very frequent pieces of shoots 4 Abundant 5 Present on most of the apparatus

8.3.3. Periodicity Once the protocols are finalized and tested, a measure every 2 years could be used for the monitoring of vegetation (WV2-WV6). After a preliminary assessment of the inter-annual variance, the frequency of the assessment of the hydrophytes could probably be reduced to every 5-10 years (Table 8.14).

8.3.4. Parameters Indicators and parameters for wetland vegetation are summarized in Table 8.15.

Page 116/381

Table 8.14. Periodicity of monitoring wetland indicators N° Proposed indicator Method Pilot phase YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 2 satellite 2 satellite images + Location and surface Remote sensing + images + field WV1 field validation area of hydrophytes field validation validation (June-July) (June-July) Abundance and depth Jensen protocol WV2 distribution of (Observation June or July June-July June or July June-July hydrophyte species units) Location and surface (2 satellite WV3, area of patches of Remote sensing + 2 satellite images + images)+ field WV5 vegetation (wet field validation field validation validation meadows and reedbeds) Direct management of Remote sensing + Pilot study (June 1 satellite image + WV7 reed beds (fire, harvest, field validation or July) field validation etc.) Distance to WV3, Depth distribution of Pilot study (June reference points June or July June or July June or July WV5 vegetation types or July) along transects WV4, Species composition of Cover of species Pilot study (June June or July June or July June or July WV6 communities (Braun-Blanquet) or July Preliminary Depending Depending Location and surface Depending on assessment on on WV8 area of populations of preliminary before defining preliminary preliminary Aldrovanda vesiculosa assessment monitoring assessment assessment Note: Once the protocols are finalized and tested, a measure every 2 years (years 1, 3 & 5) could be used for the monitoring of vegetation (WV2- WV6). After a preliminary assessment of the inter-annual variance the frequency of the assessment of the hydrophytes could probably be reduced to every 5-10 years. The periodicity of the remote sensing analysis (every 5 years) was given as the most likely compromise with resources available. It is a correct periodicity for land use although more frequent measures would improve the assessment of direct management of reed beds.

Table 8.15. Summary of indicators and parameters for wetland vegetation N° Proposed indicator Parameters that need to be measured Location and surface area WV1, Date + remote sensing information: number of patches and surface area, geographic coordinates, of patches of hydrophytes, WV3, Calibration and field validation: date, coordinates of test points, identification of the patch, dominant of reed beds, of wet WV5, species, water depth, type of management/impact on the vegetation meadows, of management WV7 See Annex 8.1 types Date, n° of Observation unit, n° of transect, coordinates of the ends of the transects, depth profile of the Depth distribution of WV1 transect, substrate, dominant species, (Secchi depth) hydrophytes See Annex 8.2 Date, n° of transect, position along the transect of the beginning and the end of each patch of vegetation WV3, Depth distribution of reed (separating for dominant species) WV5 beds and wet meadows See Annexes 8.3 & 8.4 Date, n° transect, n° quadrat, water depth, Secchi depth, cover per species and per stratum, total cover Species composition of of vegetation per stratum, bare ground (%), height of vegetation WV2 vegetation in beds of Notice any information that could be useful for interpretation of date (comments/remarks) hydrophytes See Annex 8.2

Date, n° transect, n° quadrat, cover per species, total cover of vegetation per stratum, bare ground (%),height of vegetation Species composition of WV4 Notice additional species that could be present at close vicinity in the same type of habitat and not found vegetation in wet meadows in the quadrat, notice any information that could be useful for interpretation of date (comments/remarks) See Annex 8.3

Date, N° transect, n° quadrat, water depth, cover per species and per stratum, total cover of vegetation per stratum, bare ground (%),height of vegetation Species composition of WV6 Notice additional species that could be present at close vicinity in the same type of habitat and not found vegetation in reed beds in the quadrat, notice any information that could be useful for interpretation of date (comments/remarks) See Annex 8.4 Date, + remote sensing information: number of patches and surface area, geographic coordinates, type of Direct management of management/impact on vegetation reedbeds (wildfires, WV7 Field validation: date, coordinates of test points, validation of the identification (Y/N, dominant species, harvest, etc.) water depth, type of management/impact on the vegetation)

See Annex 8.1

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

8.3.5. Field survey protocols Protocols are given in the Annexes 8.1-8.3.

8.3.6. Five year timetable /workplan (See table 8.14 in chapter 8.3.3. “Periodicity”) The Pilot phase should be devoted to preparatory assessments and the field test of protocols on a limited number of stations. The preparatory assessments are the selection of the monitoring stations and the preliminary assessment of the presence and location of populations of Aldrovanda vesiculosa. The selection of the monitoring stations would ideally be based on the results of the remote sensing analysis: a land use and vegetation map. If this map is not available after the end of the pilot phase the selection of monitoring stations will be made on the basis of the existing knowledge of the distribution of the different types of vegetation.

The field test of protocols will be made on 1-2 monitoring stations for each type of vegetation. These stations will be selected at the centre of the largest patch known for each vegetation type. It is proposed that the field test of the methods will be made in a joint field working session with all themes involved simultaneously and organized by the aquatic vegetation expert. This joint session will favor a more intensive test and standardization.

The protocols will be finalized (selection of monitoring stations) and fully implemented the following year (Year 1). In the following years, a measure every 2 years could be used for the monitoring of vegetation (WV2-WV6). After a preliminary assessment of the inter-annual variance, the frequency of the assessment of the hydrophytes could be reduced to every 5- 10 years.

8.4. Equipment

8.4.1. Description of the monitoring equipment required Specifications of equipment to be purchased are presented in Table 8.16.

Page 119/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.16. Equipment for monitoring wetland vegetation Cost for one Total cost Equipment Indicators Number item (€) (€)

GPS All 1 per country/team 150€ 450€ 2 every 5 years, WV1, WV3, probably the same Satellite images Purchase to be 0 WV5, WV7 than for Remote done through sensing “Remote sensing” Computer + GIS WV1, WV3, See “Remote indicators 0 software WV5, WV7 sensing” indicators

Transversal to all indicators for this theme (and other themes):  A GPS for each team/country: 150€ each  A portable computer with Microsoft Office in each country: ca 800€ each  A car for field work, same needs probably for other themes.

8.4.2. Hardware, software, applications, local and wide area networks, internet connection requirements Standard packages with spreadsheets will be sufficient.

8.5. Monitoring stations

8.5.1. Justification The monitoring stations for hydrophytes will be selected using an adaptation of Jensen’s approach (Jensen 1977) which is a systematic sampling of the vegetation of the shores of the lakes. Following strictly Jensen’s approach a high number of profiles should be implemented, 14 (28 transects) for Micro Prespa and 24 (48 transects) for Macro Prespa (Figure 8.3). The starting point on the shore of a transect in Jensen’s method is the center of an Observation unit (Table 8.17). In order to decrease the importance of the survey it is proposed that a stratified sampling of the transects (Observation units) will be made taking into account the

Page 120/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park characteristic of the shore (slope, land use, etc.) and the spatial distribution of the points. A total of 8 and 12 Observation units should be made respectively in Micro and Macro Prespa.

The selection of monitoring stations (transects) for wet meadows and reed beds will be made following a stratified random procedure distributing transects between patches of vegetation taking into account the surface area of the patches (representative samples), the lakes and the 3 countries. The selection will be made independently for reed beds and wet meadows; however when transects will be in neighboring patches they could be lumped into one single integrative transect for both reed bed and wet meadows. Transects will be designated by a random selection of its upper end, i.e. the outer border of the patch of habitat; transects will then be installed from that point towards the deeper parts of the lake along the main slope of the terrain.

8.5.2. Maps The location of the monitoring stations will be finalized after a preliminary map of the reed beds and wet meadows will have been made (for hydrophyte beds see Figures 8.1 and 8.2). During the random selection procedure, random points could be suppressed and replaced by others when they would lead to unrepresentative situation (e.g. edge of patch, uncommon disturbance type, etc.). A new point could be randomly selected or the station just move by e.g. 50 or 100m.

Page 121/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Figure 8.3. Distribution of the Observation units applying Jensen’s protocol. A stratified random selection of 12 and 8 Observation units needs to be made respectively in Macro and Micro Prespa (see text).

Page 122/381

Table 8.17. Coordinates of the Observation units identified by Jensen’s method Macro Prespa Macro Prespa Micro Prespa ID Longitude Latitude ID Longitude Latitude ID Longitude Latitude 1 20.95891 41.00678 51 20.93217 40.93346 1 21.10356 40.80396 2 20.96729 41.00651 52 20.94261 40.93476 2 21.11189 40.79269 3 20.97367 41.00472 53 20.94803 40.93225 3 21.11627 40.78142 4 20.98090 41.00357 54 20.95147 40.92823 4 21.12271 40.77016 5 20.98527 41.00026 55 20.95700 40.92580 5 21.09852 40.72434 6 20.99273 40.99928 56 20.96096 40.92192 6 21.08516 40.71584 7 21.00010 40.99825 57 20.96813 40.92074 7 21.05372 40.69483 8 21.00602 40.99610 58 20.97215 40.91716 8 21.04253 40.69025 9 21.01317 40.99489 59 20.97897 40.91571 9 21.03005 40.68239 10 21.02116 40.99433 60 20.98520 40.91382 10 20.99477 40.68240 11 21.02800 40.99288 61 20.99265 40.91259 11 21.10499 40.73580 12 21.03484 40.99144 62 20.98651 40.90131 12 21.07526 40.71158 13 21.04098 40.98947 63 20.94174 40.88744 13 21.06492 40.70596 14 21.04544 40.98597 64 20.93031 40.87875 14 21.05119 40.77938 15 21.04842 40.98160 65 20.92885 40.87101 15 21.05248 40.76623 16 21.04963 40.97589 66 20.94692 40.88475 16 21.07014 40.75836 17 21.05369 40.97235 67 20.94819 40.87883 17 21.08262 40.74951 18 21.05867 40.96950 68 20.93781 40.87094 18 21.08304 40.74459 19 21.06436 40.96693 69 20.94241 40.86781 19 21.07958 40.73281 20 21.06703 40.96233 70 20.95349 40.87623 20 21.06235 40.72398 21 21.06854 40.95686 71 20.94200 40.86086 21 21.05288 40.71776 22 21.07052 40.95173 72 20.96369 40.87735 22 21.03114 40.69974 23 21.07450 40.94813 73 20.98680 40.89489 23 21.01833 40.69097 24 21.07647 40.94300 74 20.94508 40.85658 24 21.07337 40.72677 25 21.07737 40.93706 75 20.95574 40.85806 25 21.04056 40.70814 26 21.07757 40.93059 76 20.96139 40.85572 26 21.00552 40.67257 27 21.07885 40.92494 77 20.96610 40.85267 27 21.00423 40.68895 28 21.08236 40.92099 78 20.96592 40.84591 28 21.01886 40.67355 29 21.08780 40.91849 79 20.93974 40.81938 30 21.09249 40.91516 80 20.91096 40.77731 31 21.09670 40.91173 81 20.90798 40.76842 32 21.09905 40.90689 82 20.91083 40.76396 33 21.09285 40.89558 83 20.91729 40.76224 34 21.09490 40.89052 84 20.94470 40.77649 35 21.09827 40.88620 85 20.93817 40.81154 36 21.10101 40.88166 86 20.93950 40.80593 37 21.10476 40.87788 87 20.92843 40.79751 38 21.10781 40.87357 88 20.90899 40.78270 39 21.11101 40.86937 89 21.06542 40.81497 40 21.11506 40.86583 90 21.06168 40.81876 41 21.11733 40.86093 91 21.05758 40.82226 42 21.11776 40.85464 92 21.05378 40.82600 43 20.89903 40.95470 93 21.05036 40.83002 44 20.90048 40.94917 94 21.04725 40.83428 45 20.91354 40.97236 95 21.04307 40.83774 46 20.90377 40.94504 96 21.03878 40.84110 47 20.90791 40.94156 48 20.91334 40.93904 49 20.91888 40.93662 50 20.92465 40.93438

Page 123/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

8.6. Organizations responsible for monitoring aquatic vegetation

8.6.1. Justification Potential organizations for the implementation the monitoring are presented in Table 8.18.

Table 8.18. Potential organizations able to implement the monitoring Former Yugoslav Indicator Albania Greece Republic of Macedonia Remote sensing: See “Land Remote sensing: See Remote sensing: See use” “Land use” “Land use” WV1 Field validation: SPP, Field validation: MNS, Field validation: BI-FS Universities & Technological University of Tirana Skopje, HIO Education Institutes SPP, Universities & MNS, University of WV2 BI-FS Skopje, HIO Technological Education Tirana Institutes

Remote sensing: See “Land Remote sensing: See Remote sensing: See use” “Land use” “Land use” WV3 Field validation: SPP, Field validation: MNS, Field validation: BI-FS Universities & Technological University of Tirana Skopje, HIO Education Institutes

SPP, Universities & MNS, University of WV4 BI-FS Skopje, HIO Technological Education Tirana Institutes

Remote sensing: See “Land Remote sensing: See Remote sensing: See use” “Land use” “Land use” WV5 Field validation: SPP, Field validation: MNS, Field validation: BI-FS Universities & Technological University of Tirana Skopje, HIO Education Institutes

SPP, Universities & MNS, University of WV6 BI-FS Skopje, HIO Technological Education Tirana Institutes

Remote sensing: See “Land Remote sensing: See Remote sensing: See use” “Land use” “Land use” WV7 Field validation: SPP, Field validation: MNS, Field validation: BI-FS Universities & Technological University of Tirana Skopje, HIO Education Institutes

SPP, Universities & MNS, University of WV8 BI-FS Skopje, HIO Technological Education Tirana Institutes Notes: BI-FS = Biological Institute of the Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics of Skopje, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia HIO = Hydrobiological Institute of Ohrid, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia MNS = Museum of Natural Sciences, Tirana, Albania SPP = Society for the Protection of Prespa, Greece

Page 124/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

8.6.2. Staff (technical, scientific) and organizational requirements In each team, there must be at least one person able of performing field identification of plants, including aquatic, and wetland habitats. Most of the field tasks should be implemented by a team of at least 2 persons. There must be some coordination with remote sensing group for the:  collection of reference points and the test of classification  establishment of initial map(s) allowing the finalization of the protocols for monitoring vegetation.

8.6.3. Existing sources of funding -

8.7. Budget All budget components are presented in Tables 8.19 – 8.25. Table 8.26 includes the estimated staff costs per country, and 8.27 includes the total costs (equipment, staff, consumables/ running costs) per country.

Table 8.19. Estimated budget for monitoring wetland vegetation (consumables/ running costs) Cost for one Total cost Consumables/ running costs Number item (€) (€)

Decametres (50m) and 10m + weight 1 of each type per 150 450 (measuring water depth and Secchi depth) country

Secchi disk (home made) 1 per country 20 60

GPS 1 per country 150 450 Double meters, plastic tubes (for marking 2 per country (6) 20 60 sites, etc.) 20-30 metal tube (to avoid burning) 2 + man power Reference poles cemented in soil + (1 50-100 wood pole 2-3m fitted days/country) in the tube 16m (synthetic?) rope + 4 tent sticks 1 per country 5 15 (delineation of the quadrats) 1 day in each Grapnel 25 75 country/team

Board for measuring height of vegetation 1 per country per year 5 15/year

Page 125/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.20. Estimated costs for the field validation of remote sensing for wetland vegetation

Cost for Field validation of remote sensing Number one item Total cost (€) (WV 1, WV3, WV5, WV7) (€) Staff

Staff time (person.day) Albania 3 100 300

Staff time (person.day) Former Yugoslav 3 100 300 Republic of Macedonia

Staff time (person.day) Greece 3 300 900

Total Staff 1500 Consumables

1 trip of 3 days 45*2 (hotel) including 2 nights in Lodging & per diem Greece 55*3 (per 255 hotel 1 persons diem) /country= 3 per diem

1 trip of 3 days 12 *2 including 2 nights in (hotel) Lodging & per diem Albania 138 hotel 1 persons 30*3 (per /country= 3 per diem diem)

1 trip of 3 days 30*2 (hotel) Lodging & per diem Former Yugoslav including 2 nights in 30*3 (per 150 Republic of Macedonia hotel 1 persons diem) /country= 3 per diem

500Km/Greece 0.4 200 1100Km/Albania 0.4 440 Km 1100Km/The Former 0.4 440 Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Boat rental (€/day) Albania 1 day/ country 50 50 Boat rental (€/day) The Former Yugoslav 1 day/ country 60 60 Republic of Macedonia Boat rental (€/day) Greece 1 day/ country 200 200

Total consumables 1933 TOTAL Field Validation 3433 Equipment needed: GPS, meter, decameter

Page 126/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.21. Estimated costs for the monitoring of hydrophyte beds Hydrophyte beds Cost for one item Number Total cost (€) (WV 1 & WV 2) (€) Staff Staff time (person.day) Albania 10 100 1000 Staff time (person.day) The Former Yugoslav Republic of 10 100 1000 Macedonia Staff time (person.day) Greece 10 300 3000 Total Staff 5000 Consumables 1 trip of 5 days including 4 nights in 45*4 (hotel) *2 945 Lodging & per diem Greece hotel 2 persons 55*4.5(per

/country= 2x4.5 per diem)*2 diem 1 trip of 5 days including 4 nights in 12*4 (hotel) *2 Lodging & per diem Albania hotel 2 persons 30*4.5(per 366 /country= 2x4.5 per diem)*2 diem 1 trip of 5 days including 4 nights in 30*4 (hotel)*2 Lodging & per diem The Former hotel 2 persons 30*4.5(per 510 Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia /country= 2x4.5 per diem)*2 diem 500Km/Greece 0.4 200 1100Km/Albania 0.4 440 Km 1100Km/ The Former 0.4 440 Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Boat rental (€/day) Albania 4 day/ country 50 200

Boat rental (€/day) The Former 4 day/ country 60 240 Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Boat rental (€/day) Greece 4 day/ country 200 800 Total consumables 4141 TOTAL Hydrophyte beds 9141 Equipment needed: GPS, meter, decameter, Secchi-disk, Grapnel, rake, plastic bags for plant samples

Page 127/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.22. Estimated costs for the monitoring of the species composition of wet meadows Species composition of wet Cost for one item meadows Number Total cost (€) (€) (WV 4) Staff 145 (Greece) Staff installation of permanent 50 (Albania) reference points (1/2 day 3 x 0.5 50 (The Former 122.5 technician in each country) Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Staff time (person.day) Albania 8 100 800 (2persons for 4 days) Staff time (person.day) The Former Yugoslav Republic of 6 100 600 Macedonia

Staff time (person.day) Greece 10 300 3000 (more transects in Micro/Greece)

Total Staff 4522.5 Consumables 1 trip of 5 days including 4 nights in 45*4 (hotel) *2 855 Lodging & per diem Greece hotel 2 persons 30*4.5(per diem)*2 /country= 2x4.5 per diem 1 trip of 3 days including 2 nights in 12*2 (hotel) *2 Lodging & per diem Albania hotel 2 persons 198 60*2.5(per diem)*2 /country= 2x2.5 per diem 1 trip of 3 days including 2 nights in Lodging & per diem The Former 30*2 (hotel)*2 270 hotel 2 persons Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 30*2.5(per diem)*2 /country= 2x2.5 per diem 500Km/Greece 0.4 200 1100Km/Albania 0.4 440 1100Km/ The 0.4 440 Km Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Total consumables 2403 TOTAL Wet meadows 6925.5 Equipment needed: GPS, meter, decameter, plastic bags for plant samples, board for measuring height of vegetation

Page 128/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.23. Estimated costs for the monitoring of the species composition of reed beds Species composition of reed Cost for one item Number Total cost (€) beds (WV 6) (€) Staff 145 (Greece) Staff installation of permanent 50 (Albania) reference points (1/2 day 3 x 0.5 50 (The Former 122.5 technician in each country) Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Staff time (person.day) Albania (2 10 100 1000 persons for 5 days)

Staff time (person.day) The Former Yugoslav Republic of 10 100 1000 Macedonia

Staff time (person.day) Greece 10 300 3000

Total Staff 5122.5 Consumables 1 trip of 5 days including 4 nights in 45*4 (hotel) *2 855 Lodging & per diem Greece hotel 2 persons 55*4.5(per diem)*2 /country= 2x4.5 per diem 1 trip of 5 days including 4 nights in 12*4 (hotel) *2 Lodging & per diem Albania hotel 2 persons 366 30*4.5(per diem)*2 /country= 2x4.5 per diem 1 trip of 5 days including 4 nights in Lodging & per diem The Former 30*4 (hotel)*2 hotel 2 persons 510 Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 30*4.5(per diem)*2 /country= 2x4.5 per diem 500Km/Greece 0.4 200 1100Km/Albania 0.4 440 1100Km/ The 0.4 440 Km Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Total consumables 2811 TOTAL Reed beds 7933.5 Equipment needed: GPS, meter, decameter, plastic bags for plant samples, and board for measuring height of vegetation

Page 129/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.24. Estimated costs for the survey of Aldrovanda vesiculosa Cost for Aldrovanda vesiculosa Number one item Total cost (€) (WV 8) (€) Staff

Staff time (person.day) Albania 1 100 100 Staff time (person.day) The Former 1 100 100 Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Staff time (person.day) Greece 1 300 300 Total Staff 500

Consumables Lodging & per diem Greece 1 per diem 55 55 Lodging & per diem Albania 1 per diem 30 30 Lodging & per diem The Former Yugoslav 1 per diem 30 30 Republic of Macedonia 100Km/Greece 0.4 40 700Km/Albania 0.4 280 Km 700Km/ The Former 0.4 280 Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Boat rental (€/day) Albania 1 day/ country 50 50 Boat rental (€/day) The Former Yugoslav 1 day/ country 60 60 Republic of Macedonia

Boat rental (€/day) Greece 1 day/ country 200 200

Total consumables 1025

TOTAL Hydrophyte beds 1525 Equipment needed: GPS, Secchi-disk, Grapnel, plastic bags for plant samples

Page 130/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 8.25. Estimated costs for the pilot phase Species composition of reed Cost for one item Number Total cost (€) beds (WV 6) (€) Staff

Staff time (vegetation expert) (days) 5 700 3500

Staff time (person.day) Albania 8 100 800 (2persons for 4 days)

Staff time (person.day) The Former 8 100 800 Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Staff time (person.day) Greece 8 300 2400

Total Staff 7500

Consumables

Boat rental (€/day) Greece 1 day 200 200

1 trip of 4 days with 45*4 (hotel) *6= 6 persons 1080 2400 Lodging & per diem Greece (2/country) with 4 55*4(per diem)*6=

nights in hotel = 1320 6x4 per diem 45*5 (hotel)= 225 1 trip of 5 days 30*5(per diem)= Lodging & per diem expert including 5 nights in 375 150 hotel

Plane ticket + car rental 5 days+ 1 Transport (expert) 1000 1000 night hotel in Thessaloniki

500Km/Greece 0.4 200 1500Km/Albania 0.4 600 1500Km/ The 0.4 600 Km Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Total consumables 5375

TOTAL Pilot study 12875 Note: The pilot phase includes a 3-days joint field working session gathering teams of 2 persons in each country. The representatives of the Ministry of the Environment in each country will be invited to participate but their costs should be covered on another budget. The aim of this session will be to test methods, share questions and enhance standardization between teams.

Page 131/381

Table 8.26. Estimated staff costs per country FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC GREECE ALBANIA OF MACEDONIA Proposed Cost Total Cost Total Cost Total No Method No of No of No of No of No of No of indicator per day cost per day cost per day cost people days / people days / people days / per (per per (per per (per involved year involved year involved year person year) person year) person year) Location WV1, Visit of and WV3, sites surface 1 3 300 900 1 3 100 300 1 3 100 300 WV5, (for field area of WV7 validation) habitats WV1, Hydrophyte Jensen 2 5 300 3000 2 5 100 1000 2 5 100 1000 WV2 beds Transects 2 5 300 3000 2 4 100 800 2 3 100 600 Wet WV4 + meadows Quadrats 1 0.5 145 72.5 1 0.5 50 25 1 0.5 50 25 Transects 2 5 300 3000 2 5 100 1000 2 5 100 1000 WV6 Reed beds + Quadrats 1 0.5 145 72.5 1 0.5 50 25 1 0.5 50 25 Aldrovanda Field WV8 1 1 300 300 1 1 100 100 1 1 100 100 vesiculosa survey

Table 8.27. Total costs (equipment, staff, consumables/ running costs) per country FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF GREECE ALBANIA MACEDONIA

o Proposed N indicator (€) tenance/ year) year) year) year) year) year) Total cost Total cost Total cost Total (per year) (per year) (per year) (per year) (per year) (per year) (per Equipment costs running costs running costs running costs running Maintenance/ Main Maintenance/ Updating (per Updating (per Updating (per Updating Consumables/ Consumables/ Consumables/ Staff cost Staff (per cost Staff (per cost Staff (per Location and WV1, surface WV3, area of 450 900 655 1555 300 628 928 300 650 950 WV5, habitats WV7 (field validation) WV1, Hydrophyte 135 3000 1945 4945 1000 1006 2006 1000 1190 2190 WV2 beds

Wet WV4 315 3072.5 1055 4127.5 82.5 638 1463 625 710 1335 meadows

WV6 Reed beds 315 3072.5 1055 4127.5 1025 806 1831 1025 950 1975

Aldrovanda WV8 300 295 595 100 360 460 100 370 470 vesiculosa

TOTAL 1215 10345 5005 15350 3250 3438 6688 3050 3870 6920

Note: This budget does not take into consideration the costs of the pilot study (see Table 8.25) which reaches the amount of 12,875€

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

9. Forests and Terrestrial Habitats

Rémi Grovel, Forêt Energie Ressources (FER), Vieille Brioude, France

9.1. Introduction

9.1.1. Analysis of existing monitoring programmes The “Catalogue of existing monitoring programmes in the Prespa watershed” (compiled by PPNEA in Albania, BioEco in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, SPP in Greece and Christian Perennou for Tour du Valat), in February 2008 did not recover many monitoring programmes and databases in existing forest monitoring sector in the three countries. No specific monitoring programmes related to forest and terrestrial habitats have been identified except for Pinus peuce forest stands in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

In Albania:  Annual data on agriculture and livestock at commune level, by the Institute of Statistics (INSTAT).  Based on the monitoring program of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Water Administration (MEFWA), Prespa National Park is included in the scheme of monitoring and the database is provided by the Agency of Environment (Albanian institution in charge of the monitoring process of environment).  Data of wood volume, annual increment etc. from sampling points for the communal forest management are conducted by the Forest Service.

In Greece, only data from SPP monitoring are included in the above-mentioned document:  Photo-monitoring (remote sensing) from 1991 up to now by SPP.  Wet meadows - functional group cover from 2002 to present (annually), by SPP.  Monitoring of illegal activities, from 1992 to present, weekly in the whole watershed by SPP.  Mapping of habitat types during 1999-2001 by the Greek Ministry of Environment.  Data of wood volume in the forest, annual increment etc. from sampling points for the forest management plans every 10 years supervised or conducted by the Forest Service.

Page 134/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

 Data for fuelwood that is sold to specific groups of the local population.  Prices of wood and data for the quality, probably raw but still valuable. These data should be available at least since 1960.  Other data from Forest Service of Florina that must be held regarding threats (e.g. illegal logging).  A research programme for Pinus peuce by the School of Forestry & Natural Environment of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia:  Specific Pinus peuce monitoring programme, 2007-2008: monthly monitoring started in 2007 (?), by the Faculty of Forestry in Skopje (University of “St. Cyril and Methodius”), through 10 precise research areas (plots).  Soil physical & chemical properties, land management, land use: on the Watershed of the river Golema Reka (from 2005 to 2008), not regularly, by the Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Institute of Agriculture Skopje (IAS), University ”St. Cyril and Methodius”, Skopje.

9.1.2. Connection to EU and national legislation The guiding principles of forestry use in the European Union are sustainability and multi- functionality. Forests play an important role in terms of environmental protection and conservation. Although there is no common European forest policy, Member States have entered into a number of commitments at the EU level. These take the form of EU legislation, such as the Rural Development Regulation and environmental directives, and shared international commitments. In order to bring some order to the variety of activities related to forestry in the EU, a Resolution on a Forestry Strategy was agreed in December 1998. At the heart of the Strategy, there is a commitment to promote sustainable forest management through co-operative action between Member States and the institutions of the EU. The Strategy was reviewed in 2005, and the Commission adopted Conclusions on an EU Forest Action Plan in mid 2006.

Forest monitoring has a long tradition in most Member States of the EU and through Council Regulations (EEC) 3528/86 and 2158/92, monitoring schemes were established for the protection of Community‟s forests against air pollution. Forest monitoring aims at providing information on relevant decision-making and policy formulation at regional, national or European level. In addition, forest monitoring can provide data and

Page 135/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park information for the forestry sector, and forms the base of one of the principles of forest certification systems.

The monitoring systems in place have a different history in different countries and were established in order to meet specific information needs. Over time, information needs have changed and the concepts of the existing monitoring programmes were either adapted or completed by new monitoring programmes. In order to allow for trans- national use of the data collected at regional or national level, the harmonisation of monitoring is required. Any harmonisation approach has to address monitoring design (stratified sampling, systematic sampling, etc.), methodologies for data collection and standards for the data quality and data storage. The Community supports the harmonisation of forest monitoring through legislation (Forest Focus) and research-related instruments (e.g. Research Framework Programme, COST actions). The purpose of this Focus Forest Regulation (EC2152/2003) is the establishment of a Community scheme for harmonised, broad-based, comprehensive and long-term monitoring of European forest ecosystems to protect the Community‟s forests. The scheme is built on the achievements of two Council regulations for monitoring the impacts of atmospheric pollution (Council Regulation (EEC) 3528/86) and of fires [Council Regulation (EEC) 2158/92] on forest ecosystems. Since Regulation (EC) 2152/2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) expired in 2006, the follow- up is given by the Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (the so-called “LIFE+”, which runs from 2007 to 2013).

One of the conditions for an applicant country to become EU member is to set up “Natura 2000” networks of protected sites as required under EU law. The applicant countries are at different stages in the identification and designation of sites for inclusion in the networks. Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are currently with EMERALD network which is the precondition for the Natura 2000 network. Once the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia gets the EU applicant status it should start designating Natura 2000 sites.

Taking environmental and multi-functional considerations into account in forestry is not problem-free in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. A major difficulty is the lack of resources, but know-how also needs to be improved in certain respects. Attitudes are

Page 136/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park also an obstacle in some cases. The applicant countries must nevertheless be aware that an effective environmental policy helps to preserve forests. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be expected to respect the same international commitments and processes relating to forests and the environment as the European Union. National programs targeting forestry are necessary in connection with EU financial aid for forestry.

9.1.3. Baseline information1 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia There are two Ministries primarily responsible for resource management in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (MoEPP) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Resources Management (MoAFW/ MoA). Much like in Albania, the mandates of the MoEPP and the MoAFW exceed their organizations‟ capacity to implement at the local level. The MoAFW is responsible for all aspects relating to forest management outside of private lands and protected areas. The public enterprise “Makedonski Forests”, which reports to the MoAFW, is responsible for the management of Prespa‟s 23,744 hectares of productive (unprotected) forest. The local branch “Prespadrvo” is located in Resen and employs 70 people. Nine of them are considered forest engineers and have a university degree or higher level in forestry or agriculture. The remainders are rangers or are involved in forest harvesting or administration.

Under the new Nature Protection Act (2004), the MoA retains management authority over wildlife (flora/fauna), forestry and fishing. Management planning for these resources outside of protected areas is the responsibility of the MoA. The MoEPP determines species status (i.e. protected species designations) and controls the introduction of exotic species for non-agricultural purposes. However, both the MoEPP and MoA must approve all hunting, forestry, and fishing licenses. In the case of listed plant and fungi species, the MoEPP has full licensing authority. Inside the Prespa watershed the main areas under a precise protection status are the following:  Strictly Protected Ornithological Reserve "Ezerani” (2080ha of the coastal area of Macro Prespa)

1 The leading expert on Forests and other terrestrial habitats (R. Grovel) collected valuable information during his short field mission in the Prespa area from the 24th to the 28th of November 2008. Additional information was provided by the national consultants and representatives of national institutions that participated in the project workshop.

Page 137/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

 National Park "Pelister" (12,500 ha of wood and forest areas)  National Park of "Galicica” (22,750 ha)  Monument of Nature "Lake Prespa”  Reserve of Fir (Abies alba, 7.6 ha), Reserve of Birch (Betula verrucosa2, 8.7 ha), and Reserve of Beech (Fagus moesiaca3, 5 ha). Located on the southwestern slopes of Pelister Mountain the Reserves are managed by the Forest Industry Company "Prespa" from Resen.

An active forest management sector is present in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia part of Prespa. The MoA Directorate of Forests is the primary management authority for forestry on state lands. The MoA exercises this authority through the development of general/national and special forest management plans, on-site inspections, and issuance of licenses. Actual forest management and commercial harvest of the trees is done by Forest Enterprises. There are approximately 24,000 hectares of non-protected forest all managed by the Makedonski Forest Enterprise, with a branch in the municipality of Resen (Prespadrvo), which harvests, markets, and conducts reforestation activity. To collect fuelwood on state land, a license must be acquired from the MoA and forest officials must accompany the collector. The forest is divided into four management units, for which management plans are developed every 10 years. Currently, new management plans for these units are scheduled for development during the next two years. Forest management in the area has, on the whole been successful in maintaining forest cover. Indeed, forest cover has actually increased significantly in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia part of Prespa during the past 70 years despite the fact that nearly all the people in the area rely upon firewood for heating and cooking during the winter months.

From an ecosystem management perspective, forest management in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia part of Prespa is deficient in several respects. First, forest management is focused primarily upon producing a sustainable supply of timber and firewood for the region; habitat values, watershed management values, and biodiversity enhancement values are not management objectives. There is an emerging awareness of ecosystem-oriented forest management and the importance of adopting related practices,

2 According to botanists Betula verrucosa is replaced by Betula pendula. 3 According to the recent knowledge provided by botanists, the species Fagus moesiaca does not exist. Systematically, it coincides with Fagus sylvatica ssp sylvatica. Generally, botanists say that there are only 2 subspecies: Fagus sylvatica sylvatica and Fagus sylvatica orientalis.

Page 138/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park but there is no institutional capacity to develop and apply ecosystem-oriented forest management. Albania (AL) The approximately 3,400 hectares of forest in AL-Prespa is comprised of 2,900ha state- owned forests and 500ha of community-owned forests. During the turmoil of the 1990s, extensive illegal felling by commercial interests from outside the area left the once extensive oak and beech forests seriously degraded. With the designation of the Prespa National Park (PNP) the state-owned forest is no longer exploited commercially for timber and active forest management has basically ceased in the Albanian part of Prespa until the PNP determines how to proceed.

Local communities are allowed to obtain firewood and fodder from these protected forests. This is difficult to control because firewood is the main fuel source for heating and cooking for all 5,200 people living in AL-Prespa. There are no other sources as readily available or as cheap as wood. Electricity is erratic and expensive. Solar energy is too expensive and impractical. Household-level biogas may be viable, but requires pilot testing in Prespa‟s climate. No replacement for wood fuel is envisioned to be economically feasible in the near future. A reasonable estimate is that local people in AL-Prespa will rely largely upon wood for their heating and cooking needs for another 10 years. Traditionally, local population use fresh firewood of good quality (Φ>10cm), without any efficiency in heating system.

Annual growth rates of forests in Prespa range from 1.6 m3/ha to 5.4 m3/ha. It can be assumed that the growth rate/ha in AL-Prespa is at the lower end of the range, or approximately 8,500 m3/year (2.5 m3/ha per year x 3,400ha = 8,500 m3/year). A household of five persons needs approximately 10 m3 of fuel wood/year. Apply this figure to the approximately 1,000 families in AL-Prespa and one can see that about 10,000 m3 of fuel wood/year are needed per year.

This approximate figure illustrates the difficulty with which existing forest cover meets current wood demand. In addition, not only people from inside the Prespa basin demand fuel wood and there can be high pressure at certain locations. Clearly, the challenge facing forest management in AL-Prespa is how to meet fuel wood and fodder needs and restore forest health. Finally, the high demand for fuelwood in AL-Prespa has caused

Page 139/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park important degradation to part of the forests of GR-Prespa found on the borders with Albania (illegal logging has and is still taking place within the Greek territory).

Greece (GR) The majority of forest lands are state-owned (80%) and the remaining are municipal forests belonging to the communities of Vrondero, Aghios Germanos and Karies. The Prespa forests are managed by the Forest Directorate of Florina (which belongs to the Regional Forest Service of West Macedonia, Ministry of Agriculture/ MoA4). Within the Forest Directorate of Florina, there are 5 municipality forest (8,345ha), 3 state-owned forests in the Prespa basin (10,900ha), 2 mixed state-municipality forest (3,280ha) and 1 church forest (8ha). Wood production in the three state-owned forests is based on 10- years management plans for each one of them (to be revised in 2009, 2014 and 2015). As there is no forestry cadastre and because villages and farm plots are included in the state-owned forest area, some conflicts often occur with local farmers on the boundaries. A forest management plan exists in GR-Prespa; in the context of the operation of the Prespa National Forest Management Body (PNFMB) and the future establishment of a National Park in GR-Prespa, forest management is expected to be modified to comply with the guidelines of the Special Environmental Study (Argyropoulos & Giannakis 2001) and to integrate more biodiversity conservation objectives and/or practices into forest operations in GR-Prespa, while maintaining a balance with the social and economic dimension of forestry. The Ministry of Agriculture is working on establishing new terms of reference of the Forest Management plans while is in line to adapt these rules to the climate change.

Extract from KfW report in 2005: “The original natural forest ecosystems in the Prespa region consisted of multi-species, multi-age stands. In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia part of Prespa, monoculture afforestation has led to the simplification of forest species composition and age structure, reduced forest ecosystem complexity and degraded forest habitats, and disrupted ecological interactions. Nesting trees have nearly disappeared for globally threatened species such as the Imperial Eagle and with them the feeding and nesting areas for various types of birds and insects. Monoculture forest stands also lead to a sharp reduction in insect populations, which means a lower density and variety of predatory vertebrates, especially birds.

4 Recently named Ministry of Rural Development and Food (MoRDF)

Page 140/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

This kind of forest management gives no priority to restoring native forest species diversity, to maximizing age structure within the forest, and to improving forest ecosystem health. Allowable harvest levels are determined without regard to maintaining or rehabilitating natural forest species composition and without regard to impacts on other species. These “production-oriented” forest management practices reflect a management bias towards forest engineering and timber production and are the main source of stress on forest ecosystem function in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia part of Prespa and GR-Prespa.

In AL-Prespa, the main source of stress on forest ecosystem function is much more practical and immediate - at least 5,000 peoples‟ dependence on fuelwood and fodder from an already degraded forest. Management capacity within the new PNP is low. The resource base has not been accurately inventoried or monitored, and there are few financial and technical resources, especially for biodiversity and integrated ecosystem management. The underlying issues include: destructive firewood and fodder harvesting; poor grazing practices; low capacity of forest and Park staff to work with local people to develop joint solutions to meeting fuel and fodder needs while restoring forest health.

Management Plans for the Prespa region‟s protected areas are at various stages of preparation and show different approaches and standards. None of the protected areas described above has an approved integrated Management Plan. The existing drafts are merely a description of zones and do not provide benchmarks and indicators for operational management. There is no monitoring program in place or even developed for any of the Protected Areas”.

9.1.4. Rationale for monitoring A relevant forest and terrestrial habitats monitoring system for Prespa trans-boundary area has to take into consideration the main following principles:  all natural habitats of the EU Habitats Directive interest that are existing in the 2 or 3 countries are to be included in the TMS;  to be in accordance with the international and national policy instruments for sustainable forest management, that are the UNCED forest principles, with the guidelines for detailed thematic reports on forest ecosystems from the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the National Strategy for Sustainable Forestry Development in each country as well;

Page 141/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

 to comply with the forest sustainable management principles and criteria (see below) and with the lines of Ecosystem Management Approach;  to provide reliable information to decision-makers for a sustainable development of the forestry sector, i.e. related to forest ownership, forest types and forest management plan;  to be able to assess the trends in both quantity and quality of forest resources and terrestrial habitats;  ecological integrity of forest management should be guaranteed, i.e. appropriate silvicultural and pastoral practices have to be monitored as well as economic, environmental and social impacts of commercial forestry;  to monitor all socio-economic activities that (may) affect natural resources and habitats (firewood, grazing, tourism, hunting, non-wood products collection, etc.).

Forest sustainable management criteria The TMS should also be in accordance with the forest sustainable management criteria for forest habitats. The 6 criteria from the Helsinki Conference (1993) on Forest Sustainable Management are: 1. Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of forest resources and their contribution to global carbon cycles. 2. Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality. 3. Maintenance and encouragement of productive functions of forests (wood and non-wood). 4. Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biological diversity in forest ecosystems. 5. Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of protective functions in forest management (notably soil and water). 6. Maintenance of other socio-economic functions and conditions.

Sustainable Forest Management Guidelines (criteria and indicators) should be applicable in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia forestry as well as in the Albanian forestry whatever the certification system is or could be (PEFC, FSC or none).

Page 142/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Vegetation zones / stratification of forest lands In the Prespa basin, the vegetation zones from the lakeshore to the watershed line on the mountains that could be easily identified and shared on database for monitoring are the following [based on Horvat et al. (1974) system of classification]:

1) Riparian vegetation / wet grasslands (meadows): This riparian vegetation is not an identified zone of natural distribution. Riparian vegetation is very limited to some aquatic tree stands/galleries (Salix spp, Populus spp) and alluvial forests (Alnus sp) in addition to reed beds and natural eutrophic vegetation around the lakes. Wet meadow vegetation, on fertile and deep soils of the littoral zone of the lakes and running waters, includes several pastoral, quick growing herbs forming compact and grassy mats. They could be met everywhere according to specific conditions (moisture, salt, persistent water, etc.) but often found at the same level as lowland woodland vegetation.

2) Lowland vegetation (woodland & dry grassland): The lower expansion of the forest does not follow the rules of theoretical succession as the psychrophile forest stands and the thermophyllous forests stands as well, that are included in the deciduous oak forest stands come close to the lake shore. According to Pavlides (1997), it is a set of mixed forests of low altitude not equally distributed in the three countries located mainly in the western part of the coastal area: mixed deciduous-evergreen forests of Ostryo- Carpinion orientalis Ht. 1958 (small coastal area at the south-west edge of the Greek Prespa Park) and Ostryo–Carpinion adriaticum (Juniper-Hornbeam-Macedonian oak), evergreen Box-Juniper shrublands (Buxus sempervirens and Juniperus oxycedrus of the sub-mountainous zone west of Vrondero) and grasslands (pastures), and evergreen conifer forests of Aghios Georghios of Psarades (the only absolute protection forest nucleus of the Greek Prespa NP on the northeast slopes of mountain Devas at 1000- 1100m.a.s.l. consisting of tall and straight trees of Juniperus foetidissima and J. excelsa).

These thermophyllous mixed deciduous broadleaved forests, including hornbean mixed forests and Buxo-Juniperetum as degraded stages of oak forests, are based at the lowest forest zone of the lake periphery, which stretch usually close to the settlements and as a consequence, often degraded forest due to intense timber felling and irrational livestock grazing. Lowland vegetation also encompasses the vegetation zones of dry-grasslands and farmland (e.g. beans in Greece, apple and vine cultivations in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as well as rangelands (pastures), both representing terrestrial

Page 143/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park habitats (artificial and semi-natural respectively). These “dry” grasslands occupy a small proportion of land at low altitudes, are not flooded by the lake and exist at locations that were not converted to agricultural land in the recent past (e.g. in the 1960-70s‟ for GR- Prespa).

3) Deciduous oak forests: The deciduous oak forests of Prespa can be classified in the Balkan thermophile zone (Quercion frainetto) and some portions in the Balkan psychrophile zone (Quercion petraea-cerris). The oak zone at the Albanian part ranges from 600m to ca. 1,300m.a.s.l. and is dominated by deciduous oak (Querco – Carpinetum Wrb 54) with Quercus petraea, Q. frainetto, Q. pubescens and Q. Cerris (Quercetum frainetto-cerris Oberd.48 et Horvat. 1959; sin. Quercetum frainetto Dafis 1966). Oak woods with Ostrya carpinifolia and Carpinus orientalis, and Ostryo-Carpinion orientalis of the lower elevations, are also included in this zone. On dry and stony sites Quercus trojana (Quercetum trojanae macedonicum Horv. 1946) dominates. Also confined to dry and stony sites are the juniper woods (Excelsio–Prunetum webbi Fuk et fab 1962 Juniperus excelsa) of the Kallamas peninsula. The woods and forests of the oak zone at the Albanian part are, unfortunately, rarely in good condition. Woodcutting and severe grazing have left mostly heavily degraded woods and a predominant shrubland in large parts of the area. The shrublands are enriched with Crataegus monogyna, Cornus mas, Corylus avellana or Rosa canina. At a severe degradation stage, Buxus sempervirens shrublands occur.

Deciduous oak forests (Ass. Querco frainetto-cerris Oberd.48 Ht.59 and Ass. Quercetum petraea) also constitute the dominant vegetation type in the Greek Prespa National Forest. They form a zone extending up to an elevation of 900-1,200m on the slopes of the hills and mountains surrounding the lakes. Finally, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, oak forests (Ass. Quercetum frainetto Cerris and ass. Orno-Quercetum Cerris) are widespread at Baba, Bigla, Plakenska and Petrino Mountain. Large number of forest phytocenoses such as: Ass. Quercetum troianae, Juniperitosum excelse-foetodissimae, Ass. Ostryo-Quercetum Cerris, Ass. Querco-Ostrietum carpinifolae, Ass. Aceri obtusati- Fagetum, and Ass. Abieti-Fagetum forest, are found on the slopes of the Galicica Mountain.

4) Deciduous beech forests of Fagetum moesiacum: The beech zone at the Albanian part of Prespa (Fagion moesiacum) extends to elevations from 1,200 to 1,900m.

Page 144/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Beech woods and their degradation stage are restricted to the eastern slopes of Mali i Thate. Additionally, the beech trees (Fagus sylvatica), Acer obtusatum, A. pseudoplatanus and Corylus colurna are also present. In Greece, the beech forests are classified in the Ass. Fagion moesiacum, except the regions of the northeastern side of the study area, where the floristic composition of the forests coincides with the Association Fagion illyricum with the participation of Abies alba. On Pelister Mountain, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Ass. Calamintho grandiflorae-Fagetum can be found, while on the coldest places Fago-Abietetum meredionale might be found. At an altitude of 1,700- 2,000m, some remnants of Fagetum subalpinum are found.

5) Mixed beech – fir tree forests: The mixed beech and fir tree forests are restricted at the NE part of the study area and they cover regions at an altitude of 1,500-1,800m. The species Abies alba (relict forest stands?), Abies Borisii-regis (also on the northern slope of the Stara Galicica), Fagus sylvatica and Fagus moesiaca dominate the upper part of these forests with the fir trees surpassing the beech trees that reach 25m in height. These forests belong to the Ass. Abieti-Fagetum moesiacum.

6) Sub-alpine vegetation of dwarf shrubs: the subalpine vegetation extends higher than the upper boundaries of beech in altitude of 1,800 to 2,000 m.a.s.l. It consists of cold resisting shrubs, chamaephytes and perennial herbs forming a dense and compact layer just 0.30 to 0.50m high. The most frequent elements are the dwarfish semi-shrubs Vaccinium myrtillus, Chamaecytisus polytrichus, Ch. eriocarpus, Juniperus communis ssp nana, Bruckenthalia spiculifera, Genista spp, etc.

7) Alpine pastures and meadows / heaths: This zone is considered to be important for the presence of endemic Balkan plants, such as the species Asyneuma limonifolium, Alyssum corymbosum, Astragalus depressus, Anthemis pindicola, Dianthus minutifolius, Carlina acaulis, Arabis caucasica. The following plant species Carex curvula, Juncus trifidus, Carex foetida, Plygonum bistorta, Elyna Bellardii, Gnaphalium supinum, Vaccinium uligunosum, and Trolius europaeus, have on Pelister Mountain the southernmost limit of their distribution. In Albania, the alpine meadows extend over the beech belt, along the Mali i Thate crests, steeper and narrower in eastern slopes, and broader and milder in western ones (Mersinllari 1997, Buzo 2000). Depending on the exposure, water content and soil properties of the plant communities of the meadows vary from Arrhenatheretea types to communities of Festuco-Brometea.

Page 145/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Within the region, transgressions between Sub-Mediterranean types (Meso- or Xerobrometum) and Continental types, with dominating Stipa species (Festucetum), occur. These transgressions at the border of the European beech zone seem to be most interesting from a phytogeographical point of view and for the conservation of the region‟s biodiversity as a whole.

Natural habitats of EU Directive Habitats From the 22 EU habitats that should be monitored in the Prespa basin, the following are dealing with forests and terrestrial habitats (Table 9.1): a) 4 priority terrestrial habitats (EU Directive Habitats):  Semi-natural dry grasslands on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometea Br. Bl et Tx 1943)  Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals (Thero-Brachypodietea)  Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas  Grecian juniper woods

Table 9.1. Priority habitat types (according to the EEC Directive 92/43) found in Transboundary Prespa, and their interest for Transboundary Monitoring (TBM) Priority Habitats, Former Yugoslav EU Habitat ALBANIA GREECE Republic of Macedonia Directive % cover in % cover in % cover in Priority Priority Priority Name Prespa Prespa Prespa for TBM for TBM for TBM catchment5 catchment catchment Semi-natural dry grasslands on calcareous 5 P 6.03 2.1 P substrates (Festuco- Brometaliae) Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals 1 2 2.9 (Thero- P Brachypodietea) Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on 1 0.55 7.8 P siliceous substrates in mountain areas Grecian juniper <1 P 11 P 10.2 P woods

5 in Greece the % area of Prespa basin under each habitat was derived from formal Ministry of Environment GIS-based information; in Albania from an ECAT-based GIS, and in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia it was produced using experts‟ knowledge, so the % values are approximate.

Page 146/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park b) 14 important terrestrial habitats (EU Directive Habitats) identified for TB Monitoring as habitats or biotopes:  Alpine and subalpine heaths  Stable Buxus sempervirens formations on calcareous rock slopes (Berberis)  Mediterranean tall-herb and rush meadows (Molinio-Holoschoenion)  Subalpine and alpine tall herb communities  Calcareous rocky slopes with hasmophytic vegetation  Vegetated silicicolous inland cliffs with hasmophytic vegetation  Acidophilous (Luzulo-Fagetum) beech forests  Neutrophilous (Asperulo-Fagetum) beech forests  Subalpine beech woods with Acer and Rumex arifolius  Calcareous beech forests (Cephalanthero-Fagion)  Quercus trojana woods (Quercetum trojanae macedonicum Horv. 1946)  Hellenic beech forests with Abies borisii-regis  Quercus frainetto woods  Salix alba and Populus alba galleries

From the 14 important terrestrial habitats, according to the knowledge of national experts, 6 to 8 of them could be relevant for the Transboundary Monitoring System (even though they are not priority ones according to the EU Habitats Directive) (Table 9.2).

9.1.5. Research gaps (The following items may not really be research gaps, but merely special issues for which the consultant did not find any consistent information)  Existing maps of priority terrestrial habitats in Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;  Forest health network;  Forest stands for genetic conservation (seed production area, selected stands);  Forest national inventory (survey);  Precise and legal content of forest management plans (from each country) in terms of forest stands ecological description to be compared.

The Forest Service of Florina (Greece) gets data for wood since at least 1960, which can give important information on the development of wood stock, annual increment and production.

Page 147/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 9.2. Non-priority habitat types (EEC Directive 92/43) found in Transboundary Prespa, and their interest for Transboundary Monitoring (TBM)

Former Yugoslav ALBANIA GREECE Important Habitats, EU Republic of Habitats Directive Macedonia % cover in Priority % cover in Priority % cover in Priority Name Prespa for Prespa for Prespa for TBM catchment TBM catchment TBM catchment

+ Alpine and subalpine heaths 5 0.84 P 9.3 + Acidophilous (Luzulo-Fagetum) 10 6.7 P 2.6 biotope beech forests + Neutrophilous (Asperulo- 10 6.4 P 3.0 biotope Fagetum) beech forests + Subalpine beech woods with <1 3 P 0.3 biotope Acer and Rumex arifolius + Quercus trojana woods (Italy 3 5.5 P 1.0 biotope and Greece) + Quercus frainetto woods 8 P 3.6 P 0.4 biotope + Subalpine and alpine tall herb < 1 0.2 0.1 communities + Mediterranean tall-herb and rush < 1 ? 0.5 P meadows (Molinio-Holoschoenion) Other habitats

- Eastern white oak woods and 7 9.3 12.7 biotope balkanic thermophilous oak woods

9.2. Development of indicators Following the workshop held on the 20th of February 2009 in Korcha/ Korçë (Albania, see Annex 5.4), the first drafted list (which comprised 18 indicators) was reviewed taking into consideration that grasslands have to be included but human activities that are part of pressure indicator for natural habitats have to be placed in the socio-economic theme of the monitoring system (TMS).

The rationale was to reduce and to select a few indicators with a great significance inside which sub-indicators and/or parameters to be prioritized could be identified (Table 9.3, including the first attempt on the proposal of indicators). The selection and the comprehensive framework within which the indicators are designed should be the one to start (kick off) with operational implementation and experimentation on the TMS. General indicators will be recorded in the first step and, on the second step (medium term), when

Page 148/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park the TMS will be well running, other sub-indicators could be added as well as new indicators if needed, and if relevant & cost-effective.

From the list of indicators presented in Table 9.3, the following points should be taken into account with caution:  Two indicators (F1 and F2) are closely linked to the “Land-use” theme of the monitoring system.  Others indicators might be designed but are not relevant for all three countries or not a priority (i.e. certification process, carbon storage).  “Grasslands” is a general term which has to be preferred to rangelands (grasslands include meadows, pastures, heaths, and even grazed shrub lands).  Indicators more related to human and economic activities than to natural habitats monitoring have been removed/proposed for inclusion to the “Socio-economic” theme (e.g. firewood consumption, livestock and grazing pressure).

Table 9.3. Original proposal of indicators for the “Forests and other terrestrial habitats” theme Proposed indicators (original attempt) N° Nature* Vegetation cover change F1 S / I

Priority terrestrial habitats conservation distribution and quality F2 S

Terrestrial habitats and forested areas under protection F3 S

Forest and grasslands under a comprehensive and implemented F4 S management plan

Structure and dynamics within forest stands and other terrestrial F5 S habitats

Distribution and quality of alpine & subalpine meadows F6 S

Silvicultural practices for sustainable forest management (SFM) F7 R

Natural damages and diseases (F8) S *Nature of the Indicator/parameter: P = Pressure (relevant to the socio-economic theme); S = State; I = Impact/ changes; R = Response

Details on the development of indicators and its rationale are presented in the following pages in eight non-numbered text-boxes. The following acronyms were used:  PNP: Prespa National Park (Albania)  GNP: Galicica National Park (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)  PeNP: Pelister National Park (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)

Page 149/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

 PNFMB: Prespa National Forest Management Body (Greece)  MoEFWA: Ministry of Environment, Forests, Water and Agriculture (Albania)  MoAF: Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Albania)  MoAFW: Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Water Management (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)  MoEPP: Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)  MoADF: Ministry of Rural Development and Food (Greece)  PSCWM: Planning Service of Central and Western Macedonia (Greece)

Page 150/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicator F1: Vegetation cover change Nature: S Objective / Significance to Forest & other Terrestrial habitats monitoring: To monitor forest/vegetation cover extension or depletion and to assess the changes in terrestrial forest stands quality: changes in land use, encroachment by cultivation, shrub encroachment, land demand for infrastructure, illegal cutting or overgrazing may identify gaps in forest cover (clear cutting). Extension or depletion of the timberline (upper boundaries of forest) and subalpine vegetation is strongly linked to the climate change and to the grazing pressure (increasing or decreasing) on subalpine grasslands. The above limit of forest stands or higher lying forest belt (at an average of 1,900m altitude n the study area) is a very riche biotope/ecotone and so needs to be well known and monitored. Climate changes and forest management (or non-management) may also affect forest habitats in terms of alteration, transformation or conversion. That should be the case for the mix Beech-Fir forests or mix deciduous oak forests. Parameters to be measured are very simple because they deal with Parameters: monitoring of vegetation cover change not habitats monitoring: - high forest (beech/fir, beech) / low forest (oak forests) / bushes / pastures/meadows cover - pure forest stands / mixed forest stands (coniferous/broadleaves) - forest degradation, encroachment (trees/shrubs) and depletion (illegal clear cutting areas, tree lopping areas), forest gaps and bare land, eroded soils, patchiness diversity, etc. - wild fire (mean annual burnt area) - fluctuation on the upper limit of forest stands (beech, junipers) - length of forest roads

Relevance for a Transboundary Monitoring System: Such basic indicator is easily verifiable at the transboundary scale as well as at national level through satellite images or recent ortho-rectified aerial photos. Indicator on forest degradation/encroachment is rather relevant for oak forest and lowland forest more than for Beech forest at any site in the Greek part (e.g. western part near Albania), in the Albanian part or even in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian part (Galicica NP). Even through grazing pressures on subalpine grasslands and dwarf shrubs are quite different from the Greek part to the Albanian one, this sensitive ecotope/habitat does exist in each side of the three countries. (Extension of the Abies area (A. alba, A. borisii-regis) within the beech forest stands could be relevant specifically where beech regeneration is missing because of silvicultural past practices whereas fir regeneration is expanding).

Remote sensing (Corine Landcover, satellite images Method / sources of information: Landsat, Spot, etc.): programme relevance to be defined,

forest inventory, vegetation mapping Ministries in charge of forest and land use planning. MoEFWA/Forest Service Directorate and PNP (AL), Institutions supposed to be involved: MoAFW, MoEPP (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), MoRDF/Forestry Service, PSCWM (GR) and National Parks

Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: - Forest inventory at national or regional level (not scheduled for Greece for the next few years). - Cooperation between local agencies of each country should be facilitated. - Ecological research programme is needed.

Page 151/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Priority terrestrial habitats (EU 92/43 Directive) Indicator F2 Nature: S conservation, distribution and quality Objective / Significance to Forest & other Terrestrial habitats monitoring: This indicator deals with the 4 priority terrestrial habitats (EU Habitats Directive) that are present in each part of the Prespa basin but should also address the issues on the other important habitats according to the EU Directive. - Grecian juniper woods (GJW) spatial distribution and tree cover (ages Sub-indicators: classes of GJW and regeneration, floristic composition of GJW habitats) - 3 priority grasslands habitats:  Semi-natural dry grasslands on calcareous substrates (Festuco Brometaliae)  Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals (Thero-Brachypodietea)  Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas - other important natural habitats distribution (mixed oak forests, fir, beech, alluvial/riparian vegetation/forest, grasslands, heathlands, meadows) Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Grecian juniper woods exist in each of the three countries with significant distribution and defined as priority habitats by national consultants. Important natural grassland habitats also have a significant distribution in three countries. Mapping of such areas, GIS, Cadastre Method / source of information: Local forest surveys National Parks; MoE Agency of Envt and Forest, Prespa NP, University/Fac. of Forest Sciences & Nat. Institution supposed to be involved: Sc. (AL), MinoE, GNP & PNP (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), MoEnv/PNFMB, University (GR), Forestry services/department

Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Note: Pinus peuce (as a relict species) exists in Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (and not proved in Greece and Albania) but mainly outside the Prespa basin, thus, as a subject to monitor, it remains is out of the TMS purposes.

Page 152/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicator F3 Terrestrial Habitats and Forest areas under protection Nature: S

Objective / Significance to Forest & other Terrestrial habitats monitoring: This indicator is needed to assess the total forested area /vegetation cover under protection (whatever the protection status is) and to monitor the level of effort of biodiversity protection policy through the percentage of these high priority natural habitats sites classified by the EU Habitats Directive for which specific protection & management plans are designed and implemented. Sub- - % of protected forests (compared to productive forests) indicators: - area of High priority & important natural habitats sites (EU Habitats Directive) under legal protection or with appropriate management plans Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Despite existing protected areas (National Parks and reserves) that are located all around the Prespa basin, some specific zoning should be highlighted in order to strengthen the forest and terrestrial habitats protection (e.g. the fir, beech and birch reserves located in Pelister). Even though the EU Habitats Directive deals only with the Greek part, this indicator remains relevant to monitor biodiversity protection efforts of each country related to important natural habitats at national and European level. Mapping of such areas, GIS (remote sensing) Method / source of information: Forest management plans, National Parks zones Institution supposed to be involved: National Parks; MoE/ Forestry Departments Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: - Identify (future) protection zoning within the National Parks Management plans. - Habitat mapping in Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Forest lands and grasslands under a comprehensive Indicator F4 Nature: S and implemented management plan Objective / Significance to Forest & other Terrestrial habitats monitoring: % of forest stands and grasslands under a sustainable management plan (FMP/MP) which may secure long term forest and grasslands objectives management and ecosystem oriented practices Parameters: % of forestlands (state-owned / private) and grasslands under MP Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Whereas Greek and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia forests do have FMP, State-owned forests in Albania do not have (only communal forests have FMP). This indicator might measure progress in designing common sustainable forest management plan standards and heathlands/grasslands management practices as well. Method / sources of information: FMP contents, other (?) Forest Services and NP, MoE/Dir. of Protected area (AL), Forestry services and NP, MoE, Forest Public enterprises Institutions supposed to be involved: (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Forestry Services and PNFMB (GR) Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: - New terms of reference for Forest Management Plan are to be defined by the Greek MoRDF

In a second step (priority 2) others parameters will be added: - forest areas certified under one SFM certification process - forest enterprises and logging enterprises to be certified This should be a very efficient indicator for the forests of the Prespa area in the near future because it is supposed to include all criteria from sustainable forest management principles (from the Helsinki conference). Such forest certification processes might be launched in the three countries at the same span of time of the GEF/UNDP project

Page 153/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Structure and dynamics within forestlands Indicator F5 Nature: S and other terrestrial habitats Objective / Significance to Forest & other Terrestrial habitats monitoring: This indicator intends to assess structural and functional characteristics of vegetation to obtain a reliable indication of forest ecosystems quality and the ecological dynamic of terrestrial habitats as well and to challenge the compliance with the criteria for sustainable forest/vegetation management.

- forest vertical profile: number of layers (understorey) Parameters: - age classes distribution in forest stands (from monolayer coppice vegetation to multilayered high forest) - floristic composition (emphasis on endemic species, Pteridium spp., but also leguminous herbs, etc.) and floristic diversity - regeneration rate in the forest stands and bush lands - mature wood and deadwood - identification of the bio-indicators of degradation or erosion (plant species with significance values)

Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Due to the past forest management and the high logging pressure (for fuelwood and hardwood supply) that were implemented before, many forest stands (mainly beech forest) are pure (monospecific) forest without any understorey layer. Many forests lack regeneration because of high remaining pressure and degradation (overgrazing, cutting) or inappropriate silviculture. Undergrazing has also led to significant habitat quality reduction (e.g. biodiversity loss, alterations in structure) and increase of wild fire risk. This indicator will allow monitoring the improvement of forest management and practices. Finally the occurrence of deadwood in forest stands and several age classes with mature wood is a relevant indicator of an ecosystem-oriented forest management (and biodiversity improvement), for both oak and beech (& fir) forests. Method / sources of information: Forest management plan and forest inventories, forest/vegetation permanent plots National parks, Forestry services & research, Fac. of Institutions supposed to be involved: Sciences, Faculty of Forestry science (Skopje), Public Forestry Enterprises, authorities for grasslands (?) Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: - Local forest inventory and mapping (from FMP). Some forest areas do not have FMP - Could regeneration rate data be found inside all FMP? - Could data on deadwood be found from FMP and forest inventories in the three countries?

Page 154/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Distribution and quality of alpine & subalpine Indicator F6 Nature: R grasslands/meadows

Objective / Significance to Forest & other Terrestrial habitats monitoring: Above the timberline, various types of alpine meadows, dwarf shrub formations and communities of rocky sites can be found. Part of theses meadows consist of rich dry meadow plant associations including many endangered plant species and many other plant species that are important habitats for endangered fauna (e.g. reptiles, birds). In addition, the alpine meadow zone is known to be an important habitat for the bear and the chamois. Sub-indicators: - stocking rate / grazing capacity (livestock units / ha according to their floristic composition) - meadows distribution and quality - Vaccinium myrtillus & Juniperus communis spp. nana area extension Relevance for a Transboundary MS: These areas have been subject to intensification of pasturing to improve the quality of the meadows for livestock grazing. The decrease of grazing activities, or the restart of utilizing alpine meadows for grazing during the summer months will have impact on meadows composition and biodiversity. - grasslands areas mapping and surveys - grazing management plans - grasslands quality analysis and carrying capacity Method / sources of information: assessments

- permanent plots - stocking density changes according to pastures types (permanent, improved, native pastures, etc.) MoA, University / Faculty of Forests & Faculty of Natural Sciences, AoE, NP (AL), MeO, NP (Former Yugoslav Institutions supposed to be involved: Republic of Macedonia), For. Serv., PNFMB, Faculty/Forest Research Institution (GR) Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: - Survey and mapping of alpine and sub-alpine grasslands/meadows. - Ecological research programs or pastoral unit description and mapping.

Page 155/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Silvicultural practices for sustainable forest Indicator F7 Nature: R management (FM) Objective / Significance to Forest & other Terrestrial habitats monitoring: Assessing exploitation & logging system in forest stands where a forest management plan is running: logging rate, selective cutting, group selection felling, equipment for felling, extraction, etc. (all activities to target ecological-oriented forest management). The forest management of each forest ecosystem and biotope has to be carried out in accordance with the basal area and volume regulation of the forest. This means that harvesting rates should not exceed the annual increment / yield of the forest stands.

- Harvesting rate: allowed harvest and annual harvested timber volume Sub-indicators: related to mean annual increment - Technical parameters: age class, basal area, annual yield (mean annual increment), cutting rate, regeneration - Invasive/ introduced forest species by plantation (Abies alba, Castanea sativa, Pinus nigra, Pinus sylvestris, Robinia pseudoacacia, etc.) Relevance for a Transboundary MS: To promote sustainable forest management practices in productive and protected forest stands. This indicator will assess part of the quality of forest management practices where logging is allowed Forest management plans, Annual programmes, Method / sources of information: Annual wood sales, Forest inventories, Annual cutting programmes Forestry Services, Forestry Public enterprises, Private Institutions supposed to be involved: forestry enterprises Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: - In GR-Prespa, detailed information on silvicultural activities and practices could be drawn by the Forestry Service (from the foresters in charge of controlling such activities and the contracts signed between the Service and the contractors) and by the contractors themselves (private individuals or local forest cooperatives' members) - Complementary sources of information needed

Indicator F8 Natural disasters and diseases Nature: P Objective / Significance to Forest & other Terrestrial habitats monitoring: External factors to vegetation cover changes (drought, wind/storm, fire) have to be monitored as well as internal ones like diseases (fungal infection, timber-boring insect) - wild fires (already monitored in F1) and fire damaged areas Sub-indicators: - natural tree felling - diseases (desiccation, dieback process on specific forest species, etc.) Relevance for a Transboundary MS: This indicator is linked to meteorological and climatic data. Is it relevant for the TMS?

Forest management plans, National statistical surveys Method / sources of information: MoE (?)

Civil Emergency Directorate of Korcha Prefecture, PNP (AL), Forestry services or Fire Services, Departments Institutions supposed to be involved: in charge of Forest/ vegetation health network/ monitoring

Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Annual forest burnt area in each part of the basin, location and origin of forest fires.

Page 156/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

9.3. Methods Following necessary amendments and adjustment of indicators with the other six themes of the TMS, the final list of proposed indicators was slightly altered compared to the original proposal (see Table 9.4 in comparison with Table 9.3.).

Table 9.4. Final list of proposed indicators for the “Forests and other terrestrial habitats” theme N° Proposed indicator Nature * F1 Vegetation cover change S / I F2 Priority terrestrial habitats conservation and distribution S F3 Terrestrial habitats and forested areas under protection R Forest and grasslands under a comprehensive and F4 R implemented management plan

Structure and dynamics within forest stands and other F5 S terrestrial habitats F6 Distribution and quality of alpine & subalpine meadows S Silvicultural practices for Sustainable Forest Management F7 R (SFM) F8 Natural disasters and diseases S / I *Nature of the Indicator/parameter: P = Pressure (relevant to the socio-economic theme); S = State; I = Impact/ changes; R = Response

9.3.1. Description and justification Data to be monitored have to be classified according to the objective and to the nature of each indicator (nature of parameters) as below:  Spatialized data: area and distribution can be monitored through remote sensing (satellite images, aerial surveys) and vegetation mapping for indicators F1, F2, F6, F8. Several database and programmes could be relevant for habitats mapping forest/vegetation surveys as: Corine Landcover, Corine biotope, satellite images (e.g. Landsat, Spot, Ikonos), Emerald network database, IPA network, etc.  Biomass and composition of habitats need on-field surveys for F2, F5, F6, F8. Forest vegetation and grasslands quality and trends should be assessed through both temporary (floristic and ecological relevés) and permanents plots (dynamic, structure, etc.).  Technical and legal certification (guarantee) for areas under protection and sustainable management plans for indicators F3, F4: this needs only

Page 157/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

documentation from relevant institutions that could be verified (forest management plans, grazing management guidelines or grazing areas under contracts, National Parks zoning and planning) according to sustainable management criteria.  Structure and dynamics within forests and terrestrial habitats (FTH) and silvicultural practices have to be assessed for F5, F7, F8 and monitored through field surveys: permanent plots (in forest stands and grasslands) will be used and additional information could be provided by forest inventories, as well as forest and grazing management plan (including technical parameters as annual cutting, overgrazing, carrying capacity, etc.).

Prerequisites As already mentioned in the relevant Land-use report, setting up a common database requires defining a typology of vegetation zones harmonized through the three countries and identifying of ecological habitats relevant and consistent with the methodology followed by satellite imagery (Directive Habitat, Corine land cover). Three (3) main considerations have to be taken into account: • Priority terrestrial habitats types (according to EU Directive 92/43) have to be identified and mapped in the same way in each country. In Greece the % area under each habitat comes from the formal mapping done by Ministry of Environment (GIS-based information6), while Albania and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are currently with EMERALD Network. For these EU candidates countries, the Emerald work may be considered as a preparation for joining Natura 2000 or the work of the identification of Emerald sites may be done in parallel or/and in co-ordination with the work already started for joining the Natura 2000 network. Information gathered in the framework of the CORINE biotopes project forms an excellent basis for work on Emerald. With the support of the Council of Europe and the EEA7, the complete identification of the Emerald Network in the two countries was supposed to be achieved by the end of 2008 as well as the delivery of the scientific data relating to all the sites (pilot database, sites and boundaries with habitat list per biogeographical region and agreed designation codes). However, according to PNP information, there is not yet status on Emerald sites mapping with habitats list for

6 But with a lot of inaccurate information for specific habitat types 7 European Environmental Agency

Page 158/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Albania. In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 3 Emerald sites are included in the Prespa basin (or Prespa Park) which are the two National Parks (Pelister NP and Galicica NP), and the Nature Reserve Erzani. Database is located in the Ministry of Environment (MoEPP) and management plans are on the way. Forest communities and grass phytocoenoses are identified and mapped for both NP so that they can be linked to Natura 2000 habitats.

The Emerald Network is an ecological network to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats of Europe, which was launched in 1998 by the Council of Europe as part of its work under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) that came into force on June 1, 1982. It is to be set up in each Contracting Party or observer state to the Convention. For the European Union countries the Emerald Network is identical to Natura 2000 (there is no difference in typology but only in codification). The candidate countries for the EU accession are bound to implement and communicate the Natura 2000 results to the European Union by the day of the EU accession. For these countries the Emerald Network project represents a preparation for and a direct contribution to the implementation of the Natura 2000 programme.

• Stratification of vegetation zones and forest stands has to be harmonized around the Prespa basin. Even though some of the vegetation zones are missing in one country (because of edaphic conditions or exposure, eastern or western slope), the classification has to be the same. Otherwise, the sampling methods and results might not be compared from one plot to another. To be more practical, it is suggested starting with a simplified classification of forest and vegetation types related to land use and dynamics, easier to identify and to monitor than the whole terrestrial habitats and biotopes.

Basically, the Land-use Group will use classification based on CORINE Land Cover categories including sub-categories from forest and vegetation typology suggested by the FTH group. However, as sub categories (the fourth level) have not been defined in the CORINE system, it is suggested to analyze whether the EUNIS (European Nature Information System) classification & database (promoted by the EEA and developed and

Page 159/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park managed by the ETC/NPB8 in Paris), which is a more detailed one, could be used within CORINE Land Cover classification. See in Annex 9.1 the simplified classification under CORINE system and the more detailed one with EUNIS habitats types.

NB: these vegetation classifications have to be compared to forest typology used in forest management plans (and grazing management plans as well9) within the 3 countries so as the TMS will benefit from the forestry data in one hand and will be an oriented management system in another hand.

• Natural resource monitoring is “the collection and analysis of repeated observations or measurements to evaluate changes in condition and progress toward meeting a management objective” (Elzinga et al 1998). The field of biodiversity assessment and monitoring has entered a challenging period. It has become practical to evaluate large ecological data sets in a common geospatial and temporal framework. With appropriate protocol standardization and information management, it has become possible to layer virtually infinite numbers of data sets permitting place-based integrative analysis, providing new insights into how ecosystems work and change. While it is important that plot monitoring be developed based on careful scientific thought and sound, standardized procedures, it must also be recognized that multi-disciplinary teamwork is essential for project planning, sampling and data storage and evaluation.

9.3.2. Sampling methods overview To monitor long-term changes in plant diversity in different ecosystems, permanently marked sample areas are essential. Long term monitoring using study plots can provide important information on the structure and diversity of the forest including species occurrence and distribution, condition, mortality, recruitment, growth rates, longevity of plant species and associated ecosystem processes. Linked with the measurement of other variables including soil processes, microclimate, and biodiversity using standardized

8 European Topic Centre for Nature Protection and Biodiversity 9 In Greece, grasslands/pastures in management plans are often mentioned as “grazinglands” or even “drylands” or other terms with negative meaning. The present work might be a good start to determine which habitat types correspond to what kind of management units and propose a relevant typology for all 3 countries.

Page 160/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park protocols, monitoring can provide site specific information on relationships and stressors in the natural ecosystem, and across the landscape as well.

Generally, the methodology for establishing terrestrial vegetation monitoring system (when including different ecosystems) has to discriminate forest and non-forest ecosystem in their protocol (laying out permanent plots or permanents transects, plot sizes, etc.), as for example:  one hundred-by-one hundred metre (100mx100m = 1 ha) for permanent canopy tree biodiversity monitoring plot;  twenty-by-twenty metre (20mx20m) for permanent stand-alone canopy tree biodiversity monitoring plot;  five-by-five metre for permanent small tree and shrub biodiversity monitoring plot. A 5 m x 5 m quadrat is recommended for most situations but, for densely packed shrubs, 2 m x 2 m quadrats may be more suitable;  one-by-one metre for permanent ground vegetation biodiversity monitoring plot;  finally, permanent transects could be added as contiguous five-by-five metre plots or one-by-one metre plots.

Generally, recommended 20mx20m plot serves as an elemental monitoring unit which can be applied in various multiples and grid configurations to address specific sampling needs. From a data analysis perspective the unit is scalable, and can be used in context with smaller or larger metric plots formats. However, to achieve optimal effectiveness, this measuring method must be applied with a sound understanding of project objectives, statistically valid sampling designs, logistics, costs and practicality.

Field data control (ground-truthing sites) for remote sensing mapping on FTH and permanent plots As mentioned in the Land Use report, “typologies of ecological habitats that will allow monitoring through satellite imagery are: Corine Land Cover for the overall land-use/ broad habitat categories, completed locally by Natura 2000 for specific, natural habitats of high value”. But, as it is planned to use both satellite images from SPOT type 5 with a resolution of 10 m and Landsat TM 30m resolution, the size corresponding to a square of 2 pixels x 2 pixels is required that is 70 m x 70 m. According to the Land use protocol the following are needed:

Page 161/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

- 60 representative samples of each habitat: 20 for each country and 30 by class for calibration and 30 for validation; - Plot or sample square = min 70m x 70 m; - 2 images per year: June and November (Spot images or Landsat images) for correlation; - Fragmentation of habitats assessment by landscape ecology indicators, using ArcGis software.

Remote sensing based on aerial photos and satellite images needs field verification (ground truthing sites). Remote sensing is also used for forest management and inventory (survey): in such case, terrestrial sampling inventory is set up on a stratification protocol with a fixed raster (1 x 1 km to 4 x 4 km) and permanent plots (that could be concentric circles). Whatever the chosen method will be, field tools and parameters have to be comparable to forest inventory (surveys) and grasslands quality assessing (to be used for sustainable forest management and grasslands management).

In order to fulfil such requirements it is recommended to set up a combination of fixed/permanent and temporary plots as follows: - Permanent plots for vegetation dynamic assessment & distribution, and silvicultural practices in forest stands as well: these plots will require 100m x100m plots but it will be relevant to fit with the land use sampling size (that is 70 m x 70 m). Inside which smaller quadrats could be fixed for vegetation control (herbaceaous/grass plants and woody plants < 1m) . Indicators: F1, F2, F5, F6, F7, F8 . Periodicity will be every 5 years NB: - Temporary plots and transects for vegetation cover change / land use verification, as well as for priority terrestrial habitats and alpine/subalpine meadows monitoring. The same applies as for permanent plots that means such plots could encompass 2 or 3 different sizes of quadrats/plots according the objective, composition and protocol as below: . indicator monitored on a yearly basis: burnt area, forest depletion, encroachment, clear cutting, deseases, dessication, defoliation. . Indicators: F1, F2, F6, F8

Page 162/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

The detailed protocols for each of the proposed indicators (or type of indicators) are provided in Annex 9.2.

About permanent plots:  There is no permanent plot installed in Greek forests. Only temporary plots are used for forest management plan revision each 10 years (not marked, not geo- referenced).  In the Albanian Prespa basin, it is possible to find some permanents plots in communal forests (i.e. Liquenas communal forest: 1 permanent plot for 4,600 ha) and a few others used for National Forest Inventory. They are marked with metal stakes and referenced with GPS.  No information available for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian side.  Permanents plots network will be the same for F5, F7, F8 and part of F1.  For indicator F6, permanent plots will be few (included in the network defined according the typology classification) but they will be completed after grasslands mapping with permanents transects that could be located within the permanent plots when relevant.  The setting up of a network of permanent plots will be designed during the pilot phase.

9.3.3. Periodicity – Five year timetable/ work plan Vegetation cover change (as land use change) will be annually monitored through satellite images with field control (ground-truthing sites) for disturbed areas (burnt areas, clear cutting, roads, etc.). May/June and October will be the best seasons for remote sensing and for field control. Part of other parameters from vegetation cover indicator will be measured every 5 years (see Land Use part).

Page 163/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

In forest stands, periodicity for monitoring has no sense to be set up each year, even every 2 or 3 years. Basically, forest monitoring has to be established at a 10-years scale since Land use / vegetation cover change will be measured through remote sensing and GIS system. However, in order to fit with the whole TMS periodicity and workplan, permanent plots for forest stands and grasslands monitoring could be designed for sampling every 5 years (Table 9.5).

All indicators have to be fulfilled during the first year so as to get the baseline information needed for the starting point of a transboundary monitoring process (initial mapping). The first year will be a “testing year” in order to experiment whether some habitats could or not be discriminated through satellite image identifying a specific spectral signature for each of them. It is assumed that the major part of all the terrestrial habitats could be discriminated owing to the use of two images – spring and autumn season (see Land use report).

For many parameters from F1, F2, F6 and F8, remote sensing will be picked up from Land use monitoring activities case by case, because most of them do not need 2 reviews per year.

For indicator F1, periodicity will be 5 years except for: - fire damages - encroachment, forest depletion - diseases (defoliation), natural tree felling - any significant change in vegetation discovered by Land use (LS1 and LS2 indicators) For indicator F2, considering that European countries have an obligation to report (review) each 6 years to the EU on Natura 2000 sites with an intermediate report (each 3 years), it is suggested to fix up a 2 or 3 years basis monitoring.

Page 164/381

Table 9.5. Five years timetable and periodicity of indicator (by quarters / year)

N° General indicator METHOD Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

F1 Vegetation cover change x x x x x x x x x x x x

annual: forest degradation, Remote sensing, mapping each encroachment, fires, fluctuation,… year with field control in each 5 year: vegetation types spring/summer and october X X fluctuation, forest stands Priority terrestrial habitats Remote sensing, mapping for F2 x x x x x x conservation & distribution distribution trends temporary plots for quality X X X F3 Terrestrial Habitats and Forest areas Checking official document each 2 © © © under protection years in september F4 Forest lands and grasslands under a Checking official and technical © © © comprehensive and implemented document each 2 years in management plan september F5 Structure and dynamics within Permanents plots every 5 years forestlands and other terrestrial X X in August/ september habitats F6 Distribution and quality of alpine & Permanent and temporary plots X X subalpine grasslands/meadows (each 2 years) X F7 Sylvicultural practices for Harvesting and economical X X X X X X sustainable FM statistics (Nov or December) Permanent plots for silvicultural parameters every 5 years) X X

Natural disasters and diseases remote sensing with field control / F8 x x x x x x x x x x x x observation Permanents plots every 5 years in August/ september X X

X monitoring on field plots x remote sensing (image interpretation) © control on document

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

9.3.4. Parameters to be measured and field survey protocols Parameters to be measured are presented in Table 9.6. Proposed protocols for monitoring are included in Annex 9.2.

Table 9.6. Parameters to be measured for the Forest & Terrestrial Habitats theme of the TMS N° Proposed indicator Parameters • dominant vegetation cover: high forest (beech/fir, beech) / low forest (oak forests) / shrub lands / pastures-meadows cover (area in ha) Vegetation cover change • EUNIS habitats classification (area in ha and (to fit with Land use) mapping) mapping for initial • patchiness (fragmentation perimeter of each patch), statement and forest gaps & bare land, eroded soils F1 Then 5 years monitoring • fluctuation on the upper limit of forest stands (beech, junipers) • length and density of forest roads (km/100 ha)

• forest degradation, encroachment (trees/shrubs) Annual changes to monitor and depletion (illegal clear cutting areas,…)

• wild fire (mean annual burnt area in ha)

Identifying (mapping) priority terrestrial habitats cover and distribution (4 habitats): • Greek juniper woods spatial distribution and tree cover (ages classes of Greek juniper woods and regeneration, floristic composition of GJW habitats) • 3 other priority grasslands habitats: o Semi-natural dry grasslands on calcareous Priority terrestrial habitats substrates (Festuco Brometaliae) F2 (EU Directive 92/43) o Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals conservation & distribution (Thero-Brachypodietea) o Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas • other important natural habitats area and distribution (mixed oaks forest, fir, beech, alluvial/riparian vegetation/forest, grasslands, heathlands, meadows) • area and % of protection forest (compared to the total of forest lands and Prespa basin) Terrestrial Habitats and • area of High priority & important natural habitats F3 Forest areas under sites (EU Directive Habitats) under legal protection protection and/or with appropriate management plan (that ensure protection)

Forest lands and • ha and % of state-owned forestlands under MP grasslands under a • ha and % of private forestlands under MP F4 comprehensive and • ha and % of grasslands under MP implemented management plan MP should be implemented with annual planning

Page 166/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

• forest vertical profile: number of layers (understorey) • age classes distribution in forest stands (from monolayer coppice vegetation to multilayered high forest) • floristic composition (endemic species, Pteridium sp. but also leguminous herbs, etc.) and floristic Structure and dynamics diversity: abundance, density, dominance, F5 within forestlands and frequency. other terrestrial habitats • regeneration rate in the forest stands and bush lands • mature wood and deadwood (nbr stem/ha; volume(m3)/ha, volume of oldest even-aged class) • identification of the bio-indicators of degradation or erosion (area of forestland and shrubland on steep slope > 30%; plant species with significance values)

• stocking rate/grazing capacity: Unit/ha according to their floristic composition Distribution and quality of • meadows distribution and quality (abundance, F6 (alpine &) subalpine density, dominance, frequency) grasslands/meadows • Vaccinium myrtillus & Juniperus communis spp. nana area of expansion

• Harvesting rate: allowed harvest and annual harvested timber volume related to mean annual increment • Technical parameters: age class, basal area, annual Sylvicultural practices for yield (mean annual increment), cutting rate, F7 sustainable FM regeneration • Invasive/introduced forest species by plantation (Abies alba, Castanea sativa, Pinus nigra, Pinus sylvestris, Robinia pseudoacacia, etc.): ha of artificial reforestation or regeneration. Natural disasters and • wild fires (already monitored in F1): fire damaged diseases areas (locations), number of starting fires/year Annual monitoring through • natural tree felling (average volume or stem/ha) remote sensing F8 • other diseases: desiccation and defoliation rate 5 years monitoring (>25%), dieback process on specific forest species (i.e. Abies, Quercus trojana, Carpinus sp, Alnus sp)

Notes: • F3 and F4 parameters will be fulfilled through official document as National Park Management plan (zoning) and forest management plans. • As generally rangelands/grasslands management plans do not exist, it has been suggested to assess sustainable management of such grasslands on the basis of the guidelines for rangelands management in protected areas that have been established by the Hellenic Pasture and Range Society.

Page 167/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

9.4. Equipment Equipment and equipment costs for remote sensing, mapping and field control is presented in Table 9.7. Table 9.8 includes the equipment for permanent monitoring plots.

Table 9.7. Equipment and costs for remote sensing, mapping and field control

Unit Cost Total cost Equipment Number (in €) (in €) Aerial photos / orthofotos / Incl. in Land See Land use Satellite images use Incl. in Land Software See Land use use

Table 9.8. Equipment and costs for permanent monitoring plots Unit Cost Total cost Equipment Number (in €) (in €) For forest stands permanents plots GPS (e.g. Garmin, Magellan) for navigation 6 400 € 2 400 € with external antenna

Hypsometer and dendrometer (i.e. Vertex III GS with monopod staff, 360° transponder, 3 1 200 3 600 € 360° transponder adapter) for height, diameter & distance measurement

Metal detector 3 900 2 700

Altimeter 6 50 350 Diameter tapes (5m), measuring steel tape 6 120 720 (50m), flagging tape Set of surveying poles (6 per unit, length 2m, 6 90 540 triangular, white/red) (to be Metal stakes (for permanent plots marking) defined 10 3000 and mallets more precisely) Compass 6

Distance measurer (e.g. Walktax) with 6 250 1 500 replacement lines (3000m)

Tool for electronic field data collection (pocket 3 2000 6000 PC or electronic calliper) Field-Computer

Constructed 1 m x 1 m frame -

Tree tags and tree paint (set) 6 70 420 TOTAL 21 230 €

Page 168/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Equipment is planned for 2 national monitoring teams per country considering that National Parks and forestry services will be the field institution involved in sampling plot monitoring and data collecting: - in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, apart from forestry services (Forest Public Enterprise), 2 National Parks are deeply involved in this monitoring system, each one dealing with one side of the Prespa basin (so that is 3 specific teams) - in Albania and in Greece: even though the national area of Prespa basin is entirely covered by National Parks, forestry services are also the relevant field institution to operate the monitoring sampling plots (monitoring stations): One mixed-team of 2 or 3 people. For Greece it is expected that a research institute should also be involved in forest monitoring.

9.5. Monitoring stations The location of the monitoring stations cannot be determined yet, as three knowledge prerequisites are not yet fulfilled. To determine plot-based spatial sampling and to locate monitoring stations, the following information will be needed first: - a comprehensive mapping of all vegetation types and natural habitats in each country (the only map currently available, for GR-Prespa, is acknowledged by SPP as being inadequate due to various errors); - a common vegetation and forest development transboundary typology agreed by all the partners (see the 9 proposed forest and vegetation development types in Annex 9.1); - an overview of the existing monitoring and natural inventory systems and protocols in the 3 countries (both in open lands and forest lands). More precisely, methodologies and protocols used by forestry services to carry out forest surveys and inventories (because the permanent sampling plots system could be also very useful for forest inventory when the time for updating will come).

However, the number of field monitoring stations and principles for their location are presented in Table 9.9.

Page 169/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 9.9. Number of field monitoring stations and principles for their location N° Proposed indicator N° of field monitoring stations & principles for choosing their location

• Vegetation cover change No special (permanent) monitoring station is needed for F1, F2 • Priority Terrestrial Habitat F1, F2 and F8 indicators, except for some parameters and conservation, distribution that will be measured in the forest permanent plots and quality network (F5, F7). In-field evidence plots (ground- F8 • Natural disasters and truthing sites) will be identified for unit verification from diseases remote sensing.

For each of the 8 or 9 vegetation classification, it is expected that 4 to 10 permanents plots will be enough Structure and dynamics F5 depending on extension, occurrence and stress factors within FTH to natural habitats in each country, with a minimum of 2 (or 3) station per vegetation type in each country.

F7 Sylvicultural practices for To be practical the same set of forest permanent plots sustainable FM as for F5 will be used for F7 indicators in forest stands.

8 grassland permanent plots will be established (2 GR, 2 Distribution and quality of AL, 4 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 2 in each F6 alpine & subalpine National Park), to be located on different substrates. grasslands Each one will be part of the F5 permanent monitoring plots dealing with grassland types (small quadrats).

According to PNP information, in Albania there is no scientific monitoring protocol running in subalpine and alpine meadows (grasslands). NPs have not specific programmes for that, at the moment. While dealing with forest monitoring, there is an existing forest monitoring plot in which the communal forest NGO monitors the annual increment at the parcel nr 126 at the “Gorica e Mbareshtruar economi”. A Dutch NGO (SNV) sponsors this monitoring (it is the third year of monitoring).

9.6. Organizations responsible for monitoring forest and terrestrial habitats

9.6.1. Justification It is suggested that monitoring will be carried out by the Institutions already in charge of natural habitats, forestlands, grasslands and land use planning for each country (Tables 9.10 / for all three countries and Tables 9.11-9.13 / breakdown by country and institutions).

Page 170/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 9.10. Organizations proposed for monitoring forest and terrestrial habitats Former Yugoslav Proposed N° Albania Greece Republic of operators Macedonia Ministry of MoE / Agency of Ministry of Environment Environment and Coordination Environment and Physical Planning and F1 Physical Planning Forestry (EFA) Public Works (MEPPPW) (MoEPP) Scientific support - - - Local partner/field Prespa NP SPP & PNFMB GNP & PNP operator

MoEFWA: Ministry of Environment Ministry of Coordination Directorate of Physical Planning and Environment and Protected Areas Public Works (MEPPPW) Physical Planning F2 Faculty of Natural Faculty of Sciences Scientific support TEI & EKBY Sciences (Skopje) Local partner/field Prespa NP PNFMB GNP & PNP operator

MoEFWA: Forest Directorate of MoAFW / Coordination Directorate of Florina Directorate of Forests F3 Protected Areas Scientific support - - - Local partner/field PNP PNFMB PNP & GNP operator

MoEFWA / Coordination Forest Directorate of MoAFW/ Forest Service Florina Directorate of Forests F4 Directorate Forestry Public Directorate of Technical support SPP Enterprises Protected areas (Makedonski Forests) Local partner/field PNP PNFMB PNP & GNP operator

Faculty of Faculty of Forestry Coordination Forest Directorate of Forestry Sciences (Skopje) Florina (Tirana) F5 Faculty of Sciences Forest Research Scientific & technical Albanian Forestry Forestry Public Institution: support Expert Association Enterprises EKBY - TEI (Makedonski Forests) Local partner/field PNP SPP & PNFMB PNP & GNP operator

Coordination Faculty of Natural PNFMB Faculty of Sciences F6 Sciences University (?) (Skopje) Scientific support - EKBY (?) - Local partner/field PNP PNFMB / TEI PNP & GNP operator

Page 171/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

MoEFWA: Forest Directorate of Forestry Public Coordination Forest Service Florina Enterprises Directorate Forest Research (Makedonski Forests) F7 Institution Faculty of Forest Research Faculty of Forestry Scientific support Forestry Sciences Institution: (Skopje) (Tirana) EKBY - TEI PNP / Albanian Local partner/field PNFMB / Forest Forestry Expert PNP & GNP operator Directorate of Florina Association

Ministry of MoE / Agency of Ministry of Environment Coordination Environment and Environment and Physical Planning and Physical Planning Forestry (EFA) Public Works (MEPPPW) (MoEPP) F8 Faculty of Faculty of Forestry Scientific support Forestry Sciences TEI (Skopje) (Tirana) Local partner/field PNP SPP & PNFMB PNP & GNP operator

Table 9.11. Organizations proposed for monitoring forests and terrestrial habitats in Albania Relevant involvement Institutions In charge of for indicator monitoring

MoEFWA: Emerald sites F2 Directorate of Protected Areas F3

MoEFWA: F4 Forest management planning Forest Service Directorate F7

Forest plots monitoring (?) Agency of Environment and F1 monitoring endangered Forestry (EFA) F5 species

Starting with a monitoring All indicators in field + Prespa National Park (PNP) system (?) F5, F6, F7

Faculty of Forestry Sciences / University of Agriculture Forestry research F5, F7, F8 (Tirana)

Faculty of Natural Sciences (?) Ecological studies F2, F5, F6

MoEFWA = Ministry of Environment, Forest and Water Administration

Note: “Relevant involvement for indicator monitoring” means that the designated institution might be involved in the indicator monitoring regarding its field of expertise and ability (issue clarified and amended before and during the workshops).

Page 172/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 9.12. Organizations proposed for monitoring forests and terrestrial habitats in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Relevant involvement Institutions In charge of for indicator monitoring

Ministry of Environment and Physical Emerald sites F1, F2 Planning

Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Forest management Water Resources (MoAFW) planning, forest F3, F4 Directorate of Forests statistics Existing monitoring Galicica National Park (GNP) & All indicators in field + protocol for natural Pelister National Park(PNP) F5, F6, F7 habitats (?) Forest management Forestry Public Enterprises and inventory outside F4, F5, F7 (Makedonski Forests) NP Faculty of Forestry (Skopje) F5, F7, F8

Faculty of Sciences (Skopje) F2, F5, F6

Table 9.13. Organizations proposed for monitoring forests and terrestrial habitats in Greece Relevant involvement Institutions In charge of for indicator monitoring Ministry of Environment Physical Land use and Natura Planning and Public Works F1, F2, F8 2000 sites (MEPPPW) Ministry of Agriculture Grasslands management, F6, F8 (?) Development and Food / PSCWM diseases, pests SPP Prespa monitoring F1, F2 Prespa National Forest All indicators in field + F2, Biodiversity monitoring Management Body (PNFMB) F3, F6, F8 Forest Directorate of Florina Forest management F3, F4, F5, F7 Natural habitats & University / EKBY - TEI F2, F5, F6, F7, F8 (?) grasslands monitoring Faculty / Forest Research F5, F7 Institution PSCWM = Planning Service of Central and Western Macedonia

Page 173/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

9.6.2. Staff (technical, scientific) and organizational requirements All the FTH monitoring system could be run by the national scientific institutional as well as the National Parks. However, it is highly recommended to identify one coordinating institution at national level for each country and for each thematic task. Then several national teams could be established to be involved in the different monitoring protocols and indicators. The proposed scheme is the following:  Coordinating institution: Ministry of Environment (or Agency)  Institutions in charge of land use and vegetation cover change (for F1, F2, part of F6 and F8): Ministry of Environment (or Agriculture) + other partners as NP (and see Land use proposal).  Institutions in charge of the FTH permanents plots network around the Prespa basin (for F5, F6, F7): the National Parks representatives and forestry services that will form a joint-team comprising representative from each relevant institution of the 3 countries.  Institutions in charge of the FTH temporary plots for quality/composition measurement (for F2, F6): research institutions, faculty/university; Ministry of Agriculture, etc.

In-field training will be the best way of strengthening capacity for each operating institution at the same level of knowledge and understanding. It is proposed that the “Forest and Terrestrial Habitats monitoring team” (for permanent sampling plots monitoring) will be a joint-team comprising representatives from each relevant institution of the 3 countries (including staff from scientific institution and staff from operating institution as NP). That means all field missions (for in-field data recording), wherever the field control will be, will be done by the transboundary FTH team each five years. This FTH Transboundary monitoring Team might encompass: - for Albania: Prespa National Park forest service + a representative of Forest Expert Association + Forest Service of Korça; - for Greece: PNFMB + Forest Directorate of Florina; - for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: GNP + PNP + Public Forest Enterprise representative.

9.6.3. Existing sources of funding Some forest indicators are supposed to be monitored on a regular basis by the Forest Services through forest inventories/surveys needed for forest management plans, while

Page 174/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park vegetation cover change is also a significant indicator supposed to be monitored by each Ministry of Environment.

The KfW projects (Transboundary Prespa Park project, and Forestry sector support project) might be a complementary source of funding for Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, especially for the purchase of all forest inventory equipment (that might be not purchased under the GEF/UNDP project).

9.7. Budget Investments for purchase and installation of equipment have been covered in Chapter “9.4. Equipment”. The KfW projects (Transboundary Prespa Park project, and Forestry sector support project), seem to be still in the process (have not started yet). This means that part of the “forestry” equipment that could have been expected from this project in Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is still pending.

Running costs are presented in Table 9.14. Maintenance and updating No real maintenance and updating is needed except on software (storage of image data), and permanents plots control in the field (very limited if plots are marked by hidden metal poles)

Consumables Consumables are restricted to light equipment such as: tags, paint, replacement lines for measurer, string, flagging tape, record book, pencils etc. A lump sum of about 1000 €/year will be enough.

Page 175/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 9.14. Consumables and running costs for the monitoring of FTH indicators Consumables/ Total cost (€; per Number Cost for one item running costs year) INDICATORS F1, F2, F8: Albania, Greece, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Transportation: 0,4 €/Km x 800Km 320 € One annual trip of 2 Per diem: days for each 12 to 18 days x 30 Travelling, lodging, national team to 60 €/day + 1080 € per diem including 1 night in Hotel hotel for 2-3 6 to 9 rooms x 15 persons to 45 €/night (1 night) +405 € Total per year, indicators F1, F2, F8:  1805 €/year INDICATORS F5, F7 & F6: 1 trip every 2 or 5 Transportation: years of 6 days 0,4 €/km x 1500 km including 5 nights in 600 € Perdiem: hotel for 6 to 9 55 man-days x 30 Travelling, lodging, persons to 60 €/day per diem (transboundary + 3300 € Hotel team) 6 to 9 rooms x 15 1 field trip for each to 45 €/night x 5 national team for night temporary plots + 2025 €

 5925 € every 5 Total per year, indicators F5, F6, F7: years

No running cost for F3, F4 and part of F7 (economical and forest statistics)

Personnel fees (manpower) (Tables 9.15-9.16) For F1, F2 and F8: Human resources are needed for remote sensing (working desk) and then for field control (to visit ground-truthing sites and validate interpretation of mapping). As satellite images will be purchased for each year, field validation will also be needed each year (once or twice) but probably on a few ground truthing sites. By this way, about 12 to 18 man-days a year will be enough for the annual updating of the vegetation cover change.

For F3 and F4: No real personnel is required because it is mainly documentation with official and technical document on protection sites and management plans with comparison with international standards.

Page 176/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

For F5, F6 and F7: Field staff is required for monitoring permanents plots and temporary plots as well. It is assumed that for each country, 3 or 4 persons will be involved in field data collection (depending on existing monitoring programmes, surveys and inventories that are already carried out on regular basis). For permanents plots, 4 persons x 35/40 days, every 5 years For temporary plots (F2, F6): 3 persons x 20 days, every 2 years

Page 177/381

Running costs (manpower/ personnel needs)

Table 9.15. Costs per year when the monitoring is actually done

Proposed METHOD TIME PERIOD GREECE ALBANIA FYR of MACEDONIA indicator Number of N days of Cost per day Total cost Number N days of Cost per day Total Number of N days of Cost per day Total cost people fieldwork/ per person of people fieldwork / per person cost people fieldwork / per person involved year involved year involved year F1, F2 remote sens spring-summer 1 15 145 2175 1 15 50 750 1 15 50 750 F1,F2 field verif. spring-summer 2 3 145 870 2 3 50 300 2 3 50 300 F3 doc. Sept-Oct 1 1 300 300 1 1 60 60 1 1 60 60 F4 doc. Sept-Oct 1 1 300 300 1 1 60 60 1 1 60 60 F5, F7 p. plots june-August 3 30 / 5years 145 2610 3 30 / 5years 60 1080 3 30/ 5years 60 1080 F6 p. plots june-August 3 15 / 5years 145 1305 3 15 / 5years 60 540 3 15 / 5years 60 540 temp plots june-August 2 6 145 1740 2 6 60 720 2 6 60 720 F7 doc. Nov-Dec 1 1 145 145 1 1 60 60 1 1 60 60 F8 remote sens spring-summer 1 5 145 725 1 5 60 300 1 5 60 300 Total 10170 3870 3870

Table 9.16. Summary Budget Table

N° Proposed Equipment GREECE ALBANIA FYR of MACEDONIA indicators costs (€) Staff cost Consumables/ Maintenance/ Total cost Staff cost Consumables/ Maintenance/ Total Staff cost Consumables Maintenance/ Total cost (per year) recurrent Updating (per (per year) (per year) recurrent Updating (per cost (per (per year) / recurrent Updating (per (per costs (per year) (G) costs (per year) year) costs (per year) year) year) year) (A) year) (M) F1, F2 remote sens see land use 2175 1200 see land use 3375 750 610 see land use 1360 750 610 see land use 1360 F1,F2 field verif. see land use 870 see land use 870 300 see land use 300 300 see land use 300 F3 doc. 0 300 300 60 60 60 60 F4 doc. 0 300 300 60 60 60 60 F5, F7 p. plots 2610 620 300 3530 1080 355 300 1735 1080 355 300 1735 21230 F6 p. plots 1305 1305 540 540 540 540 temp plots 1740 1740 720 720 720 720 F7 doc. 0 145 145 60 60 60 60 F8 remote sens see land use 725 see land use 725 300 see land use 300 300 see land use 300 Total 21230 10170 1820 12290 3870 965 5135 3870 965 5135

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

9.8. Proposal for Pilot application The following indicators will be testable from late 2009 until 2010 (that is during the first implementing year): - F1: vegetation cover change: if satellite images are available (see Land use group) - F2: identification / mapping of all natural habitats from Natura 2000 and Emerald network - F3/F4: to harmonize rationale on which technical document for FTH areas are to be considered as officially protected and managed in a sustainable way With the aim of preparing F5 to F7 indicator to be documented, it will need to start with defining typology (transboundary vegetation development types), making stratification for sampling and identifying monitoring stations network (permanents plots).

First Equipment required for 2010: - Satellites images and software for interpretation: F1, F2, F8 (See Land use proposition) - GPS, distance measurers and metal stakes could be purchased during the first year so as to select vegetation stands for monitoring, to set up / determine plot- based spatial sampling and to locate monitoring stations (for F5 to F7).

Training topics (if relevant for institutions‟ staff): - Remote sensing for F1, F2, F8 (See Land use proposition). - GPS utilization and setting up of permanent plots monitoring network with data management system (for F5 to F7).

Data management (F1, F2, F8) Data collection from satellite image will be focused on setting up the starting status of Prespa basin for each indicator and parameters that could be monitored through remote sensing. All these information will come to a baseline databank as the starting point.

Networking It is suggested to start networking with “FTH monitoring national teams” through one regional workshop including a round field trip in the three countries to share experiences of habitats monitoring and to develop a mutual understanding of a transboundary vegetation typology and protocol monitoring. This workshop might focus on methodological and technical aspects that are:

Page 179/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

- The different protection status of natural habitats and landscape that could be compared from one country to another. - Status and content of forest management plans (according to international standard) and forest surveys (inventory) techniques and methodology. - Grazing areas (grasslands) management plans and monitoring system: management system and carrying capacity surveys. - Designing of permanent plots network and implementing it on the field.

Other basic elements of the FTH monitoring system should also be discussed during this Transboundary workshop/tour as the following (for all 3 countries): • Identification of stress sources on the ground (map to be provided by Land-Use thematic group – ground verification to be done by this group) during the Pilot phase or in Year 1 (?). • Presentation of stress factors on the ground (and map) according to their degree of importance (e.g. causing degradation) in Year 1 or 2 (?). • Establishment of permanent plots on sites considered worth to be monitored (including degraded sites, sites in good/favourable condition, sites of special interest etc.) in Year 2 (?).

On a basis of 10 persons for the FTH monitoring Transboundary team, and 4-5 days duration for this regional workshop (allowing to spend the minimum of span in each country), the total cost of this networking first step will be around 5,000€.

Page 180/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

10. Fish and Fisheries

Dr. Alain Crivelli, Tour du Valat

10.1. Introduction After the Lakes Skadar and Ohrid, the Lakes Macro Prespa and Lake Micro Prespa, actually forming one wetland, are the largest waterbodies of the Balkans. They belong to three countries; Albania, Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. They are of Tertiary origin and have only underground outlets. The lakes are at 850 metres above sea level amidst mountains rising to over 2500 m a.s.l. (Crivelli & Catsadorakis 1997). The region is internationally recognized as one of Europe‟s most ecologically important areas or biodiversity “hot spots” (Albrecht et al. 2008, Schultheiss et al. 2008), as well as an ecosystem of global significance on account of the concentration of many rare and important ecological values. The region hosts populations of numerous rare, relict, endemic, endangered or threatened species. The rate of endemism and sub- endemism among species in the region, which is partly due to the great habitat diversity concentrated in a small area, makes it unique and extremely important from a biodiversity conservation perspective at any scale, be that European or global. Prespa Lakes belong to the “Southeast Adriatic Drainages” freshwater ecoregion (Abell 2008). (For a brief description of the Prespa area, see also Chapter 3 in this study).

Crivelli et al. (1997) published an overview on the fish and fisheries of Prespa lakes. Within this review most of the references dealing with fish and fisheries, easily available, have been mentioned in this publication. Since then, few work on fish and fisheries occurred: on the ecology of some species (Sinis & Petridis 1995, Crivelli et al. 1997, Crivelli & Lee 2000), on the taxonomy and phylogeny of two species (Cobitis meridionalis: Perdices & Doadrio 2001, Salmo peristericus: Apostolidis et al. 2008, Snoj et al. in press), on fish parasites (Stojanovski et al. 2006), on fisheries (Kokkinakis & Andreopoulou 2006) and on introduced species (Shumka et al. 2008). A species action plan on Salmo peristericus has just been published (Crivelli et al. 2008). Probably other unpublished data on fish and fisheries of Lake Macro Prespa do exist or are published in obscure journal not easy to get, and are therefore missing.

In Table 10.1, we have listed all the fish species, both introduced and native, described as present in Prespa lakes catchment and their conservation status according to IUCN Red

Page 181/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park list 2007 (http://www.redlist.org), to Kottelat & Freyhof (2007) and to Crivelli & Nikolaou (2008).

Eight species of fish are endemic to Lakes Prespa catchment and one is endemic to the Balkans. Seven of them are considered as vulnerable or threatened (endangered or critically endangered).

Those nine endemic fish species should be the target of our fish monitoring scheme with the carp, the main commercial fish species.

Page 182/381

Table 10.1. List of the fish species found in Prespa lakes and their conservation status (Crivelli & Nikolaou 2008). In bold letters, the fish species endemic to Lakes Prespa. Date of IUCN Red List (with Kottelat & Freyhof Crivelli & Nikolaou No Species Origin introduction year of assessment) (2007) (2008)

1 Alburnoides prespensis native not in the list VU D2 VU D2

2 Alburnus belvica native VU D2 (2006) VU D2 LC

3 Anguilla anguilla native CR A2bd+4bd (2008) CR A2bd +4bd CR A2bd +4bd

4 Barbus prespensis native VU D2 (2006) VU D2 LC*

5 Carassius gibelio Introduced 1970s not in the list LC LC

6 Chondrostoma prespense native VU D2 (2006) VU D2 VU D2

7 Cobitis meridionalis native VU D2 (2006) VU D2 VU D2

8 Cyprinus carpio Introduced Roman time (?) DD (1996) VU A2ce LC

no specimen caught 9 Ctenopharyngodon idella Introduced 1980s not in the list Alien anymore

no specimen caught 10 Gambusia holbrooki Introduced 1995-1996 not in the list Alien anymore

no specimen caught 11 Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Introduced 1980s not in the list Alien anymore

12 Lepomis gibbosus Introduced 1995-1996 not in the list Alien LC

EN EN 13 Pelasgus prespensis native B1ab(iii,iv,v)+2ab(iii,iv,v) VU D2 B1ab(iii,iv,v)+2ab(iii,iv,v) (2006)

14 Pseudorasbora parva Introduced 1970s not in the list LC LC

Few accidental 15 Oncorhynchus mykiss Introduced 1970s not in the list Alien specimen caught

no specimen caught 16 Parabramis pekinensis Introduced 1970s not in the list Alien anymore

17 Rhodeus amarus Introduced (?) LC(2001) LC LC

18 Rutilus prespensis native VU D2 (2006) VU D2 VU D2

no specimen caught 19 Salmo letnica Introduced 1950s DD (2001) DD anymore

20 Salmo peristericus native EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii) EN B1ab(iii)+2ab(iii)

21 Squalius prespensis native LC (2006) VU D2 VU D2

22 Silurus glanis Introduced (?) LC (1996) LC LC

23 Tinca tinca Introduced 1980s LC (1996) LC LC

* According to unpublished data (Markova et al. 2007).

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

For each species we will describe what we know about them and their trends (Crivelli & Nikolaou 2008).

Alburnoides prespensis (Spirlin) This species is generally a riverine species, and is found rarely in lakes. It is endemic to Prespa lakes. It is a non-commercial species. In the long-term monitoring at Lake Micro Prespa, it showed strong decline in one station and stability in another station. In Lake Macro Prespa, in 2007 it showed the lowest figure since 1996. Consequently, it is a species of concern, a hypothesis about its “decline” is negative impact of introduced species such as Pseudorasbora parva and Lepomis gibbosus.

Alburnus belvica (Prespa bleak) This species is the most abundant fish species with Rutilus prespensis in both Prespa lakes. It is endemic to Prespa lakes. It is a commercial species. It shows an increasing significant trend in Lake Micro Prespa and stability in Lake Macro Prespa. This results is amazing considering this species is one of the major prey of piscivorous water birds (Pelicans and cormorants; SPP and Crivelli, unpublished data) and is a also a target species of fishermen and local people. Thanks to its life-history strategy it can cope with such a high predation mortality.

Anguilla anguilla (eel) This is a migratory species, reproducing in the Sargasse Sea in the Atlantic ocean. It migrated in the past from the sea to Drin River, then to Ohrid lake and Prespa lakes through underground connections between Ohrid lake and Macro Prespa. It is mentioned for the first time in Macro Prespa lake in the 1920s (Stankovitch, 1929). After the sixties, and the building of dams on Drin River, this migration was stopped. However, stocking of small eel occurred annually in Ohrid lake. Another connection for eel to reach Prespa lakes is through Devolli River in Albania thanks to the building of a canal between Devolli River and Lake Micro Prespa. It is still present in both lakes, and very large specimen for the species (up to 1.5 meter) can be found. However, this species is strongly declining in the whole Europe for many reasons, not all well understood.

Barbus prespensis (Prespa barbel) This species is generally a riverine species, and is found rarely in lakes. It is endemic to Prespa lakes. It is a commercial species. In both Prespa lakes it showed recently a slight

Page 185/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park decrease which led to the publication of an Action plan for the species in the Greek part of Macro Prespa (Catsadorakis et al., 1996). SPP has successfully implemented these last years a wardening of the Aghios Germanos river to avoid poaching of Prespa barbel when they enter the river for spawning (Crivelli et al., 1996), and then reducing the mortality of adult and enhancing the reproduction. Recent work (Markova et al., 2007) has showed that this species is not restricted to Prespa lakes, but it is also widely spread in the southern part of Albania, explaining the change of its status in the Red list.

Carassius gibelio (Goldfish) It is an introduced species from Asia introduced in the 1970s. It is common in both Prespa lakes, more numerous in Micro Prespa than Macro Prespa. It is a commercial species, however, it is much less appreciated by locals than carp. This species is peculiar, it is composes mainly of females (< 10% males) and it reproduces by gynogenesis, an asexual reproduction mode, stimulated by sperm from related species. It is an important prey of piscivorous water birds, especially in April.

Chondrostoma prespense (Prespa nase) This species is generally a riverine species, and is found very rarely in lakes. It is endemic to Prespa lakes. It is a commercial species. Its trend in Micro Prespa is stable, and possibly declining in Macro Prespa (fishermen pers. comm). It reproduces on gravel along the coast of Micro Prespa. In Macro Prespa, it spawns on the coast, but it also enters at night the permanent rivers for spawning, starting late April to late May when the water temperature in the stream is 6 to 12° C (Crivelli et al., 1997). Consequently, it is a species of concern, a hypothesis about its “decline” is an overexploitation by fishermen and by poaching during the spawning migration in rivers.

Cobitis meridionalis (Prespa loach) It is endemic to Prespa lakes. It is a small species (max 130 mm) non commercial. In both Prespa lakes, it seems to do well, maintaining its number. Its life span is no longer than one year, dying shortly after the reproduction (Crivelli & Lee, 2000).

Cyprinus carpio (Carp) It is an introduced species, probably introduced at Roman times. It is the most important commercial species. It is a long-lived species, however due to overexploitation, the very large specimen caught formerly have disappeared. The fishing pressure on this species is

Page 186/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park very high, threatening it. Poaching during the reproduction is also very high. Males can be mature at 3 years old with a length > 220 mm and the females at 4 years old with a length > 280 mm. Its threatened status given by Kottelat & Freyhof (2007) does not concern the Prespa population, because this population has been genetically polluted by numerous stocking of carp fry (the latest, in 2008) since a long time.

Ctenopharyngodon idella (Grass carp) The grass carp is an introduced species from Asia with a commercial value. Since it was introduced in the 1980s, and because it does not reproduce in Prespa lakes, today it is not caught anymore.

Gambusia holbrooki (Mosquito fish) The mosquitofish, an introduced species from North America has been mentioned by E. de Vries and F. Willems in 1995-1996 during their work on Pygmy cormorants (Willems and de Vries, 1998), however it has not been seen since then. Probably it did not tolerate the very cold water temperature in winter in Prespa lakes, and disappear.

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Silver carp) The silver carp is an introduced species from Asia with a commercial value. Since it was introduced in the 1980s, and because it does not reproduce in Prespa lakes, today it is not caught anymore.

Lepomis gibbosus (Pumpkinseed) It is an introduced species from North America, introduced recently in the mid-1990s. Since then it has increased in both Prespa lakes. It is not a commercial species. It is quite likely that this species will increase a lot in the future years.

Pelasgus prespensis (Prespa minnow) It is endemic to Prespa lakes. It is not a commercial species. This small species (<7-8 cm) is considered as endangered, however, it is quite numerous and we believe it should be considered as vulnerable, because there is no serious, reliable evidence of any decline.

Pseudorasbora parva (False Harlequin) It is an introduced species from Asia, with no commercial value. This species is annual, living rarely two years (Rosecchi et al., 1993). It suspected to have a negative impact on

Page 187/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park native species (e.g. Alburnoides prespensis), however this remains a hypothesis which need to be tested. It is much more numerous in Micro Prespa than in Macro Prespa. In the years 2000s it has increased significantly in Micro Prespa.

Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow trout) An introduced salmonid from North America. It does not reproduce in the area of Prespa. All the individuals found in Prespa lakes are escaped from a fish farm located north of Resen.

Parabramis pekinensis (Amur carp) The Amur carp is an introduced species from the Amur River in Asia. Since it was introduced in the 1970s, and because it does not reproduce in Prespa lakes, today it is not caught anymore.

Rhodeus amarus (Bitterling) It is an introduced species from Europe. It is not a commercial species. It is present only in Lake Macro Prespa, and absent in Micro Prespa. It is not very abundant for the moment.

Rutilus prespensis (Prespa roach) This species is the most abundant fish species with Alburnus belvica in both Prespa lakes. It is an endemic species to Prespa lakes. It is not a commercial species. It is more numerous in Micro Prespa than in Macro Prespa. Its trend is increasing in both Prespa lakes. It reproduces only in the lake, along the coast with submerged vegetation. It is a prey of water birds, especially in April.

Salmo letnica (Ohrid trout) It is an introduced salmonid species from Lake Ohrid. More than 700,000 fry of this species have been introduced between 1951-1954 into Lake Macro Prespa (Hadzisce, 1985). However, because those fish did not reproduce, they have disappeared and no specimen is caught anymore.

Salmo peristericus (Prespa trout) It is endemic species to the Lake Macro Prespa basin. It is found today only rarely within Macro Prespa as well as in the past (Stankovitch, 1929). This salmonid leaves exclusively

Page 188/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park in four streams: Aghios Germanos, Brajcisnka, Ranska and Leva Reka. An Action plan has just been published on this species in order to ensure its long term viability (Crivelli et al., 2008). Its present trend is stable, however in some streams the population are small and then potentially in danger of extinction, explaining why its status is endangered. Poaching is also a regular problem. Water extraction has also diminished its geographic distribution area. Recently, the Pelister National Park (FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC of Macedonia) has been extended in order to cover part of the distribution of this species.

Squalius prespensis (Prespa chub) It is a riverine species, living rarely in lakes. It is an endemic species to Prespa lakes. It is a commercial species. It is not common in Macro Prespa, but it is common in Micro Prespa. In the latter its trend is stable.

Silurus glanis (wels catfish) It is an introduced species from the Danubian basin in Europe. It is in Macro Prespa at least since the early 20th century (Athanassopoulos, 1922, Vafiadis, 1940), and seems to be rare today. It is absent from Micro Prespa. Stankovitch (1929) does not mention this species as present in Macro Prespa. Kapedani & Gambeta (1997) considered that this species was introduced since 1986, however, Shumka et al. (2008) believed that it was introduced since 1991. Curiously, a fisherman from Psarades caught in autumn 1992 two small Silurus at Macro Prespa (G. Catsadorakis, pers. comm.). Further study needs to be undertaken to confirm if it has really be introduced by man. It is a long-lived species which can reach more than 2 meters and a weight more of 100 kg. According to a fisherman, two years ago a specimen of 37 kg was caught in deep waters of Macro Prespa.

Tinca tinca (Tench) It is an introduced species from Europe. It has been introduced probably from Lake Kastoria illegally. It is rare in Macro Prespa and rare in Micro Prespa. Its trend in Micro Prespa up to now is stable.

In summary, today we can find in Prespa lakes catchment 18 species, among them 8 endemic to Lakes Prespa catchment, one endemic to the Adriatic basin, one European species and 8 introduced species.

Page 189/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

10.1.1. Analysis of existing monitoring programmes

Lake Micro Prespa The fish monitoring done up to now in Micro Prespa (Crivelli et al. 1997, SPP and A.J. Crivelli unpublished data) is not following the rules of the Swedish protocol simply because the lack of funds, time and even more important the lack of manpower, which is explaining that some years no data are available. However, this fish monitoring gives nevertheless reliable rough estimates of relative abundance for the main fish species of the Micro Prespa lake fish community, of overall species richness (Table 10.2) and of the structure of fish populations. But it has some limitations: the relative abundance of smallest fish species (Pseudorasbora, Cobitis meridionalis, Pelasgus prespensis), and of the eel, Anguilla anguilla are not correctly sampled within the frame of this fish monitoring. Adding fyke nets (or 4 to 8 minnow traps) to the protocol will solve the problem of the smallest fish species.

We have decided to sample during the spawning season in the littoral zone at two fixed stations in Micro Prespa, because all the fish spawn in the littoral zone at different time of the spring in Micro Prespa Lake. It is important to sample from late April to late June (Table 10.3), because the timing of spawning is different between species, for example sampling only in June, you will have few chance to have a reliable estimates of Chondrostoma prespense which spawns during six weeks from late March to early May within the lake (Crivelli et al. 1997).

In addition, we have put one pelagic net in order to sample this part of the lake and assess abundance there in relation with water birds foraging.

Page 190/381

Table 10.2. Fish diversity using multi-mesh size gillnet (10 to 60 mm mesh sizes) and sampling three months (April-May-June) at two different stations in Micro Prespa (SPP and Crivelli, unpublished data). In bold letters the endemic fish species. Fish species 1984 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Alburnoides prespensis + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Alburnus belvica + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Barbus prespensis + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + - Carassius gibelio - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chondrostoma + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + prespense Cobitis meridionalis + + + + ------+ - - - - Cyprinus carpio - + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Lepomis gibbosus ------+ + + + + + + + + + + Pelasgus prespensis + + + - - + - + + + - + + - - - - - Pseudorasbora parva + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Rutilus prespensis + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Squalius prespensis + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Tinca tinca - - + + + + + + + + + + - + + + + + Total 9 11 12 10 10 11 10 12 12 12 11 12 11 12 10 11 11 10

Out of 18 years sampled, five endemic species (yellow: chub, bleak, spirlin, nase and roach) have been present in our catches at 100%. One endemic (Barbel) was caught at 88.9%. The remaining two endemic, Prespa loach and Prespa minnow, that are small species were caught at 27.8% and 50% respectively. This is showing well that fyke nets should be added to gillnets in order to have a correct picture of those two small species.

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 10.3. Fish diversity (presence-absence) using multi-mesh size gillnet (10 to 60 mm mesh sizes) only one month in comparison with using them three months (April- May-June in blue). In bold letters the endemic fish species. 1999- Fish species 1996* 1997* 1998* 2007* 2008** 2008* 2006 Alburnoides No + + + + + + prespensis sampling Alburnus No + + + + + + belvica sampling Barbus No + + + - - - prespensis sampling No Carassius gibelio ------sampling Chondrostoma No + - - - - - prespense sampling Cobitis No - - + + + - meridionalis sampling No Cyprinus carpio + - - + + + sampling No Lepomis gibbosus + - + + - + sampling Pelasgus No - - - + - - prespensis sampling Pseudorasbora No + - + - - - parva sampling No Rhodeus amarus - - + - - - sampling Rutilus No + + + + + + prespensis sampling Total 8 (11) 4 (8) 8 (10) 7 (10) 5 5 (12) * Sampling in the Greek part of Macro Prespa last day of May (28-31) (Unpublished data: SPP & A.J. Crivelli) ** Sampling in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia part of Macro Prespa early June for the Ezerani Nature Project (UNEP; Crivelli & Nikolaou, 2008)

y = -29,898Ln(x) + 36,999 180 R2 = 0,7082 160 140 P<0,01 120 100 80

60 mean mean CV (%) 40 20 0 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6 Mean Log (CPUE+1)

Figure 10.1. Relationship between CPUE of the different fish species and their coefficient of variation. Pink square are data for Macro Prespa and blue circles are data for Micro Prespa.

Page 192/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

The results obtained up to now in the Micro Prespa Lake are showing that: 1/ This methodology allows reliable relative abundance of the main fish species with a mean annual coefficient of variation less than 50% (Figure 10.1) which is acceptable for detecting shifts in population abundance over time (Bohlin et al. 1990, Cowx et al. 2009). Only four species, Pseudorasbora, Prespa barbel, tench and Goldfish show a mean annual coefficient of variation > 50%, probably because they are very rare or because it is a too small species (Pseudorasbora). Even, when we pool both fishing station, it does not improve the values of the coefficient, in the contrary for the three species concerned it increased! Consequently, for the latter any trend will have to be taken cautiously. 2/ Species richness is correctly assessed for all species using this methodology with the exception of two small species as shown by Table 10.2. 3/ Population structure, thanks to fish size distribution is correctly assessed for the majority of the species. Only for rare species, we might have not enough individuals caught in order to assess their population structure. Those length distribution could be changes in age structure distribution using age estimation already done (Rosecchi et al. 1993, Sinis & Petrides 1995, Crivelli et al. 1997, Crivelli & Lee 2000, and Crivelli unpublished data).

In conclusion, by adding fyke nets (or minnow traps) to this protocol, we will be able to monitor correctly all the fish species endemic to the Micro Prespa lake catchment and the carp, the main fish target of the fishery.

The case of Macro Prespa The Macro Prespa is larger and less productive than Micro Prespa with the results in general of lower densities of fish. Our scattered sampling (only two periods, Table 10.3: 1996-1998 and 2007-2008) with gillnet in one fixed station in the Greek part of Macro Prespa, using the same procedure as in Micro Prespa gave results confirming that fish are more rare in Macro than in Micro Prespa with the consequence of much higher annual coefficient of variation than required for detecting shifts in population abundance over time (Figure 10.1). Only the two most abundant species, Prespa bleak and Prespa roach show mean coefficient of variation lower than 50%. As observed for Micro Prespa, it is doubtful by multiplying fishing stations we reach a coefficient of variation less than 50%.

Page 193/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

We will therefore propose that the gillnet and fyke net sampling is done like in Micro Prespa, in three stations located on the coast from end April to end of June: one in Albania, one in Greece and one in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This will allow correct assessment of abundance for small species and Prespa bleak and roach. In order to get a reliable assessment of two important endemic species: Prespa barbel and Prespa nase, we will suggest to undertake a every two weeks monitoring using electrofishing in May and June in the four rivers of Macro Prespa (Aghios Germanos river, Brajcinska, Kranska, and Goluma rivers). This will give us good abundance estimations and this activity will also be a positive point against poaching taken place in those rivers. For carp, we can use gillnet sampling, but we will calculate the abundance of it using only data from May and June, April being too cold and always without carp. Doing so, we will reduce the coefficient of variation around 50% and have a reliable abundance estimate. For the other species such as Prespa chub, goldfish, Tench, Pumpkinseed, Silurus glanis and eels that are too rare, any trend will have to be taken cautiously.

The Prespa trout All information on Prespa Trout are available in the Prespa trout Action Plan (Crivelli et al. 2008). Since four years, SPP is funding a five years trout study in collaboration with BIOECO in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. One of the goals of this study is to set a monitoring protocol for the Prespa trout. In Table 10.4 can be found the results of this monitoring from 2005 to 2008. The methodology used is a standard one for trout in small stream: we determined numbers and densities of trout in several fixed sites of the stream by applying the two-catch removal Zippin method (Zippin 1958, Van Deventer and Platts 1989) with electrofishing techniques. Each site is ca 100 m long. We presently assess densities of Prespa trout in 12 stations in Aghios Germanos stream (Greece), and in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 11 stations in Brajcinska basin, 6 stations in Kranska basin and 3 stations in Leva Reka basin. The number of sites investigated will be reduced in the future for a proposal of a long-term monitoring Prespa trout.

Page 194/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 10.4. Densities of Prespa trout in the Macro Prespa catchment (SPP, BIOECO and A.J. Crivelli unpublished data) Years Surface Mean N Mean N trout Site and Length (number of Sampled trout > 1+/100m stations sampled (m) stations) (m2) >1+/ha of stream Brajcinska basin Main river 2006 (2) 858 205 664 28 2007 (4) 1468 405 660 24 2008 (4) 1468 405 858 31

Baltanska 2006 (1) 220 100 136 3 2007 (2) 474 210 42 1 2008 (2) 474 210 675 15

Rzanska 2007 (2) 455 200 1121 26 2008 (2) 455 200 1297 30

Drmisar 2007 (2) 490 210 878 20 2008 (2) 490 210 694 16

Kriva Kobila 2007 (1) 263 105 1709 43 2008 (2) 565 217 1007 26

Kranska basin Main river 2006 (1) 289 98 519 15 2007 (4) 1298 408 593 19 2008 (4) 1298 408 778 25

Upper Kranska 2007 (1) 287 100 174 5

Srbino 2007 (1) 268 113 485 12

Leva Reka Sredna 2007 (2) 431 200 186 4 2008 (2) 431 200 162 3

Aghios Germanos basin Left arm 1998 (2) 680 200 530 18 2000 (2) 538 200 167 5 2005 (2) 538 200 130 4 2006 (2) 538 200 205 6 2007 (2) 538 200 74 2 2008 (2) 538 200 576 16

Right arm 1998 (8) 2920 813 1009 36 2000 (8) 2476 813 343 10 2005 (8) 2476 813 391 12 2006 (8) 2476 813 966 29 2007 (8) 2476 813 452 14 2008 (8) 2476 813 929 28

Page 195/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

All these observed densities are low in comparison with Brown trout ones (>5000 ind./ha), but they are similar than those observed in Slovenia for Marble trout. However, observed densities lower than 200 ind./ha are quite low, and viability of those populations remains an issue. For some streams (e.g. Baltanska, Sredna) the habitat can explain those low densities, among the factors involved the low flow in summer and the absence of large pools. For other streams poaching and/or angling could be the responsible factor. More years are needed before we can draw definite conclusions, considering that trout populations fluctuate widely from a year to another. The data obtained on Aghios Germanos stream are showing well why it is needed to sample on a long term basis before drawing any conclusion on the conservation status of a species.

The methodology applied here has no bias, is relevant and only the number of sites investigated for the long term monitoring needs to be chosen.

In conclusion, gillnet and fyke net monitoring, and electrofishing in the four rivers, we will be able to monitor correctly all the fish species endemic to the Macro Prespa lake catchment and the carp, the main fish target of the fishery.

The fishery statistics Today, there is no fishery statistics in Greece since 1990, there are fishery statistics in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from 1946 to 2007 and in Albania (data still not available), but data are not complete and an assessment of those for their reliability has never been undertaken.

Albania Kapedani & Gambetta (1997) give fishery statistics for Macro Prespa (Table 10.5). After 1970, they used light for fishing explaining the increase of catches of bleak. The drop of the total catch is attributed to the decline of water level of Macro Prespa reducing spawning areas. Another reason of the drop of catches is a diminished demand for bleak after the political change that occurred early 1990s. Curiously, those authors mentioned since 1986 Silurus glanis and Red Piranha, Serrasalmus nattereri (Cypriniformes, Serrasalmidae, from South America) as predator introduced species. Shumka et al. (2008) do not mention the second species as introduced in Albania, and consider that Silurus glanis has been introduced in 1991.

Page 196/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 10.5. Fishery statistics for the Albanian part of Macro Prespa (Kapedani & Gambetta 1997). Carp Nase Bleak Total catch Yield Years (%) (%) (%) (Kv) (Kg/ha)** 1954-1960 20 13 67 1500 3 1960-1970 13 5 82 3700 9 1971-1975 3 6 91 18072 90 1976-1980 0.5 4 95.5 25989 129 1981-1985 0.5 3 96.5 22415 112 1986-1990 4 5 91 12177 60 1991-1995 5 8 87 6933 34 * In the original paper the data are given as kv, (*100= kg). ** for the yield, we have concerns about the data.

For Micro Prespa, they give a figure of the total catches (Figure 10.2), and argue that the decline observed is due to Devolli diversion filling up with sediment the Albanian part of the Micro Prespa.

Figure 10.2. Total fish catches (kv * 100 = kg) in the Albanian part of Micro Prespa for the time period between 1948 and 1995 (Kapedani & Gambetta 1997).

Some years ago, we got fishing data for the Albanian part of Micro and Macro Prespa for years 1987, 1989 and 1990; they are compiled in Table 10.6.

Page 197/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 10.6. Fish catches for the Albanian part of Micro and Macro Prespa in kg per year, for three years. Species 1987 1989 1990 Macro Prespa Cyprinus carpio 1700 8065 1568 Squalius prespensis and Chondrostoma 7800 15411 7351 prespense Alburnus belvica 237200 210314 13 Carassius auratus 0 702 26 Total 246700 234518 8958 Yield (Kg/ha) 63.6 60.4 2.3 Micro Prespa Cyprinus carpio 1000 7200 6028 Anguilla anguilla 0 600 315 Squalius prespensis and Chondrostoma 6700 5300 1854 prespense Alburnus belvica 4100 19200 1434 Total 11800 32300 9631 Yield (kg/ha) 23.6 64.6 19.3

Laçi & Panariti (2004) mentioned 35 licensed fishermen for Macro Prespa and many other fishing without license. The target fish species are carp, Prespa bleak, nase and chub, they wrote also that no fishing data are recorded, however they believe that there is general decline of fish since 1986.

Grazhdani (2008) calculated the income from the fishery of the Albanian part of both lakes together. She considered that there were ca 50 licensed fishermen and 50 not licensed. Fishing contributes to 140,000€ per years (50* 2800€), which is much less than firewood production and livestock breeding, but more than tourism and honey production.

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Below is a summary on the organization of fishing by BIOECO (2007): “The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy (MoAFWE), manages fishing according to the Law on Fisheries (1993). The MoAFWE granted a five-year concession for Macro Prespa Lake to the Fishing Company "Ribomak" from Resen, in October 2003 through a public biding process. The concession covers Macro Prespa Lake and the three

Page 198/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park rivers: Brajcinska Reka River, Golema Reka River and Kranska Reka River. This concession provides limited parameters for fishing restrictions (i.e., quantity, species, and seasons). No authority monitors the fishery for purposes of establishing these parameters and no management planning occurs. The concession gives to "Ribomak" exclusive rights and responsibilities to issue fishing licenses and to enforce fishing regulations and fishing bans as required. The concession also gives to "Ribomak" (which does not actually catch fish itself) a dominant position to purchase fish from individual fishermen. "Ribomak" buys fish in each village and re-sells the fish as quickly as possible to buyers. This concession creates a conflict of interest between the responsibility for scientific-based fishery management on one hand and the need to make a profit from the fishery on the other hand. In addition, "Ribomak" does not control fish harvest in terms of numbers or volume of fish extracted from the Lake and the rivers. Their main concern is how to re-stock the lake in order to maintain the volume of fish taken from the lake. There are no water quality monitoring or fish population surveys or even accurate record keeping of actual fish catch by species. The first impression of the rough analysis concerning the former and the current annual yield shows that, the current exploitation of fish is over the principles of sustainable development (see Table 12). Furthermore, the yield of certain species is not in accordance of the productivity of the plankton and benthic community.

The local office of the MoAFWE in Resen is responsible for oversight of Ribomak. However, there are several constraints concerning this issue: Capacity limitations and conflict of interest. The MoAFWE local office in Resen is understaffed and under-equipped, with only two employees responsible for agriculture, forestry and water management and no vehicle. The MoAFWE office does not have capacity to enforce effectively the Law on Fishery, and fishermen are not involved in a proactive way to manage what is essentially their fishery on a sustainable basis. Absence of reliable information. It is a barrier preventing effective management and oversight. For example: 1) there is no clear information on the number of fishermen harvesting fish from the lake. The number of fishing licenses sold represents only a small proportion of the actual number of fishermen that are operating in the Lake. For example, in 2004, "Ribomak" have sold 60 six-month fishing licenses, indicating that 60 fishermen purchased licenses for Macro Prespa; 2) MoAFWE staff do not have capacity to monitor the catch themselves and do not have independently verified catch figures.

Page 199/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Inappropriate delegation of enforcement authority. Under the current fishery management policy, it is not the job of MoAFWE staff to enforce the Law on Fisheries. That is obligation of "Ribomak", whose concession encompasses the Lake itself and the rivers which flows into the Lake. As Ribomak‟s main interest is the lake fishery, enforcement of fishing laws on the rivers, does not exist. Currently, unmanaged, unmonitored fishing is present on the Brajcinska, Kranska and Leva Reka Rivers where the endemic trout (Salmo peristericus) is present. Disincentive to report fish yield accurately. The fee that "Ribomak" pays to the government is based on the quantities of fish caught during a certain period of time (10% of the price paid to Ribomak for its catch). So it is in the interest of the concessionaire to under-report the fish catch. For example, if certain fishermen catch 100 kg of carp and the price is 250 denars/kg (= 4 Euros), than the concessionaire will have to pay 10% = 2,500 denars. But if they report only 10 kg of carp they will have to pay only 250 denars.”

These last years, Ribomak had issued 60 licenses for fishing, however many other people also fish. In 2008, fishing was totally banned, because the decision to allocate a new concession for fishing was postponed. During our work on fish of the Ezerani Nature Reserve (Crivelli & Nikolaou 2008) we have observed a lot of illegal fishing within the lake and also in rivers, for example, Golema River.

180 13 160 11 140 9 120 100 7 80 5

(tonnes) 60

3 (kg/ha) yield 40

20 1 Total fish catches/year Totalfishcatches/year 0 -1

1946 1950 1955 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1992 1996 2000 2005

Figure 10.3. Productivity in tonnes (blue) and yield (pink, kg/ha) of Lake Macro Prespa in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Source: Z. Djurovski, pers. comm.).

Stankovich (1929) mentioned a mean productivity for Macro Prespa of 48.947 tons of fish in the early twenties (1922-1925). The decline of the catches is significant (r2 = 0.6545; P <0.01). However, not knowing the fishing effort, such data remain difficult to interpret.

Page 200/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

The yield observed (Figure 10.3) is more or less in accordance with what you can expect from an oligotrophic lake. The relative abundance of the species in the catches is presented in Figure 10.4.

100% Rutilus other 80%

Alburnus 60%

40% Chondrostoma 20% Cyprinus

0%

1948 1951 1955 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2006

Figure 10.4. Percentage composition of commercial catches from the Former Yugoslav Republic of part of Macro Prespa (Source: Z. Djurovski, pers. comm.).

Greece All the available data for the fishery statistics of the Greek part of Macro and Micro Prespa are presented in Figures 10.5 to 10.7. The observed fishery decline is believed to be mainly the result of overfishing (Crivelli 1990), increased eutrophication, the introduction of exotic fish species, the introduction of nylon nets and outboard engines, to an increased fishing effort, to a change in the socio-economic demand of some fish species and also to the lack of fishing regulations implementations (Crivelli 1992). Overfishing and destruction of reproduction areas are considered to be the main factors explaining the decline of the fisheries of the Macro and Micro Prespa Lake in Greece (Kokkinakis & Andreopoulou 2006). To be noted, short-lived fish (2-4 years) species (e.g. Alburnus) can tolerate to be predated by man and others (birds, etc.) at a high level, however fish species that are long-lived ( >6-7 years) cannot tolerate high rate of predation by man and/or other (birds, otters, etc.) (see Crivelli 1992).

Page 201/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

600 Nat ional Park 500 Nylon St at us 400 net s (1970- 300 Mikri 1975) Megali 200

100 Productivity (tonnes) 0

1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988

Figure 10.5. Productivity (tonnes) of the Greek part of Macro (Megali) and Micro (Mikri) Prespa (from Crivelli et al. 1997.

120

100

80

60 Kg/ha 40

20

0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Figure 10.6. Annual yield (Kg/ha) of the Greek part of Macro (Megali) and Micro (Mikri) Prespa.

Fotis et al. (1992), in a study on fishery potential of lakes in Greece, using morphometrical features and water quality, considered the yield of the Greek part of Macro et Micro Prespa as low and high respectively.

Page 202/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Mikri Prespa Carassius 100%

80% Alburnus

60%

40% Cyprinid 20%

0% Cyprinus

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989

Megali Prespa

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989

Figure 10.7. Percentage composition of commercial catches from the Greek part of Macro Prespa and Micro Prespa.

Conclusions Fishery statistics are a useful tool to monitor fishery activity and in a certain extent some fish species abundance (e.g. the targeted fish species in Prespa: carp). However, the fishery statistics can be useful and efficient, only if the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) clear fishing regulations common to the three countries should exist; (b) the statistics should be as much as possible reliable and poaching (illegal fishing) should be reduced at strict minimum; (c) the fishing effort is documented: the minimum data needed being the

Page 203/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park number of licensed fishermen, but better an estimation of the number of nets set per month; (d) a strong implementation of fishing regulations (the existing ones or new ones) with fines and confiscated fishing material including boat if needed. Considering that it might be difficult to fulfill all those requirements immediately, a light transboundary monitoring of fishery activities should therefore start by collecting data for indicators 6 and 7.

However, in the future, a trilateral body for fishery in Prespa Lakes should be created being responsible for the transboundary management of the fishery. It will be responsible to issue the fishing licenses, to write new fishing regulations and to implement those new fishing regulations thanks to special fishing wardens. The objectives of this trilateral body for fishery in Prespa Lakes will be responsible to negotiate with the three states in order to get a permanent transboundary management of the fishery (evaluated every five years) implying: 1/ a common legal status for professional fishermen (part time fishermen or inhabitants fishing with nets should be banned); 2/ a common license should be issued with regulations and duties for the fishermen. A maximum number of licenses (to be determined) will be set; 3/ all fishermen will fish with the same fishing devices (length and mesh size and type of nets and maximum number nets used determined). Each fisherman will set nets with boys numbered (those will belong to the Trilateral body); 4/ a close fishing season will be set from 15th of April to 15th of June; 5/ some parts of the lakes should be banned for fishing, for example in Macro Prespa, the zone close to the delta of the four rivers should be a no fishing zone; 6/ boat used by licensed fishermen should be registered and only those boats will be allowed on the lakes; 7/ to organize and set a transboundary wardening system with fines in case fishing regulations are not implemented by a fisherman; 8/ to organize a system to collect fishery statistics including fishing effort and fish caught by species; 9/ the issue of stocking will be discussed with the appropriate persons and decision will be taken to undertake or not such a stocking. If the decision is positive, stocking rules (no new introduction of fish species) should be set and stocking efficiency assessed; 10/ a total ban of stocking new introduced species.

Page 204/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

10.1.2. Connection to EU and national legislation The Freshwater Fish Directive – 78/659/EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life; it has been significantly amended on several occasions, the last time on the 6 September 2006 (Directive 2006/44/EC). This directive concerns mainly the quality of waters and mandates minimal water levels for riverine biodiversity, it distinguishes salmonid waters and cyprinid waters. By the end of 2013, the Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC) will replace Freshwater Fish Directive – 78/659/EEC.

The WFD means continued improvement in fish stocks through improved habitats and improved water quality and quantity. The emphasis is on achieving good overall ecological status, not just on complying with water quality standards. The WFD lists fish amongst the biological elements (Annex V) which should be used for classification of ecological status of surface waters (rivers, lakes and transitional waters (estuaries). “Ecological status” (Article 2 (21)) is an expression of the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems associated with surface waters, classified in accordance with Annex V. Water management is on the basis of River Basin Districts (RBDs). The Directive specifies that fish shall be monitored at all sites selected for Surveillance Monitoring (SM). Fish are an indicator of water quality. Healthy fish stocks indicate good water quality. The variables to be used in any fish index are composition, abundance and age class structure.

Our fish monitoring will not be directly concerned by any of those Directives, however the results of our fish monitoring might be useful in the future to any study dealing with a lake fish index for south-eastern Europe, because it will give relative fish abundance, species composition, but age structure of fish present as required by the Directive. For the latter, the fish length distribution will be transformed in age structure by applying length-age matrix already published in various scientific papers (Rosecchi et al. 1993, Sinis & Petridis 1995, Crivelli et al. 1996, 1997) or using unpublished data.

10.1.3. Rationale for monitoring The state of the art for whole lake estimate of the relative fish abundance in lakes of size between 20 and 5000 ha is the Swedish standard methods for sampling freshwater fish with multi-mesh gillnets (Appelberg 2000). In case the lake investigated is larger than 5000 ha, i.e. our case study, it is recommended that the lake is divided in separate basins, and that each basin is treated as a separate lake. However, in large lakes (>5000ha),

Page 205/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park where whole lake estimates of the fish fauna are not of main priority, sampling can be performed at specific (fixed) stations. The summary of this methodology is summarized here: “The sampling procedure should be based in stratified random sampling. The sampled lake is divided in depth strata and random sampling is performed within each stratum. Sampling of benthic fish is performed with NORDIC multi-mesh gillnets which are 30 m long and 1.5 m deep. The gillnets are composed of 12 different mesh-sizes ranging between 5 to 55 mm knot to knot following a geometric series. Gillnets used for sampling pelagic fish are 27.5 m long and 6 m deep, with the smallest mesh-size being 6.25mm. the number of efforts needed to allow detection of 50% change in relative abundance between sampling occasions, range between 8 gilllnets per night (efforts) for small, shallow lakes, up to 64 efforts for lakes of about 5000 ha. When less accurate estimates of abundance is needed, an inventory sampling procedure may be used, thereby reducing the number of efforts needed”.

This method provides a whole-lake estimate for species occurrence, quantitative relative abundance and biomass expressed as catch per unit effort (CPUE), and size structure of fish assemblages in temperate lakes. It also provides estimates comparable over time within a lake, and estimates comparable between lakes. The CPUE is considered to be directly proportional to the actual abundance of a species, and to a constant called catchability. Because the catchability constant varies between species and between seasons, it is not possible to provide a general transformation of the obtained relative abundance values to absolute abundance values (e.g. fish per ha or biomass per ha). However, for time series analyses, this is usually not a major problem if a strictly standardized sampling method is used.

It is important to realize that fish densities in Sweden are very low (oligotrophic cold lakes) and that the fish species concerned are only few cyprinid, but mainly salmonids and Percidae explaining the huge sampling effort required, totally unrealistic in our case.

For streams such those found in the Macro Prespa catchment, the methodology to monitor the trend of the fish populations is quite standard: electro fishing is used in a chosen number of fixed stations, and the sampling is repeated at a chosen frequency. Topography of the stretch sampled is made. The data are expressed in numbers and/or biomass of fish per hectare de stream, or numbers and/or biomass of fish per 100 m of stream.

Page 206/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

10.1.4. Research gaps A/ Bird impact: Prespa lakes catchment is particularly well-known for its community of fish-eating birds (cormorants, pelicans, herons, grebes, mergansers). All these nesting birds must catch a huge amount of fish every year, especially in spring when they breed and have to feed chicks. No qualitative (which fish species are eaten) and quantitative (how many tons of fish eaten) estimations of bird predation on the fish community is available.

B/ Is wels in Prespa a native or introduced species? A genetic study of Silurus glanis living in Macro Prespa should be undertaken in order to help to clarify whether it is native or introduced (Triantafyllidis et al. 1999, 2002).

C/ Eel in the Prespa lakes: Eels have always been caught in the Prespa lakes, far before the Devolli connection. The question now is: do we have still recruitment of eel in Prespa lakes or does it stop and eel will vanish in some years? This question to be solved will need special sampling in Mikri and Macro Prespa.

D/ Prespa nase in the Macro Prespa lakes: This species was a main fish target for fishermen in the past in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and in Albania. In both countries fishermen complained that this species has declined very much. Such a decline has been observed also in Ohrid Lake for the Ohrid nase, and the hypothesis was made that it declined because changes in tributaries of the lakes where this species spawns. It is likely that the reason of the decline of Prespa nase, if true, is due either to overfishing of this species when it visits tributaries of Macro Prespa or/and to environmental changes in those tributaries. This hypothesis could be tested by a study in the four main tributaries of Macro Prespa during spawning time (late-April-May): Golema, Ranzska, Brajcinska and Aghios Germanos.

10.2. Development of indicators to monitor fish Warning: our fish indicators are not indicators using fish to assess the health of the lake ecosystem (cf WFD). They are indicators that will assess the health of the fish community per se, considering its very high value for the preservation of the biodiversity of the Prespa lakes catchment. However, the data collected might be very useful in the future for establishing a fish index.

Page 207/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

We suggest therefore applying the fish sampling scheme we have used in the past with SPP in Micro Prespa with the addition of fyke nets (or minnow traps) to obtain CPUE of the nine endemic fish species and the carp as a fish indicator. It will allow us to follow the trend of those nine endemic species having a high biodiversity value and the carp, the major fish species for the fishermen.

We suggest therefore applying the fish sampling scheme we have used in the past with SPP in Macro Prespa with the addition of fyke nets (or minnow traps) to obtain CPUE of most of endemic fish species and the carp as a fish indicator. We will add two electrofishing monitoring in the four rivers of Macro Prespa to get reliable abundance of Prespa trout, Prespa barbel and Prespa nase. This proposed monitoring scheme takes into account the needs and capacities of all three sides in the basin.

In Greece, the only EU member, the monitoring scheme for fish assessment of the WFD will be probably be implemented in 2009 using a standard European protocol for fish community assessment in lakes. Consequently, for five years we suggest to apply both protocols and to compare the results. If both sampling scheme give similar results, only the WFD sampling scheme will continue. In the contrary, if the results are different, a meeting with the different parties will decide at that time how to continue this fish monitoring. In Albania and in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, only the sampling scheme suggested by this study will be applied. When those two countries will enter EU, this decision will be reconsidered.

In addition, we suggest to monitor the fishery impact and to monitor the piscivorous bird impact by estimating the fish eaten by cormorant as a proxy of all fish-eating birds impact present in the region, two major factors that could explain changes in CPUE of the lake fish species. Linked with the latter point, we recommend that the number of breeding pairs of cormorant (P. carbo) and of pelicans (P. crispus & P. onocrotalus), the three species of fish-eating birds, numerous, that are eating quite a lot of fish are annually estimated in the three countries. The trend of fish introduced species should also be investigated considering that they might have a negative impact on Prespa fish endemics. Of course, a monitoring of the water level of the lakes and of the phosphorus and nitrogen content, plus Secchi disk monitoring (trophic status) will also be needed as potential factor

Page 208/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park explaining changes in the fish community, however those will be probably done anyway within the hydrological monitoring.

At the end of the five year plan and its implementation we should be able to set threshold or values below which the trend of the indicator should not go. These threshold or values will play the role of warning light of changes in the fish community of the Prespa lakes catchment.

Thirteen (13) indicators for fish and fisheries are proposed in Table 10.7. Details on the development of indicators and its rationale are presented in the following pages in 13 non- numbered text-boxes.

Table 10.7. Proposed indicators for fish and fisheries for the TMS N° Proposed indicator Nature P1 Fish endemic to Prespa lakes trend S P2 Prespa trout trend S P3 Prespa barbel and Prespa nase in Macro Prespa S P4 Carp trend S P5 Fish size distribution for each species S P6 Number of licensed fishermen in the three country P P7 Annual Fishing effort and fish catches P P8 Introduced fish species trend I B5 Number of breeding pelican and cormorant in the area I P9 Quality and quantity of fish eaten by cormorant I W16, W17 Phosphorus and Nitrogen water concentrations in Macro I W18, W19 and Micro Prespa, monthly water transparency W11, W12 Water level trend I P10 IUCN Red list criteria changes R Nature of the Indicator/parameter: P: Anthropogenic Pressure S: State I: Impact, changes (natural ones) R: Response

Page 209/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicator P1: Fish endemic to Prespa lakes trend Nature: S Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: To monitor the relative abundance the fish species endemic to the Prespa lakes and to the Balkans. Sub-indicators: Catch per Unit of Effort (CPUE) Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Fish do not consider borders and are spread out in the whole lake Method / sources of information: Gillnet and fyke nets experimental fishing Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Institutions supposed to be involved: Management Body of Prespa Park and /or NGOs Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Except the monitoring made by SPP, no such data do exist

Indicator P2: Prespa trout trend Nature: S Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: To monitor the abundance of Prespa trout Sub-indicators: Number of trout and biomass of trout per ha per stream Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Trout is found only in one stream in Greece and in three streams in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. No trout found in Albanian catchment of the Prespa lakes. Method / sources of information: Electro-fishing, depletion methodology Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Institutions supposed to be involved: Management Body of Prespa Park and /or NGOs Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Only recent data available (see Crivelli et al. 2008)

Indicator P3: Prespa barbel and Prespa nase trend Nature: S Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: To monitor the abundance of Prespa barbel and Prespa nase Sub-indicators: Number of barbel and nase and biomass of trout per ha per stream Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Prespa barbel and Prespa nase spawn preferentially in streams in Macro Prespa from May to June. This will concern only Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Albanian part having no permanent river. Method / sources of information: Electro-fishing, depletion methodology Institutions supposed to be Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, involved: Management Body of Prespa Park and /or NGOs Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: No data available

Page 210/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicator P4: Carp trend Nature: S Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: To monitor the relative abundance of the carp, Cyprinus carpio, the main targeted fish species by professionals Sub-indicators: Catch per Unit of Effort (CPUE) Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Fish do not consider borders and are spread out in the whole lake Method / sources of information: Gillnet: experimental fishing Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Institutions supposed to be involved: Management Body of Prespa Park and /or NGOs Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Except the monitoring made by SPP, no such data do exist

Indicator P5: Fish size distribution for each species Nature: S Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: This indicator will assess the “health” of the fish population of each species Sub-indicators: Length distributions Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Fish do not consider borders and are spread out in the whole Method / sources of information: Gillnet and fyke nets experimental fishing Institutions supposed to be involved: Ministries and /or NGOs Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: None

Number of licensed fishermen in the Indicator P6: Nature: P three country Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: To monitor annually the number of professional fishermen registered in the three countries. Sub-indicators: Number of licenses per country Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Fish resource can be managed only at the whole lake level Method / sources of information: Registration by governmental agencies Institutions supposed to be involved: Ministries Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Such data do not exist in the three countries, existing past data should be collected

Page 211/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicator P7: Annual fishing effort and fish catches Nature: P Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: To monitor the effort and the catches of the fishery of Prespa lakes. Sub-indicators Number of nets set per year with characteristics (mesh size) Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Fish do not consider borders and are spread out in the whole lake To collect monthly the fishermen note book with Method / sources of information: effort and catches Institutions supposed to be involved: Ministries Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Such data do not exist presently

Indicator P8: Introduced fish species trend Nature: I Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: To monitor the relative abundance the fish introduced species into Micro and Macro Prespa Sub-indicators Catch per Unit of Effort (CPUE) Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Fish do not consider borders and are spread out in the whole lake Method / sources of information: Gillnet and fyke nets experimental fishing Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Institutions supposed to be involved: agriculture, Management Body of Prespa Park and /or NGOs Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Except the monitoring made by SPP, no such data do exist

Number of breeding pairs of pelicans Indicator B5: Nature: I and cormorants Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: To monitor the number of breeding pairs of the two most important fish-eating birds nesting in the catchment of Prespa lakes: pelicans and cormorants. Number of breeding pairs of Pelecanus crispus, Pelecanus onocrotalus Sub-indicators: and Phalacrocorax carbo. Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Predation on fish by fish-eating birds could be an important factor explaining the abundance of the lake fish resource. Method / sources of information: Counting breeding pairs where those birds

Page 212/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

do nest Institutions supposed to be involved: NGOs Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues An important data set still do exist for the Greek part of the lakes, but apparently such data do not exist in Albania and in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Quality and quantity of fish eaten by Indicator P9: Nature: I cormorants Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: To monitor the quality and the quantity of fish eaten by the main fish-eating birds, using cormorant as a proxy. Sub-indicators: Percentage of each fish species eaten and length of fish eaten Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Predation on fish by fish-eating birds could be an important factor explaining the abundance of the lake fish resource. Method / sources of information: Collection of regurgitates late May early June ++

Indicators Phosphorus and Nitrogen water W16, W17, concentrations, monthly water transparency Nature: I W18, W19: in Macro and Micro Prespa Lakes Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: To monitor the phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in the water of Macro and Micro Prespa Lakes. Concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen in water Sub-indicators: Monthly Secchi disk measurements Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Eutrophication processes would be bad for the whole lake. Secchi disk monthly measurements Method / sources of information: Phosphorus and nitrogen analysis in a skilled laboratory Institutions supposed to be involved: Ministries and /or NGOs Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: For phosphorus and nitrogen, some scattered data do exist, as well as for Secchi disk measurements. After ten years of data of phosphorus and nitrogen, correlations might be done between the concentrations of nutrient and Secchi disk measurements.

Page 213/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicators Water level trend of Macro and Micro Nature: I W11,W12: Prespa lakes Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: To monitor the water level of both Prespa lakes in sites with standardized points above sea level. Sub-indicators: Monthly water level measurements Relevance for a Transboundary MS: The water level of the lakes is an important ecological parameters with also strong socio- economic impact (tourisms) Method / sources of information: Fixed point standardized above sea level. Institutions supposed to be involved: Ministries and /or NGOs Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Those data do exist in all three countries, but agreement and standardized point above sea level should be checked

Indicator P10: IUCN Red list criteria changes Nature: R Objective / Significance to Fish & Fisheries monitoring: This indicator will assess officially any changes in the conservation status of all fish species endemic to Prespa lake catchment. Sub-indicators: Any change will be an indicator either of better or worse status Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Fish do not consider borders and are spread out in the whole lake Method / sources of information: IUCN Red list criteria Institutions supposed to be involved: IUCN Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: None

10.3. Methods

10.3.1. Description and justification Fish community structure in lakes refers to the relative abundance of fish of each species within a multispecies assemblage of fishes. Relative abundance is traditionally measured

Page 214/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park by catch in numbers per unit of sampling effort, but measures based on weight are also commonly used. A “Lake fish community” theoretically includes all of the fish that use a defined area over a given period of time. The best overall method for measuring fish community structure is one that is most effective (samples the largest number of specimens) and least selective (capture species in proportion to their occurrence in the sampled area). Given commonly available levels of time and personnel, no single method routinely satisfies both criteria. For this reason, the trend analysis procedure for fish community structure in a given aquatic area includes use of several sampling gears (Prchalova et al. 2009).

Relative abundance is one of the most common variables used by biologists to assess community structure in lakes. It is called relative abundance to stress the fact that virtually every sampling method is somewhat selective and therefore produces a biased view of true abundance. In trend analysis, this bias is minimized by the development of standardized methods and reliance on multiple sampling gears. It is commonly expressed as Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), either in numbers of fish per hour of fishing per m2 of net or in biomass per hour of fishing per m2 of net.

Estimations of true abundance of fish can only be obtained in small and medium size streams using electro fishing devices and sampling stretches of 100 to 200 m long. It is commonly expressed as numbers or biomass of fish per hectare or per 100m2. But data based on numbers per 100 m of stream is also commonly used.

Species richness refers to the total number of species taken in a collection or during a defined unit of effort. Species richness is a component of the overall diversity of the fish community. Because the sample species richness increases with increasing sampling effort, comparison of species richness estimates requires either constant sampling effort or formal estimation methods.

Population structure refers to the distribution of individuals of a single species among size or age groups. Data on population structure are obtained from routine long term fish monitoring sampling efforts.

The size distribution for a given species is the vector of numbers of specimens taken in a collection or a unit of effort that fall into selected size categories. The size distribution of a

Page 215/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park species is a valuable index to a variety of population characteristics, including growth, recruitment and mortality rates.

10.3.2. Sampling methods Prespa lakes (P1, P4, P5, P8 and P10) In both lakes Prespa, gillnetting and fyke netting will be used to get relative abundances of fish species present. Gillnets are 50 m long each and consist of five 10 m panels of monofilament mesh. The panels are 1.80 m deep. Each net consists of a different size mesh. Mesh sizes are for one net: 10, 14, 18, 23 and 27 mm stretch measure and for the second: 33, 38, 45, 55 and 60 mm stretch. The mesh panels have not been randomly distributed over the gillnet as recommended by the Swedish protocol. Gillnets are set perpendicular to the shore line (Figure 10.8), the smallest mesh size (10mm and 33mm in each net) being in the shallowest water and the largest in the deepest (27mm and 60 mm). Nets are apart at 20-30 m in each fishing site.

Figure 10.8. Setting of the gillnets and fyke nets on the littoral zone of the lake.

Counts and lengths of captured fishes are recorded separately for each panel in Fish Measurement Sheet (see Annexes 10.1 and 10.2). For each panel (mesh) of the first net (mesh: 10 to 27mm) all fish are counted and weighted globally. At least 50 fish of each

Page 216/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park fish species are measured (Fork length) each fishing day. For the second net (mesh: 33 to 60mm) each fish is measured and individually weighted, and maturity (sperm ♂♂ or eggs ♀♀or already spawned) is recorded.

The sampling design is three nets, set once every month, one 10 to 27mm set and two 33 to 60 mm set at the end of afternoon and visited early morning at each sampling sites. The sampling sites is chosen subjectively after discussion with local fishermen and is fixed from a year to another. We should have a sampling site in Albania, Greece, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for Macro Prespa and two sampling sites in Greece for Micro Prespa. The nets should be set during the spawning time of the majority of the fish species present, three times per year: last week of April, last week of May and last week of June. For each site, the annual result for gillnet for all the species (to the exception of the four smaller ones) will be the mean CPUE (mean Log10 CPUE+1) of the three fishing events.

Fyke nets with 3 mm mesh sizes are deployed with leads fully extended in shallow waters in order to catch the four smaller fish species (Cobitis meridionalis, Rhodeus amarus, Pelasgus prespensis and Pseudorasbora parva) present in the Prespa lakes fish community. The sampling design is four fyke nets with 3 mm mesh size are set at each sites next to the gillnet and between with the same procedure as for gillnet. For each site, the annual result for fyke nets for four species will be the mean CPUE (mean Log10 CPUE+1) of the three fishing events. If fyke nets with 3 mm mesh size cannot be bought, fyke nets (5mm mesh size) or minnow trap (5 mm) could be used instead.

Using this procedure, we will get CPUE of the endemic fish species as well as of the introduced fish species.

The streams of the catchment (P2, P3, P5 and P10) Standardized electrofishing is conducted mainly is streams where depth ranges from approximately 0.5 to 3.0 m. Each stretch of stream is electrofished two times (three if needed) to produce a multi-pass removal estimates of fish abundance using Microfish 3.0 (Van Deventer and Platts 1989). After the first pass, the fish caught are kept in plastic buckets and released immediately after the completion of the second electro fishing pass (see Annex 10.3). This methodology will be applied in Aghios Germanos stream in Greece

Page 217/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park and in Brajcinska, Kranska, Leva Reka streams and Golema River in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for Prespa trout, Prespa barbel and Prespa nase monitoring.

For Prespa barbel and nase, from the river delta, three fixed sampling stations of 100 long each will be set on 1km of stream going upstream (see Figure 10.9). Those stations will be marked with paint on rocks or trees, and GPS data will be taken. Topography of the stream will be done by measuring every 10 meters, the wetted width, so we will have a surface area sampled (see Annex 10.3). In addition pools are registered with their maximum depth. The sampling will take place every two weeks, starting the first week of May and finishing the third week of June, in total the stations will be sampled four times.

Figure 10.9. Sketch showing how to locate the sampling station for monitoring of the Prespa barbel, Prespa nase and Prespa trout. Along the river the numbers mean meters. We start from the lake and measure 100 m upstream and we have the first station which is itself 100 m etc.

For the electro fishing for Prespa trout, it will be done in 2009 end of August for the fifth year within the frame of the Prespa trout project funded by SPP. After this last sampling, a number of fishing stations will be chosen for each stream to be sampled in the future. However, the sampling will take one day per streams for 4 people (with the exception of two days for Brajcinska and Aghios Germanos streams) each year end of August – beginning of September. Using this procedure, we will get absolute densities (N/ha or

Page 218/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park biomass/ha; N per 100m of stream) of fish visiting those stream or living within those streams.

Fishery statistics (P6 and P7) For fishery statistics, we suggest that the three States try as much as possible to issue annually fishing licenses and collect data on the fishing effort and fishing catches.

Fish diet composition of cormorant (P9) For bird impact, 60 regurgitates of Phalacrocorax carbo should be collected end of May- early June at Vidronisi colony in Greece, at Golem Grad colony in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and possibly in Albania if a breeding colony of cormorant do exist. The persons collect regurgitates on the ground, under the trees where cormorant nest, and put each one in a plastic bag. The analysis of them will be done on the lake shore after coming back by boat. For each regurgitates, the fish species is identified and the fish length is measured in mm (see Annex 10.4).

IUCN Red list criteria changes (P10) After five years of collecting data on the relative abundance or abundance of the fish species, a new assessment of the status of the nine fish species endemic to Prespa catchment will take place according to the guidelines and criteria of IUCN Red List. If any change in the status of a species occurs, the new result will be sent to IUCN Red list headquarters. The latter will be the only body who will be able analyze the proposal of a new status and to modify the status officially

10.3.3. Periodicity – Five year timetable/ work plan See Table 10.8.

Page 219/381

Table 10.8. Periodicity of sampling methods for monitoring the “Fish & Fisheries” indicators N° Proposed indicator METHOD YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 P1, P4, 3 times (last weeks 3 times (last weeks 3 times (last weeks 3 times (last weeks 3 times (last weeks Fish endemic to Prespa Gillnet and P5, P8 of April, May and of April, May and of April, May and of April, May and of April, May and lakes trend fyke nets and P10 June) June) June) June) June) 1 time (end of 1 time (end of 1 time (end of 1 time (end of 1 time (end of P2, P5 Prespa Trout trend Electrofishing August-beginning August-beginning August-beginning August-beginning August-beginning and P10 of September) of September) of September) of September) of September) 4 times (1st and 3rd 4 times (1st and 3rd 4 times (1st and 3rd 4 times (1st and 3rd 4 times (1st and 3rd P3 , P5 Prespa barbel and nase Electrofishing week of May and week of May and week of May and week of May and week of May and and P10 trend June) June) June) June) June) Number of licensed Issued by the Once Once Once Once Once P6 fishermen in the three three States yearly yearly yearly yearly yearly country Managed by Annual Fishing effort P7 the three Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly and fish catches States Number of breeding Cf B5 pelican and cormorant in biodiversity the area theme W16, Phosphorus and W17, Nitrogen water Cf hydrology

W18, concentrations in Macro theme W19 and Micro Prespa W11, Cf hydrology Water level trend W12 theme Applying guidelines IUCN Red list criteria P10 and criteria Once every 5 years changes of IUCN Red List Once or twice (last Once or twice (last Once or twice (last Once or twice (last Once or twice (last Fish diet composition of Collection of P9 week of May, first week of May, first week of May, first week of May, first week of May, first cormorant regurgitates week of June) week of June) week of June) week of June) week of June)

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

10.3.4. Parameters See Table 10.9.

Table 10.9. Parameters to be measured for the monitoring of the “Fish & Fisheries” indicators N° Proposed indicator Parameters that need to be measured Date, Mesh size, site N°, fishing effort, depth, Secchi disk P1, measurements, water temperature, total number of fish P4, and total biomass of fish caught, total number by species P5, Fish endemic to Prespa and biomass by species, measurements of fork length of P8, lakes trend 50 fish of each species, for the mesh 33 to 60mm all fish and measured and weighted individually. P10 Example in Annexes 10.1 and 10.2 Electrofishing in streams: P2, Section No, Distance (m), Width (cm), Depth (cm), No. P5 of pools, Pool 1 max. depth (cm), Pool 2 max. depth Prespa trout trend and (cm). Number of fish caught in the first run , in the P10 second run, measurements (TL and weight) of all trout Example in Annex 10.3 Electrofishing in streams: Section No, Distance (m), Width (cm), Depth (cm), No. P3, Prespa barbel and of pools, Pool 1 max. depth (cm), Pool 2 max. depth P5 Prespa nase in Macro (cm). Number of barbel and nase caught in the first run , and Prespa in the second run, measurements (TL and weight) of all P10 barbel and nase and other fish if present Example in Annex 10.3 Number of licensed P6 fishermen in the three Number of licenses per year country Annual Fishing effort Number of days of fishing per fisherman and number of P7 and fish catches nets set. Number of fish and weight of fish caught Number of breeding B5 pelicans and Cf Biodiversity theme cormorants in the area W16, Phosphorus and W17, Nitrogen water Cf hydrology theme W18, concentrations in Macro W19 and Micro Prespa W11, Water level trend Cf hydrology theme W12 IUCN Red list criteria Trend of abundance of the nine species endemic to P10 changes Prespa lakes in CPUE or in absolute abundance At least 50 regurgitates, detailed data for each Fish diet composition of P9 regurgitate including fish measurements cormorants Example in Annex 10.4

Page 221/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

10.4. Equipment For indicators P1, P4, P5, P8, and P10: Gillnet monitoring in Albania, Greece and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Table 10.10).

Table 10.10. Equipment needed for indicators P1, P4, P5, P8 and P10 Equipment Number Cost for one item Total cost Gillnet 50 m multimesh 10, 14, 18, 23, 27 mm, 10 m of 2 every two years 140€* 280€ each Gillnet 50 m multimesh 33, 38, 45, 55, 60 mm, 10 m of 4 every two years 140€ 560€ each Fyke nets 3 or 5 mm mesh 5 500€ 2500€ size A portable balance up to 1 500€ 500€ 3000g accuracy 0.1 A ruler 40-50 cm long 2 20€ 40€ * bought to Nippon Verkko oy, Finland ([email protected])

For indicators P2, P3, P5 and P10: Electrofishing in streams in Greece and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Table 10.11).

Table 10.11. Equipment needed for indicators P2, P3, P5 and P10 Equipment Number Cost for one item Total cost Apparatus for electrofishing 1 6000-8000€ 6000-8000€ with gasoline, complete Handnets mesh 3-4 mm 6 102€ 612€ A portable balance up to 1 400€ 400€ 1500g accuracy 0.1 g A ruler 40-50 cm long 2 20€ 40€ Closed bucket** to keep 3 closed buckets and 500€ 500€ fish alive and plastic tanks 3 large plastic tanks Waders 4 100€ 400€ ** Closed buckets are devices to keep the fish in water alive during the electrofishing work.

For indicator P9 (collecting regurgitates of P. carbo) in Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Table 10.12).

Page 222/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 10.12. Equipment needed for indicator P9 Equipment Number Cost for one item Total cost A ruler and plastic bags 50€ 50€

Transversal to all indicators for this theme: A portable computer with Microsoft Office: ca. 800€ The equipment needed for indicators treated by the groups on Biodiversity (B5) and by Water resources (W16, W17, W18, W19, W11, W12) are developed in the respective chapters.

10.5. Monitoring stations (The stations indicated on maps are only indicative) Gill net monitoring (P1, P4, P5, P8 and P10) In Greece: two stations representing two different habitat types for spawning have been already chosen and used for many years. In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: One station will be chosen by the organization responsible to undertake the gillnet monitoring. They will have also to justify their choice. In Albania: One station will be chosen by the organization responsible to undertake the gillnet monitoring. They will also have to justify their choice.

Electrofishing monitoring (P2, P3, P5 and P10) In Greece: It will take place in Aghios Germanos stream. For Prespa barbel and Prespa nase, see Figure 10.11. For the Prespa trout see map below (Figure 10.10). In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: It will take place in Golema river, in Kranska and Brajcinska streams (see Figures 10.11 and 10.10 below). For Prespa trout it will take place in Brajcinska, Kranska and Leva Reka streams (see Figure 10.10 below).

Collection of regurgitates (P9) In Greece: it will take place in Vidronisi island in Micro Prespa (see map below/ Figure 10.11) In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: it will take place in Golem Grad island (see map below/ Figure 10.11).

Page 223/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Figure 10.10. Prespa trout monitoring stations (from Crivelli et al. 2008)

Figure 10.11. Locations of sampling sites for gill netting, electrofishing for Prespa nase and barbel and for collection of cormorants‟ regurgitates

10.6. Organizations responsible for monitoring fish and fisheries

Page 224/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Gillnet monitoring (P1, P4, P5, P8, P10) Greece: Management Body of Prespa Park National Forest (MBPNF) and SPP Albania: PPNEA or University of Agriculture (Dr Spase Shumka) Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Hydrobiological Institute (HBA), Ohrid

Electrofishing (P2, P3, P5 and P10) Greece: MBPNF and SPP Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Hydrobiological Institute (HBA), Ohrid

Collection of regurgitates (P9) Greece: MBPNF and SPP Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Galicica National Park and/or Hydrobiological Institute (HBA), Ohrid

Staff (technical, scientific) and organizational requirements, e.g. training. For all monitoring involved in Fish and Fisheries the need is always to have a leader knowing well the fish and the different fish species and 3 technicians. For the electrofishing, the need is to have a leader skilled in electrofishing with 3 technicians. The leader is the person who will put the data in the computer.

Albania From the exercises that we already organized in the last years we see that there is a need for training. Up to now we have one fisherman that has some knowledge on Nordic nets use. To my view and looking to the future we will need to provide training for three local people: two fishermen and one National Park employee. That will provide a future sustainability in the monitoring of this type. The training can be provided by SPP due to the fact of experiences they have. There also can be foreseen a training for one scientific person in charge with this monitoring.

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia None of the proposed monitoring are currently done in this country, and therefore no resources have been allocated so far to these indicators.

Page 225/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Greece SPP is already trained to undertake those monitoring

Existing sources of funding None of the proposed monitoring activities are currently done in Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and therefore no resources have been allocated so far to these indicators.

Albania According to Dr Spase Shumka, “in 2005-2008 an EU project (STEMA) intended to design a modern system of monitoring that to some extent was looking to an integrated one. One integrated monitoring station (including biological parameters and fishery) is foreseen for Lake Macro Prespa. This proposal was not translated into funding and up to now it remains only a plan. In PPNEA, there are some funds from FZS (Frankfurt Zoological Society) for repeating the exercises in 2009. PPNEA also has two nets bought with funds of this grant (through SPP last year).”

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia None of the proposed monitoring are currently done in this country, and therefore no resources have been allocated so far to these indicators.

Greece The SPP intends to continue fish monitoring in the short-medium term. Budget is secured until 2012.

10.7. Budget Cost of purchase and installation of equipment See paragraph 10.4 (Tables 10.10-10.12).

Running costs, including manpower/ personnel needs For indicators P1, P4, P5, P8, and P10: Gillnet monitoring in Albania, Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, see Tables 10.13-10.15.

Page 226/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 10.13. Running costs (including manpower/ personnel) for gillnet monitoring in Albania Consumables/ Number Cost for one item Total cost running costs 3 annual trip of two days Price per km (0.40€), Travelling, lodging, per including one night in price for 1 rooms one 744€ diem in each country hotel for 4 persons night: 12€ Renting a boat with 6 days of a fisherman 70€ 420€ engine to a fisherman with boat/year

Table 10.14. Running costs (including manpower/ personnel) for gillnet monitoring in Greece Consumables/ Number Cost for one item Total cost running costs 3 annual trip of two days Price per km (0.40€), Travelling, lodging, per including one night in price for rooms for 980€ diem in each country hotel for 4 persons one night (45€) Renting a boat with 6 days of a fisherman 200€ per day 1200€ engine to a fisherman with boat/year

Table 10.15. Running costs (including manpower/ personnel) for gillnet monitoring in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Consumables/ Number Cost for one item Total cost running costs 3 annual trip of two days Price per km (0.40€), Travelling, lodging, per including one night in price for one room for 400€ diem in each country hotel for 4 persons one night 30€ Renting a boat with 6 days of a fisherman 60€ per day 360€ engine to a fisherman with boat/year

For indicators P2, P3, P5 and P10: Electrofishing in streams in Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, see Tables 10.16 and 10.17.

Table 10.16. Running costs (including manpower/ personnel) for electrofishing monitoring in Greece Consumables/ Number Cost for one item Total cost running costs Travelling, lodging, per 5 annual trip Price per km (0.40€), 380€ (220€ for diem for trout, Prespa (100km each) and price for one room for trout and 160€ for barbel and nase 4 night in hotel one night (45€) barbel and nase)

Page 227/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 10.17. Running costs (including manpower/ personnel) for electrofishing monitoring in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Consumables/ Number Cost for one item Total cost running costs Travelling, lodging, 5 annual trip of one Price per km 2120€ (560€ for per diem for trout, days (500km each), (0.40€), price for 1 trout and 1760€ for Prespa barbel and and 44 nights in room for one night barbel and nase) nase hotel 30€

For indicator P9: Collecting regurgitates of P. carbo in Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, see Tables 10.18 and 10.19.

Table 10.18. Running costs (including manpower/ personnel) for collecting regurgitates of P. carbo in Greece Consumables/ Number Cost for one item Total cost running costs 2 day of a fisherman with Renting a boat to a boat per year in each 200€ per day 400€ fisherman country 2 annual trip (100 km Price per km Travelling, per diem each) of one day for 2 80€ (0.40€) persons in each country

Table 10.19. Running costs (including manpower/ personnel) for collecting regurgitates of P. carbo in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Consumables/ Number Cost for one item Total cost running costs 2 day of a fisherman with Renting a boat to a boat per year in each 60€ per day 120€ fisherman country 2 annual trip (100km Price per km Travelling, per diem each) of one day for 2 80€ (0.40€) persons in each country

Transversal to all indicators: Internet connection: Albania: (price not known); Greece: 16.5€ per month; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 10€ per month. Budgets for the indicators treated by the Biodiversity (B5) and Water resources themes (W16, W17, W18, W19, W11, W12) are developed in the respective chapters. No costs are budgeted for maintenance of equipment and updating (e.g. software, etc.). Staff costs per country and total/ overall budget are presented in Tables 10.20 and 10.21 respectively.

Page 228/381

Table 10. 20. Estimated staff costs per country GREECE ALBANIA FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC of MACEDONIA

N° person person dwork/ / year year year people people people METHOD involved involved involved indicator Cost per Cost per Cost per Proposed Proposed N days ofN days ofN days ofN Total cost Total cost Total cost fieldwork/ fiel fieldwork/ (per year) (per year) (per year) Number ofNumber ofNumber ofNumber day/person day/ day

P1, P4, Fish endemic to Gillnet and P5, Prespa lakes Fyke nets 4 25 145 3480 P8 trend and Micro Prespa, P10

P1, 100€ P4, Fish endemic to Gillnet and (leader) P5, Prespa lakes Fyke nets 4 25 145 3480 4 25 60 1440 4 25 and 50€ 3400 P8 trend (technical and Macro Prespa, staff) P10 P2 Prespa trout P5 Electrofishing 4 9 145 1305 4 17 150 2550 trend P10 Prespa barbel P3 and Prespa P5 Electrofishing 4 17 145 2465 4 49 150 7350 nase in Macro P10 Prespa Fish diet Collection of P9 composition of 2 3 145 435 2 3 150 450 regurgitates cormorant

Table 10. 21. Total costs (equipment, staff, consumables/ running costs) per country

FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC of GREECE ALBANIA MACEDONIA

Equipment Proposed N° costs

indicators ts (per (€) costs (per (per costs (per costs cos

umables/ umables/ year) year) year) year) year) year) year) year) year) year) year) year) Maintenance/ Maintenance/ Maintenance/ Maintenance/ Updating (per (per Updating (per Updating (per Updating Consumables/ Consumables/ Consumables/ Cons Staff cost (per (per cost Staff (per cost Staff (per cost Staff Total cost (per (per Total cost (per Total cost (per Total cost running running running

P1, Fish P4, endemic to P5, Prespa 3480 2180 - 5660 - P8 lakes trend and Micro P10 Prespa

P1, Fish P4, endemic to 3880€ per P5, Prespa country = 3480 2180 - 5660 1440 1164 2604 3400 760 - 4160 P8 lakes trend 11640€ and Macro P10 Prespa

P2 Prespa P5 1305 220 1525 2550 560 - 3110 trout trend - P10

10,000€ for Prespa Greece and barbel and P3 10,000€ Prespa P5 Former nase in 2465 160 - 2625 7350 1760 - 9110 P10 Yugoslav Macro Republic of Prespa Macedonia

50€ for Greece and Fish diet 50€ for compositio P9 Former n of 435 480 - 915 450 200 - 650 Yugoslav cormorant Republic of Macedonia

800€ for Costs transversal each to all indicators country = 2400

TOTAL 36019 11165 5220 0 16385 1440 1164 0 2604 13750 3280 0 17030

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

10.8. Proposal for Pilot application

In 2009-2010, all the proposed monitoring for fish and fisheries could be undertaken.

Page 232/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

11. Birds and Other Biodiversity (Species and Habitats) Dr. Christian Perennou, Tour du Valat

11.1. Introduction As defined in Phase A of the development of the TB monitoring system, the aim of the system is for the current stages "Surveillance monitoring" and may be, in the longer term, expanded to more specific goals such as adaptive management, or emergency crisis, or knowledge-oriented in terms of cause-effects relationships.

Further, it must be recalled that in preliminary discussions on this 2nd stage of the development of the TB system, it was agreed that for the sake of realism, a target of 10- 15 indicators at most, per theme, was deemed desirable. In the specific theme of Biodiversity, this will drive a constant effort to reduce the list of potential indicators to the essentials.

11.1.1. Analysis of existing monitoring programmes Excluding the fish and the aquatic/ forest plants and habitats (that are covered in Chapters 10 and 9 respectively), few biodiversity monitoring programs exist in Prespa (Annex 4.3, Appendix 1): 3 in Albania, 4 in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and 5 in Greece – all on species except for one program on habitats in Greece. Most of these monitoring programs are dedicated to waterbirds.

These programs are not coordinated between countries; the closest to it would be the wintering waterfowl counts undertaken regularly in the Albanian (Shumka et al. 2008) and Greek sections of Prespa, and sometimes in parts of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian side as well (Ezerani NR): although not coordinated within Prespa, these are intended as national contributions to an international effort.

11.1.2. Connection to EU and national legislation Biodiversity is the target of national legislation in all 3 countries, which all have lists of protected species. In addition, the EU legislation covers these through the Habitats and Birds directives. Typically, species lists are more restricted/ selective at EU than national level. The numbers of species from Prespa that are included in the relevant Directives are as follows (Table 11.1):

Page 233/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.1. Numbers of species from Prespa that are included in relevant EU Directives Habitat Directive, Annexes: Bird Directive, Annexes: Categories II/ III/ II/ IV V I II II/ III IV IV IV/ V Amphibians 1 7 1 Reptiles 4 14 Mammals 10 15 3 1 Plants (Not analysed along this line in Petkovski et al. 2008) Birds 46 10 4

These numbers clearly imply that, even when taking into consideration only the highest levels of protection afforded (Annexes II & IV only in the Habitat directive10, and Annex I only in the Birds Directive11), the number of species would be too high for a TB monitoring to target them all. The implication is therefore that, further to EU criteria, other criteria will be needed so as to choose which indicators to retain for the present Biodiversity monitoring theme.

10 Annex IV affords full protection to all the species included, as per the text of Articles 12 & 13 (see below); and being placed on Annex II further reinforces protection, by obliging Member states to designate special areas of conservation for them, as part of the Natura 2000 network (as per Art. 3, below). Extract from the habitats Directive (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/): Article 3. A coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation shall be set up under the title Natura 2000. This network, composed of sites hosting the natural habitat types listed in Annex I and habitats of the species listed in Annex II, shall enable the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. The Natura 2000 network shall include the special protection areas classified by the Member States pursuant to Directive 79/409/EEC. Article 12: 1. Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV in their natural range, prohibiting: (a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild; (b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration; (c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild; (d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places. Article 13: 1. Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the plant species listed in Annex IV, prohibiting: (a) the deliberate picking, collecting, cutting, uprooting or destruction of such plants in their natural range in the wild; (b) the keeping, transport and sale or exchange and offering for sale or exchange of specimens of such species taken in the wild, except for those taken legally before this Directive is implemented. 11 The Directive affords an overall protection to virtually all wild birds in the EU, but in addition Article 4 states that “The species mentioned in Annex I shall be the subject of special conservation measures concerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution. »

Page 234/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Similarly, the 33 habitats (habitat types) present in Prespa can be classified according to their inclusion or not in Annex I of the Habitats directive12. Full data are presented in Annex 4.3 Appendix 2, and can be summarized as follows (Table 11.2):

Table 11.2. Numbers of habitats present in Prespa classified according to their inclusion or not in Annex I of the Habitats Directive Annex I EU interest EU interest (non- Non Annex I (priority) priority) Total habitats 6 18 9 Excluding Forest & 3 8 3 Wetland habitats

As for the species, the remaining number of habitats of EU interest (8 + 3) is probably too high for a detailed monitoring to be carried out in each one, and a further selection might be needed.

Connection to EU legislation in terms of Biodiversity monitoring/ assessment has been summarized in the report of Phase B of the preparatory Stage (Perennou & Gletsos 2008a, pp. 18-22). Article 11 of the Habitats Directive states that “Member States shall undertake surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species referred to in Article 2 with particular regard to priority natural habitat types and priority species”. Reporting to the Commission is not identical to monitoring: thus, even for reporting at national level the member states may have to implement some site-specific monitoring. When they have established SACs under art.6, member states have to manage them for conservation, which implicitly includes management-oriented monitoring: each protected area should set up an appropriate, site-specific monitoring programme, according to its management objectives. In the case of Prespa, many values/species/habitats are shared and therefore could be the object of TB monitoring. The Bird Directive is less specific on monitoring, and simply provides in its Article 10 that “1. Member States shall encourage research and any work required as a basis for the protection, management and use of the population of all species of bird referred to in

12 Extract from the habitats Directive (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/): Article 3. A coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation shall be set up under the title Natura 2000. This network, composed of sites hosting the natural habitat types listed in Annex I…

Page 235/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Article 1. 2.” Monitoring key bird species in Prespa is therefore implicit under this provision.

11.1.3. Baseline information Species The baseline information is to a large extent restricted to species/ habitat lists present in each country, as summarized by Petkovski et al. (2008). For some groups, especially waterbirds, quantitative information over a number of years exist, both for wintering waterfowl and some key breeding species (e.g. pelicans, herons, cormorants, etc.).

Habitats A first all-encompassing description of the habitats present in the Prespa area was given by Pavlides (1997), from a phyto-sociological point of view. The main habitats identified were summarized in the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) document (SPP et al. 2002).

More recently, using the Habitats Directive/ CORINE-Biotope typologies, a detailed GIS mapping of habitats was produced at least for the Greek part of the Prespa lakes and watershed, which consists of 2 Natura 2000 sites: - GR1340001 - PRESPA NATIONAL FOREST - GR1340003 - MT. VARNOUNTAS The same apparently exists for the Albanian part, but maps were not made available to us. In both countries, these GIS maps allow a calculation of the % cover under each habitat type.

Furthermore, as part of the AlWet project, a map of the habitats present in the Micro Prespa watershed (Albanian side) was also produced; however it is restricted to wetland habitats only, it uses a MedWet typology and not the habitats Directive (or corresponding CORINE Biotope) classification. The rest of the territory, outside wetlands, is simply described under the broad CORINE Land Cover categories.

It is presumed that no similar mapping exists for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; however an estimation for the % cover under each habitat type in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia part of the Prespa watershed was derived based upon expert knowledge (in Petkovski et al. 2008).

Page 236/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

11.1.4. Rationale for monitoring Biodiversity is THE key issue that lead to the initial interest in conserving the Prespa lakes and their surroundings. The presence of many endemic species (fish, plants etc.), and of species which occur in some of their highest concentrations known in Europe or even in the world (pelicans), all make this site unique. However, this natural wealth is facing a number of threats, actual or potential/future (eutrophication, decreasing lakes water level, unsustainable use of some resources, introduction of exotic species etc.), and therefore key elements of the local Biodiversity, especially those for which Prespa has an international/ global responsibility, should be continuously assessed so as to ring the alarm bell, should the populations significantly fall.

As the key aim of the TB programme is, so far, “Routine Surveillance” of the lakes ecosystem and their watershed (see Doc. A-1 Aims of Stage 1), the key focus will be on the “State” component (i.e. the state of the various key habitats/ species), rather than on explanatory factors (i.e. “pressures”) as demonstrating their impact on a given component of Biodiversity would require comprehensive research, and would fit the (rejected) potential goal of “Knowledge-oriented (n°3)” rather than the retained one of surveillance.

11.1.5. Research gaps In document A3 of the Preparatory Stage, Phase A, “Significant elements/ values/ issues of concern to a transboundary monitoring system in the Prespa Park, relevant criteria and scope”, Chapter 4 deals with the key gaps in terms of Research. As these had already been pre-identified in the SAP (SPP 2002), mainly in the Biodiversity field, they were therefore reviewed and completed by expert advice from the three countries.

Key gaps relevant for Biodiversity are listed in Annex 4.3. Basically, gaps affect virtually all components of biodiversity: as the 1st section above highlights, few components are regularly monitored. But gaps also affect the transboundary character of whichever monitoring of biodiversity is indeed carried out, as no effective TB monitoring currently exists – only national programmes are in place.

Page 237/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

11.2. Development of indicators For practical reasons (availability of experts), it has been agreed to cover terrestrial habitats jointly with Forests, and to restrict therefore the current work to species/ communities only.

In the document from Phase C of the 1st Stage (Perennou & Gletsos 2008b), guidelines and criteria for the development of indicators for the Prespa TB monitoring system were developed. In particular, Table 1, pp.4-5 summarized the desired characteristics that such indicators should fulfil, and which fall within the following categories (and sub-categories): Validity (Relevance, Appropriate Scale, Accurate, Sensitive); Understandability (Understandable, Simplicity, Presentation, Documented); Interpretability (Interpretable, allowing Trend Evaluations); Data Availability (Currently existing, Easily Available, Long term record); Cost Considerations & Feasibility (Technicity, Data collection, Calculation and Interpretation, GIS-compatibility); Trans-boundary character (Acceptability, TB feasibility, EU legal conformity). These apply to all themes, beyond biodiversity.

Hundreds of “elementary” biodiversity indicators would be potentially relevant for Prespa, given the high number of species/ habitats of conservation interest (see synthesis in Petkovski et al. 2008). As detailed above (§ “Connection to EU and national legislation”), just considering the species with the highest level of conservation concern and protection in the EU would still lead to a total of 112+ potential “indicator species” for Biodiversity (Table 11.3):

Table 11.3. Numbers of species present in Prespa classified according to their inclusion in Annexes II/IV of the Habitats Directive and Annex I of the Birds Directive Categories Habitats Directive, Annexes II/ IV Amphibians 8 Reptiles 18 Mammals 29 Plants/ Invertebrates (Not analysed along this line in Petkovski et al. 2008) Birds Directive, Annex 1 Birds 46

Page 238/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Therefore, in order to come down to a realistic number, the approach suggested to the MCWG in February 2008 was to use 2 complementary approaches: a) Use international lists (IUCN Red Lists and EU Habitat and Bird Directives Lists), in order to identify species of international concern (EU or global) which occur in the Prespa watershed; b) pool separate expert advice from experts from the 3 countries, on “what are the priorities for a TB programme13, as perceived nationally”. Such expert advice helps bring in bottom-up information that global/ EU, list-based approaches may miss.

Thus, for species in particular, the indicator species retained should: a) be of high TB conservation concern, i.e. either Globally14 threatened/ Nearly threatened (IUCN categories CR, EN, VU or NT), and/ or listed on the Annexes II or IV of the Habitats directive / Annex I of the Birds Directive; and b) be proposed by at least 2 countries as a “Priority for a TB system”. These national proposals were made in 2007-08 by national consultants, after consulting various national experts.

This approach was endorsed by the MCWG at its meeting of April 2008, with preliminary lists of species and habitats proposed in Document A3 (Perennou 2008) – see Annex 4.3, Appendices 2 and 3. For species, the reduced list of potential indicator species meeting all the MCWG-validated criteria runs as shown in Table 11.4.

13 Important note: the question was formulated in this specific way, to avoid confusion with “What are the national priorities in your country?”, which would not be within the scope of a TB project 14 Note that threats at other levels (National, European) were not considered here, due to the already high number with a global criteria: the MCWG validated an approach using Global threats level as far as the Red List is concerned; the European level is taken into account not through Red listing but through EU Directives

Page 239/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.4. List of potential indicator species groups meeting all the MCWG-validated criteria (MCWG meeting of April 2008) N° OF Category SPECIES NAMES SPECIES

Triturus carnifex macedonicus (ex T. cristatus), Bombina variegata Amphibians 4 scarba, Rana graeca, Pelobates syriacus balcanicus

Elaphe longissima, Algyroides nigropunctatus, Testudo hermanni Reptiles 4 (boettgeri), Emys orbicularis (hellenica)

Rhinolophus hipposideros, Rhinolophus euryale, Ursus arctos, Mammals 4 Lutra lutra

Lucanus cervus, Calosoma sycophanta, Parnassius mnemosyne, Invertebrates 6 Parnassius apollo, Lycaena (Thersamolycaena) dispar, Maculinea arion

Phelypaea boissieri, Sedum serpentini, Centaurea prespana, Plants 5 Dianthus myrtinervius, Viola eximia

Birds 3 Phalacrocorax pygmeus, Pelecanus onocrotalus, Pelecanus crispus

The potential number of species has therefore been further reduced, although it is still high: excluding Fish, 26 “Biodiversity Indicator species” still meet all the criteria retained; however the list has to be smaller, at least in the first years of the TB monitoring system.

Furthermore, indicators need not be restricted to a “single-species” approach, and amalgamated indexes have also been produced, like the Living Planet Index (LPI) on both global scale (Loh et al. 2005), or at sub-scales such as the Mediterranean wetlands or single sites, e.g. the Camargue (Galewski 2008): in theory one single indicator could thus encompass all species. However, it would still require many individual monitoring programmes for each biodiversity component, i.e. for hundreds of “sub-indicators”, and would thus be unrealistic in the current Prespa context. An intermediate, realistic approach would be for indicators covering not single species, but communities of species with a similar ecology and requiring the same (or similar) monitoring protocols. Two such approaches are proposed: the mid-winter international waterfowl census (IWC), and colonial breeding waterbirds.

The international waterfowl census (IWC) Although encompassing species that are not all Endangered / not on the Annex I of the Bird Directive, it is considered highly relevant since:

Page 240/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

- waterfowl are an important resource, both for hunters and for ecotourism/ interpretation (large, visible flocks; long-distance migrations, etc.); - it has so far been the only attempt in Prespa to participate in a long-term TB monitoring effort (although one not specific to Prespa); - it is a well-established, standardised monitoring programme that has been ongoing throughout the world, for several decades in some continents (e.g. Gilissen et al. 2002; Perennou 1993; Perennou et al. 1994, etc.), yielding unique results for the conservation of waterfowl and wetlands; - one single protocol allows covering many species (e.g. 27 for the Albanian part only of Prespa in 2008; Shumka et al. 2008); - other “simple” data on e.g. key threats, developments in the field, etc., can easily be monitored at the same time, if needed.

Colonial breeding waterbirds A single-species approach would lead to selecting only Pelicans (2 species) as the key elements to monitor. However, it is proposed to enlarge it as “Population of colonial breeding waterbirds”, so as to take into account the requirements of the “Fish & Fisheries” Indicators15 n° P8, P9, P15 (which also require data on Cormorants P. carbo) and because for the Greek and Albanian Prespa IBAs at least, the trigger16 species are mainly colonial breeding waterbirds (the 2 Cormorant species, the 2 Pelican species, Ardeola ralloides, etc.). The indicator was thus redefined taking into account that different species/ groups will require different protocols – the indicator will thus be made up of a number of sub-indicators. Furthermore, to avoid disturbance to the colonies, only the breeding pairs n° should be monitored routinely.

Finally, as: - the total n° of indicator species/groups is still too high; - in most groups the life histories of the different species are different enough so as to require totally different monitoring protocols, i.e. they cannot be monitored as part of the same scheme (e.g. snake/ lizard/ terrapin/ tortoise amongst reptiles would each require a specific protocol); - no more technical/ scientific criteria can be applied to further reduce the above list of indicator species/ groups to be monitored;

15 the aim is to integrate the proposals by all 7 thematic groups as far as possible 16 “trigger” species are species that helped define that a given area is an IBA

Page 241/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

- in order to reduce arbitrariness in the required further selection, the principle of reality can be applied: o The institutions likely to be able to monitor different taxonomic groups will often be different ones (NGOs, Universities, National Parks, etc.), and the task of coordinating a multi-faceted Biodiversity covering all groups, spread between numerous institutes, is likely to prove too heavy – at least for the first years of the TB system; o for some groups no monitoring has been attempted even at national scale (see Annex 4.3 Appendix 1); o Birds are the group where so far the most competences (and monitoring programmes: Annex 4.3 Appendix 1) are to be found, in the 3 countries: this group can therefore offer the foundations upon which to test a TB monitoring work in the best possible conditions, so as to draw lessons before expanding it to less well-covered groups; o Some groups/ species (e.g. bats) can be more easily monitored in a low- cost way than others; o Some species can be monitored in an indirect way; e.g. through questionnaires rather than through expensive ecological or genetic techniques.

With this in mind, it is proposed to: - skip some taxonomic groups completely (Invertebrates) or largely (e.g. Reptiles, Amphibians) in this initial stage; - give birds pre-eminence overall, whilst still including a few other, key species, reckoning that this is only for the initial phase of the TB monitoring, and - avoid a systematic “one species - one indicator” approach, by proposing several composite indicators, taking into account several species (e.g. rare plants, wintering waterbirds).

As a result, the following indicators are proposed, with specific rationale provided in and after Table 11.5.

Page 242/381

Table 11.5. Preliminary list of proposed species/ groups for the indicators of the “Birds & other Biodiversity” monitoring theme

Taxonomic Group & Indicator Priority for: Species IUCN Red List/ EU Rationale Directives17 Former Yugoslav MAMMALS Albania Greece Republic of Macedonia Rhinolophus hipposideros LC, HD Ann. II/ IV X X Rhinolophus euryale VU, HD Ann. II/ IV All species can be monitored X X through one single, low-cost VU, scheme in nursery caves Myotis capaccinii X HD Ann. II/ IV Man-bear interactions can be monitored (and bear Ursus arctos LC, HD Ann. II/ IV X X X population indirectly, too) through simple questionnaires

The most wetland-restricted of Lutra lutra NT, HD II/ IV X X X the mammals present BIRDS

Wintering waterbirds - (see text above)

A (relict) population of the Mergus merganser LC Balkan, isolated from other X X breeding grounds

17 For each species, 1st line = IUCN status, 2nd line = European directives. IUCN: VU = Vulnerable, NT = Near-Threatened, LC = Least Concern (the "Least Concern" category is not a threat category as it refers to widespread and abundant species.). European Directives: BD= Bird Directive, HD = Habitat Directive; and e.g. BD I = “included in Annex I of Bird Directive”

LC One of the very few colonies in Pelecanus onocrotalus X X X BD Ann. I Europe VU Pelecanus crispus Largest colony in the world X X X BD Ann. I Breeding cormorants, ibises, Several on BD Ann. I (see text above) herons AMPHIBIANS Species endemic to the LC, HD Ann. IV X X X Rana graeca Balkans (AL-GR-MK)

REPTILES NT Most wetland-dependent of the Emys orbicularis (hellenica) X X X HD II, IV Balkans Prespa reptiles endemic PLANTS Trends of threatened and endemic One of the key values of Prespa terrestrial plants of the Prespa basin; however doubts remain basin (composite indicator using all on the exact level of threats to 5 species) these species in Prespa basin

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Additional rationale for some of the above groups/ species was agreed at the 1st meeting of Thematic TB experts from the 3 countries (Korcha, 20/02/2009): - The relict, breeding population of Mergus merganser is widely isolated from any other population in Europe, and is thus of a high genetic/ conservation value although not included in a global Red List or Annex I of the Birds Directive. It should be monitored too. - Several bat species are of TB conservation value (see Annex 4.3 Appendix 3). Monitoring their populations in a few, key caves that are already largely identified, is a low-effort/cost exercise. They should be monitored too. - The Brown bear as well is of high TB value (Annex 4.3 Appendix 3). Although monitoring its population can be relatively expensive (e.g. with photo traps allowing individual identification, or genetic analysis of scats/ hair), indirect and cheaper ways do exist, focusing on Bear-Man interactions rather than on the bear per se. Questionnaires to village/ community heads, with simple and replicable questions, could be easily administered by NGOs already working in the area on the species. The possibility to add the Wolf (no extra cost in a questionnaire survey) was contemplated. - Rana graeca is an endemic frog of the Balkans which is especially found along Prespa watershed streams. After a minimal training in its identification, a replicable monitoring along sample stations of some of these streams would appear as a low-cost, but very useful exercise. The species should then be monitored. - Invertebrates were considered too, but the n° of Biodiversity indicators was deemed to be sufficiently high already for the 1st years of the TB monitoring system – key Invertebrates of TB concern should be kept for a 2nd phase. The same was agreed for the Balkan Chamois Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica (an endemic subspecies restricted to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia part of Prespa and Albanian Prespa), although national schemes could be tested/set up in the short term, to be later extended at the TB level. - Plants were judged to be of a lesser priority, unless one of the listed species would be considered as particularly threatened, i.e. because it is an alpine specialist at risk from global (climate) change. Further information on the exact habitat/ threat level on this should be sought before deciding to retain or skip this indicator. - The wintering waterbirds monitoring scheme should pay a particular attention to the local breeding population of Anser anser rubrirostris, which also winters

Page 245/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

locally, and which cannot easily be monitored while breeding without excessive disturbance. Therefore, a monthly winter census of Greylags (Nov-Dec-Jan) is required, taking into account its movements across the borders in winter, and a revised formulation of the Indicator is proposed (“Population of wintering waterbirds, especially Anser anser rubrirostris”).

Synthesis The following indicators18 (Table 11.6 below) are proposed for the theme “Biodiversity” (Forest & terrestrial habitats, Aquatic vegetation & Fish excluded).

Some preliminary, potential parameters to be measured for each indicator are proposed too. However, in the next stage of this work, it will be necessary to assess them carefully, as for a given indicator species/ habitat, different parameters/ variables will have different meanings (see following chapters). For instance, for breeding birds, the reproductive success would depend much more on Prespa conditions (pressures, threats, habitat suitability, etc.) than the mere n° of pairs or individuals would; however, national experts‟ advice is that it may not be obtained without causing unacceptable disturbance to the colonies in most cases. Furthermore, some parameters are more or less cost-efficient to measure. For some species (e.g. mammals), the number of individuals could be very demanding to assess, and different indicators such as scat, kills of domestic animals, sightings, other indicators of presence, quality of its habitat etc. may be envisaged. So the appropriate balance will have to be found in each case.

The specification and evolution of each indicator (synthetically presented in Table 11.6), can be found in the nine non-numbered text-boxes following Table 11.6.

18 An indicator is a synthetic and meaningful description of a (e.g.) biological reality, which can be either simple (e.g. “N° of species in a given area”) or composite (e.g. “trend of forest-linked species”, which amalgamates into one composite indicator various, more simple variables/ parameters, i.e. the trends of each individual forest-related species). This distinction between “Indicators” and the more basic “Variable/ parameter” will be followed throughout.

Page 246/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.6. List of proposed indicators for the “Birds & other Biodiversity” theme

N°

19 Preliminary list of o Birds & other Biodiversity potential specific

N ator Indicators ture parameters (refined remote remote Through Through Na sensing? later on)

Link with Link Indic

Populations of bats in selected N° of individuals in B1 S NO nursery caves nursery caves N° of reported Interactions between Brown bear interactions B2 Ursus arctos and Man (note: S/P NO (sightings, damages, wolves may be added too) etc.) Counts of spraints/ marks along sample B3 Populations of Otter Lutra lutra S NO stretches of lake/ river shore Populations of wintering N° of individuals per B4 waterbirds, especially Anser anser S NO species, distribution rubrirostris by lake section Populations of breeding colonial B5 S P8-9-15 NO N° of breeding pairs waterbirds Breeding population of Mergus N° of breeding pairs B6 NO merganser or families Estimates of X local populations in 3 B7 Population of Emys orbicularis S NO countries using capture-recapture methods Abundance index Population of Rana graeca along B8 S NO along sample streams of Prespa catchment stretches of streams TO BE CONFIRMED: Trends of some threatened and endemic Depending on species terrestrial plants of the Prespa ecology: distribution (B9 basin (potentially 1-2 species area (in GIS), or n° S NO ?) amongst Phelypaea boissieri, of stations, density or Sedum serpentini, Centaurea n° of individuals per prespana, Dianthus myrtinervius, station Viola eximia)

19 Pressure (P), State (S), Impacts (I), Response (R)

Page 247/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicator B1: Trends in Bat populations Nature: S Objective / Significance to Biodiversity monitoring: To monitor one key element of biodiversity of high EU value in Prespa, especially Rhinolophus hipposideros, Rhinolophus euryale, Myotis capaccinii Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: All three species above are of high TB interest: all are on Habitats Directive Annexes II & IV; and the latter two are also “Vulnerable” on the Global red List. All species can presumably be monitored through one single, low-cost scheme in caves (except in Method / sources of information: case of yet undetected migrations out of the area in winter, for some of the species) Initially: AL: Museum of Natural History – Tirana (and PPNEA?); GR: SPP & Groupe Mammalogique Breton (Brittanny Mammal NGO); Former Institutions supposed to be involved: Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: BIOECO/ Macedonian Ecological Society Longer term: staff of the national parks in all 3 countries for “routine” monitoring after training Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Initial surveys (= Year 1 of TB monitoring) will help assess which of the species winter in the area

Indicator B2: Trends in Man-bear interactions Nature: S (P) Objective / Significance to Biodiversity monitoring: To monitor the frequency of various man-bear interactions (sightings, damages, etc.), and bear population indirectly too Sub-indicators: - N° of sightings per year per area - N° of damage to livestock, bee-hives, etc. Relevance for a Transboundary MS: A large mammal, present in all 3 countries, of high EU value (Hab. Directive Annexes II & IV); proposed by experts in all 3 countries as of key significance in a TB system Method / sources of information: simple questionnaires to village heads Callisto NGO (GR) for proposing standard questionnaire; possibly PPNEA or Natural History Institutions supposed to be involved: Museum-Tirana (AL) and BIOECO/ Macedonian Ecological Society (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) for administering it Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: None Note: There is a possibility to add the Wolf population as an extra indicator (no extra cost in a questionnaire survey)

Page 248/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicator B3: Otter population trends Nature: S Objective / Significance to Biodiversity monitoring: To monitor the relative abundance of the Otter, which is the most aquatic of all the Prespa mammals, present in all 3 countries Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: High international value (Hab. Directive Annexes II & IV; and Globally Near-Threatened); proposed by experts in all 3 countries as of key significance in a TB system Field monitoring (sampling stretches of lake Method / sources of information: shoreline/ rivers) SPP (?) (GR); possibly PPNEA or Natural History Museum-Tirana (AL) and BIOECO/ Macedonian Institutions supposed to be involved: Ecological Society (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Exact sectors where absent/ present in the 3 countries not precisely known  need for a higher number of sample stretches

Population of wintering waterbirds, Indicator B4: Nature: S especially Anser anser rubrirostris Objective / Significance to Biodiversity monitoring: To monitor the n° of waterbirds of each species wintering in Prespa, with special emphasis on the isolated, local, resident population of greylag geese (westernmost sub- population of the subspecies A. a. rubrirostris) Sub-indicators: - Annual wintering population of each waterbird species that is present (ca. 30 species  30 sub-indicators) - Monthly wintering n° of greylag geese (Nov – Dec – Jan) Relevance for a Transboundary MS: The overall populations are spread over the 3 national sections of the lakes, so any monitoring of lake populations requires a TB effort Field counts (yearly for all WB, 3 times per winter Method / sources of information: for A. anser) SPP (GR); possibly PPNEA (AL) and BIOECO/ Institutions supposed to be involved: Macedonian Ecological Society (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: None

Page 249/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Population of breeding colonial Indicator B5: Nature: S waterbirds Objective / Significance to Biodiversity monitoring: To monitor the n° of colonial waterbirds of each species breeding in Prespa (Pelicans, Cormorants, Herons, Ibises), with special emphasis on pelicans (largest colony of Dalmatian pelican in the world) Sub-indicators: Annual breeding population of each colonial waterbird species that is present (ca. 12 species  12 sub-indicators) Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Overall, the breeding populations are spread over the 3 national sections of the lakes (although a few species may be restricted to 1-2 countries only), so any appreciation of the importance and trends of Prespa for colonial waterbird populations requires a TB effort. Method / sources of information: Field monitoring SPP (GR); possibly PPNEA (AL) and BIOECO/ Institutions supposed to be involved: Macedonian Ecological Society (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: None

Breeding population of Goosander Indicator B6: Nature: S Mergus merganser Objective / Significance to Biodiversity monitoring: To monitor the isolated breeding population (Europe‟s southernmost population) of Goosander Sub-indicators: - N° of breeding pairs - N° of families (after hatching) Relevance for a Transboundary MS: The breeding population is spread over the 3 national sections of the lakes, so any appreciation of the importance and trends of the Prespa population requires a TB effort. Method / sources of information: Field monitoring SPP (GR); possibly PPNEA (AL) and BIOECO/ Institutions supposed to be involved: Macedonian Ecological Society (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Preliminary surveys needed to check whether breeding pairs and/or families (after hatching) is the most practical indicator, depending on breeding habitat (2 different habitats used , with likely differences in detectability)

Page 250/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicator B7: Population of Emys orbicularis Nature: S Objective / Significance to Biodiversity monitoring: To monitor the population or density of the most aquatic of all the Prespa reptiles, present in all 3 countries Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: High international value (Hab. Directive Annexes II & IV; and Globally Near-Threatened); proposed by experts in all 3 countries as of key significance in a TB system Field monitoring (sampling stretches of lake Method / sources of information: shoreline/ rivers using live traps) SPP (?) (GR); possibly PPNEA or Natural History Museum-Tirana (AL) and BIOECO/ Macedonian Institutions supposed to be involved: Ecological Society (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Exact sectors where absent / present in the 3 countries not precisely known

Population of Rana graeca along Indicator B8: Nature: S streams of Prespa catchment Objective / Significance to Biodiversity monitoring: To monitor the abundance and trends of R. graeca, an endemic frog species of the Balkans Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: High international value (Hab. Directive Annex IV); proposed by experts in all 3 countries as of key significance in a TB system Field monitoring (sampling along selected Method / sources of information: stretches of Prespa watershed streams) SPP (?) (GR); possibly PPNEA or Natural History Museum-Tirana (AL) and BIOECO/ Macedonian Institutions supposed to be involved: Ecological Society (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: None

Page 251/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Trends of some threatened and endemic Indicator B9: terrestrial plants of the Prespa basin (TO Nature: S BE CONFIRMED) Objective / Significance to Biodiversity monitoring: To monitor the abundance and trends of threatened and endemic terrestrial plants of the Prespa basin, one of the key biodiversity values of Prespa basin (potentially 1-2 species amongst Phelypaea boissieri, Sedum serpentini, Centaurea prespana, Dianthus myrtinervius, Viola eximia) Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Endemic Balkan plants, mentioned as a priority for a TB system by experts from 2 or 3 of the countries Method / sources of information: Field monitoring SPP (?) (GR); possibly PPNEA or Natural History Museum-Tirana (AL) and BIOECO/ Macedonian Institutions supposed to be involved: Ecological Society (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Doubts remain on the exact level of threats to these species in Prespa basin, and this Indicator may be skipped unless one of the listed species would be considered as particularly threatened, i.e. because it is an alpine specialist at risk from global (climate) change. Further information on the exact habitat/ threat level on this should be sought before deciding to retain or skip this indicator.

After consultation and discussion on the above among the member of the respective group, the final list of indicators for the “Birds and other Biodiversity” is presented in Table 11.7.

Page 252/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.7. Final list of indicators for the “Birds & other Biodiversity” theme

N° BIRDS & OTHER BIODIVERSITY Nature20 B1 Populations of bats in selected nursery caves S Interactions between Brown Bear Ursus arctos and Man (note: B2 S/P Wolves Canis lupus may be added too) B3 Population of Otter Lutra lutra S Populations of wintering waterbirds, with special emphasis on Anser B4 S anser rubrirostris B5 Populations of breeding colonial waterbirds S B6 Breeding population of Mergus merganser B7 Populations of Emys orbicularis S B8 Population of Rana graeca along streams of Prespa catchment S Trends of some threatened and endemic terrestrial plants of the B9 Prespa basin (Crocus pelistericus, Dianthus myrtinervius, Viola S eximia)

11.3. Methods As a preamble, it must be stressed that virtually each biodiversity element covered in the proposal above requires a different method, due to the broad taxonomic range encompassed and, even within the same group, to different life histories, habitats, etc.

11.3.1. Description and justification B1) Population of bats in selected nursery caves Some bat species are very gregarious and faithful to traditional sites whilst nursing their young. A large part of the population is then concentrated at a few sites, where they are usually relatively easy to count (by experts). Nursery roost counts are also more likely to provide meaningful year-to-year comparisons than e.g. winter or migration roost counts, when (1) large inter-annual variations often remain unexplained, and (2) bats are better hidden in small crevices (in winter). Roost counts during migration would also be a theoretical possibility, but are considered less reliable in terms of population trends assessment, although very useful from the conservation point of view. Moreover, visits should not be multiplied at all seasons, so as to strictly limit disturbance. This is especially important for some wintering sites at GR-Prespa, at which minimal disturbance (e.g. by

20 Pressure (P), State (S), Impacts (I), Response (R)

Page 253/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park light or increase of temperature) might be destructive due to the possible awakening of bats (X. Grémillet pers. comm.).

So, in conclusion, monitoring key nursery caves should be considered as the essential component of a TB monitoring programme for bats in Prespa. Additional counts (wintering sites, migration, etc.) could of course be performed too, for increasing conservation knowledge, but could not be considered as being part of the TMS, which has to remain focused. More sophisticated methods using e.g. bat call detectors are more demanding and expensive (> 1000€/ box), and could be envisaged in a future, 2nd stage of the TMS.

B2) Interactions between Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) and Man (note: wolves may be added too) Large carnivores are notoriously difficult to see, and reliable population censuses rely on expensive (e.g. photographic traps, genetic analysis of hair/ scats) or staff-intensive methods. So, various indirect methods, measuring “proxies” of the actual population size, may be used. For instance, compensation schemes for damages exist in some of the countries (e.g. 89 attacks on sheep registered in GR-Prespa in 2008; Callisto comm. pers. 20/02/2009) but their statistics are not comparable across countries due to different incentives for reporting, leading to different reporting rates. Another indirect way to measure their trends, and which will be retained, relies on simple, “participatory science”, i.e. involving local village heads/ mayors in assessing through semi-quantitative questionnaires administered every few years the trend in the frequency of encounters of people in their villages, and actual damage (livestock, beehives, etc.). The challenge will then lie in administering the questionnaire regularly to ca. 100 villages in the watershed, with questions robust enough so that answers do not depend too much on personal appreciations.

Although initially suggested, the possibility to review Wolf presence as part of the same survey is not retained, as it usually raises negative reactions (and answers), which could potentially impact the quality of data collected on Bears.

B3) Population of Otter (Lutra lutra) The otter is not a gregarious species, and is notoriously difficult to see. However its tracks and, mainly, spraints, are the easier way to detect its presence.

Page 254/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

“…surveys of spraints, using standard methodology, give a reliable picture of the distribution of otters. Furthermore, spraint density can be used as a broad indication of the status of populations, provided sample sizes are large enough for statistical comparisons” (Mason & McDonald 1987). In Europe the most frequently used technique for detecting the presence of otters, and in some cases estimating their abundance or relative abundance, is to search for spraints. Over the past 25 years a „standard‟ survey method has evolved…” (Chanin 2003).

Therefore a number of sampling stretches of both rivers and lake shores, along which its presence/ absence will be regularly searched, is an effective way to monitor it through a relative, indirect index. Due to the fact that outside Albania, its overall areas of presence or absence are currently not known in Prespa, a fairly high n° of sampling stretches will be required at first (participants in Korcha Workshop, 20/02/09). In Albania, baseline data already exists on the main areas inhabited by the species (F. Bego pers. comm.), providing hints on where to locate sampling areas. Similar preliminary work has been done in the Greek part of Lake Micro Prespa (X. Grémillet unpublished data), while the seasonal feeding habits and presence of the species have been studied by Delaki et al. (1988).

B4) Population of wintering waterbirds, especially Anser anser rubrirostris Unlike for mammals, comprehensive counts of all wintering waterbirds can be performed. Standard procedures are well established as part of the IWC, and will be employed so as to guarantee compatibility with a pan-European, 40 years-old scheme. Since Greylag Goose is of a particular concern in Prespa, and is assumed to move around the lakes throughout the winter, total monthly counts at the peak of winter (November to January) will be performed too, exclusively for this species.

B5) Population of breeding colonial waterbirds Comprehensive counts are the usual procedure for these species too, which are concentrated on only a few, traditional breeding sites. The methods involved so far give the highest priority to minimizing the disturbance to birds, i.e. they ensure that the colonies are not visited by observers during the breeding season. The methods already used in recent years will be continued.

Page 255/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

B6) Breeding population of Mergus merganser This species is clearly known to be expanding in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, e.g. Ohrid (which was colonized from 2007 onwards) and Prespa (M. Velevski pers. comm.), but no baseline data exists in the other 2 countries. Comprehensive counts will be used for this species too, since although it is widespread along lakeshores, its population is relatively small and would not be effectively assessed through sampling methods. Furthermore, as in Prespa it nests in 2 quite different ways/ habitats, 2 distinct methods will need to be used in parallel, which will both require a preliminary study so as to choose between the different options debated by the experts at the 1st Workshop (Korcha, 20/02/2009), depending on the bird‟s ecology and the comparative results of both methods.

B7) Population of Emys orbicularis Population sizes and their trends of the Pond terrapins are usually best assessed using Capture-Marking-Recapture Methods (CMR) (Olivier 2002). However this needs to be done on a population-by-population basis, given that for a large site like Prespa, with large tracks of unsuitable habitats (i.e. long stretches of cliffs falling into the lake) separating suitable ones, and given the usually limited home range of individuals, several populations with minimal connections are likely to occur, especially at: (a) Micro Prespa (GR/ AL), (b) Ezerani NR and surroundings (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), (c) Stenje Marsh (Marsh nearby the village of Stenje) (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), (d) Kallamasi bay (AL). Sampling each site separately by CMR every few years will provide estimates (and ranges) for each population size.

B8) Population of Rana graeca along streams of Prespa catchment This species is in Prespa largely restricted to a linear habitat, i.e. along streams of the watershed, and is relatively easy to distinguish from other species at a glance, after a minimal training in identification. Therefore a low-cost but effective method for monitoring trends will be by sampling relevant streams, i.e. counting individuals along a number of sample stretches of key rivers of the Prespa watershed.

B9) Trends of some threatened and endemic terrestrial plants of the Prespa basin (Dianthus myrtinervius, Crocus pelistericus, Viola eximia) These 3 species of sub-alpine meadows, and endemic to the Balkans, are potentially at risk from climate change – risk Medium for the former, High for the last two (BIOECO

Page 256/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park comm. pers., March 2009). Monitoring their abundance along vertical transects encompassing their full altitudinal range in Prespa (i.e. Dianthus myrtinervius 1200 – 2600 m but main population concentrated between 1800-2000 m; Crocus pelistericus 1600-2600 m; Viola eximia 1500-2200 m) will be the best way to assess whether any decline or altitudinal shift occurs as a result.

11.3.2. Sampling methods B1) Population of bats in selected nursery caves The major nursery caves in each country will be visited each year in mid-late July. They are: - in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: the cave at Leskoec, near Stenje village and Galicica NP, - in AL: Treni cave near Micro Prespa Lake area, by far the most important site in the AL-Prespa, with the additional interest of being easy to reach (F. Bego pers. comm.); - in GR Prespa, nursery sites of bats are not as much concentrated in just one key site per country as in the two other countries (Grémillet & Boireau 2004, Grémillet & Dubos 2008). Therefore, caves and crevices networks found along the shores of Macro Prespa Lake and Mikrolimni (Micro Prespa), as well as in the karstic hills nearby these shores will be included.

The method proposed is based upon Wilson et al. (1996). Cave roofs and crags will be inspected systematically using night-vision and / or ordinary, binoculars, rapidly so as to minimize the risk of disturbance, and the total number of each species will be recorded. For each species, the total number obtained by summing the nursing population of the 5- 6 caves will be taken as an index representative of the overall Prespa population trends. Counts should be performed by very experienced people, able to distinguish species that look alike and identify them with certainty, as well as to count/estimate well populations of species of which females with their young concentrate in “layers” on the same spot making their counting extremely difficult.

B2) Interactions between Brown Bear Ursus arctos and Man (note: wolves may be added too) Semi-quantitative questionnaires (Annex 11.1) will be administered every five years to all the local village heads/ mayors in the watershed. They will record, for each village: - whether there is Bear presence in their area;

Page 257/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

- whether there are attacks (on sheep…) in the village territory; - the frequency of Bear-Man encounters in their villages, using broad classes (e.g. <10/year; 10-50/year > 50/year); - actual damage to livestock (n° of heads killed/ injured) and, separately, to beehives (using the same broad classes).

For the first two parameters, a mere frequency will be calculated by bringing the results from all villages from all 3 countries together, e.g. “In 2010, 26% of all the responding villages declared damage to sheep/ beehives on their territory”. Separate statistics for each country may be computed too, to assess whether trends vary across borders. For each of the last two parameters (semi-quantitative classes), a summed index of all villages21 will be used as an overall indicator of the specific interaction, to be repeated in time. Note: a more ambitious option could be to repeat the questionnaire that was designed and administered in 1996-99 in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece by the NGO Arcturos (Annex 11.1)

B3) Population of Otter Lutra lutra In line with Mason & McDonald (1987) and Chanin (2003), 60 sampling stretches of 600 m each will be defined in each country for long-term monitoring, ensuring that a weighted distribution of sampling sites between countries allows directly comparable results: 30 samples in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and 15 each in Albania and Greece.

In order to select these 60 permanent stretches, a preliminary quick survey is required using local knowledge: it is proposed that in Year 1, 100 stretches should be checked (50, 25, 25 per country, as above). They will be located both along streams and lake shores. Forty of them, selected amongst negative ones (i.e. where no Otter presence was recorded in Year1), will be discarded afterwards. Each stretch will be covered on foot by an experienced observer twice a year (in order to accommodate for seasonal variations in behaviour), in April and September, in ca. 30 min. per stretch, looking for signs of presence: tracks, spraints… Only definitive presence or absence in each stretch22 will be

21 e.g. add “1” for each village answering “<10/year”; “2” for each answering “10-50/year” and “3” for “> 50/year” 22 a stretch will be considered as occupied it at least a definite sign of presence was noted in at least one of the 2 visits in a given year

Page 258/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park recorded. For each stretch, the survey stops when a sign of presence (spraint) is detected. Periods of heavy rains, or immediately following them, should be avoided as they dissolve spraints. Data will be recorded using the form provided by Chanin (2003) in his Appendices C (for the preliminary survey, Year 1) and D (for later surveys). (downloadable from: http://www.english-nature.org.uk/LIFEinUKRivers/publications/otter_monitoring.pdf). The overall abundance index for Prespa will be computed, each year in which monitoring occurs, as being the % of occupied stretches (out of 60). Repeating this protocol every year will allow tendencies to be detected. Alternatively in case of limited resources/ staff, the surveys could be repeated only every 2, 3, or 5 years: the more often the better for an early detection of trends.

B4) Population of wintering waterbirds, especially Anser anser rubrirostris Standard IWC methods will be used. They involve: - Coordinating at TB level so that the counts occur on the same week- end in all 3 countries, so as to minimize the risk of double-counting for this highly mobile group of species. - Defining a set of standard vantage points and other observation / count points which must be used each year, as has been done e.g. in Albania and Greece (see Annex 11.2). - Covering in a systematic way all the stretches of the lake shores by car, boat or on foot (depending on accessibility), as well as other wet habitats (e.g. wet meadows) in order to identify and count all individuals of all species. These will be recorded separately. - To assist with a proper, TB setting of counting sectors, an anchored (fixed) floating buoy will be positioned at the meeting point of the 3 borders. - Greylag Goose counts in November and December, outside the IWC scope, will concentrate on meadows/ fields where they are known to winter traditionally (no need to survey each stretch of lake shore). Permanent, informal enquiries with local farmers may help locate whether new wintering grounds emerge in the future. - During the pilot application stage, organising a training course for staff from the 3 countries, for the organisations that will commit themselves to long-term monitoring based upon the methods taught. The training course includes a 3-days joint field working session gathering teams of 2 persons from each country. In

Page 259/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

addition, representatives of the Ministry of the Environment from each country will be invited to participate, but their costs should be covered on another budget. The aim of this session will be to test methods, share questions and enhance transboundary standardization between teams.

B5) Population of breeding colonial waterbirds Pelicans sitting on nests (Micro Prespa-GR) will be counted from vantage points on nearby hills using a telescope, twice a week throughout the breeding season (February – early May). An additional visit will be paid in mid-September to the colonies, to count pelican nests and see hidden nests/ pelican colonies as well as to count cormorant and pygmy cormorant nests. The highest count will be taken to represent the breeding population.

For herons/ egrets/ ibis/ pygmy cormorants nesting in reedbeds (Micro Prespa23), birds flying in/out of the colony at dusk, i.e. close to roosting time, will be counted 3 times per season and per colony: twice in May (beginning + middle of month) and once in the beginning of June., This Arrival – Departure method, that SPP has been using for years, produces a rough estimate, derived from rough calculation. The relationship between the estimate and the real population is unknown, however since data has been collected in this standard way for years, numbers are assumed to be comparable. For some species of herons (Egretta alba) direct counts of nests in the reedbeds from a vantage point are possible some years, depending on the position of the colony.

Cormorant colonies on islands, especially in Golem Grad in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Vidronisi island in Greece and Mali Grad Island in Albania, will be counted by recording the n° of occupied nests from a boat staying at a sufficient distance not to cause disturbance. Due to the fact that many nests may remain unused in a given year, only direct counts during the period when birds sit on nests (April-May) and/or care for young must be used.

In Golem Grad however, counting from a boat is not appropriate since numerous juniper trees, occupied by nests, are situated more inland. These would not be noticed from a boat, therefore direct counting on the island, despite small disturbances is recommended for this site only. The herons and gulls nesting on the island, outside of reedbeds, will be counted in the same way.

23 no detected reedbed colony up to now in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Page 260/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

B6) Breeding population of Mergus merganser Gilbert et al. (1998) have described in detail methods to monitor Mergus merganser, to be used in UK. However the main breeding habitat is different (i.e. rivers), and the recommended techniques (i.e. on foot) not practical for most of the Prespa lakeshore breeding habitat, which consists of cliffs. The methods proposed are therefore derived, but adapted from Gilbert et al. (1998), as well as recommendations from Bibby et al. (2000) for secretive waterfowl species. Timings are proposed based on these references, but may need to be adapted in case the phenology differs, e.g. with earlier breeding in Prespa than in UK.

Mergus merganser in Prespa nests in two quite different ways, which require 2 distinct methods. A) Birds breeding along the limestone stretches of Macro Prespa are fairly spread apart, and presumably occupy crevices in rocks/ cliffs by the water edge. For these, the method will need to be chosen after the 1st year, by comparing the results of 2 possible options: so both methods should be applied in Year 1, and only the selected one afterwards. Both methods consist in slowly checking the whole lakeshore from a small boat, so as to perform comprehensive counts of: - Method 1: n° of territorial breeding pairs in the early season (Mid-March / April) - Method 2: n° of families after ducklings have hatched. (late June/ July) In both methods disturbance should be avoided by staying far enough from the birds (flushing distance to be learnt from on-the-spot experience), so as to avoid movements of birds and the associated risk of double-counting.

Both methods are likely to result in underestimations: a few pairs whose females are already sitting on nests will be missed by the 1st one; failed breeding pairs will be easily missed with the 2nd one, which will however provide additional information on the breeding success. Overall, the first option is likely to provide the most reliable results in terms of population size, and could be used alone from the onset in case of limited resources.

In Year 1, each of these 2 methods will be repeated 3 times, at 2-weeks interval, so as to (1) get an estimate of how detection rates vary between boat trips, for each of the methods, and (2) assess the relative comprehensiveness of one method vs. the other. The final method will be selected based upon the results, and repeated every other year.

Page 261/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

B) In the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia the species also nests in a totally different habitat, wetlands, e.g. at the Ezerani NR. No nest has been recorded so far, and the birds do not concentrate in any special area after hatching chicks: birds appear in various sites along the entire shore zone, maybe depending of wind direction. The Serbian experts working there have been counting families after ducklings hatch, along the gravel beaches of Ezerani NR at the end of May and early June. It is therefore proposed that 3 counts per year be performed at this time, by walking the lake gravel shore and screening the water, and the highest count retained as a proxy to the n° of breeding pairs. The method should be repeated every other year.

In addition however, a further expertise of the Goosander‟s local breeding habits should be performed, to identify the breeding phenology (esp. synchronicity between pairs), as well as key behaviours, e.g. bird movements after hatching, gathering areas if any, % of breeding population using each one, etc.

B7) Population of Emys orbicularis In the Balkans, monitoring terrapins (2 species, incl. E. orbicularis) has been initiated at least on one site, i.e. Strymonas river - Kerkini lake in northern Greece (Crivelli et al. 2005; Chelazzi et al. 2006). The detailed protocol proposed in Annex 11.3 derives both from this project and for a similar one in the Camargue for E.orbicularis (Olivier 2002), adapted to a new situation.

In Prespa, a preliminary study should be first conducted in Year 1, so as to identify the key sectors in which future surveillance monitoring should be carried out. The specifics of this study, and the way to derive the longer-term surveillance depending on its results, are also detailed in Annex 11.3.

B8) Population of Rana graeca along streams of Prespa catchment The method proposed follows the broad principles of Heyer (1994). One stream of the Prespa watershed will be selected in each country, i.e. Aghios Germanos river in Greece, Zaroshka temporary stream in Albania, Brajchinska Reka River in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, along which, for each one, 1 permanent stretch of 500 m length and (2 x 5m) width (on both sides of the stream) will be selected, based upon the known occurrence of the species. For this, a preliminary study should be first conducted in Year 1

Page 262/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

(see Annex 11.4) so as to identify the altitudes with most abundant populations, in which future surveillance monitoring should be carried out. The specifics of this study, and the way to derive the longer-term surveillance depending on its results, are also detailed in the protocol in Annex 11.4. All individuals will be counted by slowly walking along the stretch. Repeating this protocol every 3 years will allow tendencies to be detected: the more often the better for early detection of trends; however this will depend on resources.

B9) Trends of some threatened and endemic terrestrial plants of the Prespa basin (Crocus pelistericus, Dianthus myrtinervius, Viola eximia) Vertical transects encompassing each species‟ full altitudinal range in Prespa will be selected (i.e. Dianthus myrtinervius 1200-2600 m; Crocus pelistericus 1600-2600 m.; Viola eximia 1500-2200 m). For each species, a maximum of 4 such transects will be selected during year 1: one in Greece, 1 in Albania and 2 in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia due to different geological substrates (1 in Pelister Mountain , 1 in Galicica Mountain) (Table 11.8). They will be positioned in areas known to host the densest populations of these species, so consultations with e.g. specialists of the National Parks or from research institutes will be required.

Table 11.8. Locations for transect sampling of three threatened and endemic terrestrial plant species of the Prespa basin Pelister Galicica Species Greece Albania Mountain Mountain X Dianthus X - - myrtinervius (on shallow silicate soils) Crocus X (on silicate X - - pelistericus soils) X X X Viola eximia X (on limestone (on silicate (on limestone soils) soils) soils)

So, in total 8 transects will be selected for the three species. Along each transect, one quadrat will be selected every 100m of altitude, e.g. for a plant growing between 1600-2600m: 11 quadrats, at 1600, 1700, 1800 m ... 2600m elevation. The quadrats will be positioned within 200m on either side of the transect line, in areas chosen once for all by the observer as being particularly rich in the monitored species

Page 263/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

(example in Figure 11.1). The quadrats will be 1 x 1 m , and subdivided in 16 sub- quadrats of 0.25 x 0.25 m. The n° of individuals of the species in each sub-quadrat will be recorded.

The precise location of the transect starting/ ending points should be recorded very precisely (GPS coordinates + visible sign-posts left in the field), as well as the position of each quadrat, as exactly the same ones should be re-used every time the monitoring occurs.

Highest point of transect (2600 m)  2600m   2500m  ...           

  ...  1700m   1600m Lowest point of transect (1600m)

 ------200 m ------maximum  ------200 m ------maximum 

Figure 11.1. Positioning the quadrats () on the transects to monitor threatened mountain flora

Page 264/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

For each transect the data will thus be in the following format (using the previous example): Presence-Absence option  N° of Semi quantitative option  sum over 0.25 x 0.25 m² sub-quadrats where the whole quadrat of the 16 marks species is present (0 to 16) per sub-quadrat 2600m 1 5 2500m 3 12 .... 0 0 9 20 8 18 13 21 2 5 7 9 1 3 1 2 1600 m 0 0

Similar tables repeated over time will allow trends to be assessed. This monitoring will be performed every 3 years for any given species, alternating the 3 species, e.g. Year 1 = Dianthus myrtinervius, Year 2 = Crocus pelistericus, Year 3 = Viola eximia, Year 4 = Dianthus myrtinervius, etc.

As a final remark, it should be added that the protocol may need to be adapted on a species-per-species basis based on a number of biological traits that should be precisely identified for each species in a Preliminary Study, so as to facilitate interpretation (see following Box).

Biological traits of mountain plants and their potential influence on monitoring methods/ protocols. - Annual plants are much more sensitive than perennial ones to inter-annual fluctuations in climatic variables, i.e. long-term trends may take much more time to assess due to the masking effect of these fluctuations;

Page 265/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

- Species with a very short annual life cycle (e.g. blooming completed in just a few weeks) may require extra efforts, e.g. because they may go undetected in some years during the “usual peak” due to, e.g., a late spring; - Species with rhizomes can move faster (e.g. upwards as an adaptation to climate change) than bulb plants; the size of the seeds (which makes them able or unable to be wind-borne) may also play a big role; - Clonal species will require a precise definition of what is going to be counted as “a separate individual”; - The more or less aggregated distribution of the individuals of a given species in a given mountain range may drive the needs for quadrats of a different size than the standard one suggested here.

11.3.3. Periodicity – Five year timetable/ work plan For each indicator, the periodicity and (if available) the ideal timing, is proposed in the following table. It was assumed that all monitoring programmes will start in Year 1; however if needed, and for better spreading the overall effort/ budget over years, Indicators B2, B3, B6, B7, B8 could be rearranged in terms of timing, so that only 2-3 of them are monitored in any given year (Table 11.9).

Table 11.9. Periodicity of monitoring methods for “Birds & other Biodiversity” Proposed N° METHOD YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 indicator Population of bats in Direct B1 selected Yearly (once in mid-late July) counts nursery caves Interactions Question- between naires to NO (only NO (only NO (only NO (only X (any time B2 Brown bear village every 5 every 5 every 5 every 5 of year) Ursus arctos mayors/ years) years) years) years) and Man heads X (Twice, April and September) Samples; Population NO (every X (Twice, X (Twice, counts of (plus NO (every B3 of Otter other April and April and signs of preliminary other year) Lutra lutra year)24 September) September) presence quick survey to identify most suitable areas)

24 This monitoring could be performed at any frequency , depending on resources: every 1, 2, 3, 5… years

Page 266/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Populations of wintering

waterbirds, Total B4 Yearly (Once in mid-January for all waterbirds, plus once in mid- especially counts November and mid-December for Greylag Goose) Anser anser rubrirostris

Populations Yearly. Pelicans: February-May, twice a week; Herons/Ibises in of breeding Total reedbeds 3 times (twice in May and once June); Cormorants on islands B5 colonial counts (+ herons & gulls in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) in late waterbirds April/early May

X (3 times in 1st Year; ideal timing X (3 times X (3 times ideal timing in 1st Year; in 1st Year; Breeding = May/June ideal timing ideal timing population Total (+ B6 NO ideal timing NO ideal timing of Mergus counts Preliminary = = merganser study to May/June May/June choose

between 2 options/ methods)

Population Capture- X, Ideal X, Ideal X, Ideal B7 of Emys mark- months = NO25 months = NO months = orbicularis recapture May-June May-June May-June

Once per sampled Population stream (Ideal Once per Once per of Rana Total, months sampled sampled graeca direct March - April stream stream B8 along counts on (+ NO26 (Ideal NO (Ideal streams of samples Preliminary months months Prespa of habitat quick survey March - March - catchment to identify April April most suitable altitude)

X (once for X (once for X (once for X (once for X (once for Trends of Transect Dianthus Crocus Viola Dianthus Crocus B9 threatened + myrtinervius, pelistericus, eximia: myrtinervius, pelistericus, plants quadrats June-July) June- July) May-June June-July) June- July)

11.3.4. Parameters For each indicator, the measurement of several parameters (or variables, Table 11.10) is usually necessary, either because they are an integral part of the composite/overall indicator, or because they provide vital information without which the indicator value

25 This monitoring could be performed at any frequency, depending on resources: every 1, 2, 3, 5… years 26 This monitoring could be performed at any frequency, depending on resources: every 1, 2, 3, 5… years

Page 267/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park cannot be properly interpreted (e.g. weather conditions may influence the detection rate of distant waterbirds, and therefore the counts).

Table 11.10. Parameters to be measured in monitoring “Birds & other Biodiversity” Proposed N° Parameters that need to be measured indicator Population of bats in Date, temperature of the caves at various locations inside the B1 selected nursery caves, total number by species, number (or %) of adults caves nursing a young, exact location (GPS point) Bear presence/ absence in each area27; presence/ absence of attacks (on cattle, beehives…) in this territory; frequency of Interactions between Bear-Man encounters in the area; actual damage to livestock B2 Brown bear Ursus (n° of heads killed/ injured) and to beehives. For the latter 2, arctos and Man broad classes (e.g. <10/year; 10-50/year; > 50/year) will be used. Population of Otter Date, temperature, presence of fresh tracks, presence of fresh B3 Lutra lutra spraints, presence of old spraints Population of Date, air temperature, weather (in broad categories e.g. wintering waterbirds, “sunny & windy”, “cloudy”), lake water condition (e.g. quiet, or B4 especially Anser big waves), N° of individuals of each species of waterbird on anser rubrirostris each counting sector (e.g. for one country: see Annex 11.2) Herons/ibises, cormorants: date, weather (in broad categories e.g. “sunny & windy”, “cloudy”), lake water condition (e.g. Population of quiet, or big waves), time, N° of individuals or nests of each B5 breeding colonial species of waterbird on each colony site waterbirds Pelicans: date, weather, time, No of nests on each colony site, location Date, air temperature, weather (in broad categories e.g. Breeding population “sunny & windy”, “cloudy”), lake water condition (e.g. “quiet”, B6 of Mergus merganser or “big waves”), N° of individuals / nests / families (depending on the option chosen for Method), location (GPS points) Date, location of net (GPS recording), time elapsed since last Population of Emys net checking (in hours), code of each recaptured individual B7 orbicularis (notch per scale on shell), code of each newly captured animal, any unusual fact (e.g. broken/ injured shell) Weather conditions (sky and wind code: see Annex 11.4), air Population of Rana temperature, water temperature, time begin survey, time end graeca along survey, habitat description, number of individuals, nature of B8 streams of Prespa contact (seen, egg/spawn clumps, breeding calls), comments catchment (difficulties, activity of individuals, habitat changes since previous run of previous year) Date, location monitoring quadrat (GPS point), N° of Trends of threatened B9 individuals per sub-quadrat for each of the quadrats laid every plants 100m altitude

27 the territory which depends administratively on the village

Page 268/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

11.4. Equipment Indicators B2, B3, B8 do not require any specific equipment. For the remaining indicators, the necessary equipment is presented in Table 11.11.

Table 11.11. Equipment to be purchased for the monitoring of indicators B1, B4, B5, B6, B7 and B9 Equipment Number Cost for one item Total cost Indicator B1 One pair of night- vision binoculars for 3 2000€ 6000€ each country One pair of normal binoculars for each 3 500€ 1500€ country Indicators B4, B5, B6 One telescope with tripod for each 3 2000€ 6000€ country One pair of good field binoculars per 3 1200 3600€ country Anchored (fixed) 1 300 300 floating buoy Indicator B7 Fyke-nets for 105 100€ 10,500€ terrapins Indicator B9 Precise Altimeter 3 50€ 150€ Portable wood 3 10€ 30€ quadrats * Transversal (to be used for any indicator): 2 GPS per country 6 300€ 1800€ * will likely have to be made on measure, in a way that they can be easily and repeatedly dismantled/ mounted (to carry in the field/ mountains)

Page 269/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

11.5 Monitoring stations See Table 11.12.

Table 11.12. Monitoring stations for indicators B1-B9 Former Yugoslav Proposed Albania Greece Republic of indicator Macedonia Caves and crevices networks found along the shores of B1. Populations of Treni cave (by Macro Prespa Lake and 1 cave at Leskoec near bats in selected Micro Prespa Mikrolimni (Micro Prespa), as Stenje, Galicica NP nursery caves Lake) well as in the karstic hills nearby these shores B2. Interactions between Brown All villages/ All villages/ communes All villages/ communes bear Ursus arctos communes and Man Liqenas Bay between Liqenas and Djellas (Macro P.); northern shore B3. Population of (to be set up after short, informal enquiries on areas of of Micro Prespa. Otter Lutra lutra presence from the former Devolli connecting channel to the Greek border B4. Populations of wintering All wetlands and shallow shorelines of lakes used by waterfowl; for A. anser waterbirds, all agricultural fields/ meadows too especially Anser anser rubrirostris Vromolimni + Krina reedbed (Pelicans) + Mikrolimni, B5. Populations of Golem Grad island Mali Grad island Aghios Achillios & Krina breeding colonial (cormorants) + (cormorants) reedbed (colonies shift btw waterbirds Ezerani NR years) (herons/ Ibis); Vidronisi Isl. For P.carbo B6. Breeding All rocky shores + population of All rocky shores All rocky shores Ezerani NR Mergus merganser Year 1: 15 sites (x 3 Year 1: 55 sites (x nets), to be selected Year 1: 35 sites (x 3 nets) 3 nets) within Stenje marsh + B7. Populations of Ezerani NR Emys orbicularis Yr2 onwards: 2? Sites (x 20 Yr2 onwards: 1? nets) Site (x 20 nets) Yr2 onwards: 2? Sites (x 20 nets) B8. Populations of Rana graeca along Zaroshka stream Aghios Germanos stream Brajchinska Reka River streams of Prespa catchment B9. Trends of (to be set up after enquiries on areas of higher density for each of the 3 threatened plants species)

Page 270/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

11.6. Organizations responsible for monitoring

11.6.1. Justification The proposed organizations are those which already have, in each country, some experience in themes related to the proposed indicators, and which fulfill to a large extent the proposed criteria defined in the Preliminary Stage (Phase C report: “Guidelines”). In addition, it is proposed to give, for Biodiversity issues, a large part in the mid/ long term to the staff of National Parks, who could potentially do a large part of the routine monitoring, after proper training has been delivered to them in the 1st years by the initial institutions in charge. In some cases, the organizations officially in charge may not have the technical capacity to actually do the field monitoring, and may wish to subcontract another organization. In that case, we have indicated first the name of the “official” body in charge, and then (with a *) potential, technical implementers (Table 11.13).

Table 11.13. Organizations proposed to be responsible for monitoring indicators B1-B9 Former Proposed Yugoslav N° Albania Greece indicator Republic of Macedonia SPP (assisting specialists) with BIOECO in Year 1, Population of bats Museum of Natural permission by then staff of Nat. B1 in selected Sciences Management Body Parks after nursery caves and Ministry of training Agric. Museum of Nat. MES (Macedonian Interactions Sciences, Albanian Management Body Ecological between Brown Society for the of the Prespa B2 Society)28, then bear Ursus arctos Protection of Birds National Park; staff of Nat. Parks and Man and Mammals NGO Callisto* after training (ASPBM) SPP and Museum of Nat. Management Body BIOECO in Year 1, Sciences in Year 1, of the Prespa Population of then staff of Nat. B3 then staff of Prespa National Park in Otter Lutra lutra Parks after Nat. Park after Year 1, then staff training training of Prespa Nat. Park after training Population of Museum of Nat. SPP/HOS in BIOECO with its B4 wintering Sciences, staff of cooperation with Serbian Expert in waterbirds, Prespa Nat. Park, Management Body Ornithology; or

28 contact person: Prof. Dr. Ljupco Melovski, president; E-mail: [email protected],

Page 271/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

especially Anser PPNEA, ASPBM of the Prespa MES with National anser rubrirostris National Park Expert in (MBPNF) Ornithology Museum of Nat. (Metodija Population of Sciences, staff of Velevski) in Year B5 breeding colonial SPP Prespa Nat. Park, 1, then staff of waterbirds PPNEA, ASPBM Galicica and Pelister Nat. Parks after training, + Breeding Museum of Nat. SPP/HOS in Year staff of the population of Sciences, PPNEA, B6 1, then MBPNF Ministry of Mergus ASPBM, staff of after training Environment + merganser Prespa Nat. Park, Skopje University (?) Museum of Nat. BIOECO in Year 1, SPP in Year 1, Population of Sciences, then staff of then staff of Nat. B7 then MBPNF after Emys orbicularis Prespa Nat. Park after Parks after training training training Population of Museum of Nat. BIOECO in Year 1, SPP in Year 1, Rana graeca Sciences, then staff of then staff of Nat. B8 then MBPNF after along streams of Prespa Nat. Park after Parks after training Prespa catchment training training Museum of Nat. BIOECO in Year 1, Sciences in Year 1, SPP in Year 1, Trends of then staff of Nat. B9 then staff of Prespa then MBPNF after threatened plants Parks after Nat. Park after training training training

11.6.2. Staff (technical, scientific) and organizational requirements For each of the 9 monitoring programmes, a knowledgeable field technician/ expert who is familiar with the specific terrain is required. This will be sufficient for Indicators B1, B2, B3, B7, B8, whereas the other 4 indicators will also require a 2nd person: an assistant technician. Depending on the long-term strategy on the institutions to be involved, especially for those indicators that will ultimately rely on staff from National Parks (see Table 11.13 above), training will have to be provided to a few motivated individuals from each Park. Training can be dispensed either during the actual monitoring (“On-the-job training”), e.g. for Indicators B3, B6 to B9, or may require extra training days where technical experience takes more time to build up (e.g. B1, B4, B5). In the latter case training costs will have to be planned.

11.6.3. Existing sources of funding The only indicators proposed herewith whose monitoring is already implemented on a regular basis, consist of indicators B4 and B5 in Greece, where they have been implemented through the commitment of the SPP for a number of years. For these

Page 272/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park indicators in Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and for the other 7 indicators in all three countries, no resources have been allocated so far, and only some one-off monitoring occurs whenever funds are available (e.g. indicator B4 in Albania in 2008, but not in 2007 or 2009).

11.7. Budget

The cost of purchase and installation of equipment has been presented in paragraph 11.4 (Table 11.11).

Tables 11.14 to 11.23 present the running costs (other than manpower/ personnel) per indicator (B1-B9), with the exception of Table 11.18 that presents costs for a training session that may be needed for the monitoring of wintering waterbirds.

Manpower/ personnel costs and total costs are presented in Tables 11.24 and 11.25 respectively.

Page 273/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.14. Running costs (other than manpower/ personnel) for indicator B1 (Population of bats in selected nursery caves, Direct counts, Yearly) Cost for Consumables/ Total cost (€ Number one item running costs per year) (€) Albania: 1 annual trip of one day to the selected cave - Hotel 1 room for 1 night (Year 1) 12€ 12€ - Travel by field 600 km (expert has to come 0.40 240€ vehicle from the capital) - Per diem 2 days 30 60€ Subtotal Albania: 312€ Greece: 1 annual trip of one day to the selected cave Return trip from 1100 km 0.40 440€ Athens by specialist - Hotel 2 rooms for 2 nights 45€ 180€ - Per diem 6 55 330€ - Local Travel by 100 km 0.40 40€ field vehicle Subtotal Greece: 990€ Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 1 annual trip of one day to the selected cave - Hotel 1 room for 1 night (Yr 1) 30€ 30€ (Yr 1) 500 km in Year1 (when the - Travel by field expert has to come from the 0.40 200€ (Yr 1) vehicle Capital) 100 km / yr afterwards (when - Travel by field staff from Nat Park has been 0.40 40€ (Yr 2+) vehicle trained and can do it) - Per diem 2 30 60€ 290€ (Yr 1); Subtotal the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 100 € (Yr 2+) 1592€ (Yr1); B1 - TB TOTAL PER YEAR WHEN MONITORING IS DONE: 1402€ (Yr 2+)

Page 274/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.15. Running costs (other than manpower/ personnel) for indicator B2 (Interactions between Brown bear Ursus arctos and Man; Questionnaires to village mayors/ heads; Every 5 years) Consumables/ Cost for one Total cost (€ Number running costs item per year) Albania: 1 trip of 5 days to all villages/ communes (to interview all leaders) - Hotel 1 room for 5 nights 12€ 60€ - Travel by field 600 km (when the expert has to 0.40 240€ vehicle come from the capital) - Per diem 5 30 150€ Subtotal Albania: 450 € Greece: trips by Management Body to all villages/ communes (to interview all leaders) - Travel by field 100 0.40€ per km 40€ vehicle - Per diem 5 55€ 275€ Subtotal Greece: 315 € Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 1 trip of 5 days to all villages/ communes (to interview all leaders) - Hotel 1 room for 5 night (Yr 1) 30€ 150€ (Yr 1) 500 km in Year1 (when the - Travel by field expert has to come from the 0.40 200€ (Yr 1) vehicle Capital) 100 km / yr afterwards (when - Travel by field staff from Nat Park has been 0.40 40€ (Yr 2+) vehicle trained and can do it) - Per diem 5 30 150€ 500€ (Yr 1); Subtotal Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 190€ (Yr 2+) 1265 € B2 - TB TOTAL PER YEAR WHEN MONITORING IS DONE: (Yr1); 955 € (Yr2+)

Page 275/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.16. Running costs (other than manpower/ personnel) for indicator B3 (Population of Otter Lutra lutra; Samples; counts of signs of presence; Every 2 years) Consumables/ Cost for one Total cost (€ Number running costs item per year) Albania: 2 annual trip of two days to the selected stretches of lakeshore/ stream one night: - Hotel 1 room for 4 night (Year 1 only) 48€ (Yr 1) 12€ 2 X 600 km in Year1 (when the - Travel by field expert has to come from the 0.40 480€ (Yr 1) vehicle capital) 2 x 100 km afterwards (when - Travel by field staff from Nat Park has been 0.40 80€ (Yr 2+) vehicle trained and can do it) - Per diem 4 days 30 120€ 648 € (Yr 1); Subtotal Albania: 200€ (Yr 2+) Greece: 2 annual trip of two days to the selected stretches of lakeshore/ stream - Travel by field 2 x 100 km / Year 0.40€ per km 80€ vehicle - Per diem 4 days 55€ 220€ Subtotal Greece: 300 €

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 2 annual trip of four days to the selected stretches of lakeshore/ stream one night: - Hotel 1 room for 8 nights 240€ 30€ 2 x 500 km in Year1 (when the - Travel by field expert has to come from the 0.40 400€ (Yr 1) vehicle Capital) 2 x 100 km / yr afterwards - Travel by field (when staff from Nat Park has 0.40 80€ (Yr 2+) vehicle been trained and can do it) - Per diem 8 days 30 240€ 880 € (Yr 1); Subtotal Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 560€ (Yr 2+) 1828 € (Yr B3 - TB TOTAL PER YEAR WHEN MONITORING IS DONE: 1); 1060€ (Yr 2+)

Page 276/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.17. Running costs (other than manpower/ personnel) for indicator B4 Population of wintering waterbirds especially Anser a. rubrirostris; Total counts; Every year (all waterbirds) + 2 more times/year (A. anser only) Consumables/ Cost for one Total cost (€ Number running costs item per year) Albania 3 annual trips to Prespa: 2 rooms for 1 night, 3 times - Hotel 12€ 72€ - Travel by field 3 x 600 km (the experts have to 0.40€ 720€ vehicle come from the Capital) - Per diem 6 30€ 180€ Subtotal Albania: 972€ Greece

- Travel by field 3 x 100 km per Year vehicle to all parts of 0.40€ per km 120€ GR-Prespa - Per diem 6 55€ 330€ Subtotal Greece: 450€ Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 3 annual trips to

Prespa, including: 2 rooms for 1 night, 3 times one night: 180€ - Hotel 30€ 3 x 500 km in Year1 (when the - Travel by field expert has to come from the 0.40€ 600€ (Yr 1) vehicle Capital) 3 x 100 km / yr afterwards - Travel by field (when staff from Nat Park has 0.40 120€ (Yr 2+) vehicle been trained and can do it) - Per diem 6 30 180€ Renting a boat with engine to a 1 60 60€ fisherman 1010€ (Yr1); Subtotal Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 540€ (Yr 2+) 2432€ (Yr1); B4 - TB TOTAL PER YEAR WHEN MONITORING IS DONE: 1962€ (Yr2)

Page 277/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.18. Specific costs of the training session on monitoring wintering waterbirds (Pilot Application in 2010, assuming training expert comes from Athens) Cost for one item Total cost Number (€) (€) Staff time (waterbird 5 500 2500 expert) (days) Staff time (person.day) Albania (2persons for 4 8 100 800 days) Staff time (person.day) Former Yugoslav Republic 8 100 800 of Macedonia Staff time (person.day) 8 300 2400 Greece Total Staff 6500 Boat rental (€/day) Greece 1 day 200 200

1 trip of 4 days 45*4 (hotel) *6= with 6 persons 1080 Lodging & per diem 2400 (2/country) with 4 55*4 (per Greece nights in hotel = diem)*6= 1320 6x4 per diem 1 trip of 5 days 45*5 (hotel)= 225 Lodging & per diem expert including 5 nights 30*5 (per diem)= 375 in hotel 150 1 Return trip from Transport (expert) 200 Athens 500km/Greece 1500km/Albania 0.4 200 Km 1500m/Former 0.4 600 Yugoslav Republic 0.4 600 of Macedonia Total other expenses 4575 TOTAL Training course 11075

Page 278/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.19. Running costs (other than manpower/ personnel) for indicator B5 (Population of breeding colonial waterbirds; Total counts; Every year) Consumables/ Cost for one Total cost (€ Number running costs item per year) Albania: 1 annual trip to Prespa (Cormorants colony) Hotel 1 room for 1 night, 2 persons 12€ 24€ Travel by field 600 km (the experts have to 0.40€ 240€ vehicle come from the capital) Per diem 2 30 60€ 1 day, boat with engine to a Renting a boat 50 50€ fisherman Subtotal Albania: 374 € Greece: 64 (4 months x 4 weeks x twice a week x 2 points ) annual trips to vantage points for pelican counting + 3 trips to the herons/ ibis colony Pelicans: 80 km x 64 = 5120 - Travel by field km/ Year 0.40 2128€ vehicle Cormorants 50km x 1 trip Herons: 50 x3 trips Pelicans: 64 Per diem Cormorants 1 55 4235€ Herons 4people, 3 times Subtotal Greece: 6363 € Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 1 annual trip to Prespa (Cormorants colony) - Hotel 1 room for 1 night, 2 persons 30€ 60 € 500 km in Year1 (when the - Travel by field expert has to come from the 0.40€ 200€ (Yr 1) vehicle capital) 100 km / yr afterwards (when - Travel by field staff from Nat Park has been 0.40 40€ (Yr 2+) vehicle trained and can do it) - Per diem 1 30 30 € Renting a boat with engine to a 1 60 60 fisherman 350€ (Yr1); Subtotal Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 190 € (Yr2+) 7087 € (Yr1); TB TOTAL PER YEAR WHEN MONITORING IS DONE: 6927 € (Yr2+)

Page 279/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.20. Running costs (other than manpower/ personnel) for indicator B6 (Breeding population of Mergus merganser; Total counts; Every 2 years) Consumables/ Cost for one Total cost (€ Number running costs item per year) Albania Renting a boat with 300€ in Year 1; 6 in Year 1; 3 in Yr 2+ 50€ engine to a fisherman 150€ in Yr 2+ 360€ in Year 1; Per diem 12 in Year 1; 6 in Yr 2+ 30€ 180€ in Yr 2+ 144€ in Year 1; Hotel nights 12 in Year 1; 6 in Yr 2+ 12€ 72€ in Yr 2+ 6 x 600 km in Yr 1 (the experts 1440€ in Yr 1; Travel by field vehicle have to come from the capital); 3 x 0.40€ 720€ from Yr2+ 600 km from Yr2 onwards 2244€ in Year Subtotal Albania: 1; 1122€ in Yr 2+ Greece Renting a boat with 6 in Year 1 (SPP boat); 3 in Yr 2+ 120€ in Year 1; 20€ in Yr1 engine to a fisherman (MBPNF boats) 60€ in Yr 2+ 660€ in Year 1; Per diem 12 in Year 1; 6 in Yr 2+ 55€ 330€ in Yr 2+ Return trip from Athens by HOS 1100 km (Yr 1) 0.40 440€ (Yr 1) specialist Hotel nights 2 in Year 1 45€ 90€ (Year 1) 1310€ in Year Subtotal Greece: 1; 390€ in Yr 2+ Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Renting a boat with 720€ in Year 1; 12 in Year 1; 6 in Yr 2+ 60€ engine to a fisherman 360€ in Yr 2+ 720€ in Year 1; Per diem 24 in Year 1; 12 in Yr 2+ 30€ 360€ in Yr 2+ Hotel nights 24 in Year 1 30€ 720€ (Yr 1) 6 x 500 km in Year1 (when the - Travel by field vehicle 0.40€ 1200€ (Yr 1) expert has to come from the capital) 3 x 100 km / yr afterwards (when - Travel by field vehicle staff from Nat Park has been trained 0.40 120€ (Yr 2+) and can do it) Preliminary study on breeding ecology in Ezerani NR, for 1 500€ 500€ (Yr 1) defining best practises for following years 3860€ in Year Subtotal Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 1; 840€ in Yr 2+ 7414€ in Year B6 - TB TOTAL PER YEAR WHEN MONITORING IS DONE: 1; 2352€ in Yr 2+

Page 280/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.21. Running costs (other than manpower/ personnel) for indicator B7 (Population of Emys orbicularis; Capture-Mark-recapture; Every 2 years) Consumables/ Cost for one Total cost (€ Number running costs item per year) Albania Hotel 1 room for 7 nights, 1 person (Yr 1) 12€ 84€ (Yr 1) 50€ per day 350€ in Yr1; Renting a boat with 7 days in Yr1; 15 days/ Yr from Yr 2 750€ from Yr 2 engine to a fisherman onwards onwards 600 in Year1 (when the expert 0.40 240€ (Yr 1) - Travel by field vehicle has to come from the Capital) 100 km afterwards (when staff from 0.40 40€ (Yr 2+) - Travel by field vehicle Nat Park has been trained and can do it) 7 days in Yr1; 15 days/ Yr from Yr 2 30 210€ Yr1; 450€ - Per diem onwards Yr 2+ 884€ Yr1; Subtotal Albania: 1240€ Yr 2+ Greece 20€ (SPP boat in Yr 1, then 500€ in Yr 1 25 days in Yr1; 30 days/ Yr from Yr Fuel for a boat boat of (SPP boat); 2 onwards management 600€* from Yr2 body) 200 km / Yr– vehicle from SPP (Yr - Travel by field vehicle 0.40€ per km 80€ 1) then Nat. Park. 1 consultant mission Trip + consultancy fee (training to from France, 5 days staff from 3 countries who will 4000€ 4000€ (Yr1) implement) 25 days in Yr1; 30 days/ Yr from Yr 1375€ Yr1; - Per diem 55 2 onwards 1650€ Yr 2+ Subtotal Greece: 5955 € Yr1; 2330 € Yr2+ Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Hotel 1 room for 15 nights, 1 person (Yr 30€ 450€ (Yr 1) 1) 900€ in Yr1; Renting a boat with 15 days in Yr1; 30 days/ Yr from Yr 60€ per day 1800€ from Yr 2 engine to a fisherman 2 onwards onwards 1000 km in Year1 (when the expert - Travel by field vehicle 0.40€ 400€ (Yr 1) has to come from the Capital) 500 km / yr afterwards (when staff - Travel by field vehicle from Nat Park has been trained and 0.40 200€ (Yr 2+) can do it) 450€ in Yr1; 15 days in Yr1; 30 days/ Yr from Yr - Per diem 30 900€ from Yr 2 2 onwards onwards 2200 € Yr1; Subtotal Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 2900 € Yr2+ 9039 € Yr1; B7 - TB TOTAL PER YEAR WHEN MONITORING IS DONE: 6470 € Yr2+ * this cost may depend heavily on e.g. whether the N. Park will have its own boat or will have to rent one

Page 281/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.22. Running costs (other than manpower/ personnel) for indicator B8 (Population of Rana graeca; Total, direct counts on samples of habitat; Every 2 years) Consumables/ Cost for one Total cost (€ Number running costs item per year) Albania 1 room for 1 nights, 1 person (Yr 12€ 12€ (Yr 1) Hotel 1) - Travel by field 600 in Year1 (when the expert 0.40 240€ (Yr 1) vehicle has to come from the Capital) 100 km afterwards (when staff - Travel by field from Nat Park has been trained 0.40 40€ (Yr 2+) vehicle and can do it) 2 days in Yr1; 1 days/ Yr from Yr 60€ Yr1; 30€ - Per diem 30 2 onwards Yr 2+ 312 € Yr1; Subtotal Albania: 70 € Yr 2+ Greece - Travel by field 100 km / Yr; vehicle from SPP 0.40€ per km 40€ vehicle (Yr 1) then Nat. Park. 1 consultant mission from Former Trip + consultancy fee (training Yugoslav Republic of to staff from 3 countries who will 1000€ 1000€ (Yr1) Macedonia implement) (BIOECO), 5 days

- Per diem 1 day 55 55€ 1095 € Yr1; Subtotal Greece: 95 € Yr 2+ Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1 room for 1 night, 1 person (Yr Hotel 30€ 30€ (Yr 1) 1) 500 km in Year1 (when the - Travel by field expert has to come from the 0.40€ 200€ (Yr 1) vehicle Capital) 100 km / yr afterwards (when - Travel by field staff from Nat Park has been 0.40 40€ (Yr 2+) vehicle trained and can do it) 2 days in Yr1; 1 days/ Yr from Yr 60€ Yr1; 30€ - Per diem 30 2 onwards Yr 2+ 290 € Yr1; Subtotal Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 70 € Yr2+ 1697 € Yr1; B8 - TB TOTAL PER YEAR WHEN MONITORING IS DONE: 235 € Yr 2+

Page 282/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 11.23. Running costs (other than manpower/ personnel) for indicator B9 (Trends of threatened plants; Transect + quadrats; Every 3 yrs for each sp, every yr overall) Consumables/ Cost for one Total cost (€ Number running costs item per year) Albania 1 room for 1 night, 2 person (Yr Hotel 12€ 24€ 1) - Travel by field 600 in Year1 (when the expert 0.40 240€ (Yr 1) vehicle has to come from the Capital) 100 km afterwards (when staff - Travel by field from Nat Park has been trained 0.40 40€ (Yr 2+) vehicle and can do it) - Per diem 2 days 30 60€ 324 € Yr1; Subtotal Albania: 124 € Yr 2+ Greece - Travel by field 100 km / Yr; vehicle from SPP 0.40€ per km 40€ vehicle (Yr 1) then Nat. Park. - Per diem 2 days 55 110€ Subtotal Greece: 150 € Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1 room for 1 night, 2 person (Yr Hotel 30€ 60€ (Yr 1) 1) 500 km in Year1 (when the - Travel by field expert has to come from the 0.40€ 200€ (Yr 1) vehicle Capital) 100 km / yr afterwards (when - Travel by field staff from Nat Park has been 0.40 40€ (Yr 2+) vehicle trained and can do it) - Per diem 2 days 30 60€ 320 € Yr1; Subtotal Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 100 € Yr2+ 794 € Yr1; B9 - TB TOTAL PER YEAR WHEN MONITORING IS DONE: 374 € Yr 2+

Running costs for manpower/ personnel needs are listed in Table 11.24 (indicating costs per year when the monitoring is actually done). The total budget is presented in Table 11.25. No costs for maintenance and software updating were estimated (considered insignificant).

Page 283/381

Table 11.24. Running costs for manpower/ personnel needs for the monitoring of indicators B1-B9

FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC GREECE ALBANIA OF MACEDONIA

29

N° METHOD son ROPOSED year year year P person per day per day per day per FREQUENCY Number Number Number Number involved involved involved Cost per Cost per Cost per person INDICATORS of peopleof peopleof peopleof N days ofN days ofN days ofN Total cost Total cost Total cost fieldwork/ fieldwork/ fieldwork/

Populations of bats in 1 expert B1 selected Direct counts + 1 1 145€ 290€ 1 1 75€ 75€ 1 1 75€ 75€

nursery Yearly assistant caves Interactions Question-

between naires to s B2 Brown bear village 1 5 145€ 725€ 1 5 75€ 375€ 1 5 75€ 375€ year

Ursus arctos mayors/ Every 5 and Man heads Samples; Population of counts of B3 Otter Lutra 1 4 145€ 580€ 1 4 75€ 300€ 1 8 75€ 600€

signs of years

lutra Every 2 presence

Populations

of wintering waterbirds B4 Total counts 2 8 145€ 1160€ 2 6 75€ 450€ 2 8 75€ 600€ especially

Anser a. Every year rubrirostris

29 a standard rate of 75€ was applied throughout, as an average between the daily cost of a technician (50€) and a scientist (100€) since fieldwork will usually involve a combination of these two (the balance of which may change with time)

Populations of breeding B5 Total counts 2 6 145€ 870€ 2 6 75€ 450€ 2 6 75€ 450€

colonial year Every waterbirds

1740€ 900€ Breeding in Year 1800€ in 6 (12 6 (12 in Yr1, 12 (24 population of 1; Yr1, B6 Total counts 2 in Year 145€ 2 in Year 75€ 450€ 2 in Year 75€ Mergus 870€ 900€ 1) 1) from 1) merganser from from Yr2

Every 2 Every 2 years Yr2 Yr2 25 in 4375€ 17 in 1275€ 7 in 525€ in Population of Capture- Yr1, in Yr1, Yr1, in Yr1, Yr1, Yr1, B7 Emys Mark- 1 30 145€ 5250€ 1 30 75€ 2250€ 1 15 75€

years 1125€

orbicularis recapture Every 2 from from from from from from Yr2 Yr2 Yr2 Yr2 Yr2 Yr2 Total, direct

Population of counts on B8 1 1 145€ 145€ 1 1 75€ 75€ 1 1 75€ 75€

Rana graeca samples of years habitat Every 2

Trends of  Transect + B9 threatened 2 2 145€ 290€ 2 2 75€ 150€ 2 2 75€ 150€ quadrats plants each sp Every 3 Every 3 yrs for every yr every yr overall

Table 11.25. Summary of budget (in €) for the monitoring of indicators B1-B9

FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC

GREECE ALBANIA OF MACEDONIA

-

N°

ROPOSED 1) 1) 1) after perl cost P year) year) year) INDICATORS (per year) (per year) (per year) year there Equipmentcosts Total (Yr cost Total (Yr cost Total (Yr cost Total per cost Tota Total per cost Consumables/ Consumables/ Consumables/ Staff Staff (percost Staff (percost Staff (percost recurrent costs recurrent costs recurrent costs year there after year there after Populations

of bats in 290 (Yr B1 selected 290 990 1280 1280 75 312 387 387 75 1); 100 365 175 nursery 6000 (Yr 2+) caves Interactions between 500 (Yr

Brown bear B2 725 315 1040 1040 375 450 825 825 375 1); 190 875 565 Ursus (Yr 2+) arctos and Man

Population 648 (Yr 880 (Yr

B3 of Otter 580 300 880 880 300 1); 200 948 500 600 1); 560 1480 1160 Lutra lutra (Yr 2+) (Yr 2+)

Populations of wintering

water- 30 1010(Yr B4 birds, 1160 450 1610 1610 450 972 1422 1422 600 1); 540 1610 1140

especially 9900 (Yr 2+) Anser a. rubrirostris

30 to be used for indicators B4-5-6

Populations 350€(Yr of breeding B5 870 6363 7233 7233 450 374 824 824 450 1; 190 800 640 colonial (Yr2+) waterbirds

1310 1740 in in 900 in 1800 in Breeding 2244 in 3860 in Year 1; Year Yr1, Yr1, population Year 1; Year 1; B6 870 1; 3050 1260 450 3144 1572 900 5660 1740 of Mergus 1122 in 840 in Yr from 390 from from merganser Yr 2+ 2+ Yr2 in Yr Yr2 Yr2 2+

4375 in 1275 in 525 in

5955 884 2200 Population Yr1, Yr1, Yr1, Yr1; Yr1; Yr1; B7 of Emys 5250 10330 7580 2250 2159 3490 1125 2725 4025 2330 1240 Yr 2900 orbicularis 10500 from from from Yr2+ 2+ Yr2+ Yr2 Yr2 Yr2

1095 Population 312 Yr1; 290 Yr1; B8 of Rana 145 1240 240 75 Yr1; 70 387 145 75 365 145 95 Yr 70 Yr2+ graeca Yr 2+ 2+

Trends of 324 320 Yr1; B9 threatened 290 150 440 440 150 Yr1; 124 474 274 150 100 470 250 plants 180 Yr 2+ Yr2+

Costs transversal to all indicators 1800

TOTAL (€) * 27103 21563 10570 9439 14350 9840 28380

In order to visualize the approximate cost of monitoring biodiversity, and taking into account the frequency of measuring each parameter as described earlier, the annual and 5-years-cycle budgets can be modelled as follows (Table 11.26). Note that no total per year is provided as, depending on resources, it may be deemed desirable to spread more evenly over the years the monitoring of indicators that are done only every other year.

Table 11.26. Annual and 5-years-cycle budgets (in €) for the monitoring of indicators B1-B9

TOTAL 5- N° INDICATOR EQUIPMENT YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEARS CYCLE

Populations of bats in selected B1 nursery caves (to be amended by 7500 € 2032 € 1842 € 1842 € 1842 € 1842 € 16900 € adding assistant) Interactions between Brown Bear B2 2740 € 2740 € Ursus arctos and Man B3 Population of Otter Lutra lutra 3308 € 2540 € 2540 € 8388 € Populations of wintering water- B4 birds, especially Anser a. 9900 € 4642 € 4172 € 4172 € 4172 € 4172 € 31230 € rubrirostris Populations of breeding colonial B5 8857 € 8697 € 8697 € 8697 € 8697 € 43645 € waterbirds Breeding population of Mergus B6 11854 € 4572 € 4572 € 20998 € merganser B7 Population of Emys orbicularis 10500 € 15214 € 15095 € 15095 € 55904 € B8 Population of Rana graeca 1992 € 530 € 530 € 3052 € B9 Trends of threatened plants 180 € 1384 € 964 € 964 € 964 € 964 € 5420 € TOTAL 188,277.00 €

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

It must be highlighted that the costs are only indicative, and should allow for additional, unforeseen expenses (e.g. plan a total of 200,000€ for the theme over 5 years).

Costs are usually sensitive to one major key component, which may vary across indicators and across countries. For instance, the cost of Indicator B5 is largely due to a high n° of km to be travelled by car in Greece and a high n° of per-diems, which have been so far taken care of by the SPP; the cost of Indicator B7 is due to the fact that it is very labour-intensive, but part of it could be possibly covered by an in-kind contribution of National Parks (in the form of providing their staff time). The same is true with all staff time considered here, part of which may be provided by organizations as a way to show a real commitment towards a TB monitoring system for Prespa; it is nevertheless budgeted for, as a way to evaluate this commitment.

11.8. Pilot application

For the Pilot application (late 2009 – 2010), the following 5 indicators will be tested:

B1 Populations of bats in selected nursery caves

B2 Interactions between Brown bear Ursus arctos and Man

B4 Populations of wintering water-birds, especially Anser a. rubrirostris

B5 Populations of breeding colonial waterbirds

B9 Trends of threatened plants (1 species only for Pilot phase)

It should be stressed that not retaining indicators B3, B6, B7, B8 for the Pilot test phase does not imply at all leaving them forever out of the TMS. Eventually, each of these extra four indicators will need its own “Pilot test year”, so as to test the protocols and adapt them, if needed.

Page 289/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

12. Socio-Economics

Maureen DeCoursey, Forest, Environment and Enterprise Specialist, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

...it is the interface between the natural and the non-natural values (the Man and Nature interaction, which includes considerations of landscape, cultural values etc.) that gives Prespa its unique and distinctive character. --Preparatory Stage, Phase A, 3.2.2

Sustainability means winning hearts and minds. --Gary Snyder, American literary figure and ecologist

12.1. Introduction and Background This report is an initial attempt to develop a set of meaningful socio-economic1, or ―non- nature‖ indicators to be included in the pilot Prespa Transboundary Integrated Monitoring System (TMS). This is a challenging task: natural resource monitoring systems typically do not include the human dimension2 in their efforts, and while experts in the field acknowledge that it is necessary, the means to integrate socio-economics and notions of community sustainability are in the early stages of development (McCollum 2008; Vlachos E. pers. comm.; Valentin A. and Spangenberg J. 2000; Pinter L. 2005; Cottrell S. 2008 pers. comm.) Working models are rare, and to complicate matters, relevant field data from the Prespa region itself is in short supply. In spite of the obstacles, the Prespa integrated Transboundary Monitoring System (TMS) represents a rare opportunity to develop an appropriate system from the ground-up, one that meets the unique needs and constraints of this spectacular region, and creates a model for other transboundary parks, protected areas and conservation landscapes.

As noted in the Strategic Action Plan, ―every aspect of human life in Prespa is ultimately related to the environment.‖ The converse is also true – every aspect of the environment

1 The term socio-economic indicator, as it is used in this report, describes the range of potential non- biophysical, or non-nature, indicators relevant for the Prespa Watershed. This includes (but is not limited to) demographic features, natural resource use practices, anthropogenic threats, cultural values, economic well- being, and community sustainability. 2 For example, the Great Lakes and Camargue systems used as a models for this effort.

Page 290/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

(e.g. environmental quality) is ultimately related to humans. People will drive (or not) the conservation of biodiversity and water in the region, and socio-economy will play a key role in this process. Monitoring strategic elements of socio-economy, and involving strategic stakeholders, are therefore a crucial component of the overall monitoring effort.

It is a well-known fact that a historical weakness of many integrated conservation and development programmes has been the lack of meaningful involvement by local communities. They did not participate in planning or implementation, nor did they receive incentives or concrete benefits for their cooperation or the hardships they incurred as a result of protection measures. Lasting socio-economic development, if it occurred at all, was typically carried out as an incidental or adjunct activity – local communities often did not make the connection between their ―development‖ and the conservation of a rare or threatened species/resource in their midst. Moreover, project implementers neglected to make clear to local communities, in a direct and concrete manner, what behaviours/conditions were desired and what would be gains as a result of their cooperation in conservation activities. To overcome this ambiguity and apathy, practitioners now employ tools such as quid pro quo agreements so conservation and development are forever linked in the hearts and minds of local residents.

Understanding this history and the lessons learned has value for the proposed TMS in Prespa. The linkages between socio-economic activities and desired conservation outcomes need to be clear in the hearts and minds of local stakeholders. These linkages should be reflected in the monitoring system as well: for maximum utility, socio-economic elements/indicators need to be strategically linked to specific conservation outcomes, e.g. protection of high priority plants and animals, water sources, and habitats. Local involvement – not just as research subjects to be ―monitored‖ but as project partners, implementers, and data users—should be a key aspect of the monitoring program as a whole.

A close review of background documents indicates several potential monitoring objectives, target issues and kinds of indicators (Annex 12.1). These can be summarized in the following broad categories:

 population and demographics  socio-economic well-being and community sustainability

Page 291/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

 anthropogenic threats to key species/habitat and water quality/quantity  cultural aspects such as traditional architecture, land use practices and ecological knowledge  landscape aesthetics.

Overall, they represent valid monitoring themes and objectives, however it is not feasible to address them all at one time, especially in the pilot phase. Each requires a tailored research and deployment strategy that is somewhat exclusive of the other, in addition to considerable start-up time/resources given the paucity of existing and relevant local-level information: much data exists on biophysical monitoring, but less so for the socio- economic aspects.

Figure 12.1 shows an attempt to address some of the complexity inherent in integrating socio-economics into natural resource monitoring. This conceptual model, developed by the US Forest Service in conjunction with a number of project partners, is an attempt to link the condition of local socioeconomy with the condition of, in this case, rangeland resources. A similar conceptual model might be useful for the Prespa TMS to better articulate the linkages between the difference components, and to strategize the desired role of socio-economic monitoring in all.

The diagram shows that integrated monitoring programs can be quite complicated and from an operational view, potentially unwieldy. Measures must be taken up front to keep it simple, strategic, specific and results-oriented. It is also important to remember that – from a technical standpoint – it is relatively simple to monitor biophysical elements such as water quality/quantity, but monitoring human behaviour that affects water quality/quantity (or that is affected by water quality/quantity) is a different kind of undertaking altogether. Annex 12.2 includes the set of core indicators for the sustainable rangelands program, for reference.

Page 292/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

0 Current Natural Social Capacity & Current Biophysical Resource Economic Human Conditions Capital Capital Condition

Air, Water, Soils, Total Biomass Economic Assets & Values & STATE STATE T Plants/Animals, and Biodiversity* Liabilities Norms Rocks Social Opportunities & Income Constraints Health Security *Reproduction, Growth, Death, Mgmt & Social Decomposition Social Processes Regulation ------Population Succession Extraction Demand ------Migration Cultural Adaptation Production of ------Competition Goods/Services Education ------Disturbance Ecosystem Services Trade Governance

TIME ------Soil Markets Erosion/Genesis Use of Investment ------Ecosystem Legal System Nutrient Cycle Services Use of ------Waste Goods Social Interaction Water Cycle Discharge ------Family Carbon Cycle

Values & Economic Assets & Norms 1 Air, Water, Soils, Liabilities Income Plants/Animals, Social Opportunities & Health Rocks Total Biomass Constraints Security and Biodiversity * Current Social Capacity & Current Biophysical Natural STATE STATE T Economic Human Conditions Resource Capital Condition Capital *Indicates both Plant & Animal Figure 3. Tier 3 Framework – Rangeland Example

Figure 12.1. Sustainable Rangelands Monitoring Model (From McCollum 2008)

The socio-economic indicators for the first phase of the pilot system should be simple, low cost and to the extent possible, utilize existing data. The whole task is challenging, since collecting and analyzing local economy and resource use data from 62 villages/3 countries (or a stratified selection thereof) and/or across user groups is a time consuming and costly process which is not be practical at this early stage of system development.

Proposed Strategy The wide variety of potential socio-economic monitoring topics/indicators, the limited number of relevant and readily available datasets common to all three countries, the overall time/budget constraints, and the need to simply ―get going‖ with pilot monitoring program deployment necessitate a simple yet strategic approach. In summary, a two stage strategy is advocated.

1. During the Pilot Phase, the Prespa TMS should utilize the existing datasets for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), disaggregated to include villages in the Prespa Watershed only.

Page 293/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

What are the Millennium Development Goals? In September 2000, 147 Heads of State and Government and 191 nations adopted the Millennium Declaration, committing themselves to a series of targets, to be achieved by 2015. The

declaration outlines peace, security and development concerns including environment, human

rights and governance. By committing to the Declaration, world leaders agreed to a set of eight time bound and measurable Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Numerical targets have been set for each goal, to be achieved over a 25-year period between 1990 and 2015. Indicators have been selected to monitor progress on each of the targets.

The MDG program is being carried out in both Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and includes 8 sustainability/socio-economic goals and 55 indicators to measure progress towards achieving these goals. These indicators meet the majority of criteria listed in the Phase C report of the Preparatory Stage, and offer a potentially expedient way forward. Goals include:  poverty/hunger eradication,  universal primary education,  gender equality,  child mortality reduction,  maternal health improvement,  HIV/AIDs and other disease reduction,  environmental sustainability,  global partnerships for development.

Annex 12.3 contains a complete list of goals and indicators.

As an alternative, if the MDG datasets were not readily available for use in the Prespa Region, a simple set of common demographic statistics (regularly collected in all three countries by government agencies, ideally at the village level) can be used. Other elements that can be easily monitored by direct observation, aerial photography or remote sensing might also be considered, for example, roads and physical infrastructure construction.

2. Assuming that one (or a combination) of these approaches will be sufficient for the pilot phase, the second phase can be dedicated to developing the village-level database and/or addressing the other areas of monitoring as desired. This will allow enough

Page 294/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park time/resources to be mobilized to better elaborate and prioritize monitoring objectives, develop the research methodology, and collect/input the requisite data. Stage 2 can introduce indicators into the system that monitor more complicated issues including:  specific conservation threats, especially to water quality/quantity and priority species and habitats;  village livelihood and resource use patterns;  measures of community well-being and sustainability;  tourism (to avoid over-development and additional pressures);  cultural aspects.

This two stage approach allows monitoring system development to move forward with (potentially) low additional cost. By using the MDGs, the system is employing an existing set of indicators used in two of three countries that meet most (if not all) of the selection criteria, thus creating a considerable degree of efficiency and practicality. MDGs are also advocated by experts as a starting place to develop more site specific and comprehensive ―sustainability indices‖ in the future (Pinter et al. 2005).

Other strategic considerations are outlined below. Note that in order to move forward with this strategy, background research will be required, as summarized in the Section ―Research Gaps‖.

Primary Users Beyond ―managers‖, current thinking in sustainable development monitoring emphasizes the involvement of local communities from the beginning, and the need to design systems that meet their needs as well. This is especially true for resource-dependent communities like those in Prespa.

Community Participation and Vetting To facilitate greater local participation, both in resource management and civil society function (overarching goals for the region), vetting the chosen monitoring topics and indicators with the local communities to receive their input might be considered. While this may take longer, it can create a greater sense of local ownership and greatly expand the utility and relevance of the monitoring effort as a whole. Community vetting can also help foster the development of a transboundary ―bioregional‖ culture, ethics and values, another one of the overarching goals for Prespa region.

Page 295/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Interfacing with Other Monitoring Components/Indicators The integration of socio-economic with biophysical indicators was taken into account, by incorporating in the proposed list indicators closely linked to e.g. Fisheries or Forestry, that were considered by the relevant thematic experts group as more relevant to the socio-economic field.

Scale One of the challenges is that socio-economic issues – especially as they relate to livelihood viability and resource use in general, or more specifically to species, habitat and water conservation – are best monitored at the community, not transboundary, scale. Thus, the scale at which socio-economic monitoring will occur may need to be different than for the other components.

Definition of ―communities‖ It is also useful to note that the term community can take on different meanings depending on the specific research (or development) objective. In the Prespa region (and for monitoring purposes) ―community‖ can be understood in two ways: geographical or user. Geographical community refers to an actual village/district in the Prespa watershed that is near a priority habitat or species population, or adjacent to a key water source (for example.) User community is a group of people that use a particular natural resource, for example, firewood collectors, hunters, fishers, herders, and tourists/tourist businesses. User communities (or user groups) may exist both within the watershed and outside it. Having a better sense of the kinds of communities to be engaged in monitoring—as data subjects and potential data users—will help to focus socio-economic monitoring efforts.

The extent to which relevant local and/or user issues are currently being addressed nationally (and by whom) is not readily known. This kind of data often exists outside mainstream government and educational institutes, and is more likely to be found through local/regional NGOs and development assistance programs. A survey of these organizations should be considered to determine if, and what kinds, of data they have on local communities. Simply amalgamating this data into a watershed level database would be a very useful exercise, helping to identify gaps and determine where the transboundary system can best add value.

Page 296/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

12.1.1. Link with EU Legislation Using the MDGs as a basis for socio-economic indicators is consistent with EU and international standards, and offers a common methodology already being employed in two of the countries involved (Albania and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.) The extent to which Greek statistics can be used to meet MDG indicators has yet to be determined. Support from the national project expert assistants in all three countries is needed to better understand the utility of the MDGs for the TMS and make a final determination on its usage.

As a member of the EU, Greece currently employs the EUROSTAT system for collecting national socioeconomic data. It is assumed that once the other countries gain admittance into the EU, they will adopt this methodology as well. Therefore, EUROSTAT might also be considered as a potential methodology/source of data for the Prespa Basin as well, presuming both Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are planning to use this system eventually, that their current system can be easily adapted to EUROSTAT, and the data can be disaggregated to include Prespa communities alone.

12.1.2. Analysis of Existing Monitoring Programmes Information from the metadatabase, concerning potential socioeconomic data available for use in the TMS, has been presented in the meta-database, produced during the Preparatory Stage. Note that while Albania and Greece have some promising sources of data, nothing at all is listed for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The majority of databases listed provide little beyond basic demographic information; however three potentially deal with elements of conservation concern: medicinal plants (AL), tourism (GR) and illegal activities (GR). Six potential data partners are also listed: INSTAT (AL), PPNEA (AL), Euronatur, ECAT (AL), SPP (GR), NSSG (GR).

More information is needed to accurately assess and potentially make use of the existing databases listed. This includes: 1) a detailed summary of information fields contained in the databases; 2) basic research in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia detailing potential sources of relevant socio-economic data, summarized along the same lines as above.

Page 297/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

12.1.3. Baseline Information As noted above, the metadatabase contains potential socio-economic data sources for Greece and Albania, but none are listed for Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It is assumed that this data is available, and simply needs to be located.

It should be kept in mind that while population and related statistics offer a starting point for conservation programs, they yield little useful data in terms of resource use practices, dependency, environmental threats, and potential solutions to problems. In addition, these kinds of statistics without context can obfuscate sources of real environmental and community concern and lead to erroneous assumptions. For example, while low population levels are typically more compatible with biodiversity and water conservation, the intensity in which people utilize the landscape and/or their use of impact-mitigating technologies is a better indicator of environmental impact. A single industrial-scale fishery, for example, can have a much greater impact than a number of small-scale artisanal fishing enterprises. Likewise, a populous city can have less impact on water quality than a small village, if it has a sound sewer and water treatment system. Thus, simple demographic statistics often belie key issues and impacts.

For reference, Table 12.1 below summarises some sample statistics compiled for the 2004 UNDP/GEF project development effort. A map of the basin (in which all settlements are found) is included in Figure 12.2.

Simple statistics such as these can be used as a starting point for developing more relevant socio-economic indicators (if the MDGs are not found to be useful); however they must be accompanied by more contextual and theme-specific indicators to paint an accurate picture of the location situation. Table 12.2 summarizes some potential sources of village-level data in the Prespa basin.

Page 298/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 12.1. Sample Population Statistics for the Prespa Basin

Category Unit Statistic 24,000 people (approx.) Basin-wide 69 communities (towns and villages) Former Yugoslav 17,500 persons (75% of total), all in Municipality of Republic of Resen w/ 7000 inhabitants (44 communities total) Macedonia Population 5,300 persons (17%), divided between Liqenas Albania Commune, Progër Commune and Bilisht Qendër Commune (12 communities total) 1,500 persons (8%), all in Municipality of Prespa Greece (13 communities total) Basin-wide Decreasing Former Yugoslav Republic of Decreasing (20% over the past thirty years); Trend Macedonia Albania Stable or slightly decreasing Greece Stable

Table 12.2. Potential Community/User Data Sources in the Prespa Basin (from DeCoursey 2004) Foreign Projects and Country Assistance Local NGOs, CBOs, User Associations Organizations UNDP Former Apple Producers Association Yugoslav KfW (German) Hotel/Tourism Association Republic of USAID Macedonia Other? SOROS Center GTZ Diello (CBO, Liqenas) World Food Program AMPEP (CBO) SNV REC ECAT Albania Prespa Forest Users Association Euronatur Prespa Fisheries Association Dorkas Aid Womens Association SIPUC (?) Other? MADA SPP Greece Unknown Farmer, Livestock Association? Other?

Page 299/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Figure 12.2. Settlements in the Prespa area

Page 300/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

One potentially useful exercise to conduct at the onset would be a simple spatial analysis to determine the location of villages (geographical communities) vis-à-vis areas of high conservation value, such as parks and protected areas, priority/sensitive habitats, areas of known population occurrences for priority species, and important riparian and lake recharge areas. Nearby communities typically (but not always) have the most impact (good and bad) on local resources and are in the best geographical position to help monitor and protect them.

A similar exercise could be conducted to map (and rank) specific towns/villages with a high population of a particular kind of resource user (user community), such as medicinal plant harvesters, hunters or firewood collectors, or where there is a known high level of environmental or water impact. These kinds of simple spatial analyses help to stratify the basin and prioritize areas for baseline data collection and conservation action, allowing the project to focus on key sites from the beginning.

12.1.4. Rationale for Socio-Economic Monitoring and Indicators Routine surveillance, the overall goal of the transboundary monitoring system as a first step toward adaptive management, can take on a wide variety of themes. As noted previously, these can be lumped into several general categories including:  population and demographics  socio-economic well-being and community sustainability  anthropogenic threats to priority species/habitats and water quality/quantity  cultural aspects such as traditional architecture, land use practices, ecological knowledge, and issues closely related to biodiversity (?)  landscape aesthetics  baseline data on local communities including structure of local economies and livelihoods, natural resource use patterns, attitudes and motivations, potential resource conflicts and/or changes in resource pressure,  economic valuation information.

While these socio-economic monitoring categories are all important, it would be virtually impossible to address them all given the time/resource constraints and the need for a fairly in-depth research program to obtain the necessary baseline data. The alternative strategy proposed allows further elaboration and prioritization of these categories for potential use later as time/resources are available, and once the pilot monitoring system

Page 301/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park is up and running.

The rationale for specific indicators is included in Annex 12.4 ―Recommended Indicators‖.

12.1.5. Research Gaps Specific research needs for each proposed indicator are included in Annex 12.4 (second table), whilst general research questions are listed below:  Conceptual/operational framework for the monitoring system as a whole, showing how threats/impacts are integrated with biophysical indicators.  Thresholds and benchmarks—needed to provide a measure of condition/state over time. Using population as an example, what threshold will be considered sustainable (good condition—no action needed), somewhat sustainable (fair condition – monitor closely and/or take proactive steps to mitigate), and unsustainable (poor condition requiring immediate action)? This kind of analysis should be based on some mutually agreed upon notion of carrying capacity and/or ―ideal‖ condition for the each indicator.  Spatial analyses to identify/rank key threats vis-à-vis specific human settlements, to better prioritize research and monitoring efforts.  Village-level database development – if resources are available, the project should consider conducting a survey of NGOs, development assistance agencies, protected areas support programs, and other organizations working in the watershed to gather existing village-level data and compiling it into a database. This would the help the transboundary monitoring effort to determine what is currently known (and what already been done), what needs to be done, who is in the best position to do it, and how the monitoring program can bring added value to existing local and national community research and monitoring efforts.  developing a socio-economic database of village-level research, and determine priority areas for socio-economic monitoring — anthropogenic threats to specific critical elements of biodiversity and water, natural resource use and dependency, community socio-economic health, attitudes toward conservation, etc.

12.2. Development of Indicators A set of 18 socio-economic indicators is proposed below (Table 12.3); details are found in Annex 12.4. Out of these 18, 11 are considered feasible as part of an initial Pilot phase.

Page 302/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

The key is to keep primary efforts focused, strategic, cost-effective and feasible, focusing on a few key topics only. More monitoring topics can be added once the basic methodology is operationalized and funding is secured.

Table 12.3. Set of originally proposed socio-economic indicators N° Indicator Nature SE 1 Population (number of inhabitants) D, P SE 2 Population Composition D Annual Net/Disposable Income SE 3 D, P Omitted for pilot phase Poverty SE 4 D, P (I?) Omitted for pilot phase Employment SE 5 D, P, I Omitted for pilot phase Resource Dependency: SE 6 Income vs Personal Use/Subsistence D, P, I Omitted for pilot phase Governance and Policy Issues: SE 8 Public Spending on Environmental Management and Protection D in the Prespa Basin SE 9 Enforcement of environmental protections laws D, R SE 11 Water Use, Demand and Threats P, I, R Firewood consumption/pressure SE 13 P Omitted for pilot phase Grazing pressure SE 14 P Omitted for pilot phase SE 17 Incidence of Forest Fire P , R SE 19 Fishing Pressure P Annual fishing effort and catch SE 20 P, I Omitted for pilot phase SE 21 Physical Infrastructure/Urbanization D, P, I SE 22 Agriculture (by country) D, P SE 23 Waste Management R SE 25 Tourism P, I

Page 303/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Note that to be relevant for the Prespa Basin, this data will need to be collected at the village level and not as part of larger administrative units that include areas outside the Basin, as this would skew the results.

Following the workshops in Korcha/ Korçë (March 2009) and Bitola (May 2009), a total of 19 socio-economic indicators were finally chosen divided as follows:  Two indicators for pilot phase testing 2009-2010, based on data from the previous census (2001-2002);  Eleven indicators (including the two above) for the implementation phase in 2011 and beyond, to coincide with the upcoming censuses in all three countries;  Eight additional indicators (for a total of 19) that are strongly recommended for the full TMS but will require additional funding for needed research and data collection.

The indicators are a blend of basic demographics, specific socio-economic issues related to biodiversity and water conservation, and themes that reflect shared goals for the region—improved environmental governance, aspects of sustainable development such as poverty reduction, resource dependency, access to potable water, environmentally sound sewage treatment and rubbish disposal, tourism development, and attitudes toward lake conservation and the Prespa Transboundary Park. While the 11 indicators recommended for the implementation phase will provide a snapshot of life in the Prespa Basin, it should be noted that only the full set of indicators (19) will present an accurate representation of the socio-economic status of local communities vis-à-vis the local environment and the prospects for sustainable development.

Table 12.4 presents indicators to be used for the initial configuration and testing for the Pilot Phase TMS. These were chosen mainly because the data is readily available from each country’s census and will not require substantial time or funding to obtain, allowing design of the full system to move forward in a timely manner. Due to the upcoming round of census taking stated to begin in 2011 for Albania and Greece, and 2012 for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, pilot indicators will rely on data collected in the last census, e.g. 2001 for the first two countries and 2002 for the latter. Additional indicators will be added in 2010-2011, when the next round of census taking is implemented (Table 12.5).

Page 304/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 12.4. Initial Pilot Phase Socio-Economic Indicators and Parameters N° Indicator Nature Parameters  Number of inhabitants Population Size SE 1 D, P  Growth rate and Growth  Birth rate  Age structure: % under age 15; % 65 and older  Gender: % males, % females Population SE 2 D Composition  Average household size  Distribution: % rural, % urban  Density: inhabitants/area

Table 12.5 presents the full suite of indicators to be included in 2010 and beyond. This includes new census data and other data for which research from cooperating institutions and/or a small amount of funding to support contract research will be needed. Workshop participants from all three countries confirmed that the relevant data currently exists, but needs to be tabulated and formatted for use in the TMS. As such some additional time and a small amount of funding will be needed to obtain this data.

Table 12.5. Implementation Phase Socio-Economic Indicators and Parameters N° Indicator Nature Parameters

Public Spending and  % agriculture Investment for  % forestry Environmental and SE 3 D  % water Natural Resource Management in the  % biodiversity Prespa Basin  % other  Incidences of illegal activity x resource Enforcement of SE 4 D, R  Citations issued x resource environmental laws  Financial penalties collected x resource  Population (%) with access to quality in- Water Use, Demand house drinking water via public utility SE 5 P, I, R and Threats  Population (%) with environmentally sound sewage and water treatment Incidence of Wildland  Number/location/extent of SE 6 P , R Fire forest/grassland fires per year

Page 305/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

 Number of fishing licenses x country SE 7 Fishing Pressure P  Number of fishing boats x country  Annual catch x country  Roads (km) Physical Infrastructure SE 8 D, P, I  Surface area covered/converted (km2) and Urbanization  Sand excavation (km2)  Main crops x hectares under production SE 9 Agriculture D, P (location)  Annual value of production (per crop)  Villages with environmentally sound rubbish disposal (% total, location) SE 10 Waste Management R  Number/location of disposal sites (formal and informal)  Number of visitors x location  Number of sites open to public x type (religious, historical, archaeological, environmental, recreational, etc.) SE 11 Tourism P, I  Tourism investment x source (public or private)  Number of beds  Number of hotels

Table 12.6 lists additional indicators that are strongly recommended, but for which additional funding will be required for elaboration and field research.

Table 12.6. Socio-Economic Indicators that Require Additional Funding* No. Indicator Nature SE 12 Annual Net/Disposable Income D, P SE 13 Poverty Rate D, P, I SE 14 Employment D, P, I SE 15 Resource Dependency D, P, I SE 16 Firewood consumption/pressure P SE 17 Grazing pressure P SE 18 Annual fishing effort and catch P, I SE 19 Attitudes and knowledge regarding conservation R * Parameters that require further research and elaboration

Page 306/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

12.3. Methods

12.3.1. Description and justification One of the main constraints to monitoring socio-economic and cultural conditions in the Prespa Basin is the lack of existing data at the appropriate scale, and the cost/time needed to obtain it. Existing statistical data generated by official entities do not accurately reflect the ―real situation‖ in the Prespa Basin for several reasons: 1) data on several key issues specific to natural resource conservation, livelihoods, and sustainable development do not exist; 2) data is collected/analyzed/reported at varying scales in each country (municipality, prefecture, region, district, etc.); 3) the most relevant data scale for the Prespa Basin is village/household level, which does not exist for some indicators at present; 4) data is collected/analyzed/reported at too large a scale in each country—village and household level data is often subsumed by the larger administrative unit which skews the results and does not reflect the local situation within the basin alone; 5) the three countries collect/analyze data using different methodologies and timeframes.

To overcome these constraints, the socioeconomic working group divided the indicators into 3 sets based on the comparative ease/cost of obtaining the relevant data at appropriate and comparable scales. Data for the initial set of pilot indicators (2) can be readily retrieved from the last census in each country, data for the full set of pilot indicators (9 additional) will require a small amount of funding because of the additional time required to compile it into a useful format; indicators recommended for the full TMS (8 additional) will need to be addressed in a detailed village-level research project that will require more substantive additional funding. This will entail a separate and sustained trilateral program that employs a common methodology. Ideally this would be mainstreamed into national-level planning and budgeting as part of each country’s support and commitment to the Prespa Basin. Given the comparatively small size of the region and number of communities involved (69 total, with 12 in Albania, 44 in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and 13 in Greece), this research should be able to be accomplished in an economical and efficient manner. The resulting database would create a transboundary management framework to guide sustainable development of the region as whole.

Page 307/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

12.3.2. Methods to be used According to the members of the socio-economic working group, supporting data for indicators to be used in the pilot phase already exists; however, the majority is not readily available in the format needed for the TMS. While census data (for SE 1-2) will be relatively easy to obtain, data for the full set of indicators (SE 3-11), will require a more detailed search to locate the data and compile it into a useable format. A standardized set of worksheets and protocols will be needed to ensure that the data is collected and tabulated in a way that is compatible between the three countries. EUROSTAT-based statistics should be selected whenever possible.

Workshop participants confirmed that the appropriate scales for data to be used in the TMS in each country (e.g. covering the Prespa watershed only) are:  Albania—village and commune  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia—village and municipality  Greece—village and municipal district.

A composite map showing villages and settlements in the Prespa Basin can be found in Figure 12.2. It is not within the scope of this consultancy to develop the village-level research methods, however some guidelines are provided below. REC Macedonia recently concluded a socio-economic analysis of the communities inside and around Ezerani Nature Reserve which could serve as a model for a future transboundary research program (see box below).

Socio-Economic Analysis of Ezerani Nature Reserve, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Over the course of 5 days, a team of 4 from REC Macedonia interviewed 63 households from 10 villages in and around Ezerani Nature Reserve (ENR). Funded by UNDP, the overall goal of the study was to collect and analyse village-level socio-economic data to better understand local communities and their use/abuse of ENR. Specific objectives were to: 1) quantify risks and costs associated with proposed protection measures; 2) recommend the best institutional arrangement for protection; 3) identify suitable compensation measures for local participation in protection, including investments in the sustainable use of natural resources, solving existing conflicts over land and property, preventing pollution, and improving the general well-being of the local population. The entire budget for this effort was approximately 10,000 €.

(For more details contact REC Macedonia for a full copy of the report.)

Village-Level Socio-Economic Research Guidelines:

Page 308/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

1. Create a tripartite research development team to devise a common methodology that country-specific teams will execute. 2. Employ participatory methodologies such as PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal or Livelihood Analysis. This may include a variety of methods such as semi- structured interviews with focus groups (such as resource user groups) and key informants, conventional household surveys, village mapping, etc. 3. Stratify the communities in the basin focusing on those adjacent to or near priority sites for biodiversity and water conservation (e.g. national parks and other protected areas, priority habitats, streams, lakes, and other important water bodies.) 4. Coordinate with other thematic groups to include resource-specific issues of pressure, threats, impact and dependency. 5. Include other related issues such as resource tenure/access rights, attitudes toward the Prespa environment and conservation, cultural values, official versus unofficial income, temporary versus seasonal residence, employment in the formal versus informal sector, access to public services and others. (For a more complete list of indicators, parameters and related issues see Annex 12.6).

Table 12.7 summarizes the methods recommended for each implementation phase socioeconomic indicator (excluding those requiring additional funding for research). Potential sources of data are also listed. Since the indicators cover a wide ranging set of themes, the needed data is collected by various diverse organizations and agencies. Cooperative agreements or MOUs to share data may be required. Some indicators may also require further refinement as noted.

Page 309/381

Table 12.7. Implementation Phase Socio-Economic Indicators: Methods, Data Sources, and Comments

No. Indicator Method Data Sources (selected) Comments

Official statistics may be significantly Population Size and Desktop analysis National census higher or lower than actual residents SE 1 Growth Field interviews Statistical survey agencies esp. in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and GR

Population Desktop analysis National census Density parameter: SE 2 Composition Field interviews Statistical survey agencies # inhabitants/area (incl. lake) National level – annual operating budget and direct government investment Issue: which metric is best? % Public Spending and Direct foreign investment (loans, grants, etc.) national budget, % per capita, % per Investment on Desktop analysis/ hectare, Euro per hectare? Municipal budgets SE 3 Environmental and records search Natural Resource National park budgets Field interviews Management in the This indicator is a measure of each Ministry of Environment budgets Prespa Basin county’s commitment to the Prespa Secretary for European Affairs (Former Yugoslav Republic of Basin. Macedonia) Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Environmental Inspectorate, Communal Inspectorate Desktop analysis/ Issue: environmental crimes are Enforcement of SE 4 records search AL – Forestry Enterprise, Regional Environmental Agency rarely reported. Penalties are only environmental laws loosely enforced Field interviews GR – Local and border police, forest wardens, hunting wardens, park wardens GR – Municipality Water Use, Demand Records search Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Public Health SE 5 HARMONIZE WITH WATER GROUP and Threats Field interviews Institute, Public Utility AL – Public Health Institute Desktop analysis/ HARMONIZE WITH FORESTRY Incidence of Wildland SE 6 records search Forest Service GROUP Fire Field interviews May not be in an issue – tbd

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Fisheries Concessionaire Desktop analysis/ AL – Fisheries Inspectorate (MOE/FWA), local fisheries HARMONIZE WITH FISHERIES SE 7 Fishing Pressure records search associations GROUP Field interviews GR – (?) UNDP Fisheries Project Physical Infrastructure HARMONIZE WITH LAND USE SE 8 Remote sensing Aerial photos and Urbanization GROUP AL – commune GR – Agricultural survey (updated every 2 years) Desktop analysis/ records search Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Agricultural Census HARMONIZE WITH LAND USE SE 9 Agriculture (2007—future schedule n/a), Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Field interviews GROUP Water Economy Remote sensing Aerial photos? Statistical yearbooks? AL – municipality, commune Desktop analysis/ GR – municipality HARMONIZE WITH WATER AND SE 10 Waste Management records search LAND USE GROUPS Field interviews Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – municipality, public utility AL – Regional Council of Korcha, tour operators, communes, Zagradec Tourist Info Center, National Park Administration (Gorice) Desktop analysis/ GR – Statistical Service (Athens), Aghios Germanos Tourist Info records search SE 11 Tourism Center Field interviews Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Ministry of Economy, Municipality (neither have mandate to collect data at present) UNDP Prespa Transboundary Tourism Project

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

12.3.3. Periodicity/timetable It is recommended that socio-economic indicator data be collected and analyzed roughly every 5 years, staggered with national census to the extent possible (Table 12.8). Workshop participants confirmed that needed data appears to be available on an annual or biannual basis, so this should not pose too much of a difficulty given efficient data collection protocols (use of standardized worksheets, cooperative agreements with agencies that collect the raw data, etc.). Monitoring at 5 year intervals will allow enough time to track changes and trends, as well as provide a reasonable management timeframe to address potential problems. The analysis should ideally include all years up to and including the 5th year to better assess the direction and intensity of change.

Table 12.8. National Census Schedule and Proposed TMS Socio-Economic Data Collection Country Last Census Next Census Periodicity Albania 2001 2011 10 years Greece 2001 2011 10 years Former Yugoslav Republic of 2002 2012 10 years Macedonia

Given the timing for the pilot phase (2009-10), and the approaching start of a new round of data collection for each country’s census (starting with Greece and Albania in 2011), the following schedule/strategy is recommended: 1) Use SE 1 and SE 2 for immediate application in development of the pilot system (2009-2010). While this may not be an accurate representation of the existing demographic situation in the basin given the age of the data (2001-2002) it allows development and testing of the TMS to move forward with a simple, compatible dataset without unnecessary delays and complications from the additional research needed to obtain data for the other pilot phase indicators (SE3-SE11). 2) In 2011-2012, initiate another round of TMS data collection for SE1-SE11. This will utilize the results of the most recent census for SE1 and SE2 and allow enough time to coordinate the additional financial and logistical resources needed to obtain the remaining data for SE3-SE11, and if possible SE12-SE19.

Following this strategy, the proposed schedule is as follows (Table 12.9):

Page 312/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 12.9. Proposed schedule for the monitoring of the proposed TMS Socio-Economic Indicators Full TMS: Country Pilot Phase Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 1

Based on 2011/2012 2021/2022 Albania 2016/2017 2026/2027 2001 Census (census) (census)

Based on 2011/2012 2021/2022 Greece 2016/2017 2026/2027 2001 Census (census) (census) Former Yugoslav Based on 2012/2013 2017/2018 2022/2023 2027/2028 Republic of 2002 Census Macedonia

12.4. Equipment For most of the socioeconomic indicators, no specialized equipment will be needed beyond a computer and basic communications technology. A simple statistical program might also be considered to determine if a trend is ―significant.‖ These are often included as part of a common spreadsheet program like Microsoft Excel.

12.5. Institutional Involvement All workshop participants agreed that a lead institution in each country is needed to collect monitoring data. As noted earlier, some additional funding will be needed to obtain and compile the raw data into useful formats, less for SE 3-11, more for SE 12-19. MOUs or other official agreements with a number of diverse organizations may be required to obtain the necessary raw data. In addition, a trinational working group should be established to compile the data into a transboundary framework, analyze it, and present results to decision makers and interest groups. Tasks to be performed by lead institutions include: 1) Provide census data for SE1-2 for pilot phase testing; 2) Participate in a trinational working group to create a standardized set of worksheets and protocols to collect data for SE3-11; 3) For SE3-11, establish cooperative agreements with agencies that have the needed data, conduct data collection and analysis as indicated in Table 4;

Page 313/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

4) Compile the data using standardized format for sharing with the TMS. This may also include a preliminary trend analysis to determine the status of the different indicators in their own country; 5) Develop a joint proposal to fund a trinational village-level research program.

The following organizations are proposed as lead institutions (Table 12.10). Other information on partner organizations and administration can be found in Annex 12.7.

Table 12.10. Proposed organizations to act as lead institutions for the monitoring of the TMS Socio-Economic Indicators Country Lead Institution Justification INSTAT is the main government agency conducting the national census and collecting a wide variety of Albania INSTAT country statistics. They have offices in every district and have indicated a willingness to work with the TMS. Given the wide variety of socio-economic programs it oversees, Resen Municipality is well-suited to act as lead institution for the TMS. At present, however, they Former Resen Municipality lack capacity and mandate to carry this out effectively. Yugoslav and Regional Republic of Environmental REC has the needed experience, but the TMS ideally Macedonia Center (REC) should be mainstreamed into the public sector. These two organizations working in tandem would present a strong in-country team. PNFMB is the main agency overseeing management of Greek Prespa, however they lack the capacity and mandate to carry out resource-based socio-economic Prespa National monitoring. Forest The Statistical Office in Florina is well-experienced Management Body Greece with socioeconomic data collection and could provide (PNFMB) and the the necessary support to the PNFMB. Florina Statistical Office Both organizations have expressed a willingness to work with the TMS, and furthermore, the majority of the parameters are publicly available through the National Statistical Service of Greece website.

12.6. Budget The draft budget for socioeconomic monitoring is included in Table 12.11. Costs are assumed to be negligible for pilot phase testing that includes only SE1-SE2, for which

Page 314/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park data is readily available from the previous census. The cost for the full set of pilot phase indicators (SE1-SR11) is estimated at € 9,012 for all three countries combined (excluding computers) per monitoring effort (once every 5 years).

For the full TMS (including the village level research program), a rough estimate of the needed funding for all three countries combined is € 30,400. This amount is based on the figures provided by REC Macedonia for the socioeconomic analysis of the Ezerani Nature Reserve. The following assumptions were made:  Cost of one village survey—€ 950 (including field work and data analysis)  Number of villages to be surveyed—32 (this assumes a stratified sample of the whole basin, including only those that are inside or near areas of high biodiversity or watershed value; estimated as half the total number of villages in each country.)

It is strongly recommended that a concerted effort be made to secure funding for a village-level research program to support the full TMS. All working group members agree that this is absolutely necessary in order to construct a realistic picture of the communities in the Prespa ecoregion, and is a fundamental cornerstone of transboundary conservation and sustainable development for the future. If community and resource-user information is not included, the TMS runs the risk of being inaccurate in its findings and conclusions for routine surveillance, and ultimately not very useful for resource managers and other decision-makers. Given the relatively small size of the basin and the number of communities involved, there is a unique opportunity to create an integrated monitoring system that truly addresses the needs and constraints of the resident population, and sets the stage for their involvement as partners in the protection of the environmental and cultural heritage of the Prespa Basin for years to come.

Page 315/381

Table 12.11. Budget

Based on proposed schedule of once every five years and the full set of pilot phase indicators (SE1-SE11)

All costs in Euros (€)

GRAND TOTAL 11,412 Minus computers 2,400 9,012

ALBANIA Fixed Costs Item Unit Cost Number Total Comment Computer(s) with Microsoft Office 800 1 800 TBD as per total TMS budget. Note most organizations to be involved in the TMS probably have their own computer systems, but some may need updating.

Running Costs Internet and Communications 100 0 100 Remote sensing images for SE 8-9 0 0 0 To be included in land use/remote sensing budget Travel 3 trips a year to Tirana or other locations to obtain data and/or meet with TMS coordinators Per diem 30 6 180

Hotel ( 1 person) 12 6 72 Mileage 0.4 1,800 720 Tirana to Prespa = 600 km (return)

Personnel (days) Lead researcher/coordinator 100 10 1,000 Data collection and analysis; TMS coordination. Could be less based on ease of obtaining data. Assistant 50 4 200 Remote Sensing Analysis 0 0 0 To be included in land use/remote sensing budget TOTAL 3,072

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Fixed Costs Item Unit Cost Number Total Comment Computer(s) with Microsoft Office 800 1 800 TBD as per total TMS budget. Note most organizations to be involved in the TMS probably have their own computer systems, but some may need updating.

Running Costs Internet and Communications 100 0 100 Remote sensing images for SE 8-9 0 0 0 To be included in land use/remote sensing budget Travel 3 trips a year to Skopje or other locations to obtain data and/or meet with TMS coordinators Per diem 30 6 180

Hotel ( 1 person) 30 6 180 Mileage 0.4 1,500 600 Skopje to Prespa = 500 km (return)

Personnel (days) Lead researcher/coordinator 100 10 1,000 Data collection and analysis; TMS coordination. Could be less based on ease of obtaining data. Assistant 50 4 200 Remote Sensing Analysis 0 0 0 To be included in land use/remote sensing budget TOTAL 3,060

Greece Fixed Costs Item Unit Cost Number Total Comment Computer(s) with Microsoft Office 800 1 800 TBD as per total TMS budget. Note most organizations to be involved in the TMS probably have their own computer systems, but some may need updating.

Running Costs Internet and Communications 100 0 100 Remote sensing images for SE 8-9 0 0 0 To be included in land use/remote sensing budget Travel 3 trips a year from Prespa to Florina or other locations to obtain data and/or meet with TMS coordinators

Per diem 55 6 330 Hotel ( 1 person) 45 6 270 Mileage 0.4 500 200

Personnel (days) Lead researcher/coordinator 300 10 3,000 Data collection and analysis; TMS coordination. Could be less based on ease of obtaining data. Assistant 145 4 580 Remote Sensing Analysis 0 0 0 To be included in land use/remote sensing budget TOTAL 5,280

GRAND TOTAL 11,412 Minus computers 2,400 9,012

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

13. Land-use

Dr. Alain Sandoz, Tour du Valat

13.1. Introduction The general objectives of this present work are to contribute: - to propose and to feed a monitoring system, real observatory of the region, present and future (by simulation of prospective models), to anticipate disturbances on the ecology of these environments, and - to produce indicators, which will allow to assess the impact of developments and implement actions.

In the context of Prespa region, the transboundary element is crucial. Prespa region represents a complex ecosystems panel whose ecological state depends on the functioning of natural (climatic, hydrology, etc.) and anthropic (agriculture, urbanisation, etc.) components, but also of the contributions of its catchment areas.

Objectives at short term At first, the terms of anthropogenic and natural pressures on catchment areas must be identified. To do this, an analysis of changes in land use must be made. To achieve this, it will be a broad appeal to technologies related to space observation (remote sensing), as regards to the production of maps of land use and monitoring hydrological conditions. These spatial data will be implemented in a GIS to facilitate a cross with other data sources. The diachronic studies needed to develop models operating space will thus be possible.

Objectives at medium term The next objective of this work is to improve our knowledge on natural considered vulnerable and anthropic environments. At medium term, predictive models of functioning of catchment areas subject to anthropogenic and natural pressures (such as forest-fires, drought, climate change, etc.) could be developed from the introduction of this system. These models would anticipate the deterioration of the status of protected areas and their watersheds. The development of tools to help the decision should, in addition, be very useful to optimize future development and ensure the maintenance of a major biodiversity.

Page 320/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

These models would link the evolution of natural vulnerable environments with other variables (measured comments on the ground and from historical databases).

Thereafter, it will be possible to considerate the construction of predictive models incorporating evolution in land use, climate changes [temperature variations, precipitation changes (total and distribution), hydrology, anthropic impacts, to be developed in partnership with the rest of the team.

By the mass of knowledge currently available and accumulated during this study, this work will yield statistically reliable results on the influence of different anthropic factors over the habitat (agricultural practices, urbanization)and natural factors (forest-fires, drought, climate change) that if act in a real impact, or to a non-impact (compensation of so-called aggravating factors on the dynamics of ecosystems, for example).

13.1.1. Analysis of existing land-use monitoring programmes, land-use data Actual monitoring programmes exist but use different methodologies. Therefore, it is difficult to compare and to integrate these disparate data in the same spatialized or no spatialized database. Monitoring at the transboundary scale have no meaning in this context. Results will not be comparable. Years of inventory are not the same. Therefore interpretation of data and results would be extremely complicated.

13.1.2. Analysis of existing GIS and other mapping activities Each country has its own methodology and data. A background map with identical reference does not exist. It is necessary to define a common standard protocol and to compare data. The data acquired by different partners will be able to feed the common database and GIS. These sources of information, also partial, could contribute with satellite images to calibrate and validate retrospective and exhaustive map of the region. These data will be profitable to the whole transboundary region. Satellite classification maps ask a minimum of field data. These field data will be use to calibrate and validate satellite images to produce land-use maps.

13.1.3. Rationale for monitoring land uses It is therefore essential to establish a monitoring system adapted to the cross-border dimension. This should be able to benefit of synchronous and comparable data for all three countries concerned. It will be necessary to discuss during the workshop of what

Page 321/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park satellites images we will use.

These data should be acquired at the same date on a regular basis (e.g. annually) with the possibility of retrospective studies over several decades. They will have to be compatible with biological, hydrological and socio-economic data in the aim to analyse and understand the past and present dynamics, and to anticipate future changes.

To meet these objectives, it is necessary to develop efficient tools that will enable, each partner in the project, a synoptic view of the state of the environment and to anticipate changes. A panel of tools, and of inter-active methods, multi-users, perennial, adapted must be defined. We will propose to develop a knowledge base of the environment, integrated into a Geographic Information System (GIS) fed by satellite imagery related to a multi-sources database (biological, hydrological and socio-economic) in a monitoring system with an environmental observatory logic.

The satellite data, Landsat, Spot, IKONOS will allow to acquire a synoptic and cross- border view based on a common reference. This fund should have the same characteristics in terms of spatial and spectral resolution. This particularity will permit to work from the same thematic typology for identical dates of acquisition. Whatever the country or area, the information generated will be comparable since obtained at the same date, with identical technical specifications. The purchase price of these images will be limited.

These data, once treated by method of so called supervised classification, to obtain thematic maps of land use will be used to calculate quantity (e.g. surface areas of habitats) and quality indices of environments (biomass, fragmentation, etc.). It would be useful at this stage to elaborate more on a comparison between quantity and quality oriented indices, relative advantages and disadvantages and maybe an initial proposal should be made.

Tour du Valat has historical satellite data that could be given to the programme. It will however need to acquire a number of images, particularly with the aim of achieving an annual follow-up. Some images could be acquired. The price of these images can range from 160 € to 5000 € each, depending on number and grant we could have (possibility to ask financial help of different organisations). Maybe the different budget scenarios could

Page 322/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park be briefly presented here, unless this will be done at a later stage, so that we can see the magnitude of expenses necessary. Also the expert should propose which scenario (or what type of data) could be more relevant to the scope of a monitoring project.

This monitoring system should be based on system of GIS type. Software, like ArcGis or Grass type, will have to be used for the matter to compile all the images data, satellite images classifications, topographic maps, thematics maps, Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and alpha-numeric biological, hydrological or socio-economic data.

It would be preferable that a centralized system could contain all the data updates and that all partners could be able to connect to the system to update their own GIS. The central system should also be able to be updated by all partners via the Internet.

There is need for coordination with experts/ themes on habitats (aquatic or terrestrial). Concerning forest thematic, it will be necessary to integrated forest-fires. Coordination with these experts will be needed, in next step.

13.1.4. Research gaps The land use gaps will be completed with utilisation of satellite data and historical data as indicated above in paragraph ―13.1.2. Analysis of existing GIS and other mapping activities‖.

13.2. Development of land-use indicators Prerequisites 1: Data needed for the monitoring system construction The bases data concern those who normally should not be changed on the medium or long term: - Perennial data: Topography, geology, perennial anthropic structures (roads, buildings, etc.) - Non perennial data: Land use: natural habitats/ land use category surface area (such as forest, brush, bare soil, reedbeds) and anthropic habitat surface areas (cultivations, agricultural land, etc.). The perennial data will be obtained from cartographic documents and / or satellite images at very high spatial resolution (Spot, Ikonos, QuickBird, etc.).

Page 323/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

The construction of a DEM will calculate for drops, slopes, directions ... indispensables variables especially for hydrology. The DEM, may be extrapolated from the curves levels issued from topographic maps or recover.

Maps of ecological habitats historical and current will be made from satellite images. The typology will be validated with partners in relation with images discriminative limits.

The final objective will be to achieve a state of land use (surface and quality) and knowledge on the dynamics of the past three decades at minimum scale of each five years.

Prerequisites 2: This work needs to answer a number of issues to be discussed during the February 2009 workshop: 1) Identifying a common background (responsible authority: satellite images ...). 2) Identify common data perennial (DEM, ...) (identify or define? If perennial data are not consistent currently among the 3 states, then a new definition of data collection methods should be considered). 3) Define a typology of ecological habitats relevant and consistent with the methodology followed by satellite imagery (Habitats Directive, Corine land cover ...). 4) Define temporal step for monitoring (temporal precision: annual multi-year ...). 5) Define the work scales (spatial precision monitoring). 6) Define scale space monitoring (country, catchment area ...). 7) Preferably, try to find a common GIS software in order to facilitate standardization of data, pooling in a central database and data exchange. 8) It will be necessary to discuss of the thematic typology together with thematic experts and with satellite images discrimination possibilities.

Developing the indicators Each indicator will be computed for each theme. Other spatial indicators could be added after discussions with thematic experts during the February 2009 workshop (for hydrology, aquatic habitats, forest, etc.). The preliminary list of proposed indicators for the Land-use theme is shown in Table 13.1, which is followed by 10 non-numbered text- boxes describing the development of the five Land-use indicators as well of five indicators that stemmed from the themes on ―Forests and other terrestrial habitats‖ of the TMS.

Page 324/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 13.1. Proposed indicators for the ―Land-use‖ theme Proposed indicators N° Nature 1. Area of each land use category (natural and anthropic habitats)

1.1 LS1 S 1.2 ... 2. Fragmentation of each land use (natural and anthropic habitats)

2.1 LS2 S 2.2 ... 3. Plant biomass of each natural habitats LS3 S 4. Area of irrigated and non-irrigated crops LS4 S 5 Area and dynamic of snowpack LS7 S

Area of each land use (natural and Indicator LS1: Nature: S anthropic habitats) Objective / Significance Land use monitoring: Area of the different natural and anthropic habitats identified as with high ecological value (measurements of land from classified satellite images integrated into the GIS). Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Such basic indicator is easily verifiable at the transboundary scale as well as at national level through satellite images Remote sensing Method / sources of information: Field monitoring Ministry in charge of land use and present Institutions supposed to be involved: partners Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Page 325/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Fragmentation of each land use category Indicator LS2: Nature: S (natural and anthropic habitats) Objective / Significance Land use monitoring: Fragmentation of the different natural habitats identified as with high ecological value (measures calculated from the landscape analysis tools integrated into the GIS software) Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Such basic indicator is easily verifiable at the transboundary scale as well as at national level through satellite images Remote sensing, Method / sources of information: Field monitoring, GIS and landscape ecology tools Ministry in charge of land use and present Institutions supposed to be involved: partners Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Indicator LS3: Plant biomass Nature: S Objective / Significance Land use monitoring: - Plant biomass of different natural habitats identified as with high ecological value (a measure derived from the vegetation indices calculated from satellite images and GIS). - Plant biomass by catchment areas (allowing the calculation of evapotranspiration in relation to meteorological measurements), (comparing classified and integrated images in the GIS). Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Such basic indicator is easily verifiable at the transboundary scale as well as at national level through satellite images Remote sensing, Method / sources of information: Field monitoring Ministry in charge of land use and present Institutions supposed to be involved: partners Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Page 326/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Area of non-irrigated and irrigated Indicator LS4: Nature: S crops Objective / Significance Land use monitoring: Area of irrigated crops (comparing classified and integrated images in the GIS). Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Such basic indicator is easily verifiable at the transboundary scale as well as at national level through satellite images Remote sensing, Method / sources of information: Field monitoring Ministry in charge of land use and present Institutions supposed to be involved: partners Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Indicator LS5: Area and dynamic of snowpack Nature: S Objective / Significance Land use monitoring: In relation with hydrology, it would be appropriate to know the developments in the snowpack at intra-annual scale. This could require the acquisition of a number of images during the winter season. Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Such basic indicator is easily verifiable at the transboundary scale as well as at national level through satellite images Remote sensing, Method / sources of information: Field monitoring Ministry in charge of land use and present Institutions supposed to be involved: partners Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Page 327/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Other thematic indicators that could be monitored through satellite images

For Forest & Terrestrial Habitats:

Indicator F1: Forest cover and land use Nature: S Objective / Significance to Forest & Terrestrial habitats monitoring: To monitor forest/vegetation cover extension or depletion and to assess the changes in terrestrial habitats and forest stands quality: Changes in land use, encroachment by cultivation, illegal cutting or overgrazing, may identify gaps in forest cover (clear cutting) Sub-indicators: - High forest / low forest / bushes / pastures cover - pure (monospecific) forest stands / mixed forest stands Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Such basic indicator is easily verifiable at the transboundary scale as well as at national level through satellite images Remote sensing (Corine Land Cover) Method / sources of information: Forest inventory Ministry in charge of forest and land use Institutions supposed to be involved: planning: MoE or MoA Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Forest inventory at national or regional level (?)

Indicator F2: Priority terrestrial habitats conservation Nature: S Objective / Significance to Forest & Terrestrial habitats monitoring: This indicator deals with the 4 priority terrestrial habitats (EU Directive Habitats) that are present in each part of the Prespa basin. Only Grecian Juniperus woods habitat has been considered here (as the other priority habitats deal with biodiversity report). Sub-indicators: - Grecian juniper woods spatial distribution and tree cover - ages classes of Grecian juniperus woods and regeneration - floristic composition of GJW habitats Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Grecian juniper woods exist in each of the three countries with significant distribution and defined as priority habitats by national consultants. Mapping of such areas, GIS, Cadastre Method / source of information: Local forest surveys Institution supposed to be involved: National Parks; MoE Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Page 328/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Forest degradation, encroachment & Indicator F10: Nature: I depletion Objective / Significance to Forest & Terrestrial habitats monitoring: Indicator for illegal cutting inside forest areas (for firewood, hard wood or fodder uses) Sub-indicators: - fines / penalties delivered for illegal cutting and encroachment - clear cutting areas, tree lopping areas Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Such indicator is rather relevant for oak forest and lowland forest than for Beech forest wherever you are in the Greek part (western part near Albania), in the Albanian part or even in the Macedonian part (Galichica NP). Satellite images (remote sensing) Method / sources of information: Forest inventories and mapping MoA and/or MoE Institutions supposed to be involved: Forestry services; Forest enterprises Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Fluctuation on the above limit of forest Indicator F11: Nature: I stands Objective / Significance to Forest & Terrestrial habitats monitoring: Extension or depletion of the timberline (upper boundaries of forest) and subalpine vegetation is strongly linked to the grazing pressure (increasing or decreasing) on (sub)alpine meadows. The above limit of forest stands or higher lying forest belt (at an average of 1.900 m altitude) is a very riche biotope/ecotone and so needs to be well known and monitored Sub-indicators: - Vaccinium myrtillus & Juniperus communis nana area extension - upper boundary of forest stands (beech) Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Even through grazing pressures on subalpine meadows and dwarf shrubs are quite different from the Greek part to the Albanian one, this sensitive ecotone does exist in each side of the three countries. - remote sensing & satellite image Method / sources of information: - forest and dwarf shrubby vegetation mapping - ecological research programmes National Parks Institutions supposed to be involved: MoE, Forestry services and Public enterprises Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: -

Page 329/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Indicator F18: Forest fires: mean annual burnt area Nature: P Objective / Significance to Forest & Terrestrial habitats monitoring: Sub-indicators: - Relevance for a Transboundary MS: Is this indicator relevant for the TMS? Method / sources of information: MoE (?) Institutions supposed to be involved: Forestry services or Fire services Lack of data, research needs, institutional issues: Annual forest burnt area in each part of the basin, location and origin of forest fires.

The list initially included 5 indicators (Table 13.2. below, including same information as Table 13.1), to which 4 indicators were added proposed under the theme ―Forests & other terrestrial habitats‖ (Table 13.3.) and 4/5 more from the ―Aquatic vegetation‖ theme (Table 13.4). The general monitoring protocols we propose below will additionally help develop the relevant indicators for these two themes, in complement to data and fieldwork already planned under these themes.

Table 13.2. Proposed indicators for the ―Land-use‖ theme N° Proposed indicators Nature 1. Change in area of each land cover category (natural and anthropogenic habitats)

LS1 1.1 S 1.2 ... 2. Fragmentation of each land cover (natural and anthropogenic habitats)

LS2 2.1 S 2.2 ... LS3 3. Plant biomass of each natural habitats S LS4 4. Change in area of irrigated and non-irrigated crops S LS7 5. Change in area and dynamic of snowpack S

Page 330/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 13.3. Proposed indicators for the ―Land-use‖ theme added by the ―Forests & other terrestrial habitats‖ theme N° Proposed indicator Nature F1 Vegetation cover change S / I Priority terrestrial habitats conservation distribution and F2 S quality F6 Distribution and quality of alpine & subalpine meadows S F8 Natural disasters and diseases S / I

Table 13.4. Proposed indicators for the ―Land-use‖ theme added by the ―Aquatic vegetation‖ theme N° AQUATIC VEGETATION Nature

Location and surface area of patches of the habitat ―Beds WV1 S of hydrophytes‖

Location and surface area of patches of the habitat ―Wet WV3 S meadows‖

Species composition and structure of the vegetation of the habitat ―Wet meadows‖ with several possible variables: height (WV4) of vegetation, cover of nitrophilous species, cover of S characteristic/non characteristic species, cover of shrub species, etc.

Location and surface area of patches of the habitat WV5 S ―Reedbeds‖

WV7 Direct management of reedbeds (wildfires, harvest, etc.)

Land use & land cover terms The distinction between land use and land cover is fundamental, but, in practice, this distinction is all too often ignored, leading to confusion and ambiguity of many classifications, and incommensurability between them.

Land cover is the observed physical cover at a given location and time, as might be seen on the ground or from remote sensing. This includes the vegetation (natural or planted) and human constructions (buildings, etc.) which cover the earth's surface. It follows that land cover may be determined by direct observation, whereas information on land use

Page 331/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park requires a statement of purpose from the person who controls or carries out the land use. Remotely sensed data, e.g. from aerial photographs or satellite images, can often be used to map land cover, for example, by identifying multi-spectral signatures characteristic of land cover types.

Land use, in turn, sometimes may be correlated with actual land cover, so that land cover may be employed as a means of inferring land use. Land use is, in part, a description of function, the purpose for which the land is being used‖ (Source: McConnel et al. 2000. http://www.globallandproject.org/Documents/LUCC_No_5.pdf). This Report is also recommended for further reading in regard to classification systems, typologies and legends and for getting some advice for the issues of temporal and spatial scales.

Such an approach has been undertaken by the EEA based on the CLC classes. This approach, namely the Land and Ecosystem Accounting (LEAC), follows that recommended in the SEEA2003 handbook (SEEA, 2003). It sought to describe the relationship between the stock of land and the associated uses as a set of linked tables. It represents the transformation of land cover over time as a transition matrix which describes the transfers into and out of the different cover categories between two time periods. LEAC shows how the flow accounts for cover can be extended to cope with the complex relationship that exists between land cover and use. The flows of cover are associated with a set of land use functions in the form of a matrix which can then be linked to information about the activity sectors in the economy that give rise to particular types of land use (Source: EEA Report. No 11/2006. Land accounts for Europe 1990-2000. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2006_11).

13.3. Methods

13.3.1. Description and justification The first Transboundary workshop (Korcha, Albania, 20/02/09) made a number of choices to assist the standardization of methods/ protocols across the borders: 1. Using Landsat and Spot satellite images. 2. The standard projection UTM WGS 84 will facilitate exchanges between partners. 3. Exchanges of files will be done in shapefile format, to facilitate standardization of data, pooling in a central database and data exchange.

Page 332/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

4. Typologies of ecological habitats which will allow monitoring through satellite imagery are : Corine Land Cover for the overall land-use/ broad habitat categories, completed locally by Natura 2000 for specific, natural habitats of high value (in that case, more images might be needed to discriminate between Natura 2000 habitats). 5. Data should be retrieved easily from a server by involved parties.

To identify and monitor the dynamics of habitats, a methodology based on the processing of satellite images will be used. For image processing, the method of supervised classification will be used with satellite data (Spot and Landsat).

The supervised approach is a thorough recognition of the land and the selection of a representative sample, discounted day pass. It identifies a number of themes you want to recognise, with both typologies accepted (Corine Land Cover adapted and completed locally by Natura 2000 if necessary and if desired locally but will not be detailed in terms of typology here, plus classes proposed by the Forest & Terrestrial Habitats and Aquatic vegetation groups.)

13.3.2. Proposed land-use and habitats typology The CORINE Land Cover classification was adapted based on the requests of the ―Forests/ Terrestrial Habitats‖ and ―Aquatic Vegetation‖. The 3-digits classes correspond to CORINE Land Cover classes, whilst the 4 digits-codes correspond to sub-categories requested by these 2 groups. Some of the classes below are possibly not present in Prespa, and will be later removed from the list.

Class 1: Built up area – 111 Continuous urban fabric – 112 Discontinuous urban fabric (includes large building developments into natural/ agricultural areas) – 121 Industrial or commercial units – 122 Road and rail networks and associated land – 123 Port areas – 124 Airports – 131 Mineral extraction sites – 132 Dump sites – 133 Construction sites – 141 Green urban areas – 142 Sport and leisure facilities

Page 333/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Class 2: Agricultural area – 211 Non-irrigated arable land – 212 Permanently irrigated land – 213 Rice fields – 221 Vineyards – 222 Fruit trees and berry plantations – 223 Olive groves – 231 Pastures – 241 Annual crops associated with permanent crops – 242 Complex cultivation patterns – 243 Land principally occupied by agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation – 244 Agro-forestry areas

Class 3: Forest and natural area

– 311 Broad-leaved forest: - 3111 Deciduous oak forest - 3112 Deciduous beech forests - 3113 Riparian vegetation (galleries, …)

– 312 Coniferous forest - 3121 Grecian juniper woods

– 313 Mixed forest : - 3131 Lowland Mixed deciduous-evergreen forests (Juniper, Hornbeam, Macedonian oak) - 3132 Mixed beech-fir forests

– 321 Natural grassland - 3211(sub)alpine grasslands / heaths - 3212 Semi-natural dry grasslands on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometea) - 3213 Species-rich Nardus grasslands, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas

– 322 Moors and heathland - 3221 Subalpine vegetation of dwarf shrubs

– 323 Sclerophyllous vegetation - 3231 Lowland evergreen Box-juniper shrublands

– 324 Transitional woodland-shrub – 331 Beaches, dunes, and sand plains – 332 Bare rock – 333 Sparsely vegetated areas

Page 334/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

- 3331 Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals (Thero-Brachypodietea)

– 334 Burnt areas – 335 Glaciers and perpetual snow

Class 4: Wetland, salt – 411 Inland marshes - 4111 Habitat beds of hydrophytes - 4112 Nitrophilous species - 4113 Shrub species - 4114 Reedbeds

– 412 Peatbogs – 421 Salt marshes – 422 Salines – 423 Intertidal flats

Class 5: Water – 511 Water courses

13.3.3. Sampling method Each land-use class (or habitat type) is first to be identified through a specific ―spectral signature‖, which corresponds to its specific set of values for each channel of the satellite. Each satellite channel corresponds to a precise spectral frequency. When linking these values, a graph is obtained: the ―spectral signature‖.

To identify the spectral signatures of each habitat, field sampling must –and will – be performed, as far as possible on up to 30 samples by theme for calibration and 30 more for validation (see below). By default, e.g. for lack of time or of suitable areas for sampling, sample areas of several pixels can be used. The advantage is to reduce the time of fieldwork, but it can harm the quality of work.

Part of the samples (30) used to define spectral signatures are needed to classify all pixels of the image. The other part of the samples (30) will be used to verify the resulting image and give an estimation on the accuracy of results. The mapping of each habitat may therefore be statistically known.

For each class in the land-use/ habitat typology, a specific selection of samples as above

Page 335/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park will be made. Samples will be drawn randomly from the territory, which is appropriate because of difficulties in access to land. Indeed, sampling should be sufficiently representative for habitats whose spectral signature can be modified by various factors such as density, location, direction of slope.

Some of the indicators are to be monitored every year, and some every 5 years. The specific methods to be used at each of these paces are different and will be described in succession.

13.3.3.1. Sampling method to be used every five years Step 1 It will be necessary to identify for each area (by country, the broad habitats/ land-use types that are present, using a typology based upon Corine Land Cover adapted - completed locally by Natura 2000 for specific habitats required by some of the Indicators of ―Forest & Terrestrial Habitats‖ and ―Aquatic vegetation‖. This step will therefore end with the production of the typology of land-use and habitats that can actually be monitored through satellite images in Prespa.

Step 2 For each type (i.e. each class in the typology), 60 representative samples of each habitat (20 per country where the class is present) will be selected. Sample squares will be at least 70 m by 70 m (size can be larger). Each square must be representative of the habitat class as per the typology used. To establish a correspondence between a pixel on the ground and a pixel on the image, it is necessary to know the geographical coordinates of the sample. In the field, we propose to register the geographical position of the centre and of each corner of the square, using a global positioning system (GPS) enabling us to position our sites with an accuracy of 0 to 10 m.

When deciding the size of the samples, the important point to take into account is the variability of field and image resolution (equivalent to the pixel size). We had initially planned to use satellite images from SPOT 5 with a resolution of 10 m and Landsat TM 30m resolution (see Annex 13). Considering the possible error in the location of points sampled on a pixel, we will take, for a site, the size corresponding to a square of 2 pixels by 2 pixels plus a potential error of localisation, hence the 70 x 70 m.

Page 336/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Step 3: Calibration Part of the samples (30 by theme) will be used with Spot 5 satellite images, to develop the initial habitat map, using the supervised classification methodology and software. This step is the ―calibration phase‖.

Step 4: Validation Once the classification is done, the second half of the samples (30 by theme), not used for calibration, will be used to validate it.

The map developed through the supervised classification will be evaluated by using the correlation matrix, resulting from the crossing of the resulting image with the samples used in the validation phase. The correlation matrix is used to evaluate the accuracy of the result. The correlation matrix also helps identify problems such as possible confusions between different classes in the typology, and also to compute two coefficients to be used later: - a statistical coefficient, giving the precision of surface areas per habitat ; - a cartographic coefficient, giving the precision of geographical locations for each habitat.

Best results will be obtained with 2 images per year obtained at different dates: June and November. For this, we will use Spot 5 images. If this proves impossible (e.g. technical problems, cloud cover, etc.), we will use other possibilities like Landsat images.

13.3.3.2. Computation of indicators to be used every five years Indicators concerning change of area To compute change of area, it will be necessary to integrated maps issue of image processing in GIS. GIS will permit to give localisation and area of each thematic habitat for year one. With the results of year two, it will be possible to compare spatial dynamics and changes of area for each thematic habitat.

Fragmentation indicators The fragmentation of habitats will be evaluated by landscape ecology indicators, using ArcGis software. These indicators summarize habitats morphology (perimeters, fragmentation....). It will be possible to compare the evolution of the fragmentation status of each habitat, by comparing these indicators in any given year with their value in the

Page 337/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park reference year (Year 1).

For steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and the computation of indicators, preliminary training in satellite image treatment will be necessary.

13.3.3.3. Sampling methods to be used each year Special themes We will use a light protocol to monitor fires (i.e. annually burnt area) and irrigated agricultural land. For these 2 themes, the protocol will be the same as above: 2 images in June and November.

For snowpack, one image per month will be obtained between October and June. The protocol will be very light: for each image, a binary picture (with snow / without snow, per pixel) will be computed.

For these 3 themes, Landsat images are sufficient in terms of spatial resolution (they are also free). It will be necessary to take same protocol that for other themes (monitoring every five years) step 1 to 4.

13.3.3.4. Indicators to be used every year Indicators concerning change of area To compute change of area, it will be necessary to integrated maps issue of image processing in GIS. GIS will permit to give localisation and area of each thematic habitat for year one. With the results of year two, it will be possible to compare spatial dynamics and changes of area for each thematic habitat.

Biomass dynamics indicators In order to know the inter-annual evolution of vegetation biomass, we will compute the NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) – a standard, well-recognized index - from image data. The index is defined as:

NDVI = NIR - R NIR + R where NIR = near-infrared, R = red

Page 338/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

To estimate precisely the inter-annual evolution of the biomass, a calibration on a reference year (Year 1) will be necessary. The biomass evolution will be calculated for the past and future in relation with this reference year.

13.3.4. Periodicity – Five year timetable/ work plan The frequency for monitoring will be, depending on the indicator, either every five years, annual or several per year (Table 13.5); the date of the images will be June (if not possible, end of May) and November.

The determination of the land-use and habitats surface areas, as well as habitat structure parameters, should be conducted every 5 years. Monitoring of biomass and disturbed habitats (e.g. burnt areas) and irrigated agriculture will be on a yearly basis. The snow cover will be evaluated every month during the winter season (October to June) in relation with hydrological needs.

Periodicity, as described in Table 13.5 covers the timetable of the first five years. It is proposed that Land-use is submitted to 5-years cycles, i.e. every five years it will be necessary to restart at Year 1.

Page 339/381

Table 13.5. Frequency of monitoring activities for the Land-use theme

N° Proposed indicator METHOD YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 Area of each land use 1 time for each LS1 category (natural and Remote sensing and habitat/ land- 1 time only for 1 time only for 1 time only for 1 time only for anthropic Geographical Information use class and perturbated perturbated perturbated perturbated area habitats)Remote Systematics perturbated area (fire...) area (fire...) area (fire...) (fire...) sensing area (fire...) Remote sensing, Fragmentation of each Geographical Information 1 time every 5 LS2 land use (natural and Systematics and year anthropic habitats) Landscape Ecology indicators Remote sensing and Plant biomass of each LS3 Geographical Information 1 time 1 time 1 times 1 time 1 time natural habitats Systematics Remote sensing and Area of irrigated and LS4 Geographical Information 1 time 1 time 1 times 1 time 1 time non-irrigated crops Systematics Remote sensing and Area and dynamic of LS7 Geographical Information 1 time 1 time 1 times 1 time 1 time snowpack System

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

13.3.5. Parameters See Table 13.6

Table 13.6. Parameters to be measured for the monitoring of Land-use indicators

Parameters that need to be N° Proposed indicator measured

Area of each land use Area (in ha) for each country under each LS1 category (natural and type of land-use anthropogenic habitats) Selected Natura 2000 habitat. Fragmentation of each land Landscape ecology indicators for each LS2 use (natural and type of habitat: fragmentation, perimeter anthropogenic habitats) of each patch... Plant biomass of each natural LS3 NDVI computed for each habitat habitats Area of irrigated and non- Total area under irrigated and non- LS4 irrigated crops irrigated crops Area and dynamic of Snow depth at different altitudes between LS7 snowpack October and June

13.4. Equipment

13.4.1. Description of the equipment required (provision of specifications for purchase of equipment) It will be necessary to acquire one powerful computer per country and a more powerful one, to act as a server. For fieldwork, two GPS devices by country are recommended.

13.4.2. GIS or other software; applications; local and wide area networks; Internet connection requirements To facilitate treatment and compilation of data and satellite data, a GIS software will be acquire for each country. ArcGIS with extensions must complete hardware equipment. The extensions necessary are 3D Analyst, Spatial Analyst and Image Analysis. Internet connection will be necessary. For each country, equipment and data needed are presented in Tables 13.7 and 13.8.

Page 341/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 13.7. Costs for equipment and data needed for the monitoring of Land-use indicators Equipment and data Number Cost for one item (in €) Total cost (in €) Computer 1 3,000.00 3,000.00 4 every 5 Satellite data Spot 4,000.00 16,000.00 years Satellite data 12 every year 0 0 Landsat

Table 13.8. Costs for equipment for the monitoring of the Land-use indicators in each country (Albania, Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) Equipment and data Number Cost for one item (in €) Total cost (in €) Computer 1 2,000.00 2,000.00 GIS and Remote 1 20,000.00 20,000.00 Sensing Software GPS 2 400.00 800.00

13.5. Organisations responsible for monitoring land-use See Table 13.9 (including possible contact persons when available).

Table 13.9. Proposed organisations responsible for monitoring land-use in each country (Albania, Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC of ALBANIA GREECE MACEDONIA Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Food, Skopje Tel: + 389 70 328 863;

(Dr. Ordan Cukaliev, Society for the Ministry of Environment, E-mail: [email protected] & Protection of Prespa Forestry and Water [email protected]) Tel: 0030-23850- Administration 51233 Institute of agriculture, Faculty of (Sokol Bezhani, Agricultural Sciences and Food, Skopje (Ms. Irene Koutseri, E-Mail: Biologist, (Dr. Dusko Mukaetov, [email protected]) E-mail: [email protected]) E-mail: [email protected]) Agency for Spatial Planning

(Lidija Trpenovska, E-mail: [email protected])

Page 342/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

13.6. Budget

Important note: Since Land-use lies at the cross-road between several themes, for the few indicators such as LS1 that partly overlap themes covered in other themes (e.g. ―Forests or Aquatic vegetation‖), the budget (including staff time) for the whole image treatment/ analysis work is being incorporated into the Land-use component, whilst the specific field calibration/ validation work is incorporated into the relevant thematic field.

Running costs including manpower/ personnel needs (Tables 13.10 and 13.11): for satellite data treatment : 2 weeks for two persons per country (20,000 € for 6 people + travel and compensation: 13,000 €). For GIS : 2 weeks for two persons per country (20,000 € for 6 people + travel and compensation: 13,000 €).

Maintenance & Updating (software, etc.): for software, each year, 2,000 €.

Table 13.12 provides a summary of all costs for Year 1, while Table 13.13 presents all yearly costs for Year 2 to Year 5. Precise budgets for each country for all years (Year 1; Years 2-5) are shown in Tables 13.14-13.21.

Page 343/381

Table 13.10. Running/ manpower costs (in €) for the monitoring of the ―Land-use‖ theme in each country FORMER YUGOSLAV GREECE ALBANIA REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Proposed N° METHOD indicator TIME people people people involved involved involved N days of days of N days of N days of N Total cost Total cost Total cost Total Number ofNumber ofNumber ofNumber work/ year per person work/ year per person work/ year per person Cost per day Cost per day Cost per day

Landscape LS1, Remote sensing

area and LS2, fieldwork 2 50 145 7,250 2 50 50 2,500 2 50 50 2,500

morphological June LS3

structure echnicians technicians technicians t

Remote sensing

Landscape treatment

LS1,

area and Geographical LS2, 1 50 300 15,000 1 50 60 3,000 1 50 50 2,500 morphological Information and July LS3 engineer structure morphological engineer engineer compute analyse

Area of Remote sensing

irrigated and treatment, LS4 1 2 300 600 1 2 60 120 1 2 50 100

non-irrigated Geographical June

crops Information engineer engineer engineer

Remote sensing Area and ctober

treatment, LS7 dynamic of 1 10 300 3,000 1 10 60 600 1 10 50 500 Geographical snowpack engineer engineer engineer Information and June Between O

Table 13.11. Additional costs (in €, every year) for the monitoring of the ―Land-use‖ theme in each country GREECE ALBANIA FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

Proposed TIME day day

N° METHOD indicator PERIOD people people people involved involved involved N days of days of N days of N days of N Total cost Total cost Total cost Total Number ofNumber ofNumber ofNumber work/ year per person work/ year per person work/ year per person Cost per day Cost per day Cost per

Landscape LS1, Remote sensing October

area LS2, fieldwork or 1 5 145 725 1 5 50 250 1 5 50 250 perturbated LS3 November

(fire...) technician technician technician

Remote sensing treatment,

Landscape Geographical LS1, area and Information and

LS2, morphologi morphological July 1 5 300 1,500 1 5 60 300 1 5 50 250 LS3 cal compute analyse engineer engineer engineer structure with NDVI

Area of Remote sensing irrigated

treatment, LS4 and non- June 1 2 300 600 1 2 60 120 1 2 50 100 Geographical irrigated Information engineer engineer engineer crops

Remote sensing Area and Between

treatment, LS7 dynamic of October 1 10 300 3,000 1 10 50 500 1 10 60 600 Geographical snowpack and June Information engineer engineer engineer

Table 13.12. Budget summary (all costs for Year 1, in €) for the monitoring of the ―Land-use‖ theme in each country FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF GREECE ALBANIA MACEDONIA

tors

) costs andcosts Proposed mentcosts

year) year) year) year) year year) travel travel travel indica N°/ (per year) (per year) (per year) (per year) (per year) (per year) Equip Consumables/ Consumables/ Consumables/ Staff cost (per cost Staff Maintenance / (per cost Staff Maintenance / (per cost Staff Maintenance / Total cost (per cost Total (per cost Total (per cost Total Training / Updating Training / Updating Training / Updating Training recurrent recurrent and costs recurrent and costs

LS1 75000 LS2 + 2000 LS3 2000 16000 + 2000 LS4 + 13000 (satellite 13000 + 13000 LS7 and (travel images) 22225 (travel 22000 59225 3850 (travel and 22000 40850 4470 22000 41470 for and + and compen- wetland compen- 5000 compen- sation) Habitats sation) (common sation) and engineer) Forest

Table 13.13. Budget summary (all costs per year for Year 2-5, in €) for the monitoring of the ―Land-use‖ theme in each country FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF GREECE ALBANIA MACEDONIA

t (per year) year) year) year) year) year) year) year) year) indicators Training / Training / Training / Training N°/ ProposedN°/ and travel and travel and travel (per year) (per year) (per year) pdating (per Equipmentcosts Updating (per Updating (per U Consumables/ Consumables/ Consumables/ Maintenance / Maintenance / Maintenance / Staff cost (per cost Staff (per cost Staff (per cost Staff Total cos Total (per cost Total (per cost Total recurrent / costs recurrent / costs recurrent / costs

LS1 LS2 LS3 LS4 LS7 and for 5000 wetland (common 5825 400 2000 8225 1170 400 2000 3670 1200 400 2000 3500 habitats engineer) and Forests & other TH

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 13.14. Annual common budget for Year 1 (applicable to all 3 countries)

Budget lines (for Year 1) Budget

Satellite images 16,000.00 €

Training 66,000.00 €

Common Computer 3,000.00 €

Days of engineer: 10 5,000.00 €

Total 90,000.00 €

Table 13.15. Annual budget for Albania (Year 1) Budget lines (for Year 1) Budget Computer 2,000.00 € Software 20,000.00 € GPS 2,000.00 € Travel 800.00 € Personnel time Days of technician: 25 750.00 € Days of engineer: 62 3,100.00 € Total 28,650.00 €

Table 13.16. Annual budget for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Year 1) Budget lines (for Year 1) Budget Compute 2,000.00 € software 20,000.00 € GPS 2,000.00 € Travel 800.00 € Personnel time Days of technician: 25 750.00 € Days of engineer: 62 3,720.00 € Total 29,270.00 €

Page 348/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 13.17. Annual budget for Greece (Year 1) Budget lines (for Year 1) Budget Compute 2,000.00 € software 20,000.00 € GPS 2,000.00 € Travel 800.00 € Personnel time Days of technician: 25 3,625.00 € Days of engineer: 62 18,600.00 € Total 47,025.00 €

Table 13.18. Annual common budget for Years 2-5 (applicable to all 3 countries)

Budget lines (for Years 2-5) Budget

Satellite images 0.00 €

Personnel time

Days of engineer: 10 5,000.00 €

Total 5,000.00 €

Table 13.19. Annual budget for Albania (Years 2-5) Budget lines (for Years 2-5) Budget Updating Software 2,000.00 € Travel 400.00 € Personnel time Days of technician 250.00 €

Days of engineer 920,00 €

Page 349/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 13.20. Annual budget for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Years 2-5) Budget lines (for Years 2-5) Budget Updating Software 2,000.00 € Travel 400.00 € Personnel time Days of technician 250.00 € Days of engineer 950.00 €

Table 13.21. Annual budget for Greece (Years 2-5) Budget lines (for Years 2-5) Budget Updating Software 2,000.00 € Travel 400.00 € Personnel time Days of technician 725.00 €

Days of engineer 5,100.00 €

13.7. Proposal for a Pilot application (Oct. 2009 – Dec. 2010) All indicators require knowledge of GIS and remote sensing. The calculation of these indicators needs qualified persons. If data are available, fieldwork done and those persons trained, then, the calculation of indicators is possible. Otherwise, priority must be placed on training as soon as practicable.

Page 350/381 SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

14. Evaluation of the Prespa Monitoring System

Dr. Christian Perennou, Tour du Valat

This chapter proposes a system for the evaluation of the Prespa transboundary monitoring system as a whole, i.e. describes the evaluation system and specific evaluation criteria under which the evaluation committee (not designated yet) will evaluate the monitoring system and its implementation in the future.

14.1. Aims of the evaluation The Prespa TMS needs regular evaluation in order to (1) verify that it fulfills its aims in an efficient way, (2) adapt it to new realities if needed, and (3) improve it permanently within cycles of ―adaptive management‖1. Inspired by ―classic‖ approaches to evaluation of Site Management Plans (e.g. Réserves Naturelles de France 1998), a two-tier system for evaluation is therefore proposed for the Prespa TMS, consisting of: - annual reviews (―light‖); plus: - full 5-year evaluation Note that the evaluation of the 1st Pilot (test) year of the TMS will be special, and more akin to a full 5-year evaluation, as far as will be possible with the limited data available after one year.

These 2 different timeframes will serve different goals: - the annual review mainly involves precise recording, for future reference, of which parts of the TMS have been implemented or not, and why. It should also allow immediate, obvious reorientations if needed; - the full 5-year evaluation, based upon the 5 previous annual reviews, attempts an interpretation of the data and trends, assesses cost effectiveness of the TMS, and based upon actual results, assesses whether each indicator fulfills what it is meant to.

14.2. Specific points to be evaluated For each of these 2 timeframes, the following questions should be specifically addressed (adapted from the evaluation framework for management plans, in Réserves Naturelles de France 1998):

1 In this case, it is adaptive management of the TMS itself, not of the lakes

Page 351/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Questions to be answered by evaluation

Annual review A- Which of the planned indicators have been monitored in year (Y-1), compared to plans? (For each country: Fully/ Partially / Not at all)

B- Record budget and manpower invested in each indicator, for each country. Note: field+lab manpower (i.e. for actual measuring of indicators) should clearly be separated from office manpower (storing and analyzing data)

C- What were the specific reasons for not monitoring some of them – if any - in some countries?

D- How can it be corrected for year Y / Y+1?

E- If it can’t: is there a point in continuing monitoring in the other country/ies (interpretability of incomplete data?), or should time/ funds rather be invested elsewhere?

F- For the indicators that have been monitored in at least 2 countries: are the data from those countries coherent between them? Is there a need for (re)calibration of data collection?

G- Is the trend of any measured indicator hinting at a potential problem?2 (e.g. non-compliance with EU norms; drastic fall of an important species; inefficiency of some management measures taken…)

H- Was trans-boundary data storage effective? (e.g. no problem in storing data from the 3 countries? in visualizing data from the other 2 countries for any stakeholder?) Full 5-years I- 5-years synthesis of the extent to which indicators have been monitored, evaluation according to Table 14.1 below (Fully/ Partially / Not at all),

J- 5-years synthesis of costs (manpower + budget). Note: field+ lab manpower (to actually measure the indicators) should clearly be separated from office manpower (storing and analyzing data)

K- Brief analysis of the trends of each indicator monitored, against any relevant benchmark/ threshold, highlighting possible incoherencies/ problems (between countries, etc.)

L- Efficiency (―value for money‖), by comparing the aspects J- and K- above: actual, interpretable results vs. costs.

M- Is there any new issue which appeared in the 5-years period, that would require additional indicators?

N- Proposals for improvement: needs for training? for dropping some indicators? for better intercalibration?

O- Plus verification of initial criteria for selection (see below, and Table 14.2)

2 it should be noted that at such an early stage interpretation of the values of indicators may not be possible yet for most indicators, but only hints suggested

Page 352/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 14.1. Recording the extent of implementation of indicators measurements Codes: ++ (Fully monitored), + (Partly), (+) monitored but not with the TMS protocole, 0 (not at all)

Indica- Year 1 … Year 5 tor n° Albania Greece * Albania Greece * B1 B2 …

LU5

*: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Furthermore, the indicators selected during the 2nd Phase of the TMS in 2009 passed most of the criteria proposed during the Pilot Phase (Table 14.2, 2nd column). Their effective compliance with these criteria should be verified after they have been monitored: it is therefore proposed that once the key points I – N (above) of the first 5-years evaluation have been assessed, each indicator is screened against the criteria once again – so filling up the columns 3-73 of Table 14.2.

Table 14.2. Ex-post evaluation of the indicators of the Prespa TB monitoring system against the initial criteria (in Red: killing assumptions) (in each of column 3-73 please fill either 0 (―Not at all‖), + (―Yes, partly‖) or ++ (―Yes, fully or almost‖)

Criteria (by type) “Test questions” that an indicator should pass Indic. … Indic for it to be retained for the Prespa TB system: n°1 n° 70 Validity

- Is the indicator relevant to the Prespa TB central Relevance aim? (i.e. routine surveillance of the Prespa lakes basin)3 - Is it focussed on ecosystem-related issues, in the broad sense 2? - Is it highly relevant to at least one of the issues to be encompassed by the TB system, as listed in Phase A report? (Section 3, § 4)2,4 Appropriate Scale - Is the indicator appropriate at the agreed Prespa TB monitoring scale, as defined in Phase A report (Section 2)2? ( Note: the scale may vary depending on

3 As endorsed by MCWG2, Korcha, April 2008 4 Note that some of the issues (e.g. cultural values linked to the ecosystem) were not precisely defined yet, but left for selection during the 2nd stage, i.e. the definition of the pilot TB system (July 2008-June 2009).

Page 353/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Criteria (by type) “Test questions” that an indicator should pass Indic. … Indic for it to be retained for the Prespa TB system: n°1 n° 70 the issue) Accurate Does the indicator accurately reflect the ecosystem component it is intended to represent? Sensitive Is the indicator appropriately sensitive, i.e., are changes in the indicator highly correlated with changing trends in the information it is selected to represent? Understandability

Is the indicator appropriate for decision-makers and Understandable the general public?

Is the level of information from the indicator appropriate for environmental managers to use in decision making? Simplicity Is the indicator simple and direct? Presentation Can the indicator be presented in a format tailored to environmental managers? Documented Is the methodology used to create the indicator well- documented and understandable so that it can be easily communicated and reproduced? Interpretability

Interpretable Is there a reference condition or benchmark for the indicator against which current status and trends can be compared? Trend Evaluation Will data that have been collected over a sufficient period of time allow analysis of trends? Data Availability

Currently existing Are adequate data available for immediate indicator use? Easily Available Are data easily available? Can they be retrieved with a minimum of fuss / cost? Long term record Do data currently exist to allow for analysis of environmental trends? Cost Considerations & Feasibility

Technicity Can data be collected easily and reliably, from a technical point of view, even by the least experienced/ equipped of the relevant institutes in the 3 countries, at least in the medium—term and following training if needed? Data collection Can data supporting the indicator be obtained with reasonable cost and effort by the relevant Prespa organizations in all 3 countries? Calculation and Can calculations and interpretations for the indicator Interpretation be obtained with reasonable cost and effort? GIS-compatibility If the indicator is spatial in nature, can it be fed into / used by a GIS system? Transboundary character

Acceptability Is the indicator accepted by the relevant stakeholders from the 3 countries?

Page 354/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Criteria (by type) “Test questions” that an indicator should pass Indic. … Indic for it to be retained for the Prespa TB system: n°1 n° 70 TB feasibility Can data for the indicator be collected/ analysed in an identical/ compatible way in all 3 countries, so as to allow for a reliable TB picture? EU legal conformity Are the indicators compatible/ conforming with legal requirements, e.g. WFD?

Once filled up, Table 14.2 will help make an informed decision on whether or not to retain each indicator for the longer term. Any indicator that would have a combined majority of (0 / +), over the ―++‖, should be seriously questioned, especially if it is costly to measure.

14.3. The evaluation: by whom? In order to be fully independent, evaluations should be in theory carried out by independent, external experts not associated with the practical implementation of the TMS. On the other hand, factual recording is best done by those in charge of this monitoring.

As a compromise, the following is therefore proposed: - Annual reviews will be done/ coordinated by the team in charge of coordinating the implementation of the TMS. However for questions E, F, G the help of external, independent specialists may be requested for some themes, depending on the expertise of the Coordination team; - The 5-year evaluation will be carried out by an external, independent expert (or team), based upon a preliminary (partial) report by the Coordination unit covering Questions I, J, K, M. Whereas I & J are merely factual and will not be modified, K and M may trigger further comments / elaboration afterwards, from the independent experts.

14.4. After the evaluation It must be highlighted that in order to be of any use, the 2-tier evaluation system must be accompanied by the capacity to make relevant decisions based upon the evaluation conclusions, and to take actions to correct problems, follow-up on the issues identified etc. This can be either in the field of management of the ecosystem or human activities, or in terms of modifying the TMS.

Page 355/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

15. Integration of the monitoring components- overview

This Chapter presents, in text and tabular form, the overall monitoring components in an integrated manner: monitoring themes and indicators; stakeholders-institutions capable of transboundary monitoring in Prespa, coordination, budget on an annual basis and per monitoring cycle (specifying total equipment costs and total staff and operational requirements), and a cost estimate for the first five years of operation, whenever this may start.

15.1. Themes and indicators In total, 70 indicators are proposed for the long term, to cover the 7 thematic fields:

Table 15.1. Number of indicators per theme for the long-term Prespa TMS

THEME N° indicators State Pressure Response proposed

Water resources 19* 8 10 1 Wetland plants & Habitats 8 7 1 0 Fish & fisheries 10 5 4 1 Forest & Forestry 8 6 1 1 Birds & Other Biodiversity 9 8/9 (1) 0 Land-use 5 4 1 0 Socio-economy 11 0 8 3 Total 70 38-39 25-26 6 * plus four other indicators that are covered by other groups, but whose results are required for this theme too

Note that the same indicator suggested by 2 different thematic groups may have a different position on the State-pressure-Response scale, as e.g. the ―Number of breeding pelican and cormorant in the area‖ (n° P8b/ B5), seen as a State indicator from the ―Birds‖ point of view, and as a Pressure indicator from the Fish & Fisheries side.

The uneven distribution of indicators per categories is not unexpected, given the key aim of the TMS, i.e. Routine Surveillance: for establishing the baseline, state indicators of the environment should normally be prominent.

The total list of the indicators retained per theme is as follows:

Page 356/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 15.2. List of indicators per theme for the long-term Prespa TMS Legend: - Nature = Pressure (P), State (S), Impacts (I), Response (R) - In Bold, italics: indicators retained for testing during the 3rd Phase/ Pilot implementation (2010); See Chapter 16 below

N° WATER RESOURCES Nature

WH1: Lake_water_level S WH2: inflow_catchment_Macro_Prespa P WH3: Koula_Micro_to_Macro_Prespa_flow R WH4: pumping_from_Micro_Prespa P WH5: Catchment_irrigated_area (covered under Land Use indic. N° LS4 ) P WH6: karstic_spring_flow_to_Ohrid S WH7: Groundwater_level S WM1: Precip_Catchment S WM2: Precip_lake S WM3: air_temperature _Lake S WM4: lake_evaporation S WQPC-C1: River_Macro_Prespa_physico_chemical P WQPC-C2: River_Macro_Prespa_toxic_pollution P WQPC-C3: Groundwater_ physico_chemical P WQPC-C4: Groundwater_ toxic_pollution P WQEB-C1: Fish_Trout_rivers (ident. to Fish n°P2 ) S WQPC-L1: Lake_ physico_chemical S WQPC-L2: Lake_ nutrients P WQPC-L3: Lake_ toxic_pollution P WQEB-L1: Lake_ Phytoplankton P WQEB-L2: Lake_ Chlorophyll-A P WQEB-L3: Lake_Macrophytes (ident. to Wetland veg. WV2) S WQEB-L4: Fish endemic to Prespa lakes trend (Ident. to Fish n° P1) S

AQUATIC VEGETATION Nature WV1 Location and surface area of patches of the habitat beds of S hydrophytes WV2 Species composition of vegetation in habitat Beds of S hydrophytes (many possible variables: cover of characteristic/opportunistic species, of annuals/perennials, of exotic species, …) WV3 Location and surface area of patches of the wet meadows S WV4 Species composition and structure of the vegetation of the S habitat wet meadows WV5 Location and surface area of patches of the habitat Reedbeds S WV6 Species composition and structure of the vegetation of reedbeds S WV7 Direct management of reedbeds (wildfires, harvest, …) P WV8 Location and surface area of populations of Aldrovanda vesiculosa S

Page 357/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

N° FISH & FISHERIES Nature P1 Fish endemic to Prespa lakes trend S P2 Prespa trout trend S P3 Prespa barbel and Prespa nase in Macro Prespa S P4 Carp trend S P5 Fish size distribution for each species S P6 Number of licensed fishermen in the three country P P7 Annual Fishing effort and fish catches P P8 Introduced fish species trend P P8b Number of breeding pelican and cormorant in the area (incl. in P B5) P9 Quality and quantity of fish eaten by cormorant P P10 IUCN Red list criteria changes R

N° FORESTS & TERRESTRIAL HABITATS Nature

F1 Vegetation cover change S (I) F2 Priority terrestrial habitats conservation (EU directive) distribution and quality S F3 Terrestrial Habitats & forest areas under protection S Forest and grasslands under a comprehensive and implemented F4 management plan (% of forest and grasslands under running S MP) F5 Structure and dynamics within forest and other terrestrial habitats S F6 Distribution and quality of alpine & subalpine meadows S F7 Sylvicultural practices for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) R F8 Natural damages and diseases P

BIRDS & OTHER BIODIVERSITY Nature

B1 Population of bats in selected nursery caves S B2 Interactions between Brown bear Ursus arctos and Man S/P B3 Population of Otter Lutra lutra S B4 Population of wintering waterbirds, with special emphasis on S Anser anser rubrirostris B5 Populations of breeding colonial waterbirds S B6 Breeding population of Mergus merganser S B7 Populations of Emys orbicularis S B8 Population of Rana graeca along streams of Prespa catchment S B9 Trends of some threatened and endemic terrestrial plants of the S Prespa basin (Crocus pelistericus, Dianthus myrtinervius, Viola eximia)

Page 358/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

SOCIO-ECONOMY Nature SE 1 Population (number of inhabitants) P SE 2 Population Composition P SE 3 Public Spending on Environmental Management and Protection in the R Prespa Basin SE 4 Enforcement of environmental protections laws R SE 5 Water Use, Demand and Threats P SE 6 Incidence of Forest Fire P SE 7 Fishing Pressure P SE 8 Physical Infrastructure/ Urbanization P SE 9 Agriculture (by country) P SE 10 Waste Management R SE 11 Tourism P

LAND-USE LS1 Area of each land use category (natural and anthropic habitats) S LS2 Fragmentation of each land use (natural and anthropic habitats) S LS3 Plant biomass of each natural habitats S LS4 Area of irrigated and non-irrigated crops P LS5 Area and dynamic of snowpack S

15.2. Implementing the TMS For each theme, potential organisations to implement the future TMS were identified. It should be stressed that the mandate of the international experts was merely to identify those that can potentially implement it, rather than those who should implement it. This latter assessment will be required in the near future, but it will have to take many non-technical aspects into consideration, i.e. costs, real commitments by the institutes, etc. This will be especially true in sectors (e.g. Water) where in a given country, several capable organisations co-exist: the final choice will have to be on grounds other than capacities.

The organisations that can potentially monitor the planned indicators are listed in Table 15.3 below: overall they comprise 50 organisations, i.e. 17 in Albania, 18 in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and 15 in Greece (where several Institutes/ Faculties coexist under a same University, or several Agencies/ Directorates under the same Ministry, they were still counted as separate, as coordination will imply liaising with each team separately, for all practical aspects).

Page 359/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Such a high number of stakeholders is unavoidable, given the breadth (7 themes) of the planned TMS, and the fact that it encompasses 3 countries. Many institutions are not restricted to one specific field, but appear in a number of themes.

Page 360/381

Table 15.3. Potential organizations able to implement the Prespa TMS

Themes Albania Former Yugoslav Republic of Greece Macedonia Water - MoEFWA/Agency of Water and - The Hydro meteorological - Ministry of Environment Physical Planning resources Energy Administration (HMA) and Public Works (MEPPPW)/ Central (quantity, - IEWE: Institute of Energy, - Hydrobiological Institute of Ohrid Water Service (CWS) quality) Water & Environment, - Laboratory for Algae Taxonomy and - Public Power Corporation (PPC), Polytechnic University of Tirana Hydrobiology (LAH), Institute of Biology, Department of Hydrology (former Institute of Faculty for Natural Sciences, Skopje - Florina Chemistry Service (FCS) , Florina Hydrometeorology of Albania) - Institute for Health Protection (IHP) - Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP) - IGME (Institute of Geological and Mineral Exploration) - EKBY (Greek Wetland Biotope Centre) - Hellenic Center For Marine Research (HCMR) Aquatic - Museum of natural Sciences, - Biological Institute of the faculty of - Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP) Vegetation and Tirana (MNS) Sciences and mathematics of Skopje - Universities & Tech. Education Institutes habitats - University of Tirana - Hydrobiological Institute of Ohrid Fish and - University of Agriculture Galicica National Park; Hydrobiological - Management Body of Prespa Park National Fisheries - PPNEA Institute Ohrid (HIO) Forest - SPP Forests and - MoEFWA / Agency of - Ministry of Environment and Physical Terrestrial Environment and Forestry (EFA) Planning (MoEPP) - Ministry of Environment Physical Planning habitats - MoEFWA: Directorate of - MoAFW / Directorate of Forests and Public Works (MEPPPW) Protected Areas - Galicica National Park - SPP - MoEFWA / Forest Service - Pelister National Park - PNFMB Directorate - Faculty of Sciences (Skopje) - TKI - Prespa National Park - Faculty of Forestry (Skopje) - Forest Directorate of Florina - Faculty of Natural Sciences - Forestry Public Enterprises (Makedonski - Forest Research Institution: EKBY. TEI - Faculty of Forestry Sciences Forests) Larissa (Tirana) -Albanian Forestry Expert

Association

Birds & other - Museum of natural - Ministry of Environment and - Management Body of the Prespa Biodiversity Sciences, Tirana (MNS) Physical Planning (MoEPP) National Park (MBPNF) - Albanian Society for the - Galicica National Park - Callisto (NGO) Protection of Birds and Mammals - Pelister National Park - SPP (ASPBM) - BIOECO - Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS) - Prespa National Park - Macedonian Ecological Society (MES) - PPNEA - Skopje University

Socio-economy - INSTAT - Resen Municipality - Management Body of the Prespa - Institute of Public Health - Regional Environmental Center National Park (MBPNF) (district office). (REC) - Florina Statistical Office - UNDP national office (Tirana) - UNDP National Office - SPP - REC Albania Land-use - Ministry of Environment, - Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and - SPP Forestry and Water Food. Skopje Administration - Institute of agriculture, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Food, Skopje - Agency for spatial planning Bold = lead institution proposed (in some themes)

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

15.3. Coordination The high number of stakeholders that will be involved (see above) highlights the need for an efficient and intensive coordination, by an organisation regarded as legitimate by all the stakeholders. The MCWG will have to nominate this coordinating body or institution, or to decide to take this task upon itself whilst still nominating an institution to carry out the daily, extensive coordinating tasks under its responsibility.

Whatever the choice that will be made, the organization should: - show a long-term commitment to the TB system; - preferably be one of the 50 monitoring institutes identified above; - have the necessary recognition and trust from all these institutes, because they would have to regularly submit data to it; - have excellent capacities and proven experience in database management, including GIS; an experience in TB databases would be a ―bonus‖; - have coordination and diplomatic skills, with the ability to stimulate other institutions to provide data in a timely way; - have experience in working internationally, as the task will involve regular data exchange with the other 2 countries; - have a secured medium- to long-term funding, i.e. the organization should not shut down after one or two years; - be capable of, and committed to, investing a minimum of its own resources into the TMS, e.g. between funded projects.

15.4. Overall budget A synthesis of the budgetary estimates made for each theme is consolidated in Table 15.4 below, which also helps assess total equipment costs and total staff and operational requirements.

Page 363/381

Table 15.4. Overall budget per theme N° of EQUIP- Pilot study/ RUNNING COSTS indicators MENT initial PILOT YEAR YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 covered training/ net-working TOTAL PILOT TOTAL 5-YR YEAR CYCLE (columns 3- (columns 6- 5) **** 10) Water 15 (partly or resources totally) (quantity, quality) 27 851 € 156 953 € 156 953 € 156 953 € 156 953 € 156 953 € 156 953 € 184 804 € 784 765 € Aquatic All 8 vegetation and habitats 1 215 € 12 875 € 28 958 € 28 958 € 28 958 € 28 958 € 28 958 € 28 958 € 43 048 € 144 790 € Fish and All 10 Fisheries 36 019 € 12 875 € 36 019 € 36 019 € 36 019 € 36 019 € 36 019 € 36 019 € 84 913 € 180 095 € Forests and All 8 Terrestrial habitats 21 230 € 12 875 € 22 560 € 22 560 € 22 560 € 22 560 € 22 560 € 22 560 € 56 665 € 112 800 € Birds & All 9 other Biodiversity ** 28 080 € * 52 023 € 15 675 € 38 412 € 15 675 € 38 412 € 15 675 € 80 103 € 123 849 € Socio- All 11 economy 2 400 € 9 012 € 9 012 € 11 412 € 9 012 € Land-use All 5 *** 87 400 € * 97 370 € 20 395 € 20 395 € 20 395 € 20 395 € 20 395 € 184 770 € 101 975 € 66 out of 204 195 Total 70 € 38 625 € 402 895 € 280 560 € 303 297 € 280 560 € 303 297 € 289 572 € 645 715 € 1 457 286 € *: in addition to costs for Year 1, the cost for the initial Training was incorporated into the overall cost of Year 1 **: For Biodiversity, the budget could be spread more evenly between Years 1 to 5 if needed, by partly redistributing activities that take place only every 2-3 years ***: the budget also includes the office/ lab work needed for teh remote-sensing components of ca. 10 indicators under the themes Aquatic vegetation, Forests & terrestrial habitats, and Water resources; whereas the field work required by those (i.e. for calibration and validation of satellite images) is covered under their respective headings ****: total cost of the Pilot year is here calculated for the sake of simplicity as incorporating from the beginning all the equipment required by all 7 themes (i.e. one year to test the protocols on pilot subset of indicators plus get ready to start monitoring the others in subsequent years). However depending on funds, this could be organized differently.

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

It should be highlighted that the budget for each theme (see Paragraphs 6.7, 8.7, 9.7… to 13.7 above) could not always be presented with exactly the same level of detail, because:

- in some themes (e.g. Birds & biodiversity), indicators usually bear no link with each other (bats vs. bears vs. waterfowl etc.), so monitoring protocols do not overlap at all, and the budget for each one can thus be calculated independently. For others however (e.g. water resources, land-use), various indicators will typically be measured (or data analysis performed) at the same time, as part of a same field trip, so calculating a ―cost per indicator‖ would not be meaningful; - for the Water resources, which have the largest number of thematic indicators proposed (i.e. 19), it was agreed that budgeting would be restricted to the 15 indicators5 proposed for the Pilot application phase. - in some cases, the cost for pre-requisites (e.g. Training for remote-sensing analysis, under Land-use) was authoritatively incorporated into the cost of the 1st (Pilot) year, whilst other groups kept these costs separate.

The costs summarised in Table 15.4 are only indicative, and real plans should allow for additional, unforeseen expenses (e.g. 10-12%). TB monitoring costs vary a lot across themes, with socio-economy being by far the ―cheapest‖ theme to monitor, both per bout of monitoring effort (no specific equipment needed) and overall, for the 5 years cycle, due to its frequency (all indicators to be measured every 5 years only). On the other hand, water resources prove to be by far the most expensive component, partly because more indicators are involved (15 budgeted for, out of 19 in total) than for any other theme, but mainly because of the high level of technicity (equipment, staff…) and the high frequency of field visits required (usually monthly). The other themes all fall within the same range of ca. 100 to 180,000€ per 5-years (excluding equipment).

The overall cost of the implementation of the proposed TMS is therefore estimated at ca. 1.6 million Euros6 for a monitoring cycle of 5 years, for 667 indicators – but without taking into account the equipment, which will have been bought before that, during the pilot year. The additional budget for this pilot year is of ca. 0.65 million Euros. To put things into perspective, and keeping in

5 and for some of these indeed, only to a restricted sub-set of the specific parameters that make up the indicator 6 allowing for some unforeseen expenses 7 since out of a total of 70, costs were not estimated for 4 of the Water indicators Page 365/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park mind that no average can of course reflect the high variability in costs depending on themes, this represents an order of magnitude of ca. 1,800€ per country, per year and per indicator, overall.

Page 366/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

16. Design of the pilot application system

This Chapter deals with the design of a ―full‖ pilot application system, as an expert recommendation made by the panel of international and national experts during their two meetings in 2009. However, it should be noted that this recommendation is by no means identical to the actual pilot testing that will really happen in 2010, because it is unlikely that the full budget for the pilot year as calculated in Table 15.4 (above) will be available in 2010.

For this expert recommendation, initial proposals were made by the international lead experts to the thematic working groups, which reviewed, commented and finally validated them. For two themes (Fish & fisheries and Land-use), it was decided that monitoring all the proposed indicators was feasible during the pilot application, subject however to funds availability. For the 5 other themes a shorter sub-set of indicators/ parameters was selected, to be monitored during pilot implementation (Table 16.1 below for a summary; see Table 15.2 above for the detailed sub-set). The justification for a full vs. reduced set was based upon a balance between urgency (which data are most crucially needed now?), feasibility within a short time-frame, and costs (avoid at first the most expensive indicators, unless deemed absolutely vital).

This does not imply that the other indicators will be de facto left out from the TMS forever, but each of them will eventually need its own ―Pilot test year‖, so as to test the protocols and adapt them before routine implementation, if needed.

Table 16.1. Number of indicators per theme for the pilot application of the Prespa TMS

THEME Total N° indicators N° retained for Pilot application proposed

Hydrology 19 15 Wetland plants & Habitats 8 7 Fish 10 10 Forest & Forestry 8 4 Birds & Other Biodiversity 9 5 Land-use 5 5 Socio-economy 11 2 Total 70 48

Page 367/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Ideally, the pilot application should mimic as far as possible the 1st year of a ―real‖ monitoring, for the (sub)set of selected parameters. However, the availability of funds will bring a critical limitation to this, as even a full pilot testing of the 48 indicators can prove quite expensive (see Table 15.4), especially in terms of initial investment. Furthermore for some themes or issues, and compared to a mere application of the proposed protocols, specific considerations apply:

Pre-requisites before monitoring In some cases, vital pre-requisites would need to be met for the protocols to be precisely tested. For instance, the Aquatic vegetation theme would require a vegetation and land- use map for selecting its permanent sampling stations. Since it is probable that such a map will not be available for the pilot year, a ―reduced pilot application‖ is promoted instead, whereby the specific techniques are tested integrally, but on only one sample station per country – the protocol for choosing/ locating the stations cannot itself be tested.

Water resources Monitoring in the pilot application year will be restricted to 15 of the 19 indicators proposed, and some of them only partly (only some of the parameters) (see Table 15.2 above). The specific budget for this pilot is detailed in Paragraph 6.7 above.

Aquatic vegetation Testing the full protocols, as proposed in Chapter 8 above, is considered impossible for the pilot year, because vital pre-requisites are not met: the stratified-random process for the selection of stations for monitoring would imply using a vegetation and land use map. As this will not be available for the pilot study, alternative options had to be sought. It was agreed that one station would be selected in each country, in each habitat type, for the pilot study, by randomly selecting 1 station in the largest patch of each vegetation type in each country. Further identification of sites for the long-term monitoring will be made during the pilot study, either by using the remote sensing analysis or by an alternative method.

On the selected test stations, a test of each and every method will be implemented during the pilot phase. The field implementation of these methods will gather all the relevant organizations from the 3 countries at the same sites, under the training supervision of the Page 368/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park lead expert. The budget above (Paragraph 15.4) incorporates this suggestion as a separate cost for the Pilot year: it allows for a 3-day joint field working-cum-training session gathering teams of 2 persons in each country (details in Table 8.15 in Chapter 8, above). In addition, one or two representatives of the Ministry of the Environment from each country could be invited if particularly motivated, but their costs have not been budgeted for. The aim of this session will be to test methods, raise capacity, share questions and enhance standardization between teams.

Only one of the proposed 8 indicators cannot be tested during the pilot year (the populations of Aldrovandra vesiculosa) since monitoring them would require a preliminary assessment of the present status of the species in Macro Prespa.

Forests and terrestrial habitats

According to the proposal, the first year will be a ―testing year‖ in order to experiment whether all habitats can be –or not -discriminated through satellite image, by identifying a specific spectral signature for each of them. It is assumed that most of the terrestrial habitats – if not all - will effectively be discriminated, by using two separate images per year, in spring and autumn (see Land-use Chapter 13, above). In case funding and institutional set-up does not allow for the purchase and processing of satellite imagery, testing of the indicators involving remote-sensing will have to be deferred.

The pilot application will consist of 5 components: 1- Testing the following indicators from late 2009 until 2010 (pilot application): - F1: vegetation cover change, provided satellite images are available - F2: identification / mapping of all natural habitats from Natura 2000 and Emerald network - F3 & F4: to harmonize the TB rationale under which FTH are to be considered as officially protected and/or managed in a sustainable way

2- Simultaneously, and with the aim of preparing the future documenting of indicators F5, F6 and F7, it will be necessary to define a typology (TB vegetation development types), to make a stratification for sampling and to select the location of the monitoring stations (permanents plots).

Page 369/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

3- Buying the first equipment required for 2010: - Satellites images and software for interpretation, subject to availability of funds and progress of institutional set-up/ national institutions: F1, F2, F8 (See Land use proposal) - GPS, distance measurers and metal stakes could be purchased during the first year so as to select vegetation stands for monitoring, to set up / determine plot-based spatial sampling and to locate monitoring stations. (for F5 to F7)

4- Specific training will be required for F1, F2, F8, subject to availability of funds and progress of institutional set-up (included under Land use proposal) in remote sensing, in GPS utilization and setting up of permanent plots monitoring network with data management system (for F5 to F7)

5- In order to develop a real TB spirit, networking in the field - beyond meeting rooms - is considered vital. It is therefore suggested - subject to availability of funds - to start networking the 3 national FTH monitoring teams through a regional workshop, including a round field trip in the three countries, to share experiences of habitats monitoring and to develop a mutual understanding of a transboundary vegetation typology and protocol monitoring. This TB FTH monitoring team might encompass: - for Albania: Prespa National Park forest service + a representative of Forest Expert Association + Forest Service of Korcha - for Greece: PNFMB + Forest Directorate of Florina - for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Galicica and Pelister NP + Public Forest Enterprise representative.

This workshop will focus on methodological and technical aspects: - The different protection status of natural habitats and landscape that could be compared from one country to another (―intercalibration‖ of protected areas denomination)… - Status and content of forest management plans (according to international standard) and forest surveys (inventory) techniques and methodology - grazing areas (grasslands) management plans and monitoring system: management system and carrying capacity surveys - design of permanent plots network and field monitoring.

Page 370/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Other basic elements of the FTH monitoring system should also be discussed during this TB workshop/tour (for all 3 countries):

• Identification of stress sources on the ground (map to be provided by Land-Use thematic group – ground verification to be done by this group) during the Pilot phase or in Year 1 (?) • Presentation of stress factors on the ground (and map) according to their degree of importance (e.g. causing degradation) in Year 1 or 2 (?) • Establishment of permanent plots on sites considered worth to be monitored (including degraded sites, sites in good/favourable condition, sites of special interest etc) in Year 2 (?)

On a basis of 10 persons for the FTH monitoring Transboundary team, an international expert to foster the process, and a 4-5 days duration, the total cost of this networking first step will be similar to the cost estimated for a similar training for Aquatic vegetation, i.e. 12,875 €, and is included in the budget (Paragraph 15.4 above).

Socio-economy The 2 pilot phase indicators will use existing census data from 2001 (AL and GR) and 2002 (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), and will thus be very easy to monitor. For the other 9 indicators to be included in the full TMS, data should be collected only in 2011-2012 to coincide with the next round of census taking (and taking new data for Indicators 1-2 used in the pilot phase.) This data should be collected at 5 year intervals and to the extent possibly include each year with that time period in order to show real trends.

Land-use All the 5 proposed indicators could be monitored during the pilot phase - subject to availability of funding. If funds prove available, it will be necessary to acquire all the required equipment (computers and software) from the start, as well as images. Initial training courses are a prerequisite too, and should gather all the relevant implementers from the 3 countries so as to allow:

- to define habitat typology on field, Page 371/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

- to learn GIS utilisation and tools regarding landscape ecology indicators, - to learn how to use satellite remote sensing software and methods of image treatment.

Data collection from satellite image will be focused on defining the ―initial‖8 state of the Prespa basin, i.e. initial values for each indicator and parameter that will be monitored through remote sensing (from Land-use and other themes too, i.e. Indicators n° F1-2-6-8 and WV1-2-4-5-7). All this information will be stored into a database, as representing the baseline data (―starting point‖) against which all future trends can be computed.

16.1. Budget An overall budget was calculated, based upon Table 15.4 above, but omitting the cost of monitoring the indicators that are not retained for the pilot application. The full equipment costs were taken unchanged from the overall budget, since the Pilot application year also involves proactive preparations for being in a position to measure all indicators from the start of the following year onwards: it is therefore suggested that equipment should be procured as much in advance as possible – and in any case before actual monitoring starts, so during the Pilot application.

The overall total budget for the pilot year of implementation is. ca. 646,000€. It was calculated for the sake of simplicity as incorporating from the beginning all the equipment required by all 7 themes (i.e. one year to test the protocols for the pilot subset of indicators, plus getting ready to start monitoring the others in subsequent years by procuring all equipment in advance). However depending on funds, this will likely have to be phased differently, probably over many years. Despite covering only 69% of all indicators proposed, the budget still accounts for over one-fifth of the cost of a five-years cycle (Table 15.4), mainly because it incorporates the one-off purchase of all the needed equipment for the TMS.

8 i.e. at inception of the TMS Page 372/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 16.2. Budget for the pilot application of the Prespa TMS

Indicators for Equipment Initial Running Pilot application training or costs - Pilot networking Year

Water resources (quantity, 15 (some partly) out quality) of 19 (WH1-2-3-4; WM1- 2-3-4; WQPC-C1 & C2; WQPC-L1, L2 & 156 953 € L3; WQEB-L1 & L2) 27 851 € ( 9 ) Aquatic vegetation and 7 out of 8 (WV1-2- habitats 3-4-5-6-7) 1 215 € 12 875 € 28 958 € Fish and fisheries All 10 36 019 € 12 875 € 36 019 € Forests and terrestrial 4 out of 8 habitats (F1-2-3-4) 21 230 € 12 875 € 22 560 € Birds & other biodiversity 5 out of 9 52 023 € (10 (B1-2-4-5-9) 28 080 € ) Socio-economy 2 out of 11 (SE1-2) 2 400 € 9 012 € Land-use All 5 87 400 € 97 370 € (11)

Total 48 out of 70 204 195 € 38 625 € 402 895 € GRAND TOTAL (excluding costs for coordination and for central storage of collected data) 645,715 €

It should be noted that these costs include neither the TB coordination costs, nor the costs for central storage of the collected data (since the TB database would then be, at best, under development during the Pilot year). Coordination costs could vary a lot depending on the process chosen by the MCWG for it, and on the location chosen for its staff. It is estimated to represent the equivalent of a full-time position, plus significant running costs especially for extensive travel to the 3 countries during the pilot year.

16.2. Timeframe The following, simplified timetable for the pilot study and its aftermath is proposed:

9 all Institutes listed are assumed to have already sufficient expertise 10 costs for the initial Training are already integrated into the overall cost for each relevant indicator 11 costs for the initial Training are already integrated into the overall cost for each relevant indicator Page 373/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Table 16.3. Tentative timetable for the pilot application of the Prespa TMS

Dates Who? What?

November- UNDP Skopje, Financial planning ahead, for procuring the required equipment December UNDP Tirana as per Paragraphs 6.4, 8.4, 9.4, 10.4, 11.4; 12.4 & 13.4 2009 National above stakeholders/ institutions from the 3 countries November MCWG - Final approval of the TMS full study, incl. expert proposal for 2009 Pilot application phase - Proposal on TMS coordinating mechanism & a body in charge of coordinating day-to-day, stimulating stakeholders etc. - Decision on list of stakeholders to actually carry out the pilot application of the 48 test indicators (and associated budget/ commitment issues)

December Relevant Procurement of equipment – 200912 stakeholders Priority = equipment needed for the Pilot application Jan-March13 Coordinating Organisation of training sessions required in Aquatic vegetation, 2010 body + 1-3 Forests & terrestrial habitats, Land-use (remote-sensing) & Fish ―hosting & fisheries. stakeholders‖14 Jan-Dec All monitoring - Pilot field monitoring of the 48 indicators 2010 stakeholders (+ - Data storing in ―home-made‖ databases/ spreadsheets while Coordinating expecting the TMS database/ GIS to be designed body) Jan-Dec Not specified Development of TMS database/ GIS 2010 Jan-June Not specified Analysis of results in terms of: 2011 a- Interpretation of evolutions of the Prespa ecosystem b- Quality and TB compatibility of data collected in all 3 countries April- Not specified Revisions of the proposed TMS based on the results above: September Proposed modifications to the list of indicators and to the 2011 methods/ protocols, so as to make the whole TMS more likely to be implemented well in a coordinated/ coherent way. Jan-Dec MCWG, UNDP Lobbying + seeking commitments from the 3 States for 2011 funding/ stabilizing the TMS beyond the GEF project

12 Or later, according to availability 13 or later if required by seasonality, e.g. vegetation growing seasons 14 Depending on themes, the group of trainees may be based in one country only (e.g. for aquatic vegetation) or visit one place at least per country (e.g. forests). In both cases the training sessions will be hosted by one of the local, committed stakeholding institutions in charge of monitoring. Page 374/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

References

Notes:

- References are presented classified by theme covered or chapter of the full study

- Additionally, very detailed references on Biodiversity (4 of the 7 themes) have been compiled for each country separately, and can be found at the end of Annex n° 4.3 (pp. 92-106 in Volume II ―Annexes‖ of this Full Study).

General sources

Crivelli, A.J. and Catsadorakis, G. (Eds) 1997. Lake Prespa, Northwestern Greece, A Unique Balkan Wetland, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers GFA Terra Systems GmbH. 2005. KfW Feasibility Study, Project Preparation & Development of the Transboundary Prespa Park Project, Progress Report, KfW Entwicklungsbank, Frankfurt, January 2005 Petkovski S., S. Shumka, I. Koutseri, A. Logotheti, M. Gletsos, G. Catsadorakis & C. Perennou, 2008. Species and Habitats of conservation concern in the Prespa watershed: an update. Internal report, February 2008, 73 p. Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP), WWF-Greece, Protection and Preservation of Natural Environment in Albania (ΡΡΝΕΑ), Macedonian Alliance for Prespa (ΜΑΡ) (2002). Development of a Strategic Action Plan for the Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park, Final Report, Volume III, Ag.Germanos. (Unpublished report)

Water resources

Anneville, O. and Kaiblinger, C. 2008. Proposal for a phytoplankton lake index applicable to lakes of the Rhône-Alpes basin for the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive. INRA, France. Buzzi, F., Dalmiglio A., Garibaldi L., Legnani E., Marchetto A., Morabito G., Salmaso N., Tartari G. & Thaler B., 2007. Indici fitoplanctonici per la valutazione della qualià ecologica dei laghi della regione alpina. Documento presentato al Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare. Carlson, R. E., 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 22: 361-369. Clesceri, L.S., Greenberg, A.E. and Eaton, A.E. 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington, D.C., American Public Health Association, 20. p.v. Davies-Colley, R.J, W.N. Vant, and D.G. Smith. 1993. Colour and Clarity of Natural Waters. Dokulil, M. & K. Teubner. 2006. Bewertung der Phytoplanktonstruktur stehender Gewässer gemäß der EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Der modifizierte Brettum Index. In: DGL- Tagungsbericht 2005 (29.9.-2.10.2005) Karlsruhe: 356-360. Hollis, G.E. and A. C. Stevenson, A.C. 1997. The physical basis of the Lake Mikri Prespa systems: geology, climate, hydrology and water quality. Hydrobiologia, vol 351, 1-19. Page 375/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Marchetto, A., Padedda, B.M., Mariani, M.A., Lugliè, A. and Sechi, N., 2009. A numerical index for evaluating phytoplankton response to changes in nutrient levels in deep mediterranean reservoirs. J. Limnol. 68: 106-121. Mischke, U. & Nixdorf, B., Eds., 2008. Bewertung von Seen mittels Phytoplankton zur Umsetzung der EU-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie, BTUC-AR 2/2008, 266 Seiten. ISBN 978-3- 940471-06-2. http://www.tu-cottbus.de/BTU/Fak4/Umwoek/Publikationen/ar_online.html Mischke U. & Böhmer J., 2008. Software PhytoSee Version 3.0. Auswertungssoftware zur Berechnung des Phyto-See-Index (PSI) nach Mischke et al. 2008 für die Bewertung von natürlichen Seen gemäß der EG- Wasserrahmenrichtlinie mit Anleitung zur Verwendung und Vorgaben für die Eingangsdaten „Formatvorlage_PhytoSee_ Auswertungsprogramm _4_08.xls―. Kostenloser Internet Download (PhytoSee_Vers_3_0.zip): http://igbberlin. de/abt2/mitarbeiter/mischke. Padisák, J., Borics, G., Grigorszky, I., and Soróczki-Pintér, E., 2006. Use of Phytoplankton Assemblages for Monitoring Ecological Status of Lakes within the Water Framework Directive: The Assemblage Index. Hydrobiologia, 553: 1-14. Utermöhl, H., 1958: Zur Vervollkommnung der quantitativen Phytoplankton - Methodik. Mitteil. Int. Ver. Limnologie, 1-38. Wolfram, G. & Dokulil, M.T., 2008. Leitfaden zur Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente. Teil B2 – Phytoplankton. 51 S., BMLFUW, Wien http://wasser.lebensministerium.at/article/articleview/52972/1/5659 Xu, F-L., Zhao, Z-Y., Zhan, W., Zhao, S-S., Dawson, R.W., and Tao, S., 2005. An ecosystem health index methodology (EHIM) for lake ecosystem health assessment. Ecological Modelling 188: 327-339.

Aquatic vegetation and habitats

Dutartre A. & V. Bertin, 2007. Méthodologie d’étude des communautés de macrophytes en plans d’eau. CEMAGREF Bordeaux, version 3, Novembre 2007. Grace J.B. & B.H. Pugesek, 1997. A structural equation of plant species richness and its application to a coastal wetland. American Naturalist 149(3): 436-460. Jensen S., 1977. An objective method for sampling the macrophytes vegetation in lakes. Vegetation, 33:107-118 Kent M. & P. Coker, 1994. Vegetation description and analysis. A practical approach. J. Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK. Odum W.E., 1988. Comparative ecology of tidal freshwater and salt marshes. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19: 147-176.

Forests and terrestrial habitats

Anonymous, 2006. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Forest Action Plan. Brussels, 15.6.2006. CEC/EN Davies, C.E., Moss, D., Hill, M.O., 2004. EUNIS Habitat classification revised. European Environment Agency, European Topic Centre On Nature Protection And Biodiversity, October 2004 Page 376/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

European Forest Monitoring Programme (EFMP), 2006. A vision for MS-activities under LIFE+. December 2006. Proceedings of EU Standing Forestry Committee Meeting, December 18, 2006. Forest Stewardship Council: Principles and criteria for Forest Stewardship. FSC. Roberts-Pichette P. & L. Gillespie, 1999. Terrestrial vegetation biodiversity monitoring protocols. Vegetation Monitoring Protocols Working Group of the Biodiversity Science Board of Canada for the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network - EMAN Occasional Paper Series Report No. 9, Canada. Unique Forestry Consultants & GFA Consulting group, 2005. Forest Sector Development in Montenegro. Lux-Development Project., August 2005

Fish and fisheries

Abell, R. et al. 2008. Freshwater ecoregions of the world: a new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. BioScience, 58, 403-414. Albrecht, C., Wolff, C., Glöer, P. & T. Wilke 2008. Concurrent evolution of ancient sister lakes and sister species: the freshwater gastropod genus Radix in lakes Ohrid and Prespa. Hydrobiologia, 615, 157-167. Apostolidis, A.P., Loukovitis, D. & C.S. Tsigenopoulos 2008. Genetic characterization of brown trout (Salmo trutta) populations from the Southern Balkans using mtDNA sequencing and RFLP analysis. Hydrobiologia, 600, 169-176 Appelberg, M. 2000. Swedish standard methods for sampling freshwater fish with multi-mesh gillnets. Fiskeriverket Information, Göteborg, Sweden, 2000, 1, 27 pp. Athanassopoulos, G. 1922. Le plateau des lacs de la Macédoine occidentale. Int. Revue ges.Hydrobiol., 10, 31-39 BIOECO, 2007. Conservation of the Brown Trout (Salmo peristericus): preliminary study of the population. Report, Skopje, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Bohlin, T, Heggberget, T.G. & C. Strange 1990. Estimation of population parameters using electric fishing: aspects of the sampling design with emphasis on salmonids in stream. In Fishing with Electricity, Cowx I.G., Lamarque, P. (Eds), Fishing News Books: Oxford, 156- 173. Catsadorakis, G., M. Malakou & A.J. Crivelli 1996. The Prespa barbel Barbus prespensis, Karaman 1924 in the Prespa lakes basin, north-western Greece. Tour du Valat, Arles, 79 pp. (also in Greek language) Cowx, I.G., Harvey, J.P., Noble, R.A. & A.D. Nunn 2009. Establishing survey and monitoring protocols for the assessment of conservation status of fish populations in river Special Areas of Conservation in the UK. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 19, 96-103. Crivelli, A.J. 1990. Fisheries decline in the freshwater lakes of northern Greece with special attention for Lake Mikri Prespa. In: Management of Freshwater Fisheries (W.L.T. van Densen et al., eds ). PUDOC, Wageningen, pp 230-247. Crivelli, A.J. 1992. Fisheries. In: Conservation and Management of Greek wetlands ( P.A. Gerakis, ed.). IUCN , Gland, Switzerland, pp 115-127.

Page 377/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Crivelli, A.J. & Catsadorakis, G.(Eds) 1997. Lake Prespa, northwestern Greece, a unique Balkan wetland. Hydrobiologia, 351, 1-196. Crivelli, A.J., Koutseri, I. & S. Petkovski 2008. The Prespa trout, Salmo peristericus Karaman 1938, an endangered species in need of action. A Society of Prespa, BIOECO and Tour du Valat Publication, 26 pp Crivelli, A.J. & T-W Lee 2000. Observations on the age, growth and fecundity of Cobitis meridionalis, an endemic loach of Prespa Lake (Greece). Folia Zoologica, 49 (Suppl 1), 121-127. Crivelli, A.J., M. Malakou, G. Catsadorakis & E. Rosecchi 1996. The Prespa barbel, Barbus prespensis, a fish species endemic to the Prespa Lakes (North-western Greece). Folia Zoologica, 45 (Suppl. 1), 21-32. Crivelli, A.J., M. Malakou, G. Catsadorakis & E. Rosecchi 1997. Life history and spawning migration of the Prespa nase, Chondrostoma prespensis Karaman, 1924. Folia Zoologica, 46 (Suppl. 1), 37-49. Crivelli, A.J. & H. Nikolaou 2008. Assessment of the fish fauna within the Ezerani Nature Reserve on Lake Macro Prespa. UNEDP Report, 25 pp. Dauwalter, D.C., Rahel, F.J. & K.G. Gerow 2009. Temporal variation in trout populations: implications for monitoring and trend detection. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 138, 38-51. Fotis, G., Conides, A., Koussouris, T., Diapoulis, A. & K. Gritzalis 1992. Fishery potential of lakes in Macedonia, north Greece. Fresenius Envir. Bull., 1, 523-528. Grazhdani, D. 2008. Analyze of socio economic status and market trends in Prespa National Park. BALWOIS 2008, 5 pp. Hadzisce, S. 1985. Künstliche Vermehrung der Salmoniden des Ohridsees mit gezüchteten Fischlarven in den Jahren 1935/36 bis 1953/54. Edition jubilaire consacrée en l’honneur du 50ème anniverssaire de la Fondation de l’Institut Hydrobiologique, Ohrid. Station Hydrobiologique- Ohrid, livre I., 97-136. Kapedani, E. & V. Gambetta 1997. Ichthyofauna and fishery in Prespa lakes. In: Towards integrated conservation and sustainable development of transboundary Macro and Micro Prespa Lakes, Gjiknuri, L, Miho, A. & S. Shumka (Eds), pp 138-141. PPNEA Edition, Albania. Kokkinakis, A.K. & Z.S. Andreopoulou 2006. Sustainable fisheries as a key factor for the environmental conservation of the Balkan trans-frontier lakes. BALWOIS 2006, 10 pp. Kottelat, M. & J. Freyhof 2007. Handbook of European freshwater fishes. Publications Kottelat: Cornol, Switzerland. Laçi, S. & N. Panariti 2004. Socio-economic activities and their environmental impact in the Prespa region. BALWOIS 2004, 4 pp. Markova, S., Sanda, R., Crivelli, A.J., Shumka, S., Wilson, I., Vukic, J., Fouache, E., Berrebi, P. & P. Kotlik 2007. Phylogeography of barbs (Barbus spp.) in Albania. XII European Congress of Ichthyology, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 9-13 September 2007, Abstract and oral presentation. Perdices, A. & I. Doadrio 2001. The molecular systematics and biogeography of the European cobitids based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 19, 468-478.

Page 378/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Prchalova, M., Kubecka, J., Riha, M., Mrkvicka, T., Basek, M., Juza, T., Kratochvil, M., Peterka, J., Drastik, V. & J. Krizek 2009. Size selectivity of standardized multimesh gillnets in sampling coarse European species. Fisheries Research, 96, 51-57. Rosecchi, E., A.J. Crivelli & G. Catsadorakis 1993. The establishment and impact of Pseudorasbora parva, an exotic fish species introduced into Lake Micro Prespa (north- western Greece). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 3, 223-231. Schultheiss, R., Albrecht, C. Bössneck, U. & T. Wilke 2008. The neglected side of speciation in ancient lakes: phylogeography of an inconspicuous mollusc taxon in lakes Ohrid and Prespa. Hydrobiologia, 615, 141-156. Shumka, S., Paparisto, A., & S. Grazhdani 2008. Identification of non-native freshwater fishes in Albania and assessment of their potential threats to the national biological freshwater diversity. BALWOIS Conference, 21-31 May 2008, Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia, 6 pp Sinis, A. & D. Petridis 1995. Age structure and reproductive pattern of Chalcalburnus belvica (Karaman, 1924) in Lake Micro Prespa (Northwestern Greece). Israel Journal of Zoology, 41, 569-580. Snoj, A., Maric, S., Berrebi, P., Crivelli, A.J., Shumka, S. & Susnik, S., Genetic architecture of trout from Albania as revealed by mtDNA control region variation. Genetics, Selection, Evolution, in press. Stankovitch, M.S. 1929. Les grands lacs de la péninsule Balkanique et leur productivité piscicole. XIV Congrès International d’Agriculture, section Pisciculture, R9, 8 pp. Stojanovski, S., Hristovski, N., Cakic, P. & R.A. Baker 2006. Preliminary investigations on the parasitic crustacea of freshwater fishes from Macedonia. BALWOIS Conference, 23-26 May 2006, Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia, 8 pp. Triantaphyllidis, A., T. J. Abatzopoulos, et al. 2002. Microsatellite analysis of the genetic population structure of native and translocated Aristotle's catfish (Silurus aristotelis). Aquatic Living Resources 15: 351-359. Triantaphyllidis, A., T. J. Abatzopoulos, et al. 1999. Genetic differentiation and phylogenetic relationships among Greek Silurus glanis and Silurus aristotelis, assessed by PCR-RFLP analysis of mitochondrial DNA segments. Heredity 82: 503-509. Vafiadis, L. 1940. Prespa and its beauties. Athens, 93 pp (In Greek). Willems, F.J. and de Vries, E. 1998. Ecological aspects of Pygmy cormorants Phalacrocorax pygmeus at Prespa, Greece, May-August 1996. Netherlands, WIWO Report Nr 60.

Birds and other biodiversity

Bibby, C.J., Burgess N.D., Hill D.A., Mustoe S.H. 2000. Bird census techniques. Academic Press London (GBR), 2°ed 302p. Chanin P (2003). Monitoring the Otter Lutra lutra. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No. 10, English Nature, Peterborough, UK, 47 pp. (downloadable from http://www.english-nature.org.uk/LIFEinUKRivers/publications/otter_monitoring.pdf) Chelazzi G., Naziridis T., Benvenuti S., Ugolini A. & A. J. Crivelli. 2006. Use of river-wetland habitats in a declining population of the terrapin (Mauremys rivulata) along the Strymon River, northern Greece. Journal of Zoology 271: 154-161

Page 379/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Crivelli A.J., Nazirides T. & G. Poizat. 2005. Conservation of a freshwater turtles community at Kerkini resevoir, northern Greece: A demographic study. Unpubl. Report, Tour du Valat. Delaki, E.E., Kotzageorgis, G., Ioannidou, V., Stamopoulos, A. 1988. A study of otters in Lake Mikri Prespa, Greece. Gilbert, G., Gibbons, D.W. & J. Evans. 1998. Bird monitoring methods. A manual of techniques for key UK species. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Sandy (GBR), 464p. Grémillet, X. & Boireau, J. 2004. Les chauves-souris du Parc National de Prespa, Macedoine occidentale - Grèce; rapport interne Groupe Mammalogique Breton, Sizun: 35 pages (mimeographed report in French). Grémillet, X. & Dubos, T. 2007. Bilan chiropterologique des prospections estivales organisees par le Groupe Mammalogique Breton dans le Parc National de Prespa, Macedoine occidentale - Grèce (mimeographed report in French). Grémillet, X. and Kazoglou, I. 2009. Report on the activities of the bat (Chiroptera) research team, Aghios Germanos, Society for the Protection of Prespa, August 2009 (unpublished report, in Greek) Heyer, R.W. (Editor). 1994. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard Methods for Amphibians (Biological Diversity Handbook). Smithsonian Institution Press Mason CF & Macdonald SM (1987).The use of spraints for surveying otter Lutra lutra populations – an evaluation. Biological Conservation 41, 167–177. Olivier, A. 2002. Ecologie, traits d'histoire de vie et conservation d'une population de cistude d'Europe Emys orbicularis en Camargue. Thesis Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes EPHE Montpellier, 165p. Shumka, S. 2008. Winter bird census in Micro and Macro Prespa lakes, February, 2nd and 3rd 2008. PPNEA report, 18 pp. Wilson, D.E, Cole, F.R., Nichols J.D., Rudran R. & M.S. Foster 1996. Measuring and monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington (USA), 409 pp.

Socio-economy

Cottrell S. 2008. Personal communication. Assistant Professor and Global Tourism Coordinator, Department of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism, Colorado State University, USA. Decoursey M. 2004. Integrated Ecosystem Management of the Prespa Transboundary Park: Analysis of Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Biodiversity and Water Quality in Albania and Macedonia. Report submitted to UNDP Macedonia for GEF Project Brief. McCollum D. 2008. Integrated Social and Economic Indicators with Ecological Indicators for Rangeland Inventory, Assessment, and Monitoring? Why Would You EVER Do That? Presentation given at Colorado State University, December 2008. United States Department of Agriculture/Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pinter L., Hardi P. and Bartelmus P. 2005. Sustainable Development Indicators: Proposals for a Way Forward. Paper prepared for the UN Division of Sustainable Development (UNDSD/EGM/ISD/2005/CRP.2). International Institute for Sustainable Development, Canada.

Page 380/381

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – TOUR DU VALAT Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park

Shumka, S., Petkovski S., Gletsos M., and Perrenou C. 2008. A Catalogue of Existing Monitoring Programmes in the Prespa Watershed. PPNEA (Albania), BioEco (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), SPP (Greece) and Tour du Valat (France). Valentin A., Spangenberg J. 2000. A guide to community sustainability indicators. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20 (2000) 381-392. Vlachos E. 2008. Personal communication. Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for International Water Resource Management. Colorado State University, Colorado USA.

Land-use

Bock, M, Rossner, G, Wissen, M, Remm, K, Langanke, T, Lang, S, Klug, H, Blaschke, T, and Vrščaj, B, 2005. Spatial indicators for nature conservation from European to local scale. Ecological Indicators 5(4): 322-338. Förster, M, Frick, A, Walentowski, W, Kleinschmit, B, 2008. Approaches to utilising QuickBird data for the monitoring of NATURA 2000 habitats. Community Ecology, 9: 155-168. Genovese, G, Vignolles, C, Negre, T, A. 2001. Methodology for a combined use of normalised difference vegetation index and CORINE land cover data for crop yield monitoring and forecasting. A case study on Spain. Agronomie 21(1): 91-111. Smith, GM, Wyatt, BK, 2007. Multi-scale survey by sample-based field methods and remote sensing: A comparison of UK experience with European environmental assessments. Landscape and Urban Planning 79(2): 170-176. Woithon, A, Schmieder, K, 2004. Bruthabitatmodellierung für den Drosselrohrsänger (Acrocephalus arundinaceus L.) als Bestandteil eines integrativen Managementsystems für Seeufer. Limnologica 34(1-2): 132-139. Internet sources: http://www.globallandproject.org/Documents/LUCC_No_5.pdf). http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/metadetails.asp?id=884 http://mediasfrance.org/Reseau/Lettre/13/en/spot5.pdf

Evaluation of TMS

Réserves Naturelles de France 1998. Guide méthodologique des plans de gestion des réserves naturelles. Ministère de l’Environnement/ Atelier technique des Espaces Naturels, Montpellier, France, 100 pp.

Page 381/381