DESIGN AND ORGANIZATION OF A TRANSBOUNDARY MONITORING SYSTEM (TMS) FOR THE PARK

Pilot Application of the Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park:

Brown Bear Monitoring

Final Report

Prepared by L. Krambokoukis and K. Hornigold

Arcturos ©

Society for the Protection of Prespa – Arcturos Agios Germanos, December 2011 Pilot Application of the Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park: Brown Bear Monitoring

Report prepared by International Lead Experts, Lambros Krambokoukis and Karen Hornigold, Arcturos NGO,

Acknowledgments: This report and the Brown Bear survey would not have been possible without the work of the staff of Galicica National Park in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the staff of the Management Body of the Prespa National Park in Greece, who carried out the questionnaire surveys in their areas of jurisdiction.

Special thanks go to Oliver Avramoski and the Galicica National Park staff for helping organize and for hosting the Workshop on Brown Bear Monitoring, which took place in the Galicica National Park premises in , the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on 12 October 2010. Experts from the three countries are thanked for their interest and their willing participation in the workshop.

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

This report is part of the project “Design and Organization of a Transboundary Monitoring System (TMS) for the Prespa Park”.

The project is implemented by the Society for the Protection of Prespa and funded by WWF- Greece/ MAVA Foundation.

Suggested bibliographical reference: L. Krambokoukis and K. Hornigold (2011). Pilot Application of the Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park: Brown Bear Monitoring, Final report, Society for the Protection of Prespa – Arcturos NGO, Agios Germanos

Cover photo: Arcturos SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

Pilot Application of the Transboundary Monitoring

System for the Prespa Park:

Workshop on Brown Bear Monitoring and Questionnaire Survey

Contents 1 Introduction ...... 4

2 Method ...... 4

3 Results ...... 6

3.1 Greek Prespa National Park ...... 6

3.1.1 Bear Presence ...... 6

3.1.2 Bear Damages ...... 6

3.2 National Parks in FYROM part of Prespa ...... 8

3.2.1 Bear Presence ...... 8

3.2.2 Bear Damages ...... 8

4 Discussion ...... 10

5 References ...... 7

Appendix 1 . Workshop: list of participants, brief minutes, agenda ...... 11

Appendix 2. Questionnaire used across all National Parks in Prespa region...... 15

Appendix 3. Blank data entry sheet ...... 17

Appendix 4. Guidelines for interviewers (to accompany questionnaire)...... 18

Appendix 5. Sample sizes per village, per National Park ...... 19

3

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

1 Introduction Prespa is an area of incredible natural beauty and biodiversity, which covers regions in three countries, Albania, Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and was declared as a Transboundary Park in 2000. It has international recognition for its importance for wildlife and nature, being classified as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention and designated as a special protection area under the EU Birds Directive. Due to its international importance for nature conservation and the fact that it is present across three neighbouring countries, it is necessary to form partnerships and collaborations between these three countries for the greater benefit of the area.

For this reason a Transboundary Monitoring System (TMS) for the monitoring of environmental parameters in the Prespa Park is being designed and developed by the Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP) since 2007 with funding from WWF-Greece. This is implemented in coordination with a concurrent GEF/UNDP Prespa Park Project which also funds consultations and purchase of equipment for certain monitoring activities, and in consultation with national experts, monitoring institutions and authorities from the three countries. In 2008-2009 a Expert Study describing in detail the TMS and covering seven environmental monitoring themes1 was developed by Tour du Valat (France) and SPP, with the contribution of national monitoring experts from the three countries.

In 2010-2011 the pilot application of the TMS was implemented, with pilot testing, workshops, demonstrations and networking activities in the seven monitoring themes, coordinated by SPP and with funding by WWF-Greece. Within this pilot application, pilot monitoring of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) in the whole of the transborder Prespa region was implemented in the period 2010-2011.

The partners included the Society for the Protection of Prespa and the Prespa National Park Management Body in Greece, the National Parks of Galicica and Pelister in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Prespa National Park in Albania. Other collaborators included ARCTUROS NGO from Greece and the Macedonian Ecological Society from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia for specialist advice on bear research (see Appendix 1 for a complete list with contact details).

2 Method Methodology was discussed and agreed upon at the Workshop entitled ‘Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park: Workshop on Brown Bear pilot monitoring’ which was held in Stenje on 12 October 2010. (The list of participants and the brief minutes of the Workshop are available in Appendix 1) ARCTUROS NGO provided an existing questionnaire which is derived from the TMS Expert Study (Perennou et al 2009, Annex 11.1). The questionnaire aimed at monitoring bears and gathering information on damages/conflicts

1 The seven monitoring themes of the TMS are: water resources; aquatic vegetation and habitats; forests and terrestrial habitats; fish and fisheries; birds other biodiversity; socio-economics; land-use. Brown Bear monitoring is included in the ‘birds and other biodiversity’ theme.

4

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring through questioning locals. This was adapted and modified according to the needs of this specific pilot project with the feedback that was provided at the workshop by the experts present. The final questionnaire is presented in Appendix 2. An excel spreadsheet was also provided to ensure data entry in a standard way (see Appendix 3). Also at the workshop, it was decided to include a list of guidelines for the interviewers, in order to ensure standardisation across all National Parks as this was a transboundary project involving many parties. These guidelines are presented in Appendix 4.

A preliminary sample size was calculated according to the total number of residents in the respective areas of Albania, Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. A percentage of residents per village to interview for each of the three National Parks in the three countries was calculated (see Appendix 5). In order to keep the total sample size at around 100 questionnaires per National Park, a different percentage was used for each National Park, specifically 6% of residents per village in the Greek Prespa National Park, 2% in the Albanian National Park (which has much larger settlements in the area), and 5% and 6 % for the two National Parks in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Pelister National Park and Galicica National Park respectively).

The documents listed in Appendices 2-5 were sent to the coordinators in each country and were translated and disseminated to the personnel responsible for carrying out the questionnaires. Each participating National Park then carried out the questionnaires in their region.

5

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

3 Results Finally a total of 55 questionnaires were completed in Galicica National Park, in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, covering both the Prespa and Ohrid basins, between the period of December 2010 to January 2011. In the Greek Prespa National Park, 95 questionnaires were completed from November 2010 to June 2011. There are no results thus far from the Albanian National Park, due to the key partners being replaced. The results for the two countries / National Parks are presented separately below.

3.1 Greek Prespa National Park

3.1.1 Bear Presence All respondents across all occupations stated that there are bears in their area and 90.3% of these stated that bear presence is permanent compared to 9.7% who stated presence is seasonal. None of those questioned believed that the bear presence is sporadic in the area. In fact, all of the respondents (except 6) were able to recount a sighting of a bear (either direct or indirect) and most (63/89) were from 2010 or 2011. Furthermore, in terms of actual bear sightings, 42 of the respondents stated that adult bears were seen with cubs, and 36 of these (86%) were direct sightings, meaning that the respondent saw the bears himself and therefore the information is reliable. A further 11 sightings reported were of cubs with no adults, 10 of which were direct sightings.

3.1.2 Bear Damages Of all the respondents, 83% stated that bears cause damages in their area. Those who answered yes were asked to specify the type of damage, whereby they could choose more than one option. The largest proportion of damages appears to be on free grazing animals, with crops, beehives and enclosed livestock also representing large proportions (see figure 1). The ‘other’ was explained to be damages on an apple tree in the village of Laimos.

Figure 1. Proportion of damages by bears by type according to public opinion

In terms of the frequency of bear damage in the area, the majority believe that the number of cases per year is in the lower category of 1-5 (see figure 2).

6

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

Figure 2. Average yearly frequency of bear damage in the area according to public opinion

When asked how the interviewees protect themselves and/or their properties from bear damages, a large majority answered that they use guard dogs, but the largest majority answered ‘other’ (see figure 3).

Figure 3. Proportion of different measures used to protect against bear damages by survey respondents

The explanation for giving the answer ‘other’ was mostly ‘nothing’, however 5 respondents said ‘with a gun’ whilst another one said with fire crackers and another with a signal box.

Finally when asked about human-caused bear fatalities, 23 respondents knew of an incident compared to 64 whom answered ‘no’. Some of the known incidents were described further and when the circumstances were known it was stated that the bear was killed with a gun (20 cases). When the location was known, 78% of the events happened in Vrondero. On one occasion it was specifically stated as occurring in 2011, whilst most other occasions (when the date was known) occurred between 2006-2009.

7

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

3.2 National Parks in FYROM part of Prespa In the FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) part of Prespa, data only from Galicica National Park were available in the timeframe of the pilot application.

3.2.1 Bear Presence Only one participant claimed that there were no bears in their area, thus 98% overall said that there are bears present. Concerning the bear presence, 58.3% said it is permanent, 35.4% said seasonal, and 6.3% said sporadic. This is quite different to the Greek responses, whereby 90% said bear presence is permanent. In terms of bear sightings, there is also a lower percentage in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia compared to Greece, with 38/55 (69%) of respondents able to relay a case of visual contact (either direct or indirect) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonian survey compared to 89/95 (94%) in the Greek survey. Eight of the reported sightings were of bears with cubs, with 4 sightings of cubs with no adult. Information on whether these sighting were direct or indirect is incomplete, but from the incomplete data there are 14 records for direct compared to 2 indirect.

3.2.2 Bear Damages Data is also incomplete regarding whether respondents believe that bears cause damages in their area, with 42 responses out of the 55 questionnaires. 11/42 (26%) answered yes, whilst 31/42 (74%) answered no, which is very different to the Greek responses (83% yes). Due to the apparently low percentage of respondents believing that bears cause damage, the responses to the following question on what bears damage were very low – only 3 selected ‘livestock in enclosures’, 4 selected crops and 3 selected beehives. Surprisingly nobody answered that bears cause damage on free grazing livestock. Responses were also low regarding number of cases of bear damage on average per year. There were only 10 responses, whereby 4, 1 and 5 respondents answered 1-5, 6-10 or >10 cases respectively (see figure 4).

Figure 4. Average yearly frequency of bear damage in the area according to public opinion

8

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

Out of the 24 respondents that answered the question on how they protect themselves or their property against bear damages, 21 answered ‘with a guard dog’ whilst only 3 answered ‘with an additional fence’. None of the respondents said they were using electric fences.

For the final section on human-caused bear mortality, 11 respondents knew of case where bear(s) had been killed. Eight respondents gave an approximate year, and only one was recent (2009) where as the rest occurred 15 to 30+ years ago.

9

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

4 Discussion Both countries appear to have bear presence in the Prespa region according to respondents, whilst in terms of bear sightings in recent years (particularly bears with cubs), Greece seems to have a very strong bear presence compared to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. A big difference is also reflected in respondents’ opinions on whether bear presence is permanent or not; in Greece the majority believe that it is, compared to just over half in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

This apparent difference in the bear presence of each country is probably also resulting in the differences in damages caused by bears. In Greece there is obviously lots of bear damages in the area (83% stated so) and bears damage a wide variety of assets (see figure 1). For the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia there is actually very little reported in terms of bear damage, and there appears to be little knowledge on the subject. There is also quite a divide in opinion on how many cases of bear damage there are per year in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, with 40% stating 1-5 and 50 % stating greater than 6 (see figure 4). In Greece the majority of respondents believe that there are 1-5 cases per year (see figure 2), so although there appears to be a strong presence of bears in Greek Prespa, there are not too many incidences of bear caused damage according to people’s beliefs. Further reflecting the situations in both countries is how people protect their properties. In Greece, due to the large number of bears and bear sightings people use a variety of methods to protect themselves/their properties, particularly electric and additional fences. Over half of the respondents said they were using a preventative method. Worryingly some people even keep guns in case of emergency. Oppositely in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia people employ guard dogs but not fences or other elaborate methods such as firecrackers as in Greece.

Human caused bear mortalities seem to be a huge issue in Greece. Many cases were recited of bears being shot (20) and these have mainly occurred in the past 5 years. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia however doesn’t appear to have such a huge issue, as fewer cases were reported and most of these occurred many years ago. This is perhaps due to having a lower bear population and/or fewer nuisance bears, but it could also be due to the lower sample size taken in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia compared to Greece. To discount the latter explanation, perhaps more questionnaires could be completed for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia if time and finances allow.

Finally, it is necessary to take into consideration the results from Albania when the surveys are completed to get a complete picture of bear presence and human-bear conflict in the transboundary Prespa region.

5 References Perennou, C., Gletsos, M., Chauvelon, P., Crivelli, A., DeCoursey, M., Dokulil, M., Grillas, P., Grovel, R., Sandoz, A. (2009) Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park Area, Society for the Protection of Prespa, Aghios Germanos. http://www.spp.gr/monitoring_en/ (15 December 2011) 10

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

Appendix 1 . Workshop (Stenje, 12 October 2010): list of participants, brief minutes, agenda

1. Oliver Avramoski, Monitoring Expert, National Park Galicica (00389 76 432151, [email protected]) 2. Ferdinand Bego, Chairman, ASPBM Albania (00355 694070870, [email protected]) 3. Miltos Gletsos, Project Coordinator, Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP) (0030 210 3311988 ext.131, [email protected] / [email protected]) 4. Karen Hornigold, Field Biologist, Arcturos ([email protected]) 5. Aleksandar Ilich, Ranger, National Park Galicica (00389 75282212) 6. Lambros Krambokoukis, Field Biologist, Arcturos (0030 6957834668, [email protected]) 7. Annita Logotheti, Environmental Scientist, Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP) (0030 23850 51211, [email protected]) 8. Christina Louka, Forester, PNPMB (Prespa National Park Management Body) (0030 23850 51870, [email protected]) 9. Fyllio Nitsopoulou, Ranger, PNPMB (Prespa National Park Management Body) (0030 23850 51870, [email protected]) 10. Aleksandra Pandovska, Project Manager, National Park Pelister (00389 75467645, [email protected]) 11. Vasilis Papadopoulos, Ranger, PNPMB (Prespa National Park Management Body) (0030 23850 51870, [email protected]) 12. Leto Papadopoulou, Environmentalist/ Transboundary Officer, PNPMB (Prespa National Park Management Body) (0030 23850 51870, [email protected]) 13. Iljo Sterjovski, Ranger, National Park Pelister (00389 71 235972) 14. Aleksandar Stojanov, Project Assistant, MES (Macedonian Ecological Society) (00389 70932205, [email protected]) 15. Niko Xega, Director, Prespa National Park Albania (00355 692132932, [email protected])

Brief Minutes

The workshop took place in Stenje village, at the premises of the Galicica NP, on 12 October 2010.

M. Gletsos (SPP) presented the project for the design and development of a Transboundary Monitoring System (TMS) for the Prespa Park, which has been going on since end 2007. Part of the TMS project was the pilot application of selected environmental parameters (taking place in 2010-2011) which included the pilot monitoring of Brown Bear interactions with humans, with use of questionnaires.

L. Krambokoukis (Arcturos NGO) presented and discussed methods used by Arcturos for the research of Brown Bear, including collection of bioevidence, telemetry, and genetic sampling. Participants from the three countries reported on the status of Brown Bear in their 11

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring respective parts of Prespa and the surrounding region. A. Stojanov (MES) reported that in Pelister, Ilinska, Plakenska and Mavrovo at least 16 individuals were estimated to be found. According to data from S. Pllaha (TWA), around Korcha area 5 individuals were found, N. Xega (PNP-AL) said. According to M. Gletsos (SPP) the Greek part of Prespa hosted at least 4 individual bears and possibly up to 10 animals.

Concerning the questionnaires, L. Krambokoukis said that it was the first and most important scientific method of research, needed before a large and complicated project (such as trapping or genetics) is attempted. They mainly contain simple questions, and the researchers need to speak the interviewees’ language and be very polite. O. Avramoski (NPG) said that the National parks should not be seen as mere ‘islands’ and that settlements in the immediate vicinity of the parks should be taken into account if the resources were available.

The participants then discussed methodological issues of the questionnaires and the targeted groups. C. Louka (MBPNP) inquired how the interviewees should be chosen in order to have a representative sample. To that, O. Avramoski and L. Krambokoukis said that the aim of the research was mainly bear presence rather than the attitudes of a representative sample of inhabitants. F. Bego (ASPBM, University of Tirana) pointed out that one of the aims of the exercise was to keep it simple so that the National Parks could undertake it themselves. He added that the survey apart from bear presence would also cover abundance and interaction with humans (e.g. damages).

F. Bego also proposed that local villagers, farmers, shepherds should be targeted by the survey, as they have a permanent presence in the area compared to visitors, tourists, or border policemen.

A. Logotheti (SPP) said that there was a system of compensation in place for bear damage in Greece, albeit not very efficient as it does not cover all types of damage. She inquired about the situation in the other two countries. In Albania there was no such system, while in the FYR of Macedonia, it was very complex and bureaucratic. O. Avramoski added that in FYR of Macedonia penalties for killing bears were very high.

The participating National Parks agreed to compile a detailed list of settlements in the parks and the surrounding area, together with their respective populations. In Galicica NP, a total of 16-17 villages were included, extending both towards Prespa and Ohrid basins, O. Avramoski noted. In Pelister NP, A. Pandovska (NPP) said, only 1 settlement (Malovista) was within the limits of the park and appr. 15 other settlements in its immediate vicinity.

It was finally agreed that: x the lists of villages and their populations will be communicated between the participants; x the National parks will undertake the surveys within their jurisdiction and, following consultation with their Directors, they will investigate the possibility to include settlements outside their borders;

12

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring x the finalized questionnaires, excel sheets, and guidelines, will be sent by Arcturos to the participating National parks; x following the collection of the questionnaires, Arcturos will do the statistical analysis; x it was proposed that after the pilot monitoring exercise is finalized, the participants will investigate the possibility to prepare a scientific report for publication.

Following this session, the participating institutions briefly presented their organizations and their activities on the study and conservation of Brown Bear (as well as of other big mammals such as lynx, wolves, or chamois), and data on Brown Bear presence in their three national parts of Prespa.

F. Bego from ASPBM outlined the organization’s work with Arcturos, Kora, Nina and Euronatur on large carnivore population trends in 2002 and on Balkan Lynx and other mammals more recently. N. Xega (PNP-AL) said that in the Prespa NP in Albania an estimated 5 bears were to be found, with sightings mostly in spring/ autumn. Presence in the villages of Cerje, Rakickca, Zagradec was confirmed by scat, damages, and sheep killed in a stable.

A. Stojanov (MES) said that MES and Arcturos collaborated in the collection of Brown Bear hair samples. A MES study on the status of Brown Bear in FYR-Macedonia was available on the ECNS website. A. Pandovska (NPP) said that Pelister NP was not following a systematic approach on bear monitoring at that time. She reported that there were no bear attacks on humans in the park, despite the fact that the presence of Brown Bears was estimated to be very high with various estimates of up to 30 animals.

M.Gletsos (SPP) and L.Papadopoulou (MBPNP) said that in the Greek part of Prespa SPP and MBPNP collect observations and hair samples and send them to Arcturos for analysis. A. Logotheti and M.Gletsos (SPP) added that SPP had divided the area into a grid of 1kmX1km and used GPS and GIS for recording bear sightings. Four separate bears had been identified by DNA analysis, however the total number of bears was expected to be less than 10. Bears in the Greek part of Prespa were observed from the lake shore to altitudes of 1800m asl or more.

O. Avramoski (NPG) said that Galicica NP used various datasets for the estimates of the population. According to the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, using the official methodology, in 1995 12 bears were estimated to be present in Galicica and in 2003 10 bears. Other studies had estimated the number of bears to be lower, perhaps less than 10 animals. Similarly the number of chamois was estimated to be ca. 240 animals, although in reality the numbers should be significantly lower (ca. 40-80) due to poaching and other pressures, O. Avramoski noted. He added that bears were normally seen in the region of 1500-1700m asl in grasslands and beech forests. Galicica NP had a programme for monitoring of Brown Bear but as it was too demanding in terms of capacity and resources, it will be revisited in 4 years. O. Avramoski also said that it was important to retain the corridor between Mt. Galicica and Mt. Plakenska to the north.

13

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

Abbreviations:

ASPBM: Albanian Society for the Protection of Birds and Mammals

MBPNP: Management Body of the Prespa National Park - Greece

MES: Macedonian Ecological Society

NPG: National Park Galicica

NPP: National Part Pelister

PNP-AL: Prespa National Park - Albania

SPP: Society for the Protection of Prespa

TWA: Transborder Wildlife Association

Workshop agenda: x Welcome introduction x Background: Transboundary Monitoring System (TMS) for the Prespa Park; Expert Study and pilot application; recent developments (M. Gletsos, Society for the Protection of Prespa) x Brown Bear monitoring within the TMS - monitoring of interactions between Brown Bear and man with use of questionnaire surveys (Indicator B2 of the TMS); presentation of questionnaires and methodology (L. Krambokoukis, Arcturos) x Exchange of information on existing Brown Bear research and monitoring methods used by National Parks and/ or NGOs within the Prespa basin (discussion) x Pilot application of Brown Bear questionnaires in Prespa, by National Parks and/ or other local stakeholders; definition of institutions to be involved; planning; sharing of information/ exchange of results; networking between institutions (discussion) x Workshop conclusions/ recommendations

14

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

Appendix 2. Questionnaire used across all National Parks in Prespa region.

1. Name of interviewer:

2. Date of interview:

3. Location (Village – GPS position in WGS84 optional):

4. Name of the person interviewed (optional):

5. Occupation x Shepherd x Logger x Farmer x Herb collector x Other - specify:

6. Are there any bears in your area YES NO (please circle appropriate)

7. If no, when was the approximate date of the last sign of bear presence? x Last year x 2-5 Years x 5-10 Years x Over 10 years

8. If yes, when was the last time bear presence was detected in your area? 1. Date/month/season: 2. Location: 3. Direct/indirect information (please circle appropriate)

9. Bear presence in the area is: x Permanent (more than 2 seasons) x Seasonal x Sporadic (less than once a year)

10. In which season(s) are bears present? x Spring x Summer x Autumn x Winter

11. In case of visual contact with a bear specify the following (please provide separate answers for each contact with a bear): x Number of adult bear(s) x Number of adult bear(s) and cub(s) x Number of cub(s) x Location: x Date of observation: x Direct/indirect information (please circle appropriate) Any additional notes or remarks: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

15

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

12. In case of bear signs, which of the following were detected: x Tracks x Scats x Upturned rocks x Den x Broken branches (check for bear hairs) x Damages x Others (e.g. scratches on wooden power pole – check for bear hairs):

13. Are there any damages caused by bears in your area? YES NO

14. If yes, specify the type of damage (note, more than one answer can be given): x On livestock enclosure x On free grazing animals x Crops x Beehives x Other (specify): x Direct/indirect information (please circle appropriate)

15. What is the average yearly frequency (number of cases) of bear damage in the area? x 1-5 x 6-10 x >10

16. When was the last case of bear damage in your area? 1. Date/month/season: 2. Location: 3. Type of damage: 4. Direct/indirect information (please circle appropriate)

17. In what way do you protect yourself/your property from bear damages? x Guard dog x Electric fence x Additional fence x Other:

18. Do you know of any cases of bears killed in your area? YES NO

19. If yes specify the: 1. Location: 2. Date: 3. Number of bears: 4. Describe circumstances (e.g. gun, poison): 5. Direct/indirect information (please circle appropriate)

16

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

Appendix 3. Blank data entry sheet

etc.

6. Are there any 7. If no when the approximate date of 5. Occupation 4. Name of the bears in the last sign of bear presence: 1. Name of 2. Date 3. Location person your area? interviewer interviewed

Herb Other Last 2-5 5-10 Over 10 Shepherd Logger Farmer Yes No collector (specify): year Years Years years

etc.

17

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

Appendix 4. Guidelines for interviewers (to accompany questionnaire)

General

Minimum age of participants – 18 years.

Participants should be either resident in the area or regular visitors for many years.

The interviewer should try to interview a range of people with different ages and occupations, males and females per village.

Specific questions

Q3. Location can be the village they live in, or the nearest village to the area they are basing their responses on. GPS location is useful to record if questioning someone outside of a village.

Q10. Tick all seasons that respondent gives.

Q11. Examples:

Visual contact with one adult bear – write 1 next to ‘number of adult bear(s)’

Visual contact with one female and 2 cubs – write 1+2 next to ‘number of adult bear(s) and cub(s)’

Visual contact with two lone cubs – write 2 next to ‘number of cub(s)’

Q15. Answer can be based on indirect information as the respondent will not have personally experienced all the bear damages that occurred in the area – they need to base their answer on what they have been told.

Q16. Indirect information can be given (and circle indirect on questionnaire). It is not recommended to find the person who experienced the damage (in the cases where indirect information was given) as there is a fixed number of people to interview per village and also the results would become biased towards people who have experienced damage by bears.

18

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

Appendix 5. Sample sizes per village, per National Park

Greek Prespa NP Sample to Village (EN) Village (GR) Population interview Lemos ȁĮȚȝȩȢ 299 18 Milionas ȂȘȜİȫȞĮȢ 1 0 Aghios ǹȖ. īİȡȝĮȞȩȢ 231 Germanos 14 Aghios ǹȖ. ǹȤȓȜȜİȚȠȢ 28 Achillios 2 Pyli ȆȪȜȘ 116 7 Vrondero ǺȡȠȞIJİȡȩ 183 11 Kallithea ȀĮȜȜȚșȑĮ 160 10 Karyes ȀĮȡȣȑȢ 64 4 Oxya ȅȟȣȐ 30 2 Lefkona ȁİȣțȫȞĮ 155 9 Mikrolimni ȂȚțȡȠȜȓȝȞȘ 71 4 Platy ȆȜĮIJȪ 108 6 Psarades ȌĮȡȐįİȢ 158 9 SUM 1604 96

Albanian Prespa NP Sample to Village Population interview Liqenas 1107 22 Diellas 536 11 Lajthize 236 5 Zaroshke 357 7 Cerje 254 5 Gorice e Vogel 381 8 Gorice e Madhe 518 10 Kallamas 698 14 Gollomboc 303 6 Rakicke 241 5 Shuec 182 4 Zagradec 230 5 SUM 5043 101

19

SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRESPA – ARCTUROS NGO Pilot Application of the Prespa TMS: Brown Bear Monitoring

Galicica NP Pelister NP Sample to Sample to Settlement Population Settlement Population interview interview

Villages inside the Galicica NP 137 7 Konjsko 3 0 Brajcino 134 7 Leskoec 12 1 Grncari 417 21 Stenje 438 26 237 12 Oteshevo 0 0 Kozjak 117 6 Villages within 1 km from the Galicica NP 137 7 Shurleni 89 5 186 9 Volkoderi 114 7 Podmocani 306 15 Villages within 6 km from the Galicica NP Rajca 66 3 * (6km) 237 14 Slivnica 188 9 Gorno Dupeni* (5km) 59 4 Evla* (4km) 106 6 Lavci*(2km) 134 8 * (2km) 65 4 Prelubje* (2km) 16 1 Petrino 0 0 Villages along the North-Western Eco-Corridor Gorno Krushje 107 6 Izbishta 176 11 Ilino 0 0 27 2 Leva Reka 60 4 SUM 1643 98 SUM 1925 96

20