DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSBOUNDARY MONITORING SYSTEM

Transcription

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 socioeconomic 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
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 WWFGreece had lobbied for the establishment of a transboundary protected area that would
Page 1/381
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
2
United Nations Development Programme
Global Environment Facility
Page 2/381
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2
2
Lake Surface in
3.9 km
45.5 km
Albania
Lake Surface in Greece
Lake Surface in the
FYR of Macedonia
Maximum Depth
Mean Depth
Altitude
Catchment (terrestrial)
– all three countries
Catchment in Albania
Catchment in Greece
Catchment in the FYR
of Macedonia
43.5 km2
-
37.6 km2
176.3 km2
8.4 m
4.1 m
853 m asl
189 km2
55 m
18 m
843 m asl
1,029.1 km2
843-2,4208 m asl
1,218.1 km2
51 km2
138 km2
0
162 km2
71.6 km2
795.5 km2
213 km2
209.6 km2
795.5 km2
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
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
Fig. 3.2. Relief map of the Prespa Park catchment area
Page 12/381
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 9member 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
Fig. 3.3. Designated National Parks in the Prespa Park catchment area
Page 14/381
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
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
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 subzone 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
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
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
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
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
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 overambitious 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
2. Species
Water
Non-nature
Values
- surface area, as per Habitats Directive typology
- habitat quality for a few key habitats
1-2 species (or groups of related species) per taxonomic group
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…).
Possibly a few values (for aspects on which good baseline info already
exists)
-
KEY ISSUES
Specific
cross-cutting
A few key issues
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
Table 4.2. Summary statistics of the existing meta-databases for Prespa
ALBANIA
GREECE
the Former
Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
General (climate, population…)
Water (Hydrology, pollution…)
Natural habitats
15
27
0
107, incl. an
approximation of ca. 100
parameters for
demographic data
102
14
Fauna - Flora
Agriculture
31
26, plus an unspecified n°
of Waterbird species
6
50
0
8, plus an
unspecified n° of
Butterfly species/
Waterbird spp.
5
7
4
2
65
4
260
0
62
Socio-economy (others)
Total
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

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 longterm 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
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, lowcost, 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
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
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
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
15
a duet of experts in the case of water: Hydrology & Limnology/ Pollution
From both the ecological and forestry exploitation perspectives
Page 28/381
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
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
(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
“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
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
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
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
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 subset 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
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
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
FYR OF
Figure 6.1. Location Map of Catchments for Rainfall-Runoff Simulation (from GFA 2005)
Page 39/381
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 nonkarstic part of the catchment area:
Indicator WH7 “Groundwater_level”
Page 40/381
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
(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
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

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 recalculated 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
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
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
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
WH5:
Catchment_irrigated_area (covered under Land-use
indicator N° LS4 )
P
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
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)
WMEWE, HMA, SPP
Institutions supposed to be involved:
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
WH2:
Nature: P
To estimate the surface water input to the lake from its major tributaries, essential
component of the lake system water balance
Sub-indicators:
-
This indicator will be calculated from discharge data coming from 3 states.
Computed monthly runoff volume from discharge
data from Golema, Brajcinska, and Aghios
Germanos rivers.
Institutions supposed to be involved: SPP, HMA, WMEWE
An effort should be made to establish gauging stations and rating curves on all main
rivers
WH3:
Nature: I
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:
This indicator characterise a transboundary and a trans-lake flow, it is accessible with
limited field investment.
Computed from water level and sluice position at
Koula using adequate hydraulic formula.
Institutions supposed to be involved: SPP, PPC
The water flow through sediments of the isthmus between the 2 lakes is also to be
estimated
WH4:
Nature: P
To estimate the water abstraction from Micro Prespa lake.
Sub-indicators
Pumped volume from each pumping stations on the lake
Computed from daily/ monthly pumping duration
and pumping stations characteristics
SPP, WMEWE
-
Page 49/381
WH5:
Catchment_irrigated_area (cf Land Use ind.)
Nature: P
To give an information on irrigation, and therefore on potential water abstraction from
Prespa lakes.
Sub-indicators:
Irrigated area on each lake catchment area
because it is not possible to calculate water abstraction directly from hydrometric
variable monitoring
cf land use indicator
Institutions supposed to be involved: SPP, WMEWE, HMA
-
WH6:
Nature: R
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
This indicator characterise a transboundary and a trans-lake flow.
Discharge data from continuous (or at least
daily) water level measurements
Institutions supposed to be involved: WMEWE, HMA
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
groundwater level trend in major catchment alluvial plains
Sub-indicators:
groundwater level trend in each selected downstream alluvial plains
Mainly to have a trend on impact of irrigated agriculture on groundwater level and flow
to lake
Piezometric level in a selection of wells
Institutions supposed to be involved: HMA, IGME, SPP
-
Page 50/381
WM1:
Precip_Catchment
Nature: I
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
A key issue for water resources in the catchments, should decrease with climate change
Precipitations/snow measurements at a selection
of sites between 1300 and 2000 m asl
Institutions supposed to be involved: SPP, PPC, HMA, WMEWE
At the moment no monitoring of rain/snow is made at altitude higher then 1200 m asl.
WM2:
Precip_lake
Nature: I
To estimate the direct precipitation depth on the lakes.
Sub-indicators:
Precipitations on rain gauge around the lakes
Evident
Spatial average of Precipitations measurements
-
WM3:
air_temperature_Lake
Nature: I
To monitor an important climatic parameter useful for all hydro-ecological issues
Sub-indicators:
-
A key issue for water resources and ecological processes, should increase with climate
change
Daily temperature records of several sites around
the lake shores
-
Page 51/381
WM4:
lake_evaporation
Nature: I
Essential component of the lake system water balance
Sub-indicators:
A key issue for water resources and ecological processes, should increase with climate
change
Calculated by the Penman method, compared to
pan evaporation (data of Koula).
-
WQPC-C1:
Nature: P
Sub-indicators:
concentrations/parameter values from sampling sites (Golema,
Istocka, Brajcinska, and Aghios Germanos rivers)
Calculation of discrete fluxes from water
sampling (at least monthly), extrapolation from
discharge data and empirical relationships.
WMEWE, SPP, HMA, IHP, CWS, FCS
-
WQPC-C2:
Nature: P
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)
Calculation of discrete fluxes from water
sampling (at least monthly), extrapolation from
discharge data and empirical relationships.
-
Page 52/381
WQPC-C3:
Nature: P
Impact of human activities on groundwater quality, contributing to input to lakes
Sub-indicators:
Concentrations values from sampling sites in selected alluvial plains
Sampling of water in piezometers
Institutions supposed to be involved: WMEWE, SPP, HMA, IHP, CWS, FCS
-
WQPC-C4:
Groundwater_toxic_pollution
Nature: P
Threat to river ecosystems, input to the lakes
Sub-indicators:
Concentrations (CU, Zn, selected pesticides) values from sampling
sites in downstream alluvial plains
Sampling of water in piezometers
Institutions supposed to be involved: WMEWE, SPP, HMA, IHP, CWS, FCS
-
WQPC-L1:
Nature:
R
Basic parameters on lake physical and chemical quality trends
Sub-indicators:
One for each lake
Multi-parameter probe on the field, and/or
laboratory based measurements
-
WQPC-L2:
Lake_ nutrients
Nature: R
Conditioning primary production and eutrophication processes
Sub-indicators:
Nutrient (N, P) indicator for each lake
Risk of dystrophic crisis in lake waters
Laboratory measurements of different forms of N
and P.
-
Page 53/381
WQPC-L3:
Nature: R
Impact of human activities, toxicity for man and ecosystems
Sub-indicators:
For each lake
Concentrations from adequate spectrometric
methods
-
WQEB-L1:
Lake_ Phytoplankton
Nature: R
Monitoring composition, biomass, frequency of blooms, relative abundance (% )of bluegreen algae
Sub-indicators:
Monthly monitoring of phytoplankton along a depth profile for both
lakes
Delineation of Eutrophication. Development of a Biological Index
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
-
WQEB-L2:
Lake_ Chlorophyll-A
Nature: R
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
Risk of excessive Eutrophication. Boundary setting for trophic levels
At least monthly sampling, along a depth profile,
at the same site as for N and P sampling.
-
Page 54/381
WQEB-L3:
Lake_Macrophytes (identical to Aquatic
vegetation theme)
Nature: R
Monitoring composition, encroachment area, biomass.
Sub-indicators:
Monitoring of macrophytes along the littoral for both lakes
Evaluation of littoral Pollution and Eutrophication. Development of an Index
Sampling, along the littoral during peak season
(maximum of standing crop).
-
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
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
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
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
-
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
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
Lake
Randomly chosen
Sample every lake
Chosen Randomly
from within a
along a transect,
from geographic
geographic region
using a randomly
area
(ecoregion) or some
chosen transect
other classification
starting point
Choose lake based
on convenience,
access, proximity, or
interest
Sample down pre-
Site
Randomly chosen
from lake grid
Randomly selected
from within regions
of lake
chosen, equidistant
sites along transect
of lake, starting with
a randomly chosen
Sample at the dam
or over the deepest
part of the lake
point
Randomly chosen
within depth regions
Depth Randomly chosen
(epilimnion,
hypolimnion, photic
zone, etc.
Date
Time
Randomly chosen
Randomly Chosen
Sample at preset
Sample at the
intervals, starting
surface or at preset
with a randomly
intervals surface to
chosen depth
bottom
Randomly chosen
Sample every two
within season,
weeks, starting with
Sample the same
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
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
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
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
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
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

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
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
Table 6.5. Periodicity of hydrometeorological monitoring
N°
WH1:
WH2:
Proposed
indicator
Lake_water
_level
inflow_catc
hment_Mac
ro_Prespa
METHOD
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
Data logger,
staff gauge
Continuous
(at least
daily
readings,
hourly data)
Continuous
(at least
daily
readings,
hourly
data)
Continuous
(at least
daily
readings,
hourly
data)
Continuous
(at least
daily
readings,
hourly
data)
Continuous
(at least
daily
readings,
hourly
data)
Continuous
water level
Continuous
water level
Continuous
water level
Continuous
water level
Continuous
water level
on selected
gauging
stations, 12
discharge
measureme
nts
on selected
gauging
sites, 6
discharge
measurem
ents
on selected
gauging
sites, 6
discharge
measurem
ents
on selected
gauging
sites, 4
discharge
measurem
ents
on selected
gauging
sites, 4
discharge
measurem
ents
Continuous
water level
Continuous
water level
Continuous
water level
Continuous
water level
on both
lakes, 6
discharge
measureme
nts of Koula
stream
on both
lakes, 6
discharge
measurem
ents of
Koula
stream
on both
lakes, 4
discharge
measurem
ents of
Koula
stream
on both
lakes, 2
discharge
measurem
ents of
Koula
stream
on both
lakes, 2
discharge
measurem
ents of
Koula
stream
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Volume
during
irrigation
period
Volume
during
irrigation
period
Volume
during
irrigation
period
Volume
during
irrigation
period
Volume
during
irrigation
period
1 time per
year during
irrigation
season
1 time per
year during
irrigation
season
1 time per
year during
irrigation
season
1 time per
year during
irrigation
season
1 time per
year during
irrigation
season
Continuous
water level
Continuous
water level
Continuous
water level
Continuous
water level
Continuous
water level
on selected
gauging
stations, 12
discharge
measureme
nts)
on selected
gauging
sites, 6
discharge
measurem
ents)
on selected
gauging
sites, 2
discharge
measurem
ents)
on selected
gauging
sites, 2
discharge
measurem
ents)
on selected
gauging
sites, 2
discharge
measurem
ents)
12 times per
year
12 times
per year
12 times
per year
12 times
per year
12 times
per year
Discharge
from water
level, after
calibration of
rating curve
Koula_Micr
o_to_Macro
_Prespa_flo
w
Discharge
from
hydraulic
formula,
gauging for
stream
WH4:
pumping_fr
om_Micro_
Prespa
Pumping
duration or
energy
consum.
from
pumping
station
WH5:
Catchment_
irrigated_ar
ea (covered
under Land
Use indic.
N° LS4 )
Remote
sensing and
GIS
WH3:
WH6:
karstic_spri
ng_flow_to
_Ohrid
Discharge
from water
level, after
calibration of
rating curve
WH7:
Groundwat
er_level
Piezometric
level in
selected
wells
Continuous
water level
Page 67/381
WM1:
WM2:
WM3:
WM4:
WQPCC1:
WQPCC2:
WQPCC3:
WQPCC4:
Precip_Catc
hment
Average of
values for
selected
stations
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Precip_lake
Average of
values for
selected
stations
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
air_temper
ature _Lake
Average of
values for
selected
stations
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
lake_evapo
ration
Average of
Penman
values for
selected
stations
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
Data
collected at
TB level
each 2
months
On field and
lab. analysis
of selected
param.
Sampling at
same
frequency
and dates as
12 discharge
measureme
nts
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 6
discharge
measurem
ents
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 6
discharge
measurem
ents
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 4
discharge
measurem
ents
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 4
discharge
measurem
ents
Lab. analysis
Sampling at
same
frequency
and dates as
12 discharge
measureme
nts
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 6
discharge
measurem
ents
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 6
discharge
measurem
ents
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 4
discharge
measurem
ents
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 4
discharge
measurem
ents
On field and
lab. analysis
of selected
param.
Sampling at
same
frequency
and dates as
12 discharge
measureme
nts
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 6
discharge
measurem
ents
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 6
discharge
measurem
ents
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 4
discharge
measurem
ents
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 4
discharge
measurem
ents
Lab. analysis
Sampling at
same
frequency
and dates as
12 discharge
measureme
nts
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 6
discharge
measurem
ents
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 6
discharge
measurem
ents
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 4
discharge
measurem
ents
Sampling
at same
frequency
and dates
as 4
discharge
measurem
ents
River_Macr
o_Prespa_p
hysico_che
mical
River_Macr
o_Prespa_t
oxic_polluti
on
Groundwat
er_
physico_ch
emical
Groundwat
er_
toxic_polluti
on
Page 68/381
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
N°
WQPC
-L1
WQPC
-L2
WQPC
-L3
WQEB
-L1,
WQEB
-L2
WQEB
-L3
Proposed
indicator
Physicochemical
quality
Toxicity
Eutrophication
Littoral WQ
METHOD
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
6 time
6 times
4 times
4 times
See 6.3
12 times
(15th of
each
month)
(every 2
month)
(every 2
month)
(see
above)
(see
above)
1 time
1 time
1 time
1 time
1 time
End of
August
End of
August
End of
August
End of
August
End of
August
12 times
(15th of
each
month)
6 time
6 times
4 times
4 times
(every 2
month)
(every 2
month)
(see
above)
(see
above)
1 time
1 time
1 time
1 time
1 time
End of
growing
season
End of
growing
season
End of
growing
season
End of
growing
season
End of
growing
season
?
See 6.3
See 6.3
nd
nd
nd
nd
6.4. Equipment
Field equipment
- Suitable sized boat with engine and winch
- Sampling bottle with inbuilt thermometer (2 L minimum)
Page 69/381
- 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
(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
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
-
Figure 6.4. Location of proposed/ existing monitoring stations (WH2) (extracted from
HMA (2008); legend translation S. Petkovski).
Lake stations
Page 73/381
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
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:
WH3:
WH4:
WM1:
Precip_Catchment
WM2:
Precip_lake
WM3:
WM4:
lake_evaporation
WQPC-C1:
WQPC-C2:
WQPC-L1:
WQPC-L2:
Lake_ nutrients
WQPC-L3:
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
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
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
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
(Normative) used
Water Temperature
°C
pH-Value
-log [H*]
Oxygen Concentration
mg L"
Oxygen saturation
%
Conductivity (25°C)
µS cm-1
Secchi depth
m
Soluble reactive Phosphorus (as P)
µgL-1
Total soluble Phosphorus (as P)
µgL"
Total Phosphorus (as P)
µgL-1
Nitrite (as N)
µgL-1
Nitrate (as N)
µgL-1
Ammonia (as N)
µgL-1
Total Nitrogen (as N)
µgL-1
Total suspended solids
mgL-1
Chl-a extractive,
spectrophotometrical
Phytoplankton composition
Phytoplankton quantitative
(Utermöhl)
DIN 38404 Part 4
(modified)
DIN 38404 Part 5
(modified)
EN 25814 (ISO 5814)
(modified)
DIN 38408 Part 23
(modified)
DIN EN 27888 (ISO
7888) (modified)
EN ISO 7027 (modified)
DIN EN ISO 6878 Abs. 4
(modified)
DIN EN ISO 6878
(modified)
DIN EN ISO 6878 Abs. 7
(modified)
DIN EN 26777
(modified)
As EN ISO 10304-1 und
-2 (modified)
DIN 38 406 Part 5
(modified)
DIN 38 409 Part 2
(modified)
EURO
5.60
12.50
15.20
7.40
5.60
14.10
39.10
39.10
12.20
12.20
15.20
50.10
16.50
µgL-1
44.7
1h
1.5 h
67.3
101.0
Page 78/381
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
Chl A
44.7
Phytoplankton analysis
167.4
Total
442.8 €
16.5
173.8 €
Toxic pollution
To implement during the pilot phase:
WQPC-C2:
WQPC-L3:
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
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:
WH3:
WH4:
WM1:
Precip_Catchment
WM2:
Precip_lake
WM3:
WM4:
lake_evaporation
Table 6.10. Summary of budget for the 1st year pilot phase study
Greece
Former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
Albania
High altitude pluviometers
Investment (heated pluviometer+logger) (2)
16,000
Installation of altitude pluviometers (2)
1,260
Water level recorders
1
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
Spreadsheets used for detailed calculation of costs available upon request
Page 80/381
River toxic pollution
9,600
19,200
0
Isotope analysis for groundwater flow
Total 1st year pilot phase
5,000
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)
Greece
Former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
Albania
Total
A- Total investment
costs
3,985
20,590
3,276
27,851
B- Running costs
per year
72,717
54,213
30,053
156,983
Total 1st year Pilot phase
76,702
74,803
33,329
184,834
367,570 €
291,655 €
153,541 €
812,766 €
Total 1st 5 years of
TMS (A + 5xB)
Page 81/381
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
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
2
Page 82/381
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
6
Special Areas of Conservation – designated under the Habitats Directive
came into force on June 1, 1982
Page 83/381
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
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
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
Main sources
(e.g.
Reports, web
pages,
published
articles)
2002-present
Annually (in
summer)
Organisation
in charge of
monitoring
1991-present
Monthly (5-7
times/year)
Remarks
Annual
Availability
of data
Periodicity
Year 2005
Geographic
scale
Period of
monitoring
(Wet meadows in Micro
Prespa)
N° of
parameters
monitored
Parameter(s)
regularly
measured
Ref. N°
THEME
Table 8.1. Existing monitoring programmes for wetland habitats and plant species (extracted from Shumka et al. 2008)
Micro
Prespa
Published
ECAT
and
EKBY
Inventory of
Albanian wet
meadows
Marjeta
Mima/ECAT
Tirana
Natural
Habitats
ALBANIA
Fauna/Flora
Natural Habitats
GREECE
11
Photo-monitoring
12
Wet meadows - functional
group cover: high emergent
helophytes (density, height
and basal diameter), wet
meadow species,
hydrophytes, prairie
species, litter, bare soil
15
High Emergent Helophyte
growth in spring (Typha
angustifolia and Phragmites
australis density and
height, water depth)
2004-present
(will continue
another 3-4
years)
Twice/month
in spring
(April-June)
Not
available
until
published
Society for
the
Protection of
Prespa (SPP)
>4
Micro
Prespa
Not
available
until
published
SPP
5
9
managed
littoral
sites
(Lake
Micro
Prespa)
Not
available
until
published
SPP
1
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
HD
Code
Name
Rationale
Cover in Prespa catchments (%)
Former
Yugoslav
Albania
Greece
Republic of
Macedonia
3170
* Mediterranean temporary ponds
DH-P
0.1
0.1
91 E0
* Alluvial forests (Alnion-glutinosoincanae)
DH-P
<1
0
3150
+ Natural eutrophic lakes with
Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition type
vegetation
DH
1
6420
+ Mediterranean tall humid grasslands
of the Molinio-Holoschoenion
DH
<1
6430
+ Hydrophilous tall herb fringe
communities of plains and of the
montane to alpine levels
DH
<1
0.2
0.1
0.6
1.8
0.5
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
DH-Annex
II, Bern
ConventionAnnex I
rare
?
SPECIES
Aldrovanda vesiculosa
Habitat (HD) Code: code of the habitats in the EU Habitat Directive (92/43) or, if absent, in CORINEBiotope; 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
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 MolinioHoloschoenion, 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

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
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.
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
“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
Table 8.3. Priorities and rationale for monitoring the wetlands habitats and Aldrovanda vesiculosa
HABITAT
Wetland type
Beds of
submerged
and floating
hydrophytes
Wet meadows
Reed-beds
Aldrovanda
vesiculosa
Habitat name
(+ HD Code)
Natural eutrophic
lakes with
Magnopotamion or
Hydrocharition type
vegetation
Mediterranean tall
humid grasslands
of the MolinioHoloschoenion
(6420)
Large Sedge
communities
(72B0)
Reed beds (72A0)
Aldrovanda
vesiculosa
Rationale for monitoring
Legal
protection
Functional
role
Present
knowledge
DH
High for
water quality
and fauna
Good baseline
information on
Micro, less
information on
Macro Prespa
DH
High for fish
and birds
Insufficient in exact
location
Priority for
monitoring
Priority 1
Priority 1
none
High for fish
and birds
none
High for
water quality
and fauna
DH-Annex
II, Bern
Convention
Annex I
Location known,
insufficient
knowledge on
changes and
management
Priority 1
Small
Possibly extinct,
data insufficient
Preliminary
assessment
needed before
including into
the monitoring
scheme
Priority 2
Alluvial forest
Alluvial forests:
Alnion-glutinosoincanae (91E0)
DH-Priority
Small for
Prespa
Largest patch in
Former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia where
threatened;
scattered in
fragmented patches
in the other
countries
Eutrophic
herbaceous
wet prairies
Hydrophilous tall
herb fringe
communities of
plains and of the
montane to alpine
levels (6430)
DH
Small for
Prespa
Fragmented in
mountainous areas
Priority 2
none
Important
but directly
addressed by
water quality
Insufficient
Not relevant:
addressed in
the "Water"
theme
DH-Priority
Small
Not present
not relevant
Open water
Mediterranean
temporary
pond
Open water pelagic zone of
lakes
Mediterranean
temporary ponds
(3170)
Page 93/381
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
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

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
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
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
Name
Hypotheses for
ecological change
Indicators (state)
Change in water level
Beds of
submerged
and floating
hydrophytes
Change in water
quality
Encroachment of exotic
invasive species (e.g.
Lagarosiphon,
Ludwigia)
Surface area of the
habitat;
Species composition
of vegetation
Indicators
(pressure)
Remarks
Eutrophication
(domestic or
agricultural
pollution);
Drawdown;
Siltation
8.2.2.2. Wet meadows (priority 1)
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
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:


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)
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
Table 8.5. Indicators for wet meadows
Name
Wet
meadows
Hypotheses for
ecological change
Indicators
(state)
Indicators
(pressure)
Transformation into
intensive agricultural
areas (annual crops)
Location and
surface area of
the habitat
land use (e.g.
grazing pressure),
agriculture, drainage
(level of the
groundwater table)
Intensification of the
management of
pastures (N addition,
overgrazing)
Species
composition,
abundance of
nitrophilous species
land use, agriculture,
N input, grazing
pressure, drainage
(level of the
groundwater table)
Extensification of the
management or
abandonment of
pasture resulting in
reedbed
encroachment
Species
composition,
abundance of tall
helophytes (e.g.
Phragmites, Typha
spp, Salix spp)
land use, grazing
pressure, harvest of
reedbeds
Shrub / forest
encroachment
Location and
surface area of
the habitat,
cover of shrubs
water management,
drainage (level of the
groundwater table)
Remarks
Habitat created by
opening in riverine
or humid forests by
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
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


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)
Name
Hypotheses for
ecological change
Indicators (state)
Indicators
(pressure)
Remarks
Cover of the habitat
Grazing
pressure,
land use
Remote sensing
and/or reference
points along
transects
Reed die-back
Cover of the habitat
Water level
of the lake,
water quality
Transects
Encroachment on the
lake edges
Location on transects
Water level
of the lake
Transects
Changes in dominant
species (Typha,
Phragmites, Scirpus,
etc.)
Species composition,
dominant species
Wild fires,
water levels,
etc.
Remote sensing
Replacement by wet
meadows
Reed
beds
Page 101/381
8.2.2.4. Aldrovanda vesiculosa (preliminary assessment)
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
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
SPECIES
Aldrovanda
vesiculosa
Hypotheses
for ecological
change
Changes in the
distribution
(increasing or
decreasing)
Indicators
(state)
Indicators (pressure)
Location and
extent of
populations
Vegetation map; Helophytes at
the location of A. vesiculosa
populations;
Decrease of water quality
(increase N, P & pH) or water
levels;
Increase of summer
temperatures (?)
Remarks
Requires
preliminary
assessment
of the
location of
populations
8.2.2.5. Alluvial forests (91E0) (priority 2)
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
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
Table 8.8. Indicators for Alluvial forests (Alnion-glutinoso-incanae)
Name
Alluvial
forests
(Alnionglutinosoincanae)
Hypotheses for
ecological change
Indicators (state)
Indicators
(pressure)
Succession towards
hard wood (drier)
Surface area of the
habitat and other
successional stages;
Species composition of
the forest
Flow regime
(number of
dams,
embankment,
channelization,
etc.)
Plantation of poplars
the forest
Land use
Destruction for
pastures
Surface area of the
habitat and other
successional stages;
the forest
Land use
Remarks
Requires
preliminary
mapping of the
habitat and of
patches of the
different
successional
stages
8.2.2.6. Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine
levels (6430) (priority 2)
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
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)
Name
Hydrophilous
tall herb
fringe
communities
of plains and
of the
montane to
alpine levels
Hypotheses for
ecological change
Indicators
(state)
Transformation into
intensive
agricultural areas
(annual crops)
Location and
surface area
of the habitat
Land use (e.g. grazing
pressure), agriculture,
groundwater table)
Intensification of
the management of
pastures (N
addition,
overgrazing)
Species
composition;
abundance of
nitrophilous
species
Land use, agriculture, N
input, grazing pressure,
groundwater table)
Shrub / forest
encroachment
Location and
surface area
of the habitat;
cover of
shrubs
Indicators (pressure)
Water management,
groundwater table)
Remarks
Habitat created
by openings in
riverine or
humid forests by
floods or wood
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
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
name WV/ Wetland Vegetation)
Nature*
No
(Pressure
indicators)**
WV1
Location and surface area of patches of the habitat
“Beds of hydrophytes”
S
LS1, LS2, W11,
W12, W16-21
WV2
Species composition of vegetation in habitat “Beds
of hydrophytes” (many possible variables: cover of
characteristic/opportunistic species, of
annuals/perennials, of exotic species, etc.)
S
W11, W12, W1621
WV3
Location and surface area of patches of the wet
meadows
S
LS1, LS2, W11,
W12
WV4
Species composition and structure of the
vegetation of the habitat “Wet meadows”; several
possible variables: height of vegetation, cover of
nitrophilous species, cover of characteristic/non
characteristic species, cover of shrub species, etc.
S
LS1, LS2, W11,
W12, WV7
WV5
“Reedbeds”
S
LS1, LS2, W11,
W12, WV7
WV6
Species composition and structure of the
vegetation of “Reedbeds”; several possible
variables: cover of shrubs, cover of
characteristic/non characteristic species
S
LS1, LS2, W11,
W12, WV7
WV7
Direct management of “Reedbeds” (wildfires,
harvest, etc).
P
WV8
Location and surface area of populations of
S
W11, W12, W1621
* 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
8.3. Methods
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 110m 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
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
WV1
Location and surface
area of hydrophytes
Remote sensing +
field validation
WV2
Abundance and depth
distribution of
hydrophyte species
Jensen protocol
(Observation
units)
WV3,
WV5
area of patches of
vegetation (wet
meadows and reedbeds)
Remote sensing +
field validation
(2 satellite
images)+ field
validation
2 satellite images +
field validation
WV7
Direct management of
reed beds (fire, harvest,
etc.)
Remote sensing +
field validation
Pilot study (June
or July)
1 satellite image +
field validation
WV3,
WV5
Depth distribution of
vegetation types
Distance to
reference points
along transects
Pilot study (June
or July)
June or July
June or July
June or July
WV4,
WV6
communities
Cover of species
(Braun-Blanquet)
Pilot study (June
or July
June or July
June or July
June or July
WV8
area of populations of
Depending
on
preliminary
assessment
Depending
on
preliminary
assessment
Depending on
preliminary
assessment
Preliminary
assessment
before defining
monitoring
Pilot phase
2 satellite
images + field
validation
(June-July)
YEAR 1
June or July
June-July
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
2 satellite images +
field validation
(June-July)
June or July
June-July
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 (WV2WV6). 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°
WV1,
WV3,
WV5,
WV7
Proposed indicator
Location and surface area
of patches of hydrophytes,
of reed beds, of wet
meadows, of management
types
WV1
Depth distribution of
hydrophytes
WV3,
WV5
Depth distribution of reed
beds and wet meadows
WV2
vegetation in beds of
hydrophytes
WV4
vegetation in wet meadows
Parameters that need to be measured
Date + remote sensing information: number of patches and surface area, geographic coordinates,
Calibration and field validation: date, coordinates of test points, identification of the patch, dominant
species, water depth, type of management/impact on the vegetation
See Annex 8.1
Date, n° of Observation unit, n° of transect, coordinates of the ends of the transects, depth profile of the
transect, substrate, dominant species, (Secchi depth)
See Annex 8.2
Date, n° of transect, position along the transect of the beginning and the end of each patch of vegetation
(separating for dominant species)
See Annexes 8.3 & 8.4
Date, n° transect, n° quadrat, water depth, Secchi depth, cover per species and per stratum, total cover
of vegetation per stratum, bare ground (%), height of vegetation
Notice any information that could be useful for interpretation of date (comments/remarks)
See Annex 8.2
Date, n° transect, n° quadrat, cover per species, total cover of vegetation per stratum, bare ground
(%),height of vegetation
Notice additional species that could be present at close vicinity in the same type of habitat and not found
in the quadrat, notice any information that could be useful for interpretation of date (comments/remarks)
See Annex 8.3
WV6
vegetation in reed beds
Date, N° transect, n° quadrat, water depth, cover per species and per stratum, total cover of vegetation
per stratum, bare ground (%),height of vegetation
Notice additional species that could be present at close vicinity in the same type of habitat and not found
in the quadrat, notice any information that could be useful for interpretation of date (comments/remarks)
See Annex 8.4
WV7
Direct management of
reedbeds (wildfires,
harvest, etc.)
Date, + remote sensing information: number of patches and surface area, geographic coordinates, type of
management/impact on vegetation
Field validation: date, coordinates of test points, validation of the identification (Y/N, dominant species,
water depth, type of management/impact on the vegetation)
See Annex 8.1
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 510 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
Table 8.16. Equipment for monitoring wetland vegetation
Number
Cost for one
item (€)
Total cost
(€)
All
1 per country/team
150€
450€
Satellite images
WV1, WV3,
WV5, WV7
2 every 5 years,
probably the same
than for Remote
sensing
0
Computer + GIS
software
WV1, WV3,
WV5, WV7
See “Remote
sensing” indicators
Purchase to be
done through
“Remote
sensing”
indicators
Equipment
GPS
Indicators
0
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.
8.5.1. 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
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
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
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Macro Prespa
Longitude
Latitude
20.95891
41.00678
20.96729
41.00651
20.97367
41.00472
20.98090
41.00357
20.98527
41.00026
20.99273
40.99928
21.00010
40.99825
21.00602
40.99610
21.01317
40.99489
21.02116
40.99433
21.02800
40.99288
21.03484
40.99144
21.04098
40.98947
21.04544
40.98597
21.04842
40.98160
21.04963
40.97589
21.05369
40.97235
21.05867
40.96950
21.06436
40.96693
21.06703
40.96233
21.06854
40.95686
21.07052
40.95173
21.07450
40.94813
21.07647
40.94300
21.07737
40.93706
21.07757
40.93059
21.07885
40.92494
21.08236
40.92099
21.08780
40.91849
21.09249
40.91516
21.09670
40.91173
21.09905
40.90689
21.09285
40.89558
21.09490
40.89052
21.09827
40.88620
21.10101
40.88166
21.10476
40.87788
21.10781
40.87357
21.11101
40.86937
21.11506
40.86583
21.11733
40.86093
21.11776
40.85464
20.89903
40.95470
20.90048
40.94917
20.91354
40.97236
20.90377
40.94504
20.90791
40.94156
20.91334
40.93904
20.91888
40.93662
20.92465
40.93438
ID
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
Macro Prespa
Longitude
Latitude
20.93217
40.93346
20.94261
40.93476
20.94803
40.93225
20.95147
40.92823
20.95700
40.92580
20.96096
40.92192
20.96813
40.92074
20.97215
40.91716
20.97897
40.91571
20.98520
40.91382
20.99265
40.91259
20.98651
40.90131
20.94174
40.88744
20.93031
40.87875
20.92885
40.87101
20.94692
40.88475
20.94819
40.87883
20.93781
40.87094
20.94241
40.86781
20.95349
40.87623
20.94200
40.86086
20.96369
40.87735
20.98680
40.89489
20.94508
40.85658
20.95574
40.85806
20.96139
40.85572
20.96610
40.85267
20.96592
40.84591
20.93974
40.81938
20.91096
40.77731
20.90798
40.76842
20.91083
40.76396
20.91729
40.76224
20.94470
40.77649
20.93817
40.81154
20.93950
40.80593
20.92843
40.79751
20.90899
40.78270
21.06542
40.81497
21.06168
40.81876
21.05758
40.82226
21.05378
40.82600
21.05036
40.83002
21.04725
40.83428
21.04307
40.83774
21.03878
40.84110
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Micro Prespa
Longitude
Latitude
21.10356
40.80396
21.11189
40.79269
21.11627
40.78142
21.12271
40.77016
21.09852
40.72434
21.08516
40.71584
21.05372
40.69483
21.04253
40.69025
21.03005
40.68239
20.99477
40.68240
21.10499
40.73580
21.07526
40.71158
21.06492
40.70596
21.05119
40.77938
21.05248
40.76623
21.07014
40.75836
21.08262
40.74951
21.08304
40.74459
21.07958
40.73281
21.06235
40.72398
21.05288
40.71776
21.03114
40.69974
21.01833
40.69097
21.07337
40.72677
21.04056
40.70814
21.00552
40.67257
21.00423
40.68895
21.01886
40.67355
Page 123/381
8.6. Organizations responsible for monitoring aquatic vegetation
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
Republic of Macedonia
Indicator
Albania
Greece
WV1
Remote sensing: See
“Land use”
Field validation: MNS,
University of Tirana
Remote sensing: See
“Land use”
Field validation: BI-FS
Skopje, HIO
Remote sensing: See “Land
use”
Field validation: SPP,
Universities & Technological
Education Institutes
WV2
MNS, University of
Tirana
BI-FS Skopje, HIO
SPP, Universities &
Technological Education
Institutes
WV3
Remote sensing: See
“Land use”
Remote sensing: See
“Land use”
Skopje, HIO
use”
WV4
MNS, University of
Tirana
BI-FS Skopje, HIO
SPP, Universities &
Institutes
WV5
Remote sensing: See
“Land use”
Remote sensing: See
“Land use”
Skopje, HIO
use”
WV6
MNS, University of
Tirana
BI-FS Skopje, HIO
SPP, Universities &
Institutes
WV7
Remote sensing: See
“Land use”
Remote sensing: See
“Land use”
Skopje, HIO
use”
WV8
MNS, University of
Tirana
BI-FS Skopje, HIO
SPP, Universities &
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
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)
Number
Cost for one
item (€)
Total cost
(€)
1 of each type per
country
150
450
Secchi disk (home made)
1 per country
20
60
GPS
1 per country
150
450
2 per country (6)
20
60
20-30 metal tube (to
avoid burning)
cemented in soil +
wood pole 2-3m fitted
in the tube
2 + man power
(1
days/country)
50-100
16m (synthetic?) rope + 4 tent sticks
(delineation of the quadrats)
1 per country
5
15
Grapnel
1 day in each
country/team
25
75
1 per country per year
5
15/year
Consumables/ running costs
Decametres (50m) and 10m + weight
(measuring water depth and Secchi depth)
Double meters, plastic tubes (for marking
sites, etc.)
Reference poles
Board for measuring height of vegetation
Page 125/381
Table 8.20. Estimated costs for the field validation of remote sensing for wetland vegetation
Number
Cost for
one item
(€)
Total cost (€)
Staff time (person.day) Albania
3
100
300
Staff time (person.day) Former Yugoslav
3
100
300
Staff time (person.day) Greece
3
300
900
Field validation of remote sensing
(WV 1, WV3, WV5, WV7)
Staff
Total Staff
1500
Consumables
Lodging & per diem Greece
1 trip of 3 days
including 2 nights in
hotel 1 persons
/country= 3 per diem
45*2 (hotel)
55*3 (per
diem)
255
Lodging & per diem Albania
1 trip of 3 days
hotel 1 persons
12 *2
(hotel)
30*3 (per
diem)
138
Lodging & per diem Former Yugoslav
1 trip of 3 days
hotel 1 persons
30*2 (hotel)
30*3 (per
diem)
150
Km
500Km/Greece
1100Km/Albania
1100Km/The Former
Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia
0.4
0.4
0.4
200
440
440
Boat rental (€/day) Albania
1 day/ country
50
50
Boat rental (€/day) The Former Yugoslav
1 day/ country
60
60
Boat rental (€/day) Greece
1 day/ country
200
200
Total consumables
1933
TOTAL Field Validation
3433
Equipment needed: GPS, meter, decameter
Page 126/381
Table 8.21. Estimated costs for the monitoring of hydrophyte beds
Hydrophyte beds
(WV 1 & WV 2)
Number
Cost for one item
(€)
Total cost (€)
10
100
1000
10
100
1000
10
300
3000
5000
1 trip of 5 days
hotel 2 persons
/country= 2x4.5 per
diem
45*4 (hotel) *2
55*4.5(per
diem)*2
1 trip of 5 days
hotel 2 persons
/country= 2x4.5 per
diem
12*4 (hotel) *2
30*4.5(per
diem)*2
366
Lodging & per diem The Former
1 trip of 5 days
hotel 2 persons
/country= 2x4.5 per
diem
30*4 (hotel)*2
30*4.5(per
diem)*2
510
Km
500Km/Greece
1100Km/Albania
1100Km/ The Former
Macedonia
0.4
0.4
0.4
200
440
440
4 day/ country
50
200
Boat rental (€/day) The Former
4 day/ country
60
240
4 day/ country
200
800
Staff
Staff time (person.day) The
Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia
Total Staff
Consumables
945
Total consumables
4141
TOTAL Hydrophyte beds
9141
Equipment needed: GPS, meter, decameter, Secchi-disk, Grapnel, rake, plastic bags for plant samples
Page 127/381
Table 8.22. Estimated costs for the monitoring of the species composition of wet meadows
Species composition of wet
meadows
(WV 4)
Staff
Staff installation of permanent
reference points (1/2 day
technician in each country)
(2persons for 4 days)
Macedonia
(more transects in Micro/Greece)
Number
Cost for one item
(€)
Total cost (€)
3 x 0.5
145 (Greece)
50 (Albania)
50 (The Former
Macedonia)
122.5
8
100
800
6
100
600
10
300
3000
Total Staff
4522.5
Consumables
1 trip of 5 days
hotel 2 persons
/country= 2x4.5
per diem
45*4 (hotel) *2
30*4.5(per diem)*2
1 trip of 3 days
hotel 2 persons
/country= 2x2.5
per diem
12*2 (hotel) *2
60*2.5(per diem)*2
1 trip of 3 days
hotel 2 persons
/country= 2x2.5
per diem
30*2 (hotel)*2
30*2.5(per diem)*2
270
0.4
0.4
0.4
200
440
440
Km
500Km/Greece
1100Km/Albania
1100Km/ The
Former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
855
198
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
Table 8.23. Estimated costs for the monitoring of the species composition of reed beds
Species composition of reed
beds (WV 6)
Number
Cost for one item
(€)
Total cost (€)
3 x 0.5
145 (Greece)
50 (Albania)
50 (The Former
Macedonia)
122.5
Staff time (person.day) Albania (2
persons for 5 days)
10
100
1000
Macedonia
10
100
1000
10
300
3000
Staff
Staff installation of permanent
reference points (1/2 day
technician in each country)
Total Staff
Consumables
5122.5
1 trip of 5 days
hotel 2 persons
/country= 2x4.5
per diem
45*4 (hotel) *2
55*4.5(per diem)*2
1 trip of 5 days
hotel 2 persons
/country= 2x4.5
per diem
12*4 (hotel) *2
30*4.5(per diem)*2
366
1 trip of 5 days
hotel 2 persons
/country= 2x4.5
per diem
30*4 (hotel)*2
30*4.5(per diem)*2
510
0.4
0.4
0.4
200
440
440
Km
Total consumables
TOTAL Reed beds
500Km/Greece
1100Km/Albania
1100Km/ The
Former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
855
2811
7933.5
Equipment needed: GPS, meter, decameter, plastic bags for plant samples, and board for measuring
height of vegetation
Page 129/381
Table 8.24. Estimated costs for the survey of Aldrovanda vesiculosa
Number
Cost for
one item
(€)
Total cost (€)
1
100
100
Staff time (person.day) The Former
1
100
100
1
300
300
(WV 8)
Staff
Total Staff
500
Consumables
1 per diem
1 per diem
55
30
55
30
Lodging & per diem The Former Yugoslav
1 per diem
30
30
100Km/Greece
700Km/Albania
700Km/ The Former
Macedonia
0.4
0.4
0.4
40
280
280
1 day/ country
50
50
Boat rental (€/day) The Former Yugoslav
1 day/ country
60
60
1 day/ country
200
200
Km
Total consumables
1025
TOTAL Hydrophyte beds
1525
Equipment needed: GPS, Secchi-disk, Grapnel, plastic bags for plant samples
Page 130/381
Table 8.25. Estimated costs for the pilot phase
Species composition of reed
beds (WV 6)
Number
Cost for one item
(€)
Total cost (€)
Staff time (vegetation expert) (days)
5
700
3500
(2persons for 4 days)
8
100
800
Staff time (person.day) The Former
8
100
800
8
300
2400
Staff
Total Staff
7500
Consumables
1 day
200
200
1 trip of 4 days with
6 persons
(2/country) with 4
nights in hotel =
6x4 per diem
45*4 (hotel) *6=
1080
55*4(per diem)*6=
1320
2400
Lodging & per diem expert
1 trip of 5 days
hotel
Transport (expert)
Plane ticket + car
rental 5 days+ 1
night hotel in
Thessaloniki
Km
500Km/Greece
1500Km/Albania
1500Km/ The
Former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
45*5 (hotel)= 225
30*5(per diem)=
150
375
1000
1000
0.4
0.4
0.4
200
600
600
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
GREECE
No
Proposed
indicator
Method
ALBANIA
No of
people
involved
No of
days /
year
Cost
per day
per
person
Total
cost
(per
year)
No of
people
involved
No of
days /
year
Cost
per day
per
person
Total
cost
(per
year)
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC
OF MACEDONIA
Cost
Total
o
N of
No of
per day
cost
people
days /
per
(per
involved
year
person
year)
WV1,
WV3,
WV5,
WV7
Location
and
surface
area of
habitats
Visit of
sites
(for field
validation)
1
3
300
900
1
3
100
300
1
3
100
300
WV1,
WV2
Hydrophyte
beds
Jensen
2
5
300
3000
2
5
100
1000
2
5
100
1000
Wet
meadows
Transects
+
Quadrats
2
5
300
3000
2
4
100
800
2
3
100
600
WV4
1
0.5
145
72.5
1
0.5
50
25
1
0.5
50
25
5
300
3000
2
5
100
1000
2
5
100
1000
Reed beds
Transects
+
Quadrats
2
WV6
1
0.5
145
72.5
1
0.5
50
25
1
0.5
50
25
1
1
300
300
1
1
100
100
1
1
100
100
WV8
Aldrovanda
vesiculosa
Field
survey
Table 8.27. Total costs (equipment, staff, consumables/ running costs) per country
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF
MACEDONIA
Staff cost (per
year)
Consumables/
running costs
(per year)
Total cost
(per year)
Staff cost (per
year)
Consumables/
running costs
(per year)
900
655
1555
300
628
928
300
650
950
WV1,
WV2
Hydrophyte
beds
135
3000
1945
4945
1000
1006
2006
1000
1190
2190
WV4
Wet
meadows
315
3072.5
1055
4127.5
82.5
638
1463
625
710
1335
WV6
Reed beds
315
3072.5
1055
4127.5
1025
806
1831
1025
950
1975
WV8
Aldrovanda
vesiculosa
300
295
595
100
360
460
100
370
470
10345
5005
15350
3250
3438
6688
3050
3870
6920
TOTAL
1215
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€
Total cost
(per year)
Total cost
(per year)
450
Maintenance/
Updating (per
year)
Consumables/
running costs
(per year)
WV1,
WV3,
WV5,
WV7
Location
and
surface
area of
habitats
(field
validation)
Maintenance/
Updating (per
year)
Proposed
indicator
Maintenance/
Updating (per
year)
No
Staff cost (per
year)
ALBANIA
Equipment costs
(€)
GREECE
9. Forests and Terrestrial Habitats
Rémi Grovel, Forêt Energie Ressources (FER), Vieille Brioude, France
9.1. Introduction
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

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.
The guiding principles of forestry use in the European Union are sustainability and multifunctionality. 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
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 transnational 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 followup 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
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
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

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.
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.
3
Page 138/381
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 stateowned 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
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 10years 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
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”.
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

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
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 10001100m.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
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 GRPrespa).
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 obtusatiFagetum, 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
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 1,7002,000m, 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
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
Directive
% cover in
Priority
Name
Prespa
for
TBM
catchment5
Semi-natural dry
grasslands on
calcareous
5
P
substrates (FestucoBrometaliae)
Pseudo-steppe with
grasses and annuals
1
(TheroBrachypodietea)
Species-rich Nardus
grasslands, on
1
siliceous substrates
in mountain areas
Grecian juniper
<1
P
woods
ALBANIA
% cover in
Prespa
catchment
GREECE
Priority
for TBM
% cover in
Priority
Prespa
for TBM
catchment
6.03
2.1
2
2.9
0.55
7.8
P
10.2
P
11
P
P
P
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
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).
(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
Table 9.2. Non-priority habitat types (EEC Directive 92/43) found in Transboundary
Prespa, and their interest for Transboundary Monitoring (TBM)
Important Habitats, EU
Habitats Directive
Former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
Name
% cover in
Prespa
catchment
+ Alpine and subalpine heaths
ALBANIA
GREECE
Priority % cover in Priority % cover in
Priority
for
Prespa
for
Prespa
for TBM
TBM catchment TBM catchment
5
0.84
P
9.3
+ Acidophilous (Luzulo-Fagetum)
beech forests
10
6.7
P
2.6
biotope
+ Neutrophilous (AsperuloFagetum) beech forests
10
6.4
P
3.0
biotope
<1
3
P
0.3
biotope
3
5.5
P
1.0
biotope
3.6
P
0.4
biotope
+ Subalpine beech woods with
Acer and Rumex arifolius
+ Quercus trojana woods (Italy
and Greece)
+ Quercus frainetto woods
8
P
+ Subalpine and alpine tall herb
communities
<1
0.2
0.1
+ Mediterranean tall-herb and rush
meadows (Molinio-Holoschoenion)
<1
?
0.5
P
7
9.3
12.7
biotope
Other habitats
- Eastern white oak woods and
balkanic thermophilous oak woods
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
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
management plan
F4
S
Structure and dynamics within forest stands and other terrestrial
habitats
F5
S
Distribution and quality of alpine & subalpine meadows
F6
S
Silvicultural practices for sustainable forest management (SFM)
F7
R
(F8)
S
Natural damages and diseases
*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

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
Indicator F1:
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:
Parameters to be measured are very simple because they deal with
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
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),
MoAFW, MoEPP (Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia), MoRDF/Forestry Service, PSCWM (GR) and
National Parks
-
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
Indicator F2
Priority terrestrial habitats (EU 92/43 Directive)
conservation, distribution and quality
Nature:
S
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.
Sub-indicators:
- Grecian juniper woods (GJW) spatial distribution and tree cover (ages
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)
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.
Method / source of information:
Mapping of such areas, GIS, Cadastre
Local forest surveys
Institution supposed to be involved:
National Parks; MoE Agency of Envt and Forest,
Prespa NP, University/Fac. of Forest Sciences & Nat.
Sc. (AL), MinoE, GNP & PNP (Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia), MoEnv/PNFMB, University
(GR), Forestry services/department
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
Indicator F3
Terrestrial Habitats and Forest areas under protection
Nature:
S
This indicator is needed to assess the
(whatever the protection status is) and
policy through the percentage of these
Habitats Directive for which specific
implemented.
Subindicators:
total forested area /vegetation cover under protection
to monitor the level of effort of biodiversity protection
high priority natural habitats sites classified by the EU
protection & management plans are designed and
- % of protected forests (compared to productive forests)
- area of High priority & important natural habitats sites (EU Habitats Directive)
under legal protection or with appropriate management plans
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)
Forest management plans, National Parks zones
National Parks; MoE/ Forestry Departments
-
Identify (future) protection zoning within the National Parks Management plans.
Habitat mapping in Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Indicator F4
Forest lands and grasslands under a comprehensive
and implemented management plan
Nature:
S
% 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
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.
FMP contents, other (?)
Forest Services and NP, MoE/Dir. of Protected area (AL),
Forestry services and NP, MoE, Forest Public enterprises
(Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Forestry
Services and PNFMB (GR)
-
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
Indicator F5
Structure and dynamics within forestlands
and other terrestrial habitats
Nature:
S
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.
Parameters:
-
forest vertical profile: number of layers (understorey)
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)
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.
Forest management plan and forest inventories,
forest/vegetation permanent plots
National parks, Forestry services & research, Fac. of
Sciences, Faculty of Forestry science (Skopje), Public
Forestry Enterprises, authorities for grasslands (?)
-
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
Indicator F6
Distribution and quality of alpine & subalpine
grasslands/meadows
Nature:
R
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
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
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
Republic
of
Macedonia),
For.
Serv.,
PNFMB,
Faculty/Forest Research Institution (GR)
-
Survey and mapping of alpine and sub-alpine grasslands/meadows.
Ecological research programs or pastoral unit description and mapping.
Page 155/381
Indicator F7
Silvicultural practices for sustainable forest
management (FM)
Nature:
R
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.
Sub-indicators:
-
Harvesting rate: allowed harvest and annual harvested timber volume
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.)
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,
Annual wood sales, Forest inventories, Annual cutting
programmes
Forestry Services, Forestry Public enterprises, Private
forestry enterprises
-
-
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
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)
Sub-indicators:
-
wild fires (already monitored in F1) and fire damaged areas
natural tree felling
diseases (desiccation, dieback process on specific forest species, etc.)
This indicator is linked to meteorological and climatic data. Is it relevant for the TMS?
Forest management plans, National statistical surveys
MoE (?)
Civil Emergency Directorate of Korcha Prefecture, PNP
(AL), Forestry services or Fire Services, Departments
in charge of Forest/ vegetation health network/
monitoring
Annual forest burnt area in each part of the basin, location and origin of forest fires.
Page 156/381
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
S/I
F2
Priority terrestrial habitats conservation and distribution
S
F3
Terrestrial habitats and forested areas under protection
R
F4
Forest and grasslands under a comprehensive and
implemented management plan
R
F5
Structure and dynamics within forest stands and other
terrestrial habitats
S
F6
S
F7
Silvicultural practices for Sustainable Forest Management
(SFM)
R
F8
S/I
*Nature of the Indicator/parameter: P = Pressure (relevant to the socio-economic
theme); S = State; I = Impact/ changes; R = Response
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
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
7
But with a lot of inaccurate information for specific habitat types
European Environmental Agency
Page 158/381
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
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
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.
9
Page 160/381
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
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
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 georeferenced).

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
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
F2
annual: forest degradation,
encroachment, fires, fluctuation,…
each 5 year: vegetation types
fluctuation, forest stands
Priority terrestrial habitats
conservation & distribution
Remote sensing, mapping each
year with field control in
spring/summer and october
Remote sensing, mapping
distribution trends
temporary plots for quality
for
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
X
x
X
Terrestrial Habitats and Forest areas Checking official document each 2
under protection
years in september
©
©
©
F4
Forest lands and grasslands under a Checking official
comprehensive
and
implemented document each
management plan
september
©
©
©
F5
Structure and dynamics within
Permanents plots every 5 years
forestlands and other terrestrial
in August/ september
habitats
Distribution and quality of alpine & Permanent and temporary plots
(each 2 years)
subalpine grasslands/meadows
F7
Sylvicultural
sustainable FM
practices
and technical
2 years in
X
remote sensing with field control /
observation
Permanents plots every 5 years
in August/ september
X
X
and
economical
statistics (Nov or December)
Permanent plots for silvicultural
parameters every 5 years)
F8
X
X
for Harvesting
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
F3
F6
x
X
x
x
x
x
X
X monitoring on field plots
x remote sensing (image interpretation)
© control on document
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
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°
F1
Proposed indicator
(to fit with Land use)
mapping for initial
statement and
Then 5 years monitoring
Annual changes to monitor
Parameters
• dominant vegetation cover: high forest (beech/fir,
beech) / low forest (oak forests) / shrub lands /
pastures-meadows cover (area in ha)
• EUNIS habitats classification (area in ha and
mapping)
• patchiness (fragmentation perimeter of each patch),
forest gaps & bare land, eroded soils
• fluctuation on the upper limit of forest stands
(beech, junipers)
• length and density of forest roads (km/100 ha)
• forest degradation, encroachment (trees/shrubs)
and depletion (illegal clear cutting areas,…)
• wild fire (mean annual burnt area in ha)
Priority terrestrial habitats
(EU Directive 92/43)
conservation & distribution
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
substrates (Festuco Brometaliae)
o Pseudo-steppe with grasses and annuals
(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)
F3
Terrestrial Habitats and
Forest areas under
protection
• area and % of protection forest (compared to the
total of forest lands and Prespa basin)
• area of High priority & important natural habitats
sites (EU Directive Habitats) under legal protection
and/or with appropriate management plan (that
ensure protection)
F4
Forest lands and
grasslands under a
comprehensive and
implemented management
plan
F2
• ha and % of state-owned forestlands under MP
• ha and % of private forestlands under MP
• ha and % of grasslands under MP
MP should be implemented with annual planning
Page 166/381
F5
F6
F7
Structure and dynamics
within forestlands and
other terrestrial habitats
• 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
diversity:
abundance,
density,
dominance,
frequency.
• 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)
Distribution and quality of
(alpine &) subalpine
grasslands/meadows
• stocking rate/grazing capacity: Unit/ha according to
their floristic composition
• meadows distribution and quality (abundance,
density, dominance, frequency)
• Vaccinium myrtillus & Juniperus communis spp.
nana area of expansion
Sylvicultural practices for
sustainable FM
• Harvesting rate: allowed harvest and annual
harvested timber volume 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.): ha of
artificial reforestation or regeneration.
Natural disasters and
diseases
F8
Annual monitoring through
remote sensing
5 years monitoring
• wild fires (already monitored in F1): fire damaged
areas (locations), number of starting fires/year
• natural tree felling (average volume or stem/ha)
• other diseases: desiccation and defoliation rate
(>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
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
Equipment
Unit Cost
(in €)
Number
Aerial photos / orthofotos /
Satellite images
See Land use
Software
See Land use
Total cost
(in €)
Incl. in Land
use
Incl. in Land
use
Table 9.8. Equipment and costs for permanent monitoring plots
Number
Unit Cost
(in €)
Total cost
(in €)
GPS (e.g. Garmin, Magellan) for navigation
with external antenna
6
400 €
2 400 €
Hypsometer and dendrometer (i.e. Vertex III
GS with monopod staff, 360° transponder,
360° transponder adapter) for height, diameter
& distance measurement
3
1 200
3 600 €
Metal detector
3
900
2 700
Altimeter
6
50
350
Diameter tapes (5m), measuring steel tape
(50m), flagging tape
6
120
720
Set of surveying poles (6 per unit, length 2m,
triangular, white/red)
6
90
540
(to be
defined
more
precisely)
10
3000
Equipment
For forest stands permanents plots
Metal stakes (for permanent plots marking)
and mallets
Compass
6
Distance measurer (e.g. Walktax) with
replacement lines (3000m)
6
250
1 500
Tool for electronic field data collection (pocket
PC or electronic calliper) Field-Computer
3
2000
6000
Constructed 1 m x 1 m frame
-
Tree tags and tree paint (set)
6
70
420
TOTAL
21 230 €
Page 168/381
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.
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
Table 9.9. Number of field monitoring stations and principles for their location
Proposed indicator
N° of field monitoring stations & principles for
choosing their location
• Vegetation cover change
• Priority Terrestrial Habitat
conservation, distribution
and quality
• Natural disasters and
diseases
No special (permanent) monitoring station is needed for
F1, F2 and F8 indicators, except for some parameters
that will be measured in the forest permanent plots
network (F5, F7). In-field evidence plots (groundtruthing sites) will be identified for unit verification from
remote sensing.
F5
Structure and dynamics
within FTH
For each of the 8 or 9 vegetation classification, it is
expected that 4 to 10 permanents plots will be enough
depending on extension, occurrence and stress factors
to natural habitats in each country, with a minimum of 2
(or 3) station per vegetation type in each country.
F7
Sylvicultural practices for
sustainable FM
To be practical the same set of forest permanent plots
as for F5 will be used for F7 indicators in forest stands.
Distribution and quality of
alpine & subalpine
grasslands
8 grassland permanent plots will be established (2 GR, 2
AL, 4 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: 2 in each
National Park), to be located on different substrates.
Each one will be part of the F5 permanent monitoring
plots dealing with grassland types (small quadrats).
N°
F1, F2
and
F8
F6
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
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
Table 9.10. Organizations proposed for monitoring forest and terrestrial habitats
N°
F1
MoE / Agency of
Environment and
Forestry (EFA)
Ministry of Environment
Physical Planning and
Public Works (MEPPPW)
-
-
Former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
Ministry of
Environment and
Physical Planning
(MoEPP)
-
Prespa NP
SPP & PNFMB
GNP & PNP
Ministry of
Environment and
Physical Planning
Proposed
operators
Coordination
Scientific support
Local partner/field
operator
Albania
Coordination
MoEFWA:
Directorate of
Protected Areas
Scientific support
Faculty of Natural
Sciences
TEI & EKBY
Faculty of Sciences
(Skopje)
Local partner/field
operator
Prespa NP
PNFMB
GNP & PNP
MoEFWA:
Directorate of
Protected Areas
-
Forest Directorate of
Florina
-
-
PNP
PNFMB
PNP & GNP
MoEFWA /
Forest Service
Directorate
Florina
MoAFW/
Directorate of Forests
Technical support
Directorate of
Protected areas
SPP
Forestry Public
Enterprises
(Makedonski Forests)
Local partner/field
operator
PNP
PNFMB
PNP & GNP
Faculty of
Forestry Sciences
(Tirana)
Florina
Scientific & technical
support
Albanian Forestry
Expert Association
Forest Research
Institution:
EKBY - TEI
Faculty of Sciences
Forestry Public
Enterprises
Local partner/field
operator
PNP
SPP & PNFMB
PNP & GNP
Faculty of Natural
Sciences
-
PNFMB
University (?)
EKBY (?)
Faculty of Sciences
(Skopje)
-
PNP
PNFMB / TEI
PNP & GNP
F2
F3
Coordination
Scientific support
Local partner/field
operator
Coordination
F4
Coordination
F5
F6
Greece
Coordination
Scientific support
Local partner/field
operator
MoAFW /
Faculty of Forestry
(Skopje)
Page 171/381
Coordination
MoEFWA:
Forest Service
Directorate
F7
Scientific support
Local partner/field
operator
Forestry Public
Enterprises
Faculty of Forestry
(Skopje)
PNFMB / Forest
Directorate of Florina
PNP & GNP
MoE / Agency of
Environment and
Forestry (EFA)
Ministry of
Environment and
Physical Planning
(MoEPP)
Scientific support
Faculty of
Forestry Sciences
(Tirana)
TEI
Faculty of Forestry
(Skopje)
Local partner/field
operator
PNP
SPP & PNFMB
PNP & GNP
Coordination
F8
Faculty of
Forestry Sciences
(Tirana)
PNP / Albanian
Forestry Expert
Association
Florina
Forest Research
Institution
Forest Research
Institution:
EKBY - TEI
Table 9.11. Organizations proposed for monitoring forests and terrestrial habitats in
Albania
Institutions
In charge of
MoEFWA:
Directorate of Protected Areas
Emerald sites
MoEFWA:
Forest Service Directorate
Relevant involvement
for indicator
monitoring
F2
F3
Forest management planning
F4
F7
Agency of Environment and
Forestry (EFA)
Forest plots monitoring (?)
monitoring endangered
species
F1
F5
Prespa National Park (PNP)
Starting with a monitoring
system (?)
All indicators in field +
F5, F6, F7
Faculty of Forestry Sciences /
University of Agriculture
(Tirana)
Forestry research
F5, F7, F8
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
Table 9.12. Organizations proposed for monitoring forests and terrestrial habitats in the
Institutions
In charge of
for indicator
monitoring
Ministry of Environment and Physical
Planning
Emerald sites
F1, F2
Forest management
planning, forest
statistics
F3, F4
Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and
Water Resources (MoAFW)
Galicica National Park (GNP) &
Pelister National Park(PNP)
Forestry Public Enterprises
Existing monitoring
protocol for natural
habitats (?)
Forest management
and inventory outside
NP
All indicators in field +
F5, F6, F7
F4, F5, F7
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
In charge of
for indicator
monitoring
Ministry of Environment Physical
Planning and Public Works
(MEPPPW)
Land use and Natura
2000 sites
F1, F2, F8
Ministry of Agriculture
Development and Food / PSCWM
Grasslands management,
diseases, pests
F6, F8 (?)
Prespa monitoring
F1, F2
Prespa National Forest
Management Body (PNFMB)
Biodiversity monitoring
All indicators in field + F2,
F3, F6, F8
Forest Directorate of Florina
Forest management
F3, F4, F5, F7
Natural habitats &
grasslands monitoring
F2, F5, F6, F7, F8 (?)
Institutions
SPP
University / EKBY - TEI
Faculty / Forest Research
Institution
F5, F7
PSCWM = Planning Service of Central and Western Macedonia
Page 173/381
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
quality/composition
of
measurement
the
(for
FTH
F2,
temporary
F6):
research
plots
for
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.
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
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
Table 9.14. Consumables and running costs for the monitoring of FTH indicators
Consumables/
Number
Cost for one item
running costs
INDICATORS F1, F2, F8:
Albania, Greece, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Transportation:
0,4 €/Km x 800Km
One annual trip of 2
Per diem:
days for each
12 to 18 days x 30
Travelling, lodging,
national team
to 60 €/day
per diem
including 1 night in
Hotel
hotel for 2-3
6 to 9 rooms x 15
persons
to 45 €/night (1
night)
Total per year, indicators F1, F2, F8:
Total cost (€; per
year)
320 €
+ 1080 €
+405 €
 1805 €/year
INDICATORS F5, F7 & F6:
per diem
1 trip every 2 or 5
years of 6 days
hotel for 6 to 9
persons
(transboundary
team)
1 field trip for each
national team for
temporary plots
Transportation:
0,4 €/km x 1500 km
Perdiem:
55 man-days x 30
to 60 €/day
Hotel
6 to 9 rooms x 15
to 45 €/night x 5
night
Total per year, indicators F5, F6, F7:
600 €
+ 3300 €
+ 2025 €
 5925 € every 5
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
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
indicator
F1, F2
F1,F2
F3
F4
F5, F7
F6
F7
F8
Total
METHOD
remote sens
field verif.
doc.
doc.
p. plots
p. plots
temp plots
doc.
remote sens
TIME PERIOD
spring-summer
spring-summer
Sept-Oct
Sept-Oct
june-August
june-August
june-August
Nov-Dec
spring-summer
GREECE
Number of
people
involved
1
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
N days of
fieldwork/
year
15
3
1
1
30 / 5years
15 / 5years
6
1
5
ALBANIA
Cost per day Total cost Number
per person
of people
involved
145
2175
1
145
870
2
300
300
1
300
300
1
145
2610
3
145
1305
3
145
1740
2
145
145
1
145
725
1
10170
N days of
fieldwork /
year
15
3
1
1
30 / 5years
15 / 5years
6
1
5
FYR of MACEDONIA
Cost per day
per person
Total
cost
50
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
750
300
60
60
1080
540
720
60
300
3870
Number of N days of
people
fieldwork /
involved
year
1
15
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
30/ 5years
3
15 / 5years
2
6
1
1
1
5
Cost per day Total cost
per person
50
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
750
300
60
60
1080
540
720
60
300
3870
Table 9.16. Summary Budget Table
N°
Proposed
indicators
Equipment
costs
(€)
GREECE
ALBANIA
FYR of MACEDONIA
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
F1,F2
F3
F4
F5, F7
F6
F7
F8
Total
remote sens see land use
field verif. see land use
doc.
0
doc.
0
p. plots
21230
p. plots
temp plots
doc.
0
remote sens see land use
21230
2175
870
300
300
2610
1305
1740
145
725
10170
1200 see land use
see land use
620
300
see land use
1820
3375
870
300
300
3530
1305
1740
145
725
12290
750
300
60
60
1080
540
720
60
300
3870
610
see land use
see land use
355
300
see land use
965
1360
300
60
60
1735
540
720
60
300
5135
750
300
60
60
1080
540
720
60
300
3870
610
see land use
see land use
355
300
see land use
965
1360
300
60
60
1735
540
720
60
300
5135
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 plotbased 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
-
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
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 subendemism 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
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.
No
Species
Origin
Date of
introduction
IUCN Red List (with
year of assessment)
Kottelat & Freyhof
(2007)
Crivelli & Nikolaou
(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*
not in the list
LC
LC
5 Carassius gibelio
Introduced
1970s
6 Chondrostoma prespense
native
VU D2 (2006)
VU D2
VU D2
7 Cobitis meridionalis
native
VU D2 (2006)
VU D2
VU D2
DD (1996)
VU A2ce
LC
8 Cyprinus carpio
Introduced
Roman time (?)
9 Ctenopharyngodon idella
Introduced
1980s
not in the list
Alien
no specimen caught
anymore
10 Gambusia holbrooki
Introduced
1995-1996
not in the list
Alien
no specimen caught
anymore
11 Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Introduced
1980s
not in the list
Alien
no specimen caught
anymore
12 Lepomis gibbosus
Introduced
1995-1996
not in the list
Alien
LC
13 Pelasgus prespensis
native
EN
EN
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
15 Oncorhynchus mykiss
Introduced
1970s
not in the list
Alien
Few accidental
specimen caught
16 Parabramis pekinensis
Introduced
1970s
not in the list
Alien
no specimen caught
anymore
17 Rhodeus amarus
Introduced
(?)
LC(2001)
LC
LC
VU D2 (2006)
VU D2
VU D2
DD (2001)
DD
no specimen caught
anymore
18 Rutilus prespensis
19 Salmo letnica
native
Introduced
1950s
20 Salmo peristericus
native
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Cobitis meridionalis
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
Cyprinus carpio
-
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Lepomis gibbosus
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pelasgus prespensis
+
+
+
-
-
+
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
Pseudorasbora parva
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Rutilus prespensis
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Squalius prespensis
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Tinca tinca
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
+
9
11
12
10
10
11
10
12
12
12
11
12
11
12
10
11
11
10
Chondrostoma
prespense
Total
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.
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 (AprilMay-June in blue). In bold letters the endemic fish species.
1999Fish species
1996* 1997* 1998*
2007* 2008** 2008*
2006
Alburnoides
prespensis
Alburnus
belvica
Barbus
prespensis
+
+
+
No
sampling
+
+
+
+
+
+
No
sampling
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
Cyprinus carpio
+
-
-
+
+
+
Lepomis gibbosus
+
-
+
+
-
+
-
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
+
-
-
-
Rhodeus amarus
-
-
+
-
-
-
Rutilus
prespensis
+
+
+
+
+
+
Carassius gibelio
Chondrostoma
prespense
Cobitis
meridionalis
Pelasgus
prespensis
Pseudorasbora
parva
No
sampling
No
sampling
No
sampling
No
sampling
No
sampling
No
sampling
No
sampling
No
sampling
No
sampling
No
sampling
mean CV (%)
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
R2 = 0,7082
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
P<0,01
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
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
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
Table 10.4. Densities of Prespa trout in the Macro Prespa catchment (SPP, BIOECO and
A.J. Crivelli unpublished data)
Years
(number of
stations)
Surface
Sampled
(m2)
Length
sampled (m)
Mean N
trout
>1+/ha
Mean N trout
> 1+/100m
of stream
2006 (2)
2007 (4)
2008 (4)
858
1468
1468
205
405
405
664
660
858
28
24
31
Baltanska
2006 (1)
2007 (2)
2008 (2)
220
474
474
100
210
210
136
42
675
3
1
15
Rzanska
2007 (2)
2008 (2)
455
455
200
200
1121
1297
26
30
Drmisar
2007 (2)
2008 (2)
490
490
210
210
878
694
20
16
Kriva Kobila
2007 (1)
2008 (2)
263
565
105
217
1709
1007
43
26
2006 (1)
2007 (4)
289
1298
98
408
519
593
15
19
2008 (4)
1298
408
778
25
Upper Kranska
2007 (1)
287
100
174
5
Srbino
2007 (1)
268
113
485
12
2007 (2)
431
200
186
4
2008 (2)
431
200
162
3
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
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
Site and
stations
Brajcinska basin
Main river
Kranska basin
Main river
Leva Reka
Sredna
Aghios Germanos basin
Left arm
Right arm
Page 195/381
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
Table 10.5. Fishery statistics for the Albanian part of Macro Prespa (Kapedani &
Gambetta 1997).
Carp
(%)
Nase
(%)
Bleak
(%)
Total catch
(Kv)
Yield
(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
Years
* 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
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
Cyprinus carpio
1700
8065
1568
Squalius prespensis and Chondrostoma
prespense
7800
15411
7351
Alburnus belvica
237200
210314
13
Carassius auratus
0
702
26
246700
234518
8958
63.6
60.4
2.3
Cyprinus carpio
1000
7200
6028
Anguilla anguilla
0
600
315
Squalius prespensis and Chondrostoma
prespense
6700
5300
1854
Alburnus belvica
4100
19200
1434
Total
11800
32300
9631
23.6
64.6
19.3
Macro Prespa
Total
Yield (Kg/ha)
Micro Prespa
Yield (kg/ha)
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.
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
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
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
13
11
9
7
5
3
yield (kg/ha)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1
-1
19
46
19
50
19
55
19
61
19
65
19
69
19
73
19
77
19
81
19
85
19
92
19
96
20
00
20
05
Total fish catches/year
(tonnes)
and also in rivers, for example, Golema River.
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
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%
other
Rutilus
80%
Alburnus
60%
40%
Chondrostoma
20%
Cyprinus
2006
2002
1999
1996
1993
1990
1984
1981
1978
1975
1972
1969
1966
1963
1960
1955
1951
1948
0%
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
Product ivit y ( t onnes)
600
Nat ional
Park
Nylon St at us
net s
(19701975)
500
400
300
Mikri
Megali
200
100
88
19
85
19
82
76
79
19
19
19
73
19
70
19
67
19
19
64
0
Figure 10.5. Productivity (tonnes) of the Greek part of Macro (Megali) and Micro
(Mikri) Prespa (from Crivelli et al. 1997.
120
100
Kg/ha
80
60
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
Mikri Prespa
Carassius
100%
80%
Alburnus
60%
40%
Cyprinid
20%
0%
89
19
87
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
75
19
19
73
Cyprinus
Megali Prespa
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
89
19
87
19
85
19
83
19
81
19
79
19
77
19
75
19
19
73
0%
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 nonnumbered text-boxes.
Table 10.7. Proposed indicators for fish and fisheries for the TMS
N°
Proposed indicator
Nature
P1
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
W18, W19
Phosphorus and Nitrogen water concentrations in Macro
and Micro Prespa, monthly water transparency
I
W11, W12
Water level trend
I
IUCN Red list criteria changes
R
P10
Nature of the Indicator/parameter:
P: Anthropogenic Pressure
S: State
I: Impact, changes (natural ones)
R: Response
Page 209/381
Indicator P1:
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)
Fish do not consider borders and are spread out in the whole lake
Gillnet and fyke nets experimental fishing
Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture,
Management Body of Prespa Park and /or NGOs
Except the monitoring made by SPP, no such data do exist
Indicator P2:
Prespa trout trend
Nature:
S
To monitor the abundance of Prespa trout
Sub-indicators:
Number of trout and biomass of trout per ha per stream
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.
Electro-fishing, depletion methodology
Only recent data available (see Crivelli et al. 2008)
Indicator P3:
Prespa barbel and Prespa nase trend
Nature:
S
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
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.
Electro-fishing, depletion methodology
Institutions supposed to be
involved:
No data available
Page 210/381
Indicator P4:
Carp trend
Nature:
S
To monitor the relative abundance of the carp, Cyprinus carpio, the main targeted fish
species by professionals
Sub-indicators:
Gillnet: experimental fishing
Indicator P5:
Nature:
S
This indicator will assess the “health” of the fish population of each species
Sub-indicators:
Length distributions
Fish do not consider borders and are spread out in the whole
Institutions supposed to be involved: Ministries and /or NGOs
None
Indicator P6:
Number of licensed fishermen in the
three country
Nature:
P
To monitor annually the number of professional fishermen registered in the three
countries.
Sub-indicators:
Number of licenses per country
Fish resource can be managed only at the whole lake level
Registration by governmental agencies
Institutions supposed to be involved: Ministries
Such data do not exist in the three countries, existing past data should be collected
Page 211/381
Indicator P7:
Annual fishing effort and fish catches
Nature:
P
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)
To collect monthly the fishermen note book with
effort and catches
Institutions supposed to be involved: Ministries
Such data do not exist presently
Indicator P8:
Nature:
I
To monitor the relative abundance the fish introduced species into Micro
and Macro Prespa
Sub-indicators
Ministry of Environment, Ministry of
agriculture, Management Body of Prespa
Park and /or NGOs
Indicator B5:
Number of breeding pairs of pelicans
and cormorants
Nature:
I
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.
Sub-indicators:
Number of breeding pairs of Pelecanus crispus, Pelecanus onocrotalus
and Phalacrocorax carbo.
Predation on fish by fish-eating birds could be an important factor explaining the
abundance of the lake fish resource.
Counting breeding pairs where those birds
Page 212/381
do nest
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
Indicator P9:
Quality and quantity of fish eaten by
cormorants
Nature:
I
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
Predation on fish by fish-eating birds could be an important factor explaining the
abundance of the lake fish resource.
Collection of regurgitates late May early June
++
Indicators
W16, W17,
W18, W19:
Phosphorus and Nitrogen water
concentrations, monthly water transparency
in Macro and Micro Prespa Lakes
Nature:
I
To monitor the phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in the water of Macro and Micro
Prespa Lakes.
Sub-indicators:
Concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen in water
Monthly Secchi disk measurements
Eutrophication processes would be bad for the whole lake.
Secchi disk monthly measurements
Phosphorus and nitrogen analysis in a skilled
laboratory
Institutions supposed to be involved: Ministries and /or NGOs
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
Indicators
W11,W12:
Water level trend of Macro and Micro
Prespa lakes
Nature:
I
To monitor the water level of both Prespa lakes in sites with standardized
points above sea level.
Sub-indicators:
Monthly water level measurements
The water level of the lakes is an important ecological parameters with also strong socioeconomic impact (tourisms)
Fixed point standardized above sea level.
Ministries and /or NGOs
Those data do exist in all three countries, but agreement and standardized point above
sea level should be checked
Indicator P10:
Nature:
R
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
IUCN Red list criteria
Institutions supposed to be involved: IUCN
None
10.3. Methods
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
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
species is a valuable index to a variety of population characteristics, including growth,
recruitment and mortality rates.
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
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
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
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 Mayearly 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
See Table 10.8.
Page 219/381
Table 10.8. Periodicity of sampling methods for monitoring the “Fish & Fisheries” indicators
N°
P1, P4,
P5, P8
and P10
Proposed indicator
METHOD
Fish endemic to Prespa
lakes trend
Gillnet and
fyke nets
P2, P5
and P10
Prespa Trout trend
Electrofishing
P3 , P5
and P10
Prespa barbel and nase
trend
Electrofishing
P6
Number of licensed
fishermen in the three
country
Issued by the
three States
P7
Annual Fishing effort
and fish catches
B5
W16,
W17,
W18,
W19
W11,
W12
Number of breeding
pelican and cormorant in
the area
Phosphorus and
Nitrogen water
concentrations in Macro
and Micro Prespa
Water level trend
P10
changes
P9
Fish diet composition of
cormorant
Managed by
the three
States
Cf
biodiversity
theme
YEAR 1
3 times (last weeks
of April, May and
June)
1 time (end of
August-beginning
of September)
4 times (1st and 3rd
week of May and
June)
YEAR 2
3 times (last weeks
of April, May and
June)
1 time (end of
August-beginning
of September)
week of May and
June)
YEAR 3
3 times (last weeks
of April, May and
June)
1 time (end of
August-beginning
of September)
week of May and
June)
YEAR 4
3 times (last weeks
of April, May and
June)
1 time (end of
August-beginning
of September)
week of May and
June)
YEAR 5
3 times (last weeks
of April, May and
June)
1 time (end of
August-beginning
of September)
week of May and
June)
Once
yearly
Once
yearly
Once
yearly
Once
yearly
Once
yearly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Cf hydrology
theme
Cf hydrology
theme
Applying
guidelines
and criteria
of IUCN Red
List
Collection of
regurgitates
Once every 5 years
Once or twice (last
week of May, first
week of June)
Once or twice (last
week of May, first
week of June)
Once or twice (last
week of May, first
week of June)
Once or twice (last
week of May, first
week of June)
Once or twice (last
week of May, first
week of June)
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
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
P2,
P5
and
P10
P3,
P5
and
P10
Prespa trout trend
Electrofishing in streams:
Section No, Distance (m), Width (cm), Depth (cm), No.
of pools, Pool 1 max. depth (cm), Pool 2 max. depth
(cm). Number of fish caught in the first run , in the
second run, measurements (TL and weight) of all trout
Example in Annex 10.3
Prespa barbel and
Prespa nase in Macro
Prespa
Electrofishing in streams:
Section No, Distance (m), Width (cm), Depth (cm), No.
of pools, Pool 1 max. depth (cm), Pool 2 max. depth
(cm). Number of barbel and nase caught in the first run ,
in the second run, measurements (TL and weight) of all
barbel and nase and other fish if present
Number of licensed
fishermen in the three
country
Annual Fishing effort
P7
and fish catches
Number of breeding
B5
pelicans and
cormorants in the area
W16, Phosphorus and
W17, Nitrogen water
W18, concentrations in Macro
W19 and Micro Prespa
W11,
Water level trend
W12
P10
changes
P6
P9
Fish diet composition of
cormorants
Number of licenses per year
Number of days of fishing per fisherman and number of
nets set. Number of fish and weight of fish caught
Cf Biodiversity theme
Cf hydrology theme
Cf hydrology theme
Trend of abundance of the nine species endemic to
Prespa lakes in CPUE or in absolute abundance
At least 50 regurgitates, detailed data for each
regurgitate including fish measurements
Page 221/381
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
each
2 every two years
140€*
280€
Gillnet 50 m multimesh 33,
38, 45, 55, 60 mm, 10 m of
each
4 every two years
140€
560€
Fyke nets 3 or 5 mm mesh
size
5
500€
2500€
A portable balance up to
3000g accuracy 0.1
1
500€
500€
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
with gasoline, complete
1
6000-8000€
6000-8000€
Handnets mesh 3-4 mm
6
102€
612€
A portable balance up to
1500g accuracy 0.1 g
1
400€
400€
A ruler 40-50 cm long
2
20€
40€
3 closed buckets and
3 large plastic tanks
500€
500€
4
100€
400€
Closed bucket** to keep
fish alive and plastic tanks
Waders
** 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
Table 10.12. Equipment needed for indicator P9
Equipment
Number
Cost for one item
Total cost
50€
50€
A ruler and plastic bags
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.
(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
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
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.
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
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).”
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
Table 10.13. Running costs (including manpower/ personnel) for gillnet monitoring in
Albania
Consumables/
running costs
Number
Cost for one item
Total cost
Travelling, lodging, per
diem in each country
3 annual trip of two days
including one night in
hotel for 4 persons
Price per km (0.40€),
price for 1 rooms one
night: 12€
744€
Renting a boat with
engine to a fisherman
6 days of a fisherman
with boat/year
70€
420€
Greece
Consumables/
running costs
Number
Cost for one item
Total cost
hotel for 4 persons
price for rooms for
one night (45€)
980€
Renting a boat with
with boat/year
200€ per day
1200€
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Consumables/
running costs
Number
Cost for one item
Total cost
hotel for 4 persons
price for one room for
one night 30€
400€
Renting a boat with
with boat/year
60€ per day
360€
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/
running costs
Number
Cost for one item
Total cost
diem for trout, Prespa
barbel and nase
5 annual trip
(100km each) and
4 night in hotel
price for one room for
one night (45€)
380€ (220€ for
trout and 160€ for
barbel and nase)
Page 227/381
Table 10.17. Running costs (including manpower/ personnel) for electrofishing
monitoring in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Consumables/
running costs
per diem for trout,
Prespa barbel and
nase
Number
Cost for one item
Total cost
5 annual trip of one
days (500km each),
and 44 nights in
hotel
Price per km
(0.40€), price for 1
room for one night
30€
2120€ (560€ for
trout and 1760€ for
barbel and nase)
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/
running costs
Number
Cost for one item
Total cost
Renting a boat to a
fisherman
2 day of a fisherman with
boat per year in each
country
200€ per day
400€
Travelling, per diem
2 annual trip (100 km
each) of one day for 2
persons in each country
Price per km
(0.40€)
80€
Table 10.19. Running costs (including manpower/ personnel) for collecting regurgitates
of P. carbo in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Consumables/
running costs
Number
Cost for one item
Total cost
Renting a boat to a
fisherman
2 day of a fisherman with
boat per year in each
country
60€ per day
120€
Travelling, per diem
2 annual trip (100km
each) of one day for 2
persons in each country
Price per km
(0.40€)
80€
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
Prespa barbel
and Prespa
nase in Macro
Prespa
Fish diet
composition of
cormorant
150
2550
145
2465
4
49
150
7350
145
435
2
3
150
450
Gillnet and
Fyke nets
4
25
145
3480
Electrofishing
4
9
145
Electrofishing
4
17
Collection of
regurgitates
2
3
4
25
60
1440
Number of
people
involved
17
3480
Total cost
(per year)
4
145
Cost per
day/person
1305
25
N days of
fieldwork/
year
3400
4
Number of
people
involved
25
Total cost
(per year)
4
100€
(leader)
and 50€
(technical
staff)
Cost per
day/person
Total cost
(per year)
P9
Prespa trout
trend
Cost per
day/person
P3
P5
P10
Fish endemic to
Prespa lakes
trend
Macro Prespa,
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC of MACEDONIA
N days of
fieldwork/
year
P1,
P4,
P5,
P8
and
P10
P2
P5
P10
Gillnet and
Fyke nets
N days of
fieldwork/
year
Fish endemic to
Prespa lakes
trend
Micro Prespa,
ALBANIA
Number of
people
involved
P1,
P4,
P5,
P8
and
P10
GREECE
METHOD
N°
Proposed
indicator
Table 10. 20. Estimated staff costs per country
Table 10. 21. Total costs (equipment, staff, consumables/ running costs) per country
5660
1305
220
-
1525
Total cost (per
year)
-
Maintenance/
Updating (per
year)
2180
Consumables/
running costs (per
year)
3480
Staff cost (per
year)
Prespa
trout trend
5660
Total cost (per
year)
P2
P5
P10
3880€ per
country =
11640€
-
Maintenance/
Updating (per
year)
Fish
endemic to
Prespa
lakes trend
Macro
Prespa
2180
Consumables/
running costs (per
year)
P1,
P4,
P5,
P8
and
P10
3480
Staff cost (per
year)
Fish
endemic to
Prespa
lakes trend
Micro
Prespa
Total cost (per
year)
P1,
P4,
P5,
P8
and
P10
Equipment
costs
(€)
Maintenance/
Updating (per
year)
Proposed
indicators
Consumables/
running costs (per
year)
N°
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC of
MACEDONIA
ALBANIA
Staff cost (per
year)
GREECE
-
1440
1164
2604
3400
760
-
4160
2550
560
-
3110
P3
P5
P10
P9
Prespa
barbel and
Prespa
nase in
Macro
Prespa
10,000€ for
Greece and
10,000€
Former
Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
Fish diet
compositio
n of
cormorant
50€ for
Greece and
50€ for
Former
Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
Costs transversal
to all indicators
800€ for
each
country =
2400
TOTAL
36019
2465
160
-
2625
7350
1760
-
9110
435
480
-
915
450
200
-
650
11165
5220
0
16385
13750
3280
0
17030
1440
1164
0
2604
10.8. Proposal for Pilot application
In 2009-2010, all the proposed monitoring for fish and fisheries could be undertaken.
Page 232/381
11. Birds and Other Biodiversity (Species and
Habitats)
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 1015 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.
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.
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
Table 11.1. Numbers of species from Prespa that are included in relevant EU Directives
Habitat Directive, Annexes:
Categories
II/
IV
IV
Amphibians
1
7
Reptiles
4
14
Mammals
10
15
Plants
III/
IV
II/
IV/ V
V
Bird Directive, Annexes:
I
II
II/ III
1
3
1
(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
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
(priority)
EU interest (nonpriority)
Non Annex I
Total habitats
6
18
9
Excluding Forest &
Wetland habitats
3
8
3
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
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
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.
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
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
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
Table 11.4. List of potential indicator species groups meeting all the MCWG-validated
criteria (MCWG meeting of April 2008)
Category
N° OF
SPECIES
SPECIES NAMES
Amphibians
4
Triturus carnifex macedonicus (ex T. cristatus), Bombina variegata
scarba, Rana graeca, Pelobates syriacus balcanicus
Reptiles
4
Elaphe longissima, Algyroides nigropunctatus, Testudo hermanni
(boettgeri), Emys orbicularis (hellenica)
Mammals
4
Rhinolophus hipposideros, Rhinolophus euryale, Ursus arctos,
Lutra lutra
Invertebrates
6
Lucanus cervus, Calosoma sycophanta, Parnassius mnemosyne,
Parnassius apollo, Lycaena (Thersamolycaena) dispar, Maculinea
arion
Plants
5
Phelypaea boissieri, Sedum serpentini, Centaurea prespana,
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
-
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
16
the aim is to integrate the proposals by all 7 thematic groups as far as possible
“trigger” species are species that helped define that a given area is an IBA
Page 241/381
-
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 lowcost 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
Species
IUCN Red List/ EU
Directives17
Priority for:
Rationale
MAMMALS
Rhinolophus hipposideros
Albania
LC, HD Ann. II/ IV
Rhinolophus euryale
VU, HD Ann. II/ IV
Myotis capaccinii
VU,
HD Ann. II/ IV
All species can be monitored
through one single, low-cost
scheme in nursery caves
Ursus arctos
LC, HD Ann. II/ IV
Man-bear interactions can be
monitored (and bear
population indirectly, too)
through simple questionnaires
Lutra lutra
NT, HD II/ IV
The most wetland-restricted of
the mammals present
Wintering waterbirds
-
(see text above)
Mergus merganser
LC
A (relict) population of the
Balkan, isolated from other
breeding grounds
Greece
Former Yugoslav
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BIRDS
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”
Pelecanus onocrotalus
LC
BD Ann. I
One of the very few colonies in
Europe
X
X
X
Pelecanus crispus
VU
BD Ann. I
Largest colony in the world
X
X
X
Breeding cormorants, ibises,
herons
Several on BD Ann. I
(see text above)
LC, HD Ann. IV
Species endemic to the
Balkans (AL-GR-MK)
X
X
X
NT
HD II, IV Balkans
endemic
Most wetland-dependent of the
Prespa reptiles
X
X
X
AMPHIBIANS
Rana graeca
REPTILES
Emys orbicularis (hellenica)
PLANTS
Trends of threatened and endemic
terrestrial plants of the Prespa
basin (composite indicator using all
5 species)
One of the key values of Prespa
basin; however doubts remain
on the exact level of threats to
these species in Prespa basin
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
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
B1
B2
Populations of bats in selected
nursery caves
Interactions between Brown bear
Ursus arctos and Man (note:
wolves may be added too)
B3
Populations of Otter Lutra lutra
B4
Populations of wintering
waterbirds, especially Anser anser
B5
B6
rubrirostris
Populations of breeding colonial
waterbirds
S
S/P
S
S
S
Breeding population of Mergus
merganser
P8-9-15
Through
remote
sensing?
No
Link with
Indicator N°
Birds & other Biodiversity
Indicators
Nature19
Table 11.6. List of proposed indicators for the “Birds & other Biodiversity” theme
Preliminary list of
potential specific
parameters (refined
later on)
NO
N° of individuals in
nursery caves
NO
N° of reported
interactions
(sightings, damages,
etc.)
NO
Counts of spraints/
marks along sample
stretches of lake/
river shore
NO
N° of individuals per
species, distribution
by lake section
NO
N° of breeding pairs
NO
or families
B7
Population of Emys orbicularis
S
NO
Estimates of X local
populations in 3
countries using
capture-recapture
methods
B8
Population of Rana graeca along
streams of Prespa catchment
S
NO
Abundance index
along sample
stretches of streams
NO
Depending on species
ecology: distribution
area (in GIS), or n°
of stations, density or
n° of individuals per
station
(B9
?)
19
TO BE CONFIRMED: Trends of
some threatened and endemic
terrestrial plants of the Prespa
basin (potentially 1-2 species
amongst Phelypaea boissieri,
Sedum serpentini, Centaurea
prespana, Dianthus myrtinervius,
Viola eximia)
S
Pressure (P), State (S), Impacts (I), Response (R)
Page 247/381
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:
-
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
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
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: BIOECO/
Macedonian Ecological Society
Longer term: staff of the national parks in all 3
countries for “routine” monitoring after training
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)
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.
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
simple questionnaires to village heads
Callisto NGO (GR) for proposing standard
questionnaire; possibly PPNEA or Natural History
Museum-Tirana (AL) and BIOECO/ Macedonian
Ecological Society (Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia) for administering it
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
Indicator B3:
Otter population trends
Nature:
S
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:
-
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
shoreline/ rivers)
SPP (?) (GR); possibly PPNEA or Natural History
Macedonia)
Exact sectors where absent/ present in the 3 countries not precisely known  need for a
higher number of sample stretches
Indicator B4:
Population of wintering waterbirds,
especially Anser anser rubrirostris
Nature:
S
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 subpopulation 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)
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
for A. anser)
SPP (GR); possibly PPNEA (AL) and BIOECO/
Macedonian Ecological Society (Former Yugoslav
None
Page 249/381
Indicator B5:
Population of breeding colonial
waterbirds
Nature:
S
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)
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.
Field monitoring
Institutions supposed to be involved: Macedonian Ecological Society (Former Yugoslav
None
Indicator B6:
Breeding population of Goosander
Mergus merganser
Nature:
S
To monitor the isolated breeding population (Europe‟s southernmost population) of
Goosander
Sub-indicators:
-
N° of families (after hatching)
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.
Field monitoring
Institutions supposed to be involved: Macedonian Ecological Society (Former Yugoslav
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
Indicator B7:
Nature:
S
To monitor the population or density of the most aquatic of all the Prespa reptiles,
present in all 3 countries
Sub-indicators:
-
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
shoreline/ rivers using live traps)
Macedonia)
Exact sectors where absent / present in the 3 countries not precisely known
Indicator B8:
Population of Rana graeca along
streams of Prespa catchment
Nature:
S
To monitor the abundance and trends of R. graeca, an endemic frog species of the
Balkans
Sub-indicators:
-
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
stretches of Prespa watershed streams)
Macedonia)
None
Page 251/381
Indicator B9:
Trends of some threatened and endemic
terrestrial plants of the Prespa basin (TO
BE CONFIRMED)
Nature:
S
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:
-
Endemic Balkan plants, mentioned as a priority for a TB system by experts from 2 or 3
of the countries
Field monitoring
Macedonia)
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
Table 11.7. Final list of indicators for the “Birds & other Biodiversity” theme
N°
BIRDS & OTHER BIODIVERSITY
B1
Populations of bats in selected nursery caves
B2
Interactions between Brown Bear Ursus arctos and Man (note:
Wolves Canis lupus may be added too)
B3
Population of Otter Lutra lutra
B4
Populations of wintering waterbirds, with special emphasis on Anser
anser rubrirostris
Nature20
S
S/P
S
S
B5
Populations of breeding colonial waterbirds
B6
Breeding population of Mergus merganser
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
Prespa basin (Crocus pelistericus, Dianthus myrtinervius, Viola
S
eximia)
S
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.
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
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
“…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
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
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.
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 56 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
-
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
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
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
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
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
(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
Species
Greece
Albania
Pelister
Mountain
Galicica
Mountain
Dianthus
myrtinervius
X
-
-
X
(on shallow
silicate soils)
Crocus
pelistericus
X
-
X (on silicate
soils)
-
X
X
(on limestone
soils)
X
(on silicate
soils)
X
(on limestone
soils)
Viola eximia
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
(example in Figure 11.1). The quadrats will be 1 x 1 m , and subdivided in 16 subquadrats 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
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
0
0
1600 m
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
- 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.
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”
N°
B1
B2
Proposed
indicator
Population
of bats in
selected
nursery
caves
Interactions
between
Brown bear
Ursus arctos
and Man
METHOD
YEAR 1
Direct
counts
Questionnaires to
village
mayors/
heads
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
Yearly (once in mid-late July)
X (any time
of year)
NO (only
every 5
years)
NO (only
every 5
years)
NO (only
every 5
years)
NO (only
every 5
years)
NO (every
other
year)24
X (Twice,
April and
September)
NO (every
other year)
X (Twice,
April and
September)
X (Twice,
April and
September)
B3
24
Population
of Otter
Lutra lutra
Samples;
counts of
signs of
presence
(plus
preliminary
quick survey
to identify
most suitable
areas)
This monitoring could be performed at any frequency , depending on resources: every 1, 2, 3, 5… years
Page 266/381
B4
Populations
of wintering
waterbirds,
especially
Anser anser
rubrirostris
B5
B6
Populations
of breeding
colonial
waterbirds
Breeding
population
of Mergus
merganser
B7
Population
of Emys
orbicularis
Population
of Rana
B8
B9
graeca
along
streams of
Prespa
catchment
Trends of
threatened
plants
Total
counts
Total
counts
Yearly (Once in mid-January for all waterbirds, plus once in midNovember and mid-December for Greylag Goose)
Yearly. Pelicans: February-May, twice a week; Herons/Ibises in
reedbeds 3 times (twice in May and once June); Cormorants on islands
(+ herons & gulls in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) in late
April/early May
X (3 times in
1st Year;
ideal timing
ideal timing
= May/June
Total
counts
(+
Preliminary
study to
choose
between 2
options/
methods)
Capturemarkrecapture
X, Ideal
months =
May-June
Total,
direct
counts on
samples
of habitat
Transect
+
quadrats
NO
X (3 times
in 1st Year;
ideal timing
ideal timing
=
May/June
NO25
X, Ideal
months =
May-June
(+
Preliminary
quick survey
to identify
most suitable
altitude)
X (once for
Once per
sampled
stream (Ideal
months
March - April
Dianthus
myrtinervius,
June-July)
X (3 times
in 1st Year;
ideal timing
ideal timing
=
May/June
NO
NO
X, Ideal
months =
May-June
NO26
Once per
sampled
stream
(Ideal
months
March April
NO
Once per
sampled
stream
(Ideal
months
March April
X (once for
X (once for
X (once for
X (once for
June- July)
May-June
Crocus
pelistericus,
Viola
eximia:
Dianthus
myrtinervius,
June-July)
Crocus
pelistericus,
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
26
This monitoring could be performed at any frequency, depending on resources: every 1, 2, 3, 5… years
This monitoring could be performed at any frequency, depending on resources: every 1, 2, 3, 5… years
Page 267/381
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°
indicator
B1
B2
B3
B4
Population of bats in
selected nursery
caves
Date, temperature of the caves at various locations inside the
caves, total number by species, number (or %) of adults
nursing a young, exact location (GPS point)
Interactions between
Brown bear Ursus
arctos and Man
Bear presence/ absence in each area27; presence/ absence of
attacks (on cattle, beehives…) in this territory; frequency of
Bear-Man encounters in the area; actual damage to livestock
(n° of heads killed/ injured) and to beehives. For the latter 2,
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
spraints, presence of old spraints
Population of
wintering waterbirds,
especially Anser
Date, air temperature, weather (in broad categories e.g.
“sunny & windy”, “cloudy”), lake water condition (e.g. quiet, or
big waves), N° of individuals of each species of waterbird on
each counting sector (e.g. for one country: see Annex 11.2)
Lutra lutra
anser rubrirostris
B5
Population of
breeding colonial
waterbirds
Herons/ibises, cormorants: date, weather (in broad categories
e.g. “sunny & windy”, “cloudy”), lake water condition (e.g.
quiet, or big waves), time, N° of individuals or nests of each
species of waterbird on each colony site
Pelicans: date, weather, time, No of nests on each colony site,
location
B6
Breeding population
of Mergus merganser
Date, air temperature, weather (in broad categories e.g.
“sunny & windy”, “cloudy”), lake water condition (e.g. “quiet”,
or “big waves”), N° of individuals / nests / families (depending
on the option chosen for Method), location (GPS points)
B7
Population of Emys
orbicularis
Date, location of net (GPS recording), time elapsed since last
net checking (in hours), code of each recaptured individual
(notch per scale on shell), code of each newly captured animal,
any unusual fact (e.g. broken/ injured shell)
B8
Population of Rana
graeca along
streams of Prespa
catchment
Weather conditions (sky and wind code: see Annex 11.4), air
temperature, water temperature, time begin survey, time end
survey, habitat description, number of individuals, nature of
contact (seen, egg/spawn clumps, breeding calls), comments
(difficulties, activity of individuals, habitat changes since
previous run of previous year)
B9
Trends of threatened
plants
Date, location monitoring quadrat (GPS point), N° of
individuals per sub-quadrat for each of the quadrats laid every
100m altitude
27
the territory which depends administratively on the village
Page 268/381
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
One pair of nightvision binoculars for
each country
3
2000€
6000€
One pair of normal
binoculars for each
country
3
500€
1500€
One telescope with
tripod for each
country
3
2000€
6000€
One pair of good
field binoculars per
country
3
1200
3600€
Anchored (fixed)
floating buoy
1
300
300
105
100€
10,500€
Precise Altimeter
3
50€
150€
Portable wood
quadrats *
3
10€
30€
300€
1800€
Indicator B1
Indicators B4, B5, B6
Indicator B7
Fyke-nets for
terrapins
Indicator B9
Transversal (to be used for any indicator):
2 GPS per country
6
* 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
11.5 Monitoring stations
See Table 11.12.
Table 11.12. Monitoring stations for indicators B1-B9
Albania
Greece
Former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
B1. Populations of
bats in selected
nursery caves
Treni cave (by
Micro Prespa
Lake)
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
1 cave at Leskoec near
Stenje, Galicica NP
B2. Interactions
between Brown
bear Ursus arctos
and Man
All villages/
communes
All villages/ communes
All villages/ communes
Proposed
indicator
B3. Population of
Otter Lutra lutra
B4. Populations of
wintering
waterbirds,
especially Anser
Liqenas Bay
between Liqenas
and Djellas (Macro
P.); northern shore
(to be set up after short, informal enquiries on areas of
of Micro Prespa.
presence
from the former
Devolli connecting
channel to the
Greek border
All wetlands and shallow shorelines of lakes used by waterfowl; for A. anser
all agricultural fields/ meadows too
anser rubrirostris
B5. Populations of
breeding colonial
waterbirds
B6. Breeding
population of
Mergus merganser
B7. Populations of
Emys orbicularis
B8. Populations of
Rana graeca along
streams of Prespa
catchment
B9. Trends of
threatened plants
Mali Grad island
(cormorants)
Vromolimni + Krina reedbed
(Pelicans) + Mikrolimni,
Aghios Achillios & Krina
reedbed (colonies shift btw
years) (herons/ Ibis);
Vidronisi Isl. For P.carbo
Golem Grad island
(cormorants) +
Ezerani NR
All rocky shores
All rocky shores
All rocky shores +
Ezerani NR
Year 1: 35 sites (x 3 nets)
Year 1: 15 sites (x 3
nets), to be selected
within Stenje marsh +
Ezerani NR
Year 1: 55 sites (x
3 nets)
Yr2 onwards: 1?
Site (x 20 nets)
Zaroshka stream
Yr2 onwards: 2? Sites (x 20
nets)
Aghios Germanos stream
Yr2 onwards: 2? Sites
(x 20 nets)
Brajchinska Reka River
(to be set up after enquiries on areas of higher density for each of the 3
species)
Page 270/381
11.6. Organizations responsible for monitoring
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
N°
Proposed
indicator
B1
Population of bats
in selected
nursery caves
B2
Interactions
between Brown
bear Ursus arctos
and Man
B3
Population of
Otter Lutra lutra
B4
Population of
wintering
waterbirds,
28
Albania
Greece
Former
Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
Museum of Natural
Sciences
SPP (assisting
specialists) with
permission by
Management Body
and Ministry of
Agric.
BIOECO in Year 1,
then staff of Nat.
Parks after
training
Management Body
of the Prespa
National Park;
NGO Callisto*
MES (Macedonian
Ecological
Society)28, then
staff of Nat. Parks
after training
Museum of Nat.
Sciences, Albanian
Society for the
Protection of Birds
and Mammals
(ASPBM)
Museum of Nat.
Sciences in Year 1,
then staff of Prespa
Nat. Park after
training
Museum of Nat.
Sciences, staff of
Prespa Nat. Park,
SPP and
Management Body
of the Prespa
National Park in
Year 1, then staff
of Prespa Nat.
Park after training
SPP/HOS in
cooperation with
Management Body
BIOECO in Year 1,
then staff of Nat.
Parks after
training
BIOECO with its
Serbian Expert in
Ornithology; or
contact person: Prof. Dr. Ljupco Melovski, president; E-mail: [email protected],
Page 271/381
especially Anser
PPNEA, ASPBM
Population of
breeding colonial
waterbirds
Museum of Nat.
Sciences, staff of
Prespa Nat. Park,
PPNEA, ASPBM
SPP
Museum of Nat.
Sciences, PPNEA,
ASPBM, staff of
Prespa Nat. Park,
SPP/HOS in Year
1, then MBPNF
after training
anser rubrirostris
B5
B6
B7
Breeding
population of
Mergus
merganser
Population of
Emys orbicularis
Population of
B8
B9
Rana graeca
along streams of
Prespa catchment
Trends of
threatened plants
Museum of Nat.
Sciences, then staff of
Prespa Nat. Park after
training
Museum of Nat.
Sciences, then staff of
Prespa Nat. Park after
training
Museum of Nat.
Sciences in Year 1,
then staff of Prespa
Nat. Park after
training
of the Prespa
National Park
(MBPNF)
SPP in Year 1,
then MBPNF after
training
SPP in Year 1,
then MBPNF after
training
SPP in Year 1,
then MBPNF after
training
MES with National
Expert in
Ornithology
(Metodija
Velevski) in Year
1, then staff of
Galicica and
Pelister Nat. Parks
after training, +
staff of the
Ministry of
Environment +
Skopje University
(?)
BIOECO in Year 1,
then staff of Nat.
Parks after
training
BIOECO in Year 1,
then staff of Nat.
Parks after
training
BIOECO in Year 1,
then staff of Nat.
Parks after
training
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.
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
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
Table 11.14. Running costs (other than manpower/ personnel) for indicator B1
(Population of bats in selected nursery caves, Direct counts, Yearly)
Consumables/
running costs
Number
Cost for
one item
(€)
Total cost (€
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
vehicle
600 km (expert has to come
from the capital)
0.40
240€
- Per diem
2 days
30
60€
Subtotal Albania:
312€
Greece: 1 annual trip of one day to the selected cave
Return trip from
Athens by specialist
1100 km
0.40
440€
- Hotel
2 rooms for 2 nights
45€
180€
- Per diem
6
55
330€
- Local Travel by
field vehicle
100 km
0.40
40€
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)
- Travel by field
vehicle
500 km in Year1 (when the
expert has to come from the
Capital)
0.40
200€ (Yr 1)
- Travel by field
vehicle
100 km / yr afterwards (when
staff from Nat Park has been
trained and can do it)
0.40
40€ (Yr 2+)
- Per diem
2
30
Subtotal the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia:
B1 - TB TOTAL PER YEAR WHEN MONITORING IS DONE:
60€
290€ (Yr 1);
100 € (Yr
2+)
1592€
(Yr1);
1402€ (Yr
2+)
Page 274/381
(Interactions between Brown bear Ursus arctos and Man; Questionnaires to village
mayors/ heads; Every 5 years)
Consumables/
running costs
Number
Cost for one
item
Total cost (€
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
vehicle
600 km (when the expert has to
come from the capital)
0.40
240€
- Per diem
5
30
150€
Subtotal Albania:
450 €
Greece: trips by Management Body to all villages/ communes (to interview all leaders)
- Travel by field
vehicle
100
- Per diem
5
0.40€ per km
40€
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)
- Travel by field
vehicle
Capital)
0.40
200€ (Yr 1)
- Travel by field
vehicle
0.40
40€ (Yr 2+)
- Per diem
5
30
150€
Subtotal Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia:
500€ (Yr 1);
190€ (Yr 2+)
1265 €
(Yr1); 955 €
(Yr2+)
Page 275/381
(Population of Otter Lutra lutra; Samples; counts of signs of presence; Every 2 years)
Consumables/
running costs
Number
Cost for one
item
Total cost (€
per year)
Albania: 2 annual trip of two days to the selected stretches of lakeshore/ stream
- Hotel
1 room for 4 night (Year 1 only)
one night:
12€
48€ (Yr 1)
- Travel by field
vehicle
2 X 600 km in Year1 (when the
capital)
0.40
480€ (Yr 1)
- Travel by field
vehicle
2 x 100 km afterwards (when
0.40
80€ (Yr 2+)
- Per diem
4 days
30
120€
648 € (Yr 1);
200€ (Yr 2+)
Subtotal Albania:
Greece: 2 annual trip of two days to the selected stretches of lakeshore/ stream
- Travel by field
vehicle
2 x 100 km / Year
- Per diem
4 days
0.40€ per km
80€
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:
30€
240€
2 x 500 km in Year1 (when the
Capital)
0.40
400€ (Yr 1)
- Travel by field
vehicle
2 x 100 km / yr afterwards
(when staff from Nat Park has
been trained and can do it)
0.40
80€ (Yr 2+)
- Per diem
8 days
30
240€
- Hotel
1 room for 8 nights
- Travel by field
vehicle
880 € (Yr 1);
560€ (Yr 2+)
1828 € (Yr
1); 1060€
(Yr 2+)
Page 276/381
Population of wintering waterbirds especially Anser a. rubrirostris; Total counts; Every
year (all waterbirds) + 2 more times/year (A. anser only)
Consumables/
running costs
Number
Cost for one
item
Total cost (€
per year)
12€
72€
0.40€
720€
30€
180€
Albania
3 annual trips to
Prespa:
- Hotel
2 rooms for 1 night, 3 times
- Travel by field
vehicle
3 x 600 km (the experts have to
come from the Capital)
- Per diem
6
Subtotal Albania:
972€
Greece
- Travel by field
vehicle to all parts of
GR-Prespa
3 x 100 km per Year
- Per diem
6
0.40€ per km
120€
55€
330€
Subtotal Greece:
450€
3 annual trips to
Prespa, including:
- Hotel
2 rooms for 1 night, 3 times
- Travel by field
vehicle
one night:
30€
180€
Capital)
0.40€
600€ (Yr 1)
- Travel by field
vehicle
3 x 100 km / yr afterwards
(when staff from Nat Park has
been trained and can do it)
0.40
120€ (Yr 2+)
- Per diem
6
30
180€
Renting a boat with
engine to a
fisherman
1
60
60€
1010€ (Yr1);
540€ (Yr 2+)
2432€ (Yr1);
1962€ (Yr2)
Page 277/381
Table 11.18. Specific costs of the training session on monitoring wintering waterbirds
(Pilot Application in 2010, assuming training expert comes from Athens)
Number
Cost for one item
(€)
Total cost
(€)
Staff time (waterbird
expert) (days)
5
500
2500
Staff time (person.day)
Albania (2persons for 4
days)
8
100
800
Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
8
100
800
Greece
8
300
2400
Total Staff
6500
1 day
200
200
Lodging & per diem
Greece
1 trip of 4 days
with 6 persons
(2/country) with 4
nights in hotel =
6x4 per diem
45*4 (hotel) *6=
1080
55*4 (per
diem)*6= 1320
2400
Lodging & per diem expert
1 trip of 5 days
including 5 nights
in hotel
45*5 (hotel)= 225
30*5 (per diem)=
150
375
Transport (expert)
1 Return trip from
Athens
Km
500km/Greece
1500km/Albania
1500m/Former
Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
Total other expenses
TOTAL Training course
200
0.4
0.4
0.4
200
600
600
4575
11075
Page 278/381
(Population of breeding colonial waterbirds; Total counts; Every year)
Consumables/
running costs
Number
Cost for one
item
Total cost (€
per year)
Albania: 1 annual trip to Prespa (Cormorants colony)
Hotel
1 room for 1 night, 2 persons
12€
24€
Travel by field
vehicle
600 km (the experts have to
come from the capital)
0.40€
240€
Per diem
2
30
60€
Renting a boat
1 day, boat with engine to a
fisherman
50
50€
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
- Travel by field
vehicle
Pelicans: 80 km x 64 = 5120
km/ Year
Cormorants 50km x 1 trip
Herons: 50 x3 trips
Per diem
Pelicans: 64
Cormorants 1
Herons 4people, 3 times
0.40
2128€
55
4235€
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 €
- Travel by field
vehicle
capital)
0.40€
200€ (Yr 1)
- Travel by field
vehicle
0.40
40€ (Yr 2+)
- Per diem
1
30
30 €
Renting a boat with
engine to a
fisherman
1
60
60
350€ (Yr1);
190 € (Yr2+)
TB TOTAL PER YEAR WHEN MONITORING IS DONE:
7087 € (Yr1);
6927 €
(Yr2+)
Page 279/381
Table 11.20. Running costs (other than manpower/ personnel) for indicator B6 (Breeding
population of Mergus merganser; Total counts; Every 2 years)
Consumables/
running costs
Albania
Renting a boat with
Number
Cost for one
item
6 in Year 1; 3 in Yr 2+
50€
Per diem
30€
Hotel nights
12€
Travel by field vehicle
6 x 600 km in Yr 1 (the experts
have to come from the capital); 3 x
600 km from Yr2 onwards
0.40€
Greece
Renting a boat with
6 in Year 1 (SPP boat); 3 in Yr 2+
(MBPNF boats)
Per diem
55€
1100 km (Yr 1)
0.40
2 in Year 1
45€
20€ in Yr1
Subtotal Greece:
Renting a boat with
300€ in Year 1;
150€ in Yr 2+
360€ in Year 1;
180€ in Yr 2+
144€ in Year 1;
72€ in Yr 2+
1440€ in Yr 1;
720€ from Yr2+
2244€ in Year
1; 1122€ in Yr
2+
Subtotal Albania:
Return trip from
Athens by HOS
specialist
Hotel nights
Total cost (€
per year)
120€ in Year 1;
60€ in Yr 2+
660€ in Year 1;
330€ in Yr 2+
440€ (Yr 1)
90€ (Year 1)
1310€ in Year
1; 390€ in Yr 2+
Per diem
30€
Hotel nights
24 in Year 1
expert has to come from the capital)
3 x 100 km / yr afterwards (when
staff from Nat Park has been trained
and can do it)
30€
720€ in Year 1;
360€ in Yr 2+
720€ in Year 1;
360€ in Yr 2+
720€ (Yr 1)
0.40€
1200€ (Yr 1)
0.40
120€ (Yr 2+)
500€
500€ (Yr 1)
- Travel by field vehicle
Preliminary study on
breeding ecology in
Ezerani NR, for
defining best practises
for following years
1
60€
3860€ in Year
1; 840€ in Yr 2+
7414€ in Year
1; 2352€ in Yr
2+
Page 280/381
(Population of Emys orbicularis; Capture-Mark-recapture; Every 2 years)
Consumables/
running costs
Albania
Hotel
1 room for 7 nights, 1 person (Yr 1)
Renting a boat with
7 days in Yr1; 15 days/ Yr from Yr 2
onwards
- Per diem
Number
600
in Year1 (when the expert
has to come from the Capital)
100 km afterwards (when staff from
Nat Park has been trained and can
do it)
7 days in Yr1; 15 days/ Yr from Yr 2
onwards
Cost for one
item
12€
50€ per day
0.40
0.40
Total cost (€
per year)
84€ (Yr 1)
350€ in Yr1;
750€ from Yr 2
onwards
240€ (Yr 1)
40€ (Yr 2+)
30
210€ Yr1; 450€
Yr 2+
884€
Yr1;
1240€ Yr 2+
Subtotal Albania:
Greece
Fuel for a boat
1 consultant mission
from France, 5 days
- Per diem
25 days in Yr1; 30 days/ Yr from Yr
2 onwards
200 km / Yr– vehicle from SPP (Yr
1) then Nat. Park.
Trip + consultancy fee (training to
staff from 3 countries who will
implement)
2 onwards
20€ (SPP boat
in Yr 1, then
boat of
management
body)
500€ in Yr 1
(SPP boat);
600€* from Yr2
0.40€ per km
80€
4000€
4000€ (Yr1)
55
1375€ Yr1;
1650€ Yr 2+
Subtotal Greece:
5955 € Yr1;
2330 € Yr2+
Hotel
1 room for 15 nights, 1 person (Yr
1)
30€
450€ (Yr 1)
Renting a boat with
2 onwards
60€ per day
900€ in Yr1;
1800€ from Yr 2
onwards
0.40€
400€ (Yr 1)
0.40
200€ (Yr 2+)
- Per diem
1000 km in Year1 (when the expert
500 km / yr afterwards (when staff
from Nat Park has been trained and
can do it)
2 onwards
30
450€ in Yr1;
900€ from Yr 2
onwards
2200 € Yr1;
2900 € Yr2+
9039 € Yr1;
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
(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
100 km afterwards (when staff
- Travel by field
from Nat Park has been trained
0.40
40€ (Yr 2+)
vehicle
and can do it)
60€ Yr1; 30€
- Per diem
30
2 onwards
Yr 2+
312 € Yr1;
70 € Yr 2+
Subtotal Albania:
Greece
- Travel by field
vehicle
1 consultant mission
from Former
Macedonia
(BIOECO), 5 days
- Per diem
100 km / Yr; vehicle from SPP
(Yr 1) then Nat. Park.
Trip + consultancy fee (training
to staff from 3 countries who will
implement)
0.40€ per km
40€
1000€
1000€ (Yr1)
55
55€
1 day
Subtotal Greece:
1 room for 1 night, 1 person (Yr
Hotel
1)
- Travel by field
vehicle
Capital)
- Travel by field
vehicle
- Per diem
2 onwards
1095 € Yr1;
95 € Yr 2+
30€
30€ (Yr 1)
0.40€
200€ (Yr 1)
0.40
40€ (Yr 2+)
30
60€ Yr1; 30€
Yr 2+
290 € Yr1;
70 € Yr2+
1697 € Yr1;
235 € Yr 2+
Page 282/381
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/
running costs
Number
Cost for one
item
Total cost (€
per year)
Hotel
1)
12€
24€
- Travel by field
vehicle
600 in Year1 (when the expert
0.40
240€ (Yr 1)
- Travel by field
vehicle
100 km afterwards (when staff
from Nat Park has been trained
and can do it)
0.40
40€ (Yr 2+)
- Per diem
2 days
30
60€
Albania
324 € Yr1;
124 € Yr 2+
Subtotal Albania:
Greece
- Travel by field
vehicle
100 km / Yr; vehicle from SPP
(Yr 1) then Nat. Park.
- Per diem
2 days
0.40€ per km
40€
55
110€
Subtotal Greece:
150 €
Hotel
1)
- Travel by field
vehicle
30€
60€ (Yr 1)
Capital)
0.40€
200€ (Yr 1)
- Travel by field
vehicle
0.40
40€ (Yr 2+)
- Per diem
2 days
30
60€
320 € Yr1;
100 € Yr2+
794 € Yr1;
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
Anser a.
rubrirostris
29
Cost per
day per
person29
Total cost
Number
of people
involved
N days of
fieldwork/
year
Cost per
day per
person
Total cost
2
Total counts
N days of
fieldwork/
year
1
Number
of people
involved
Samples;
counts of
signs of
presence
Direct counts
OF MACEDONIA
ALBANIA
Total cost
1
METHOD
N days of
fieldwork/
year
Cost per
day per
person
Number
of people
involved
Populations
of wintering
waterbirds
especially
FREQUENCY
B4
lutra
Yearly
B3
Population of
Otter Lutra
Questionnaires to
village
mayors/
heads
Every 5
years
B2
1 expert
+1
assistant
Every 2
years
B1
Populations
of bats in
selected
nursery
caves
Interactions
between
Brown bear
Ursus arctos
and Man
GREECE
Every year
N°
PROPOSED
INDICATORS
Table 11.24. Running costs for manpower/ personnel needs for the monitoring of indicators B1-B9
1
145€
290€
1
1
75€
75€
1
1
75€
75€
5
145€
725€
1
5
75€
375€
1
5
75€
375€
4
145€
580€
1
4
75€
300€
1
8
75€
600€
8
145€
1160€
2
6
75€
450€
2
8
75€
600€
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)
B8
B9
Population of
Emys
orbicularis
Population of
Rana graeca
Trends of
threatened
plants
Every
year
Every 2 years
Total counts
6
145€
870€
1740€
in Year
1;
870€
from
Yr2
4375€
in Yr1,
5250€
from
Yr2
2
6
75€
450€
2
6 (12
in Year
1)
2
6
75€
900€
in Yr1,
450€
from
Yr2
1
17 in
Yr1,
30
from
Yr2
75€
450€
2
12 (24
in Year
1)
75€
1800€ in
Yr1,
900€
from Yr2
75€
1275€
in Yr1,
2250€
from
Yr2
1
7 in
Yr1,
15
from
Yr2
75€
525€ in
Yr1,
1125€
from Yr2
2
6 (12
in Year
1)
25 in
Yr1,
30
from
Yr2
145€
1
145€
145€
1
1
75€
75€
1
1
75€
75€
2
145€
290€
2
2
75€
150€
2
2
75€
150€
CaptureMarkrecapture
Every 2
years
B7
Mergus
merganser
2
1
Total, direct
counts on
samples of
habitat
Every 2
years
B6
Breeding
population of
Total counts
1
Transect +
quadrats
Every 3 yrs for
each sp 
every yr overall
B5
Populations
of breeding
colonial
waterbirds
2
145€
Total cost (Yr
1)
Total cost per
year thereafter
Staff cost (per
year)
Consumables/
recurrent costs
(per year)
Total cost (Yr
1)
Total cost per
year there after
Staff cost (per
year)
Consumables/
recurrent costs
(per year)
Total cost (Yr
1)
Total cost per
year there after
Equipment costs
Consumables/
recurrent costs
(per year)
B2
OF MACEDONIA
ALBANIA
Staff cost (per
year)
B1
Populations
of bats in
selected
nursery
caves
Interactions
between
Brown bear
GREECE
290
990
1280
1280
75
312
387
387
75
290 (Yr
1); 100
(Yr 2+)
365
175
725
315
1040
1040
375
450
825
825
375
500 (Yr
1); 190
(Yr 2+)
875
565
580
300
880
880
300
648 (Yr
1); 200
(Yr 2+)
948
500
600
880 (Yr
1); 560
(Yr 2+)
1480
1160
1160
450
1610
1610
450
972
1422
1422
600
1010(Yr
1); 540
(Yr 2+)
1610
1140
6000
N°
PROPOSED
INDICATORS
Table 11.25. Summary of budget (in €) for the monitoring of indicators B1-B9
Ursus
arctos and
Man
B4
Population
of Otter
Lutra lutra
Populations
of wintering
waterbirds,
especially
990030
B3
Anser a.
rubrirostris
30
to be used for indicators B4-5-6
B5
B6
Populations
of breeding
colonial
waterbirds
Breeding
population
of Mergus
B7
Population
of Emys
B8
Population
of Rana
Trends of
threatened
plants
Costs transversal
to all indicators
TOTAL (€) *
180
graeca
28380 1800
B9
orbicularis
10500
merganser
870
6363
1740 in
Year 1;
870
from
Yr2
1310
in
Year
1;
390
in Yr
2+
4375 in
Yr1,
5250
from
Yr2
5955
Yr1;
2330
Yr2+
7233
824
450
350€(Yr
1; 190
(Yr2+)
800
640
1572
1800 in
Yr1,
900
from
Yr2
3860 in
Year 1;
840 in Yr
2+
5660
1740
2159
3490
525 in
Yr1,
1125
from
Yr2
2200
Yr1;
2900
Yr2+
2725
4025
312
Yr1; 70
Yr 2+
387
145
75
290 Yr1;
70 Yr2+
365
145
324
Yr1; 124
Yr 2+
474
274
150
320 Yr1;
100
Yr2+
470
250
10570
9439
14350
9840
7233
450
374
1260
900 in
Yr1,
450
from
Yr2
2244 in
Year 1;
1122 in
Yr 2+
10330
7580
1275 in
Yr1,
2250
from
Yr2
884
Yr1;
1240 Yr
2+
145
1095
Yr1;
95 Yr
2+
1240
240
75
290
150
440
440
150
27103
21563
3050
824
3144
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
N°
INDICATOR
EQUIPMENT
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
TOTAL 5YEARS CYCLE
B1
Populations of bats in selected
nursery caves (to be amended by
adding assistant)
7500 €
2032 €
1842 €
1842 €
1842 €
1842 €
16900 €
B2
Interactions between Brown Bear
Ursus arctos and Man
2740 €
B3
3308 €
B4
Populations of wintering waterbirds, especially Anser a.
B5
B6
rubrirostris
9900 €
Populations of breeding colonial
waterbirds
Breeding population of Mergus
merganser
B7
B8
Population of Rana graeca
B9
Trends of threatened plants
10500 €
180 €
2740 €
2540 €
2540 €
8388 €
4642 €
4172 €
4172 €
4172 €
4172 €
31230 €
8857 €
8697 €
8697 €
8697 €
8697 €
43645 €
11854 €
4572 €
4572 €
20998 €
15214 €
15095 €
15095 €
55904 €
1992 €
530 €
530 €
3052 €
964 €
5420 €
1384 €
TOTAL
964 €
964 €
964 €
188,277.00 €
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
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
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 ―nonnature‖ 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 nonbiophysical, 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 wellbeing, and community sustainability.
2
For example, the Great Lakes and Camargue systems used as a models for this effort.
Page 290/381
(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

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 socioeconomic 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
STATE T0
Current
Biophysical
Conditions
Natural
Resource
Capital
Social Capacity &
Economic
Capital
Current
Human
Condition
Air, Water, Soils,
Plants/Animals,
Rocks
Total Biomass
and Biodiversity*
Economic Assets &
Liabilities
Social Opportunities &
Constraints
Values &
Norms
Income
Health
Security
STATE T1
TIME
*Reproduction,
Growth, Death,
Decomposition
Succession
Migration
Adaptation
Competition
----Disturbance
----Soil
Erosion/Genesis
----Nutrient Cycle
----Water Cycle
----Carbon Cycle
Air, Water, Soils,
Plants/Animals,
Rocks
Current
Biophysical
Conditions
Mgmt & Social
Regulation
Extraction
Demand
Production of
Goods/Services
Ecosystem
Services
Trade
Use of
Ecosystem
Services
Investment
Use of
Goods
Waste
Discharge
Total Biomass
and Biodiversity *
*Indicates both Plant & Animal
Natural
Resource
Capital
Economic Assets &
Liabilities
Social Opportunities &
Constraints
Social Capacity &
Economic
Capital
Social Processes
-------Population
-------Cultural
--------Education
--------Governance
--------Markets
--------Legal System
---------Social Interaction
---------Family
Values &
Norms
Income
Health
Security
Current
Human
Condition
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
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
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
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
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
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
Table 12.1. Sample Population Statistics for the Prespa Basin
Category
Unit
Basin-wide
Population
24,000 people (approx.)
69 communities (towns and villages)
Former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
17,500 persons (75% of total), all in Municipality of
Resen w/ 7000 inhabitants (44 communities total)
Albania
5,300 persons (17%), divided between Liqenas
Commune, Progër Commune and Bilisht Qendër
Commune (12 communities total)
Greece
Trend
Statistic
1,500 persons (8%), all in Municipality of Prespa
(13 communities total)
Basin-wide
Decreasing
Former Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
Decreasing (20% over the past thirty years);
Albania
Stable or slightly decreasing
Greece
Stable
Table 12.2. Potential Community/User Data Sources in the Prespa Basin (from
DeCoursey 2004)
Country
Former
Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
Foreign Projects and
Assistance
Organizations
UNDP
KfW (German)
USAID
SOROS Center
GTZ
World Food Program
SNV
Albania
ECAT
Euronatur
Dorkas Aid
SIPUC (?)
MADA
Local NGOs, CBOs, User Associations
Apple Producers Association
Hotel/Tourism Association
Other?
Diello (CBO, Liqenas)
AMPEP (CBO)
REC
Prespa Forest Users Association
Prespa Fisheries Association
Womens Association
Other?
SPP
Greece
Unknown
Farmer, Livestock Association?
Other?
Page 299/381
Figure 12.2. Settlements in the Prespa area
Page 300/381
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
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
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
SE 1
Population (number of inhabitants)
SE 2
Population Composition
SE 3
SE 4
SE 5
Annual Net/Disposable Income
Omitted for pilot phase
Poverty
Employment
Nature
D, P
D
D, P
D, P (I?)
D, P, I
Resource Dependency:
SE 6
Income vs Personal Use/Subsistence
D, P, I
Governance and Policy Issues:
SE 8
Public Spending on Environmental Management and Protection
in the Prespa Basin
SE 9
Enforcement of environmental protections laws
SE 11
SE 13
SE 14
Water Use, Demand and Threats
Firewood consumption/pressure
Grazing pressure
SE 17
Incidence of Forest Fire
SE 19
Fishing Pressure
SE 20
Annual fishing effort and catch
SE 21
Physical Infrastructure/Urbanization
SE 22
Agriculture (by country)
SE 23
Waste Management
SE 25
Tourism
D
D, R
P, I, R
P
P
P,R
P
P, I
D, P, I
D, P
R
P, I
Page 303/381
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
Table 12.4. Initial Pilot Phase Socio-Economic Indicators and Parameters
N°
Indicator
SE 1
Population Size
and Growth
SE 2
Nature
D, P
Population
Composition
D
Parameters

Number of inhabitants

Growth rate

Birth rate

Age structure: % under age 15; % 65 and
older

Gender: % males, % females

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°
SE 3
SE 4
Indicator
Public Spending and
Investment for
Environmental and
Natural Resource
Management in the
Prespa Basin
Enforcement of
environmental laws
Nature
D
D, R
SE 5
Water Use, Demand
and Threats
P, I, R
SE 6
Incidence of Wildland
Fire
P,R
Parameters

% agriculture

% forestry

% water

% biodiversity

% other

Incidences of illegal activity x resource

Citations issued x resource

Financial penalties collected x resource

Population (%) with access to quality inhouse drinking water via public utility

Population (%) with environmentally
sound sewage and water treatment

Number/location/extent of
forest/grassland fires per year
Page 305/381
SE 7
SE 8
SE 9
SE 10
SE 11
Fishing Pressure
P
Physical Infrastructure
and Urbanization
D, P, I
Agriculture

Number of fishing licenses x country

Number of fishing boats x country

Annual catch x country

Roads (km)

Surface area covered/converted (km2)

Sand excavation (km2)

Main crops x hectares under production
(location)

Annual value of production (per crop)

Villages with environmentally sound
rubbish disposal (% total, location)

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.)

Tourism investment x source (public or
private)

Number of beds

Number of hotels
D, P
Waste Management
R
Tourism
P, I
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
SE 19
Attitudes and knowledge regarding conservation
P, I
R
* Parameters that require further research and elaboration
Page 306/381
12.3. Methods
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
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
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 semistructured 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
higher or lower than actual residents
esp. in the Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia and GR
SE 1
Population Size and
Growth
Desktop analysis
National census
Field interviews
Statistical survey agencies
SE 2
Population
Composition
Desktop analysis
National census
Density parameter:
Field interviews
Statistical survey agencies
# inhabitants/area (incl. lake)
National level – annual operating budget and direct government
investment
Public Spending and
SE 3
SE 4
Investment on
Environmental and
Natural Resource
Management in the
Prespa Basin
Enforcement of
environmental laws
Desktop analysis/
records search
Field interviews
Direct foreign investment (loans, grants, etc.)
Municipal budgets
National park budgets
Ministry of Environment budgets
Secretary for European Affairs (Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia)
Desktop analysis/
records search
Field interviews
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Environmental
Inspectorate, Communal Inspectorate
AL – Forestry Enterprise, Regional Environmental Agency
GR – Local and border police, forest wardens, hunting wardens,
park wardens
Issue: which metric is best? %
national budget, % per capita, % per
hectare, Euro per hectare?
This indicator is a measure of each
county’s commitment to the Prespa
Basin.
Issue: environmental crimes are
rarely reported. Penalties are only
loosely enforced
GR – Municipality
SE 5
Water Use, Demand
and Threats
Records search
Field interviews
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Public Health
Institute, Public Utility
HARMONIZE WITH WATER GROUP
AL – Public Health Institute
SE 6
Incidence of Wildland
Fire
Desktop analysis/
records search
Field interviews
Forest Service
HARMONIZE WITH FORESTRY
GROUP
May not be in an issue – tbd
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Fisheries
Concessionaire
SE 7
Fishing Pressure
Desktop analysis/
records search
Field interviews
AL – Fisheries Inspectorate (MOE/FWA), local fisheries
associations
HARMONIZE WITH FISHERIES
GROUP
GR – (?)
UNDP Fisheries Project
SE 8
Physical Infrastructure
and Urbanization
Remote sensing
Aerial photos
HARMONIZE WITH LAND USE
GROUP
AL – commune
SE 9
Agriculture
Desktop analysis/
records search
Field interviews
Remote sensing
GR – Agricultural survey (updated every 2 years)
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Agricultural Census
(2007—future schedule n/a), Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and
Water Economy
HARMONIZE WITH LAND USE
GROUP
Aerial photos?
Statistical yearbooks?
SE 10
Waste Management
Desktop analysis/
records search
Field interviews
SE 11
Tourism
Desktop analysis/
records search
Field interviews
AL – municipality, commune
GR – municipality
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – municipality, public
utility
AL – Regional Council of Korcha, tour operators, communes,
Zagradec Tourist Info Center, National Park Administration
(Gorice)
GR – Statistical Service (Athens), Aghios Germanos Tourist Info
Center
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Ministry of Economy,
Municipality (neither have mandate to collect data at present)
UNDP Prespa Transboundary Tourism Project
HARMONIZE WITH WATER AND
LAND USE GROUPS
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
Macedonia
2002
2012
10 years
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
Table 12.9. Proposed schedule for the monitoring of the proposed TMS Socio-Economic
Indicators
Full TMS:
Country
Pilot Phase
Albania
Based on
2001 Census
2011/2012
Greece
Based on
2001 Census
2011/2012
Former
Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
Based on
2002 Census
Time 1
(census)
(census)
2012/2013
Time 2
2016/2017
2016/2017
2017/2018
Time 3
2021/2022
(census)
2021/2022
(census)
2022/2023
Time 4
2026/2027
2026/2027
2027/2028
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
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
Albania
Former
Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia
Lead Institution
Justification
INSTAT
INSTAT is the main government agency conducting
the national census and collecting a wide variety of
country statistics. They have offices in every district
and have indicated a willingness to work with the
TMS.
Resen Municipality
and Regional
Environmental
Center (REC)
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
lack capacity and mandate to carry this out effectively.
REC has the needed experience, but the TMS ideally
should be mainstreamed into the public sector.
These two organizations working in tandem would
present a strong in-country team.
Greece
Prespa National
Forest
Management Body
(PNFMB) and the
Florina Statistical
Office
PNFMB is the main agency overseeing management of
Greek Prespa, however they lack the capacity and
mandate to carry out resource-based socio-economic
monitoring.
The Statistical Office in Florina is well-experienced
with socioeconomic data collection and could provide
the necessary support to the PNFMB.
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
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
Minus computers
11,412
2,400
9,012
ALBANIA
Fixed Costs
Item
Computer(s) with Microsoft Office
Unit Cost
800
Number
1
Total
800
Internet and Communications
Remote sensing images for SE 8-9
100
0
0
0
100
0
Comment
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
Travel
Per diem
To be included in land use/remote
sensing budget
3 trips a year to Tirana or other
locations to obtain data and/or meet
with TMS coordinators
30
6
180
Hotel ( 1 person)
Mileage
12
0.4
6
1,800
72
720
Lead researcher/coordinator
100
10
1,000
Assistant
Remote Sensing Analysis
50
0
4
0
200
0
Tirana to Prespa = 600 km (return)
Personnel (days)
TOTAL
Data collection and analysis; TMS
coordination. Could be less based on
ease of obtaining data.
sensing budget
3,072
Fixed Costs
Item
Unit Cost
800
Number
1
Total
800
100
0
0
0
100
0
Comment
Running Costs
Travel
Per diem
sensing budget
3 trips a year to Skopje or other
locations to obtain data and/or meet
with TMS coordinators
30
6
180
Hotel ( 1 person)
Mileage
30
0.4
6
1,500
180
600
100
10
1,000
Assistant
50
0
4
0
200
0
Skopje to Prespa = 500 km (return)
Personnel (days)
TOTAL
sensing budget
3,060
Greece
Fixed Costs
Item
Unit Cost
800
Number
1
Total
800
100
0
0
0
100
0
Comment
Running Costs
Travel
sensing budget
3 trips a year from Prespa to Florina or
other locations to obtain data and/or
meet with TMS coordinators
Per diem
Hotel ( 1 person)
Mileage
55
45
0.4
6
6
500
330
270
200
300
10
3,000
Assistant
145
0
4
0
580
0
Personnel (days)
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Minus computers
5,280
11,412
2,400
9,012
sensing budget
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
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
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 crossborder 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
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.
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
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 textboxes 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
Table 13.1. Proposed indicators for the ―Land-use‖ theme
Proposed indicators
N°
Nature
LS1
S
LS2
S
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
Nature:
S
1. Area of each land use category (natural and anthropic
habitats)
1.1
1.2
...
2. Fragmentation of each land use (natural and
anthropic habitats)
2.1
2.2
...
Indicator LS1:
Area of each land use (natural and
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:
-
Such basic indicator is easily verifiable at the transboundary scale as well as at national
level through satellite images
Remote sensing
Field monitoring
Ministry in charge of land use and present
partners
-
Page 325/381
Indicator LS2:
Fragmentation of each land use category
(natural and anthropic habitats)
Nature:
S
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:
-
Remote sensing,
Field monitoring,
GIS and landscape ecology tools
partners
-
Indicator LS3:
Plant biomass
Nature:
S
- 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:
-
Remote sensing,
Field monitoring
partners
-
Page 326/381
Indicator LS4:
Area of non-irrigated and irrigated
crops
Nature:
S
Area of irrigated crops (comparing classified and integrated images in the GIS).
Sub-indicators:
-
Remote sensing,
Field monitoring
partners
-
Indicator LS5:
Area and dynamic of snowpack
Nature:
S
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:
-
Remote sensing,
Field monitoring
partners
-
Page 327/381
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
Remote sensing (Corine Land Cover)
Forest inventory
Ministry in charge of forest and land use
planning: MoE or MoA
Forest inventory at national or regional level (?)
Indicator F2:
Priority terrestrial habitats conservation
Nature:
S
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
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
Local forest surveys
National Parks; MoE
-
Page 328/381
Indicator F10:
Forest degradation, encroachment &
depletion
Nature:
I
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
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)
Forest inventories and mapping
MoA and/or MoE
Forestry services; Forest enterprises
-
Indicator F11:
Fluctuation on the above limit of forest
stands
Nature:
I
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)
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
- forest and dwarf shrubby vegetation mapping
- ecological research programmes
National Parks
MoE, Forestry services and Public enterprises
-
Page 329/381
Indicator F18:
Forest fires: mean annual burnt area
Nature:
P
Sub-indicators:
-
Is this indicator relevant for the TMS?
MoE (?)
Forestry services or Fire services
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
Table 13.3. Proposed indicators for the ―Land-use‖ theme added by the ―Forests & other
terrestrial habitats‖ theme
N°
Proposed indicator
Nature
F1
S/I
F2
Priority terrestrial habitats conservation distribution and
quality
S
F6
S
F8
S/I
Table 13.4. Proposed indicators for the ―Land-use‖ theme added by the ―Aquatic
vegetation‖ theme
N°
AQUATIC VEGETATION
Nature
WV1
Location and surface area of patches of the habitat ―Beds
of hydrophytes‖
S
WV3
Location and surface area of patches of the habitat ―Wet
meadows‖
S
Species composition and structure of the vegetation of the
habitat ―Wet meadows‖ with several possible variables: height
of vegetation, cover of nitrophilous species, cover of
characteristic/non characteristic species, cover of shrub
species, etc.
S
WV5
―Reedbeds‖
S
WV7
Direct management of reedbeds (wildfires, harvest, etc.)
(WV4)
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
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
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
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
122
123
124
131
132
133
141
142
Industrial or commercial units
Road and rail networks and associated land
Port areas
Airports
Mineral extraction sites
Dump sites
Construction sites
Green urban areas
Sport and leisure facilities
Page 333/381
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)
Mixed beech-fir forests
– 321 Natural grassland
– 322 Moors and heathland
– 323 Sclerophyllous vegetation
–
–
–
–
324
331
332
333
- 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
- 3221 Subalpine vegetation of dwarf shrubs
- 3231 Lowland evergreen Box-juniper shrublands
Transitional woodland-shrub
Beaches, dunes, and sand plains
Bare rock
Sparsely vegetated areas
Page 334/381
- 3331 Pseudo-steppe with grasses and
annuals (Thero-Brachypodietea)
– 334 Burnt areas
– 335 Glaciers and perpetual snow
Class 4: Wetland, salt
– 411 Inland marshes
–
–
–
–
412
421
422
423
-
4111
4112
4113
4114
Habitat beds of hydrophytes
Nitrophilous species
Shrub species
Reedbeds
Peatbogs
Salt marshes
Salines
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
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
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
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
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.
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
1 time only for
perturbated
area (fire...)
1 time only for
perturbated
area (fire...)
1 time only for
perturbated
area (fire...)
1 time only for
perturbated area
(fire...)
Area of each land use
category (natural and
anthropic
habitats)Remote
sensing
Remote sensing and
Geographical Information
Systematics
1 time for each
habitat/ landuse class and
perturbated
area (fire...)
LS2
Fragmentation of each
land use (natural and
anthropic habitats)
Remote sensing,
Systematics and
Landscape Ecology
indicators
1 time every 5
year
LS3
Plant biomass of each
natural habitats
Remote sensing and
Systematics
1 time
1 time
1 times
1 time
1 time
LS4
Area of irrigated and
non-irrigated crops
Remote sensing and
Systematics
1 time
1 time
1 times
1 time
1 time
LS7
Area and dynamic of
snowpack
Remote sensing and
System
1 time
1 time
1 times
1 time
1 time
LS1
13.3.5. Parameters
See Table 13.6
Table 13.6. Parameters to be measured for the monitoring of Land-use indicators
N°
Proposed indicator
Parameters that need to be
measured
Area of each land use
category (natural and
Area (in ha) for each country under each
type of land-use
LS2
Fragmentation of each land
use (natural and
Landscape ecology indicators for each
type of habitat: fragmentation, perimeter
of each patch...
LS3
Plant biomass of each natural
habitats
NDVI computed for each habitat
LS4
Area of irrigated and nonirrigated crops
Total area under irrigated and nonirrigated crops
LS7
Area and dynamic of
snowpack
Snow depth at different altitudes between
October and June
LS1
Selected Natura 2000 habitat.
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
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 €)
1
3,000.00
3,000.00
4 every 5
years
4,000.00
16,000.00
12 every year
0
0
Computer
Satellite data Spot
Satellite data
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
Sensing Software
1
20,000.00
20,000.00
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)
ALBANIA
GREECE
FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC of
MACEDONIA
Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and
Food, Skopje
Tel: + 389 70 328 863;
Ministry of Environment,
Forestry and Water
Administration
(Sokol Bezhani,
E-Mail:
[email protected])
Society for the
Protection of Prespa
Tel: 0030-2385051233
(Ms. Irene Koutseri,
Biologist,
E-mail: [email protected])
(Dr. Ordan Cukaliev,
E-mail: [email protected] &
[email protected])
Institute of agriculture, Faculty of
Agricultural Sciences and Food, Skopje
(Dr. Dusko Mukaetov,
Agency for Spatial Planning
(Lidija Trpenovska,
Page 342/381
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
120
10
60
600
Total cost
60
Cost per day
per person
2
N days of
work/ year
3,000
Number of
people
involved
3,000
60
2
technicians
300
50
50
50
2,500
1
engineer
10
2,500
50
50
2,500
1
engineer
600
50
2
50
100
1
engineer
300
Total cost
2
Cost per day
per person
15,000
N days of
work/ year
300
50
Number of
people
involved
50
2
technicians
7,250
1
engineer
145
1
engineer
Remote sensing
treatment,
Geographical
Information
50
1
engineer
June
LS7
Area and
dynamic of
snowpack
Total cost
Remote sensing
treatment,
Geographical
Information
Cost per day
per person
July
LS4
Area of
irrigated and
non-irrigated
crops
N days of
work/ year
Remote sensing
treatment
Geographical
Information and
morphological
compute analyse
Number of
people
involved
June
LS1,
LS2,
LS3
Landscape
area and
morphological
structure
Remote sensing
fieldwork
2
technicians
Landscape
area and
morphological
structure
1
engineer
LS1,
LS2,
LS3
METHOD
1
engineer
Proposed
indicator
FORMER YUGOSLAV
REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA
ALBANIA
1
engineer
N°
Between October
and June
TIME
GREECE
10
50
500
Table 13.11. Additional costs (in €, every year) for the monitoring of the ―Land-use‖ theme in each country
Number of
people
involved
N days of
work/ year
Cost per day
per person
Total cost
Number of
people
involved
N days of
work/ year
Cost per day
per person
Total cost
1
technician
50
250
1
technician
5
50
250
LS1,
LS2,
LS3
Landscape
area and
morphologi
cal
structure
5
1
engineer
5
1
engineer
5
LS4
Area of
irrigated
and nonirrigated
crops
Remote sensing
treatment,
Geographical
Information
June
2
LS7
Area and
dynamic of
snowpack
Remote sensing
treatment,
Geographical
Information
Between
October
and June
10
Landscape
area
perturbated
(fire...)
Remote sensing
fieldwork
Remote sensing
treatment,
Geographical
Information and
morphological
compute analyse
with NDVI
TIME
PERIOD
October
or
November
July
300
1,500
300
600
300
3,000
60
300
2
60
120
10
50
500
50
250
1
engineer
Total cost
5
LS1,
LS2,
LS3
METHOD
2
50
100
1
engineer
Cost per day
per person
725
Proposed
indicator
1
engineer
N days of
work/ year
145
N°
1
engineer
Number of
people
involved
1
technician
5
1
engineer
OF MACEDONIA
1
engineer
ALBANIA
1
engineer
GREECE
10
60
600
75000
+
16000
(satellite
images)
+
5000
(common
engineer)
22225
2000
+
13000
(travel
and
compensation)
22000
3850
2000
+ 13000
(travel and
compensation)
22000
Maintenance /
Training / Updating
(per year)
Total cost (per
year)
40850
Consumables/
recurrent costs and
travel
(per year)
ALBANIA
Staff cost (per
year)
Total cost (per
year)
GREECE
Maintenance /
Training / Updating
(per year)
Consumables/
recurrent costs and
travel
(per year)
59225
Staff cost (per
year)
Total cost (per
year)
Maintenance /
Training / Updating
(per year)
Consumables/
recurrent costs and
travel
(per year)
Equipment costs
LS1
LS2
LS3
LS4
LS7 and
for
wetland
Habitats
and
Forest
Staff cost (per
year)
N°/ Proposed
indicators
Table 13.12. Budget summary (all costs for Year 1, in €) for the monitoring of the ―Land-use‖ theme in each country
MACEDONIA
4470
2000
+ 13000
(travel
and
compensation)
22000
41470
LS1
LS2
LS3
LS4
LS7
and for
wetland
habitats
and
Forests
& other
TH
Consumables/
recurrent costs /
and travel
(per year)
Maintenance /
Training /
Updating (per
year)
Total cost (per
year)
Staff cost (per
year)
Consumables/
recurrent costs /
and travel
(per year)
Maintenance /
Training /
Updating (per
year)
Total cost (per
year)
Staff cost (per
year)
Consumables/
recurrent costs /
and travel
(per year)
Maintenance /
Training /
Updating (per
year)
Total cost (per
year)
5000
(common
engineer)
Staff cost (per
year)
Equipment costs
N°/ Proposed
indicators
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
GREECE
ALBANIA
MACEDONIA
5825
400
2000
8225
1170
400
2000
3670
1200
400
2000
3500
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
Computer
2,000.00 €
Software
20,000.00 €
GPS
2,000.00 €
Travel
800.00 €
Personnel time
Days of technician: 25
750.00 €
3,100.00 €
Total
28,650.00 €
Table 13.16. Annual budget for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Year 1)
Budget
Compute
2,000.00 €
software
20,000.00 €
GPS
2,000.00 €
Travel
800.00 €
Personnel time
750.00 €
3,720.00 €
Total
29,270.00 €
Page 348/381
Table 13.17. Annual budget for Greece (Year 1)
Budget
Compute
2,000.00 €
software
20,000.00 €
GPS
2,000.00 €
Travel
800.00 €
Personnel time
3,625.00 €
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)
Satellite images
Budget
0.00 €
Personnel time
Total
5,000.00 €
5,000.00 €
Table 13.19. Annual budget for Albania (Years 2-5)
Updating Software
Travel
Budget
2,000.00 €
400.00 €
Personnel time
Days of technician
250.00 €
Days of engineer
920,00 €
Page 349/381
Table 13.20. Annual budget for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Years 2-5)
Updating Software
Travel
Budget
2,000.00 €
400.00 €
Personnel time
Days of technician
250.00 €
Days of engineer
950.00 €
Table 13.21. Annual budget for Greece (Years 2-5)
Updating Software
Travel
Budget
2,000.00 €
400.00 €
Personnel time
Days of technician
Days of engineer
725.00 €
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
14. Evaluation of the Prespa Monitoring System
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
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…)
Full
5-years
evaluation
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?)
I- 5-years synthesis of the extent to which indicators have been monitored,
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
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)
Indicator n°
Year 1
Albania
Greece
…
*
Year 5
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
for it to be retained for the Prespa TB system:
Indic.
n°1
…
Indic
n° 70
Validity
Relevance
Appropriate Scale
- Is the indicator relevant to the Prespa TB central
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
- 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
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).
4
Page 353/381
Criteria (by type)
the issue)
Accurate
Sensitive
Indic.
n°1
…
Indic
n° 70
Does the indicator accurately reflect the ecosystem
component it is intended to represent?
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
Understandable
Simplicity
Presentation
Documented
Is the indicator appropriate for decision-makers and
the general public?
Is the level of information from the indicator
appropriate for environmental managers to use in
decision making?
Is the indicator simple and direct?
Can the indicator be presented in a format tailored to
environmental managers?
Is the methodology used to create the indicator welldocumented and understandable so that it can be
easily communicated and reproduced?
Interpretability
Interpretable
Trend Evaluation
Is there a reference condition or benchmark for the
indicator against which current status and trends can
be compared?
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
Criteria (by type)
TB feasibility
EU legal conformity
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?
Are the indicators compatible/ conforming with legal
requirements, e.g. WFD?
Indic.
n°1
…
Indic
n° 70
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
15. Integration of the monitoring componentsoverview
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
proposed
State
Pressure
Response
Water resources
Wetland plants & Habitats
Fish & fisheries
Forest & Forestry
Birds & Other Biodiversity
Land-use
Socio-economy
19*
8
10
8
9
5
11
8
7
5
6
8/9
4
0
10
1
4
1
(1)
1
8
1
0
1
1
0
0
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
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°
WH1:
WH2:
WH3:
WH4:
WH5:
WH6:
WH7:
WATER RESOURCES
Nature
Lake_water_level
Catchment_irrigated_area (covered under Land Use indic. N° LS4 )
S
P
R
P
Groundwater_level
P
S
S
WM1:
WM2:
WM3:
WM4:
WQPC-C1:
WQPC-C2:
Precip_Catchment
Precip_lake
lake_evaporation
S
S
S
S
P
P
WQPC-C3:
WQPC-C4:
WQEB-C1:
Groundwater_ toxic_pollution
Fish_Trout_rivers (ident. to Fish n°P2 )
P
P
S
WQPC-L1:
WQPC-L2:
WQPC-L3:
WQEB-L1:
WQEB-L2:
WQEB-L3:
WQEB-L4:
Lake_ nutrients
Lake_ Phytoplankton
Lake_ Chlorophyll-A
Lake_Macrophytes (ident. to Wetland veg. WV2)
Fish endemic to Prespa lakes trend (Ident. to Fish n° P1)
S
P
P
P
P
S
S
AQUATIC VEGETATION
WV1
WV2
WV3
WV4
WV5
WV6
WV7
WV8
Nature
Location and surface area of patches of the habitat beds of
hydrophytes
Species composition of vegetation in habitat Beds of
hydrophytes (many possible variables: cover of
characteristic/opportunistic species, of annuals/perennials, of
exotic species, …)
Location and surface area of patches of the wet meadows
Species composition and structure of the vegetation of the
habitat wet meadows
Location and surface area of patches of the habitat Reedbeds
Species composition and structure of the vegetation of reedbeds
Direct management of reedbeds (wildfires, harvest, …)
Location and surface area of populations of Aldrovanda vesiculosa
S
S
S
S
S
S
P
S
Page 357/381
N°
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
P8
P8b
P9
P10
FISH & FISHERIES
Nature
Prespa trout trend
Prespa barbel and Prespa nase in Macro Prespa
Carp trend
Number of licensed fishermen in the three country
Annual Fishing effort and fish catches
Number of breeding pelican and cormorant in the area (incl. in
B5)
Quality and quantity of fish eaten by cormorant
N°
FORESTS & TERRESTRIAL HABITATS
F1
F2
Priority terrestrial habitats conservation (EU directive)
distribution and quality
Terrestrial Habitats & forest areas under protection
Forest and grasslands under a comprehensive and implemented
management plan (% of forest and grasslands under running
MP)
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
P
R
Nature
Structure and dynamics within forest and other terrestrial habitats
Sylvicultural practices for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM)
Natural damages and diseases
S (I)
S
S
S
S
S
R
P
BIRDS & OTHER BIODIVERSITY
B1
B2
S
S
S
S
S
P
P
P
P
Nature
Population of bats in selected nursery caves
Interactions between Brown bear Ursus arctos and Man
Population of wintering waterbirds, with special emphasis on
Anser anser rubrirostris
Breeding population of Mergus merganser
Populations of Emys orbicularis
Population of Rana graeca along streams of Prespa catchment
Trends of some threatened and endemic terrestrial plants of the
Prespa basin (Crocus pelistericus, Dianthus myrtinervius, Viola
eximia)
S
S/P
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Page 358/381
SOCIO-ECONOMY
Nature
SE 1
SE 2
Population (number of inhabitants)
Population Composition
P
P
SE 3
Public Spending on Environmental Management and Protection in the
Prespa Basin
Enforcement of environmental protections laws
Water Use, Demand and Threats
Incidence of Forest Fire
Fishing Pressure
Physical Infrastructure/ Urbanization
Agriculture (by country)
Waste Management
Tourism
R
SE 4
SE 5
SE 6
SE 7
SE 8
SE 9
SE 10
SE 11
R
P
P
P
P
P
R
P
LAND-USE
LS1
LS2
LS3
LS4
LS5
Area of each land use category (natural and anthropic habitats)
Fragmentation of each land use (natural and anthropic habitats)
Plant biomass of each natural habitats
Area of irrigated and non-irrigated crops
Area and dynamic of snowpack
S
S
S
P
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
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
Water
resources
(quantity,
quality)
- MoEFWA/Agency of Water and
Energy
- IEWE: Institute of Energy,
Water & Environment,
Polytechnic University of Tirana
(former Institute of
Hydrometeorology of Albania)
Macedonia
- The Hydro meteorological
Administration (HMA)
- Hydrobiological Institute of Ohrid
- Laboratory for Algae Taxonomy and
Hydrobiology (LAH), Institute of Biology,
Faculty for Natural Sciences, Skopje
- Institute for Health Protection (IHP)
Aquatic
Vegetation and
habitats
Fish and
Fisheries
- Museum of natural Sciences,
Tirana (MNS)
- University of Tirana
- University of Agriculture
- PPNEA
- Biological Institute of the faculty of
Sciences and mathematics of Skopje
- Hydrobiological Institute of Ohrid
Galicica National Park; Hydrobiological
Institute Ohrid (HIO)
Forests and
Terrestrial
habitats
- MoEFWA / Agency of
Environment and Forestry (EFA)
- MoEFWA: Directorate of
Protected Areas
- MoEFWA / Forest Service
Directorate
- Prespa National Park
- Faculty of Natural Sciences
- Faculty of Forestry Sciences
(Tirana)
-Albanian Forestry Expert
- Ministry of Environment and Physical
Planning (MoEPP)
- MoAFW / Directorate of Forests
- Galicica National Park
- Pelister National Park
- Faculty of Sciences (Skopje)
- Faculty of Forestry (Skopje)
- Forestry Public Enterprises (Makedonski
Forests)
Greece
- Ministry of Environment Physical Planning
and Public Works (MEPPPW)/ Central
Water Service (CWS)
- Public Power Corporation (PPC),
Department of Hydrology
- Florina Chemistry Service (FCS) , Florina
- 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)
- Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP)
- Universities & Tech. Education Institutes
- Management Body of Prespa Park National
Forest
- SPP
- Ministry of Environment Physical Planning
and Public Works (MEPPPW)
- SPP
- PNFMB
- TKI
- Forest Directorate of Florina
- Forest Research Institution: EKBY. TEI
Larissa
Association
Birds & other
Biodiversity
- Museum of natural
Sciences, Tirana (MNS)
- Albanian Society for the
Protection of Birds and Mammals
(ASPBM)
- Prespa National Park
- PPNEA
- Ministry of Environment and
Physical Planning (MoEPP)
- Galicica National Park
- Pelister National Park
- BIOECO
- Macedonian Ecological Society (MES)
- Skopje University
- Management Body of the Prespa
National Park (MBPNF)
- Callisto (NGO)
- SPP
- Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS)
Socio-economy
- INSTAT
- Institute of Public Health
(district office).
- UNDP national office (Tirana)
- REC Albania
- Ministry of Environment,
Forestry and Water
Administration
- Resen Municipality
- Regional Environmental Center
(REC)
- UNDP National Office
- Management Body of the Prespa
National Park (MBPNF)
- Florina Statistical Office
- SPP
- Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and
Food. Skopje
- Institute of agriculture, Faculty of
Agricultural Sciences and Food, Skopje
- Agency for spatial planning
- SPP
Land-use
Bold = lead institution proposed (in some themes)
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
indicators
covered
Water
15 (partly or
resources
totally)
(quantity,
quality)
Aquatic
All 8
vegetation
and habitats
Fish and
All 10
Fisheries
Forests and
All 8
Terrestrial
habitats
Birds &
All 9
other
Biodiversity
**
SocioAll 11
economy
Land-use
All 5
***
66 out of
Total
70
EQUIPMENT
Pilot study/
initial
PILOT YEAR
training/
net-working
27 851 €
YEAR 1
RUNNING COSTS
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
TOTAL PILOT
YEAR
(columns 35) ****
TOTAL 5-YR
CYCLE
(columns 610)
156 953 €
156 953 €
156 953 €
156 953 €
156 953 €
156 953 €
184 804 €
784 765 €
1 215 €
12 875 €
28 958 €
28 958 €
28 958 €
28 958 €
28 958 €
28 958 €
43 048 €
144 790 €
36 019 €
12 875 €
36 019 €
36 019 €
36 019 €
36 019 €
36 019 €
36 019 €
84 913 €
180 095 €
21 230 €
12 875 €
22 560 €
22 560 €
22 560 €
22 560 €
22 560 €
22 560 €
56 665 €
112 800 €
28 080 €
*
52 023 €
15 675 €
38 412 €
15 675 €
38 412 €
15 675 €
80 103 €
123 849 €
9 012 €
11 412 €
9 012 €
20 395 €
184 770 €
101 975 €
289 572 €
645 715 €
2 400 €
87 400 €
204 195
€
9 012 €
*
38 625 €
97 370 €
20 395 €
20 395 €
402 895 €
280 560 €
303 297 €
20 395 €
280 560 €
*: in addition to costs for Year 1, the cost for the initial Training was incorporated into the overall cost of Year 1
20 395 €
303 297 €
1 457 286 €
**: 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.
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
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
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
proposed
N° retained for Pilot application
Hydrology
Wetland plants & Habitats
Fish
Forest & Forestry
Birds & Other Biodiversity
Land-use
Socio-economy
19
8
10
8
9
5
11
15
7
10
4
5
5
2
Total
70
48
Page 367/381
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 landuse 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
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
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
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
- 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
Table 16.2. Budget for the pilot application of the Prespa TMS
Indicators for
Pilot application
Water resources (quantity,
quality)
Aquatic vegetation and
habitats
Fish and fisheries
Forests and terrestrial
habitats
Birds & other biodiversity
Socio-economy
Land-use
15 (some partly) out
of 19
(WH1-2-3-4; WM12-3-4; WQPC-C1 &
C2; WQPC-L1, L2 &
L3; WQEB-L1 & L2)
7 out of 8 (WV1-23-4-5-6-7)
All 10
4 out of 8
(F1-2-3-4)
5 out of 9
(B1-2-4-5-9)
2 out of 11 (SE1-2)
All 5
Total
48 out of 70
GRAND TOTAL (excluding costs for
coordination and for central storage of
collected data)
Equipment
Initial
training or
networking
Running
costs - Pilot
Year
156 953 €
(9)
27 851 €
1 215 €
36 019 €
12 875 €
12 875 €
28 958 €
36 019 €
21 230 €
12 875 €
22 560 €
52 023 € (10
)
9 012 €
97 370 € (11)
38 625 €
402 895 €
28 080 €
2 400 €
87 400 €
204 195 €
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
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
10
Page 373/381
Table 16.3. Tentative timetable for the pilot application of the Prespa TMS
Dates
Who?
What?
NovemberDecember
2009
UNDP
Skopje,
UNDP Tirana
National
stakeholders/
institutions from
the 3 countries
MCWG
Financial planning ahead, for procuring the required equipment
as per Paragraphs 6.4, 8.4, 9.4, 10.4, 11.4; 12.4 & 13.4
above
Relevant
stakeholders
Coordinating
body
+
1-3
―hosting
stakeholders‖14
All
monitoring
stakeholders (+
Coordinating
body)
Not specified
Procurement of equipment –
Priority = equipment needed for the Pilot application
Organisation of training sessions required in Aquatic vegetation,
Forests & terrestrial habitats, Land-use (remote-sensing) & Fish
& fisheries.
Not specified
Analysis of results in terms of:
a- Interpretation of evolutions of the Prespa ecosystem
b- Quality and TB compatibility of data collected in all 3
countries
Revisions of the proposed TMS based on the results above:
Proposed modifications to the list of indicators and to the
methods/ protocols, so as to make the whole TMS more likely
to be implemented well in a coordinated/ coherent way.
Lobbying + seeking commitments from the 3 States for
funding/ stabilizing the TMS beyond the GEF project
November
2009
December
200912
Jan-March13
2010
Jan-Dec
2010
Jan-Dec
2010
Jan-June
2011
AprilSeptember
2011
Not specified
Jan-Dec
2011
MCWG, UNDP
- Final approval of the TMS full study, incl. expert proposal for
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)
- Pilot field monitoring of the 48 indicators
- Data storing in ―home-made‖ databases/ spreadsheets while
expecting the TMS database/ GIS to be designed
Development of TMS database/ GIS
12
Or later, according to availability
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.
13
Page 374/381
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: DGLTagungsbericht 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
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 978-3940471-06-2. 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
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, 156173.
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
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
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 (northwestern 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
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
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