TRANSBOUNDARY FISH AND FISHERIES

TRANSBOUNDARY FISH AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PRESPA LAKES BASIN

2nd Preliminary technical report

November 2011, Ohrid

GEF/UNDP Integrated ecosystem management in the Prespa Lakes Basin of Albania, FYR Macedonia and Greece Transboundary Fish and Fisheries Management of the Prespa Lakes Basin

PREFACE

The Transboudary Fish and Fisheries Management Plan of the Prespa Lakes Basin is committed for preparation to PSI Hydrobioilogical Institute – Ohrid, through the contract for professional services 13/2011. As the contract was signed with a delay on May 25, 2011 due to objective administrative obstacles, the whole realization period is shifted forward. Hence, slight changes in the Project Work Plan considering dates and range of the data for the 1st Preliminary technical reports on the stated Deliverables will occur. The main objective of the assignment is the development of a transboundary fish and fisheries management plan for the Prespa Lakes basin following a coordinated field survey and analysis of current status of fish and fisheries related issues in all three states sharing the basin. The entire process is envisaged to be complemented by a series of capacity development activities regarding sustainable fish and fisheries management practices within the following tasks: Task I: Stakeholder Participation, Capacity Development, and Communications Task II: Data Collection, Supplementary Fish Stock Assessment, and Analysis of Existing Conditions Task III: Drafting of the Transboundary Fish and Fisheries Management Plan This report is presented according the Project Outputs/Deliverables given in the TOR’s and the Work Plan. 1. Technical report on the findings of Task II (Data Collection, Supplementary Fish Stock Assessment, and Analysis of Existing Conditions); (Deliverable 1) 2. Transboundary Fish and Fisheries Management Plan (provisional content provided in Annex III of the TOR); (Deliverable 2) 3. Training and informational material (simple, user-friendly training material, guidance and/or manuals on sustainable fisheries management practices, to be used mainly by the local fishermen. Not more than 50 pages in total); (Deliverable 3) 4. Report prepared in simple and plain language supplemented with illustrations and/or photographs on the fish species of the Prespa Lakes basin to be used for public information purposes (preparation of publication on Prespa fish) (Deliverable 4)

PSI Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid

2


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Technical report on the findings of Task II 1.1. Review of the existing relevant documentation on fish and fisheries 1.2. Limited fish stock assessment – field sampling and survey 1.3. Processing and data analysis

Transboundary Fish and Fisheries Management Plan 2.1. Stake holder findings 2.2. Relevant international models Training and informational material 3.1. Data collection on existing fishery practices 3.2. Habitat conditions 3.3. Spawning grounds Report on the fish species of the Prespa Lakes Basin 4.1. Photo documenting


3


Team members and areas of expertise 1. Team Leader

Name Zoran Spirkovski Ekerem Kapedani Arian Palluqi

2. Ichthyology and applied fisheries sciences

Trajce Talevski Dusica Ilik-Boeva Zoran Spirkovski Vasil Kostov Trajce Talevski Dusica Ilik-Boeva

3. Fish Ecology

Zoran Spirkovski Vasil Kostov Arian Palluqi Paul Farrow

4.

Fish and Fisheries Management Planning

Zoran Spirkovski Dusica Ilik-Boeva Arian Palluqi Dusica Ilik-Boeva

5.

Socio – economic aspects of fisheries and livelihoods

Trajce Talevski Zoran Spirkovski Ekerem Kapedani

6. Veterinary Medicine

Stojmir Stojanoski Elvira Beli Elizabeta Veljanoska - Sarafiloska

7. Environmental Chemistry

Zoran Spirkovski Trajce Talevski Dusica Ilik-Boeva

8. Zooplankton


Goce Kostoski

4

PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

Project Management Structure Project Steering Committee (PPP Management, Team Leader, Key Experts per country)

Project Consortium (All expert Team members)

Other stakeholders • Relevant Ministries (Agriculture, Environment, Transport and communications, Finance) • Relevant Local Government Authorities • Fisheries Organizations • Relevant NGO’s • Universities • Research Institutes

UNDP/GEF Prespa Park Project Management

Executing Agencies Central and LocalAuthorities Institutes

Technical Assistance Team Leader Key Experts Non-key Experts

Other beneficiaries Fishermen, fish processers, wholesalers, retailers, local shops and restaurants, consumers, general public


WORK PLAN Project Outputs/Deliverables

1.

Technical report on the findings of Task II (Deliverable 1)

1.1.

Review of the existing relevant documentation on fish and fisheries

1.2.

Conduct limited fish stock assesment (Field sampling and survey)

1.3.

Procesing and analysis of field survey data

1.4.

Assesment of the impacts on basin's Ichthyiofauna

I

II

III Deliverables per phases (milestones) 1st Preliminary technical report

IV

V

VI

VII


Draft

Final

1st Preliminary technical report


Draft

Final


Draft

Final


Draft

Final

Workshop 2.

Transboudary Fish and Fisheries Management Plan (Deliverable 2)

2.1.

Stake holder findings

2.2.

Study relevant international models

2.3.

Drafting the content of the TFFMP

2.4.

Workshop

3.

Training and Informational material (Deliverable 3)

3.1.

Data Collection on existing fishery practices

3.2.

Habitat conditions

3.3. 3.4.

Spawning grounds Workshop

4.

Report on the fish species of the Prespa Lakes Basin (Deliverable 4)

4.1.

Photo Documenting

4.2.

Drafting of the Broschure

4.3.

Workshop


6


Technical report on the findings of Task II

1.1. Preliminary review of the existing relevant documentation on fish and fisheries Introduction Prespa Lakes have tectonic origin from the pliocene period and belongs to the Dasaret Group of the Aegean Lake Zone, and are located where the two geologically different massifs, the Shara-Pind karst massif and the mountain Galichica and Suva Gora on the western and southern banks and the granite mountain massif of the mountain Baba on East, join. The basin of Prespa Lakes is also composed of parts of the national parks Galichica and Pelister in the Republic of Macedonia, the national park Prespa in the Republic of Macedonia (FYR of Macedonia) and the national park Prespa in the Republic of Greece. a. 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 Macedonia (FYR Macedonia). Macro Prespa Sea level: 850m Surface: 285km2 Maximum depth: 54m Divided among the three states, the biggest part belongs to FYR of Macedonia, while Albania and Greece share app. 40km2. Micro Prespa Sea level: 850 Surface: 47km2 Depth: 12m Micro Prespa is almost entirely situated on the Greek territory, apart of a small area, that belongs to Albania It has been considered that there have been large level oscillations during the long history of Prespa Lakes. We believe that the emerged compositions on the bed, after the decrease of the level in the last two decades, confirm the assumption of Cvijic (1911) that in the 10-th and 11-th century the lake level was lower than that one at the beginning of the twentieth century. However, at the end of the twentieth century several reasons coincide, such as eutrophication, the use of the water for irrigation in the three coastal countries and the global warming which have caused the current, in many things dramatic condition of Prespa Lakes (MATZINGER ET AL 2006). The Prespa lakes lie within three different countries, have been relatively little studied, and it is only within the last twenty years that scientists and conservationists have undertaken studies at Prespa, especially on the bird fauna of this region (see Catsadorakis this volume). Studies have been conducted on the fish in the Yugoslavian part of Makro Prespa. These have dealt with the fisheries (Stankovic, 1929; Apostolski, 1972), the biology of some species (Tocko, 1958; Petrovski & Sidorovski, 1971; Jovanovic, 1972; Popovska- Stankovic, 1972) and the parasites (Hristovski, 1976).

7


Lake Mikri Prespa is linked by a narrow channel to Lake Makro Prespa which lies between Greece (3764 ha), FYROM (Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia; 18 820 ha) and Albania (6780 ha). Both lakes were formed during the Tertiary period (Cvijic, 1911; Stankovic, 1931). Details of their hydrology (Hollis & Stevenson, 1997) and their limnology can be found in Petridis & Sinis (1997), Tryfon & Moustaka – Gouni (1997) and Michaloudi et al. (1997). Others studies were done on the Greek part of the lake, especially on fisheries (Athanassoupolos 1922, 1923) and on the systematics (Karakousis&Triantaphyllidis, 1990; Karakousis et al., 1991). Several studies have been undertaken on the systematics, biology, ecology and parasites in Mikri Prespa (Crivelli, 1984; Dupont & Lambert, 1986; Crivelli & Dupont, 1987; Dupont & Crivelli, 1988; Bianco, 1988; Berrebi et al., 1989; Crivelli, 1990, 1992; Rosecchi et al., 1993; Economidis, 1993; Crivelli, 1995; Catsadorakis et al., 1996a; Crivelli et al., 1996). 1.1.1. LEGISLATIVE

ALBANIA The legislation framework in the fishery sector, in an overall overview is complete and contemporaneous. The legislation deals not only with fishery issues but also with other related issues such as: biodiversity, socio-economic aspects etc.

The legislation framework includes all levels of legal and normative acts, such as laws, by-laws, Regulations, Decisions of The Council of Ministers, Normative Acts etc.

There are three main legislative acts regulating the fishing activity, namely: Law No. 7908, date 5.4.1995 “On Fishery and Aquaculture”, Law No. 8870 “On amendments to Law No. 7908 date 5.4.1995 “On fishery and Aquaculture” date 21.3.2002, and the Regulation No. 1 date 29.3.2005 “For application of the legislation on fishery and aquaculture”

Albanian also has signed several international Conventions and Agreements. The most important related to the inland fishery sector are: • • •

1993 FAO Implementation Agreement (accepted in May 2005), 1995 FAO Code; Code of Conduct for Sustainable Fisheries CCRF (implemented as a voluntary code in 1997), Advising European Committee on Inland Water Fisheries (EIFAC)

The Law No. 7908 set the basis for the good management of the fishery sector explains many of the terms and concepts related to the fishery sector It should be stressed that the main intention of the law are: 8


(i)

to ensure a rational and accountable exploitation of aquatic biological resources and

Regulations

(ii) (iii)

development of aquaculture; provide protective conservation measures in order to ensure the protection of biological water resources, and support the sustainable development of fishery and aquaculture sectors, as well as create better social- economical conditions for producers.

The Law establishes three Consultative Organs for Fishery and Aquaculture, (1)

Central Consultative Commission for Fishery and Aquaculture,

(2)

Local Consultative Commissions for Fisheries and Aquaculture, and

(3)

Commission of Scientific Research & Technology Coordination.

Other important aspect of this law is the set of the Fishing Inspectorate as the responsible and competent body in executing fishery laws, bylaws and regulations. The coordination of the inspection activities is responsibility of the Ministry, and the fishing Inspectorate is included as a division in the Directorate of Fishery Policy. Another commission in the fishery sector is Administrative Contravention Examining Commission on Fishery & Aquaculture, which is responsible for reviewing all the administrative contravention and the additional penalties. The Law No. 8870 should not be simply seen as some amendments over the main law but it is an addition to the Law 7908 and deals with a new concept “Fishery Management Organization”.

REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (FYR OF MACEDONIA) As Macedonia, unlike Albania and Greece has no marine ecosystems, the fishery is concerned mainly at the three big lakes Ohrid, Prespa and Dojran, some of the reservoirs and the rivers. The commercial fishery is concerning mainly the natural lakes and, at present, there isn’t any on them. Even the recreational fishery is in poor condition due to unsolved problems of concessionary. In 2007 the existing law on fishery (from 1993) has been replaced with the Law on Fishery and Aquaculture (LFA). This law has three amendments: one in 2010 and two in 2011. The following documents are complimentary to the Law an Fishery and Aquaculture: 9


Regulation on the form, content I the way of performing evidence of fish production as for the amount of the sold fish per species 2008 Regulation for performing the fish guarding service, the form and the content of the fish guardian legitimation,, as the way of its issuing and withdrawing 2008 Regulation of the content of the Program for examining, the form and content of the certificate, as the cost for issuing certificate for commercial fishery 2008 Regulation on the form and the content of the evidence formulary in the fishing regions 2008 Regulation of the content of the Fishery Master Plan 2008 Regulation of the content of the annual plan for protection and exploitation of the fish and the content of the annual report of realization of the plan 2008 Regulation on the technical requirements for the lending sides 2008 Regulation on the quality, size and weight, as also the way of declaring the fish for traffic market 2008 Regulation on the way of marking of the boats and tagging and evidencing of the fishing gear 2008. Regulation on the form and the content of the document for the origin of the fish and the way of its issuing I fulfilling 2010 Regulation on the way of issuing licenses for recreational fishing, the required documentation for issuing, the form and content of the evidence formulary, the way of evidencing and delivering the data 2010 Regulation on the form and the content of the legitimation for recreational fishing and the way of its issuing. Regulation on the allowed fishing gears and equipment and their use for commercial and recreational fishing 2011 Regulation on the length of the fish under which they can not be fished for commercial and recreational fishing 2011.

Thus, according this law, for each fishing water (lakes, reservoirs and rivers) a Fishing Master Plan should be prepared before certain fishing water is going to be open for tendering on concession. Lake Prespa was considered among the first ones for this plans and it was ready in 2008. Within the Master Plan for the Macedonian Part, the protection of the fish and their habitats were on the first place. Within that issue the fishing bans per species were also determined. 10


The Total Allowable Catch Quota (TACQ) per fish species was estimated with their minimum catchable length (MCL). The number of required fishermen and fish guardians was stated also. Types of fishing and number of days and fishing gears per fisherman per species were determined. Commercial and recreational fishery was allowed on the lake, while on the rivers only recreational one. Aquaculture activities within the lake are not allowed at all, while in the watershed only on autochthonous fish species of Prespa Basin. As there isn’t still a concessionary on Lake Prespa on the Macedonian side, and having in mind the changes in the water level of the lake in a positive way, slight changes of the Fishing Master Plan should be done. Apart from the LFA in Macedonia, the fishes from Lake Prespa are protected within the laws of Nature Protection and other relevant international Conventions and Directives on Biodiversity Conservation and Habitats Protection. The fishery legislation in Macedonia related to EU Fisheries Policy has been adjusted and evaluated like synchronized. According to that, the commercial fishery is recognized as artisan fishery. Within this project (TFFMPPLB) an attempt of harmonizing the fishery legislation and regulations should take considerable place. In future the fishery statistics has to be harmonized on a three lateral level. At present in FYR Macedonia, within the new Law on Fishery and Aquaculture (2007), adjusted to the EU Inland Fishery Directives, full Fishery statistics forms are adopted. This implies both fishing models: commercial and recreational. 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 river biodiversity, it distinguishes salmonid 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 native 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 which should be used for classification of ecological status of surface waters (rivers, lakes and transitional waters (estuaries). “Ecological status” is an expression of the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems associated with surface waters, classified in accordance with Annex V of the Directive. 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).

11


1.1.2. FISH AND FISHERIES

ALBANIA Fishing is one of the main economic activities in the area. There are currently 34 boats (5 – 15 HP engine) with 68 fishermen in Macro Prespa and 10-12 fishermen in Micro Prespa. They all from the villages around the area and they are organized in a Fishery Management Organization. The main species that have commercial interest are: C. carpio, about 10% of total catch A. alburnus, about 80% of total catch and the other 10% are C. prespense, B. prespensis, S. prespensis etc. Interesting is the study of crustaceans like Astacus fluviatilis, that have an economic importance mostly for export. It should be noted for the Micro Prespa also a stock of eels, which is now gradually diminishing. Beside licensed fishermen, there are nearly 30 others which operate illegally and occasionally peasants from the villages near the lake shore go fishing (mainly for family consumption). Fishermen, members of FMO, use trammel nets and gillnets with a mesh size 20 – 22 – 24mm for bleak fishing and with a mesh size more than 60 mm for carp fishing. There are no private aquaculture activities in the Prespa watershed (Albanian Side) due to lack of stable freshwater supply. However in the Zvezda village there is a state owned carp hatchery(Photo 1) which uses autochthonous carp brood stock in order to produce fingerlings that are used to repopulate the lake (this hatchery produces annually nearly 300.000 fingerlings and 200.000 fry).

The carp hatchery in Zvezda 12


The fishermen have not fishery as their sole income source. Most of them have agricultural activities in the villages near the lake. The fish caught is used for familiar consumption and for the local market (usually the product is destined for the Korça market). Very rarely a small part of bleak or some of the crustaceans are sent for export. In the last 30 years the catch has changes in quantity and in quality. Some new species has been introduced with undesirable consequences. Some of the autochthonous species populations are reduced and the fishing ban period is not always respected. The Fishery Management Organizations are private independents bodies with legal personality. These organizations are non-profit and all the income they generate is used for the functioning of organization and the fulfillment of their objectives. The main objectives of an FMO are: 1. manage a fishing site according to the law, and 2. participate in the co-management of the fishing resource The main organs of the organization are: • Administrative Council • General Assembly Another important aspect of the law is the Co-Management Plan, which should be a reference to the FMO, jointly prepared with the DFP, and will aim at:    

promoting the utilization of fishery resources based on the sustainable development maintaining the quality and biological diversity of fisheries resources usage of appropriate fisheries technology avoiding the creation of excess fishing capacity

The Regulation No. 1, date 29.03.2005 set the rules and regulations related to the two previous described laws. It is an extensive package of regulations but the more important concerning the management of Prespa watershed are: a) To achieve sustainable fish exploitation, the Directory of Fishery Policy has to prepare an administrative and development plan for the fishery and aquaculture sector. b) To have a booking right in Professionals Fisherman Register, the requested person should, practice professional or seasonal fishing within a Fishery Management Organization. c) In inland waters the license may be given to one or several boats, but the number have to be specified in the license. d) The interruption of the fishing license is a competency of the fishing inspectors etc. e) Catches by nets and hooks in Prespa have to be landed and traded first in centres approved by competent Veterinarian Authorities. f) It is forbidden to fish, carry in board, to transit on the boat, purposed landing and trading with whatever mean and tool all fish species in Prespa lakes for a period of one month a year, issued by the Ministry 1. g) It is forbidden to fish carp from April 15 to May 15. 1

This period for the Prespa lake is from the end of April to the end of June

13


h) • • • • • • i) j) k)

It is forbidden to fish and sell water organisms with dimension less then: Alburnus spp. 10 cm Chondrostoma spp. 15 cm Rutilus 12 cm Leuciscus 15 cm Cyprinus carpio 30 cm Carassius 15 cm etc. It is prohibited to change water quality and the flow direction It is prohibited to cut water vegetation without the approval of responsible bodies It is forbidden to carry in boats or use nets by mesh size less then 66mm for carp in Prespa lake. The institutions and organizations developing activities in the territory of Prespa watershed belong to Central and Local Government as well as to Development Agencies, local users and private subjects. The Ministry of Environment Forest and Water Administration is the main institution responsible for the protection of environmental values, and from July 2005 it is also the main institution responsible for the management of the fishery sector in Albania 2. Its rights and responsibilities are enforced through the Directorate of Fishery Policy. Inside the DFP is included also the Fishing Inspectorate with one Chief Inspector that controls the Local Fishing Inspectors. The main tasks of the DFP are: •

Designs the Sector development policy on which bases the strategy for the sector development, proposes and improves modifications in the existing legislation, in compliance with EU Standards • Follows the implementation of Laws and Acts in Fishery and Aquaculture Sector, takes measures that enable the application of law requirements • Leads the fishery inspectorate for implementation and enforcement of the law in fishery and aquaculture activities, and follow in cooperation with other directories issues related with licenses • Proposes the modalities for search, design and distribution of the data in the fishery sector, suggests the subjects and the institutions that should be engaged in collection and distribution of the necessary information At a local level, Local Fishing Inspector is the main persons responsible for direct control of the fishermen and protection of the fish stock. The average fish catches last years were 180 – 200 ton/year. (both lakes) In the Macro Prespa Lake an effort fishing unit is composed from a boat, two fishers and gillnets. Average fishing time is 10 hours per day and about 215 days per year. Average fishing days per month Jan

2

Feb

Marc

April

May

Jun.

Jul

Aug

Sept.

Oct

Nov.

Dec.

Previously this responsibility was held by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food

14


15

20

20

25

0

0

25

25

25

25

20

15

There are 34 boats of FMO members as well as about 15 boats of illegal fishermen and total catch per year is about 170 - 190 tons. Based on these figures , the CPUE value is 15,8 – 17,6kg/unit/day. There are several problems and issues that affect the fishery sector in the Prespa Lake:  The decline of the fishing stock due to over fishing in both lakes (see Annex, Graph 1)  Lack of coordination between countries for the management of the fishing stock and of fishing biodiversity  Change in the structure of the species composition in both lakes (see Annex, Graph 2)  Loss of habitat, especially of the spawning grounds for some of the most important species  Introduction of allochthonous, invasive species which compete aggressively with the autochthonous biodiversity important species (see Annex, Graph 3).  Lack of infrastructure and investments for the legal fishermen operating in the areas  Lack of facilities for the processing of fish in order to improve the quality and add its value  Respect and enforcement of the law especially regarding the fishing ban period and exploitation of juveniles and of the spawning grounds  Lack of data concerning the status of some species inhabiting the lake. Interesting is the study of crustaceans like Astacus fluviatilis, that have an economic importance too. Fishing effort. The IEM regarding the fishery sector in the Prespa lake should consider the reduction of the fishing effort in order to protect the population of fish in both lakes. The fishing activity in Prespa should be oriented toward the use and not abuse of the fishing stock. At first should be discouraged the fishing activity targeted only the high priced species, which due to several reasons are not the most abundant in the lake. Some effort should be done in order to restore interest for low valued species such as bleak, which represent an important part of the fishing population in the lake. Water level. Due to reduction in the Macro Prespa lake level some of the shallow areas which were appropriate as spawning areas are now dry. So the spawning grounds for some of the main species are now heavily reduced. This has lead also to a reduction of the aquatic vegetation which is essential for some of the fish species. Fishing ground. In order to catch big specimens and high value species sometimes the spawning grounds are used as fishing grounds from the local fishermen. They not only damage the spawning population in these areas but by doing so they damage heavily the new generations in the lake, creating a dangerous vicious circle which will lead population toward survival limits. Introducted Species. From the ’70 and on, several new species have entered the lake mainly accidentally. Although sometimes it led to some minor improvements in the fishing catch, it has devastating effects for the biodiversity values of the lake. One clear example is the introduction of L.gibbosus in the lake. This species was introduced probably around 15 years ago in the lake and since then has established itself in both lakes. From some sampling (see Annex, Graph 3) the species now is very present in the lake. Although there are not studies carried out, much probably this 15


species is food competitive and shelter competitive with autochthonous species of the lake. Furthermore although this species is edible, the fishermen try to avoid it due to problems it causes with the nets (it entangles the nets), and by doing so they are further deteriorating the situation of other species. These species poses problem also about the biodiversity of the lake. Their feeding behavior may endanger the very existence of some endemic invertebrates present in the lake which may not adapt fast enough to their new predators. IUU Fishery. Another problem concerning the fishery sector in the lake is the Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported fishery (IUU). The division into its three components brings these negative impacts. (i)

There are some 10 % of the boats fishing in the lake illegal. This means these boats are not licensed and are not included in the Prespa FMO. However this figure is also increased when we include the number local peasants living in the villages near the lake shore which occasionally set the nets for familiar consumption. This leads to an increase in the fishing effort and reduction of the CPUE (ii) The majority of the fishermen (illegal and not) use non standard fishing gears. This means that some time their trammel-net has smaller mesh size then the one used for that type of fishery. This leads to catching juveniles of that species and decreasing the future populations and the spawning potential of the species (iii) There are not exact reports of the catch, also due to the fact that there are no fixed collection centres for the product. This makes very difficult and unclear evaluation of the total catch and of the CPUE. Eutrophisation. This is a typical issue where the transboundary character of this lake is relevant. Although there are very few streams that enter the Prespa lake in the Albanian side and very few activities which contributes to the lake pollution, due to heavy loads of N and P coming mainly from the Macedonian side, the lake is becoming eutrophic. This poses a major threat to all living organisms in the lake. A recent example was in June 2007 where a great quantity of bleak was lying dead in the surface of the lake. The main target cause was eutrophisation, which leads to uncontrolled algal bloom and thus to anoxic situation in parts of the lake which presumably led to the bleak asphyxiation. It should be stressed that the anoxic situation, damages not only fish but all living organisms in the lake so eutrophisation will damage heavily the biodiversity in flora and fauna categories. Siltation. It is present in both lakes, but in Micro Prespa this phenomena has led to radical changes. Due to the deviation of Devolli river in 1976 for irrigation purposes, the sediments that the river bought in the lake for 25 years created a new wetland in the Albanian side (Photo 4). This caused major changes not only in the fishing population but also in vegetation and animal structure present in the lake. This kind of changes and the drop of water levels usually are very harmful for this kind of ecosystems, because they destroy a lot of habitats and reduce the number of fish biomass present in the lake.

16


Micro Prespa Lake FMO development. The FMO’s of Prespa like other FMO in different part of Albania were created with two main purposes (i) management and (ii) co-management. While the first task is more likely to be achieved in a short term period, the co-management is quite difficult to achieve as task. The co-management requires that fishermen act not only responsibly and in common accord between them, but also they should take care of the fish population and its environment, which should the primary source of their concern. The MEFWA has already prepared and in short time should be submitted to the Council of Ministers the Fishery Sector Strategy. This strategy deals also with the fishing in Albanian lakes and set new objectives for the future such as: a.

Design and implementation of fishery management plan with the participation of the local FMO b. Recreation of permanent Joint Commissions with the neighboring states for the harmonization of the legislation and the creation of Common Regulations to better coordinate the intervention in the lake c. Preparation of maps for the reproduction and spawning areas and the strict fishing ban in these areas. Until now, both human and financial resources are very limited regarding the enforcement of the law and control at the site level. There is only one Fishing Inspector for both lakes. He is responsible for enforcing the Fishery Regulation, prohibiting the illegal fishery, forbidding irregular fishing gears and respecting of the fishing ban period. The Inspector is poorly equipped. Although he is very experienced, he does not have an available boat, for site inspection or a proper vehicle for moving into both lakes (the road infrastructure in both lakes is very poor).

17


18


19


GREECE Fisheries have existed on the two Prespa lakes since time immemorial (Athanassopoulos, 1922), but only the inhabitants of the village of Psarades on Makro Prespa were and still are full-time fishermen. The others are mainly farmers who fish in their spare time. Since 1945, the number of active fishermen has constantly decreased and it is difficult to know how many currently continue fishing on the Prespa lakes. Until the 1950s, the fishermen used rudimentary canoes with 4 to 8 paddles (Stankovic, 1929b); sailing boats were unknown as were boats with a tiller. Seine netting, which requires shorelines free from reeds and submerged vegetation was the most frequent means of fishing. Other methods included long lines, gill and trammel nets (13–80 mm mesh) and fish traps. From the 1960s onwards, outboard motors appeared, as did monofilament nylon nets, which allowed intensification of fishing effort, with considerable effects on the fish stocks. Even so, before the last war there was talk of decreasing catches, particularly of carp, the species most prized by Prespa fishermen. For a long time, the only regulation concerning the fishery was the close season during the spring spawning period. But, as the state of the fishery deteriorated new attempts at regulation were made; for example the use of seine nets was prohibited in the Greek part of Mikri Prespa in 1983. Later, the length of the spring close season was lengthened and the mesh size of nets was increased (Crivelli, 1984, 1990).

20


In 1991, for reasons that are obscure, fishery statistics stopped being collected, clearly eflecting the current precarious state of fishing on the Prespa lakes, as described below.

The fishery in Lake Mikri Prespa The production of the Mikri Prespa fishery crashed in the 1960s (Figure 9) and has continued to decline since, reaching its nadir in 1989 (34.6 t /y), the last year for which there are statistics. The mean production over 26 years was 183.8 t /y (range: 34.6–488.6) equivalent to a mean yield of 38.0 kg /ha/y (range: 7.1– 100.9). The species composition of catches, unfortunately only available since 1973, shows that the Prespa bleak, plus four other Cyprinidae (Leuciscus, Chondrostoma, Rutilus and Barbus) and carp dominated (Figure 10). One of the introduced species, the goldfish, appeared in the fishery statistics in 1984, and has continually increased since. There is also a fishery in the Albanian part of the lake (500 ha) for which there are fishery statistics for three years: 1987, 1989 and 1990. The production was 11.8, 32.3 and 9.6 t/y, respectively, equivalent to a yield of between 19.3 and 64.6 kg /ha/y. In the experimental sampling with gill nets of 10 to 60 mm mesh, fish belonging to populations of different species were captured in proportion to their abundance. Only the youngest fish (young of the year) and in the case of carp and goldfish, the oldest individuals, were not captured. The fishermen’s catches, on the other hand, were taken with trammel nets of 45 to 80 mm mesh or with long lines (2 km long with 1400 hooks baited with maize grains). The size distributions of two fish species (Cyprinus carpio and Carassius auratus gibelio) caught between 1990 and 1994 by our sampling and by the fishermen are compared in Figure 11. It can be seen that only mature and the oldest fish were captured by fishermen, no goldfish under 200 mm or carp under 240mmwas taken by fishermen. This illustrates perfectly the application of the regulation aimed at prohibiting fishing with nets of mesh size under 45 mm. The Makro Prespa fishery Data (1973–1990) on the fishery in the Greek part of Lake Makro Prespa are less complete than those for Mikri Prespa (Figure 9). The mean production in these 17 years was 126.2 t /y (range 12.5– 276.8 t/y) equivalent to a mean yield of 33.5 kg/ha/y (range 3.3–73.5). Production fluctuated enormously from one year to another, and showed a slight tendency to decrease towards the end of the 1980s. Prespa bleak accounted for two-thirds of the catch (Figure 10), the remaining third consisting of four Cyprinidae (Leuciscus, Chondrostoma, Rutilus and Barbus) and carp. Prespa bleak in Makro Prespa are only caught using the ‘Pezovola’ fishing method during winter nights (December–March) at the deepest parts of the lake (Figure 12). The other fish species are caught using gill and trammel nets. During the last twenty years, trout have always been captured in small quantities (between 5 and 100 kg /y in theGreek part of the lake. Catches of this species were already small at the start of the century (Athanassopoulos, 1922).

21


The mean production in the Greek part of Makro Prespa between 1919 to 1922, when it covered 10 544 ha, was 52.2 t/y (range 32.5–80.8), equivalent to a mean yield of 4.9 kg /ha/y(Athanassopoulos, 1922). At the same period (1922–1925) the production of the Yugoslavian part of Makro Prespa was 48.8 t/y (range: 16.1–73.8), equivalent to a mean yield of 2.6 kg /ha/y (Stankovic, 1929). From 1958 to 1970 (Apostolski, 1972) the mean production for the Yugoslavian part of the lake was 138.2 t/y (range 93.7–173.2) equivalent to a mean yield of 7.3 kg /ha/y (range: 4.9–9.2). The most fished species at this time were nase and Prespa bleak. In 1987 and 1988, the production of the fishery in the Albanian part of Lake Makro Prespa was 246.7 and 234.5 t/y, equivalent to yields of 36.4 and 34.6 kg /ha/y, respectively. Prespa bleak accounted for more than 70% of the catch. These are the only available data for the Albanian part of the lake. It is therefore evident that the yields of the fisheries on Lake Makro Prespa from 1922 to 1990 have continually increased.

REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA (FYR OF MACEDONIA) One of the oldest used for this purpose is fishery statistics, which can give rough data about the relative abundance, but mainly on the commercial valued species. It is also adequate for population trends, but it is in direct dependence of the fishing pressure to particular fish species and market demand.

Relative participation of the most abundant commercial fish species in the total annual catch (1946-2006) at the Macedonian part of the Big Lake Prespa 120

100

carp undermouth bleak roach

60

40

20

00

97

94

91

85

82

79

04 20

20

19

19

19

19

19

73

70

67

64

61

58

53

49

76

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

46

0

19

%

80

year

22


Although fishery was very significant in the Macedonian part of the Prespa area, since 2007 there is total ban (moratorium) on it. Previously more than 70 professional fishermen were present at Macro Prespa. On the following graphs the total annual catch, annual catch per species and relative presence in the fish catch of the most commercial fish species bleak, carp, roach and nase in the period from 1946 to 2007 are presented.

23


Year

2005 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1985 1983 1981 1979 1977 1975 1973 1971 1969 1967 1965 1963 1961 1959 1955 1953 1950 1948 1946

0%

20%

40%

Cyprinus carpio Rutilus prespensis

60%

Chondrostoma nasus Other fish species

80%

100%

Alburnis belvica

Alburnus belvica

Year

2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1978 1976 1974 1972 1970 1968 1966 1964 1962 1960 1958 1956 1954 1952 1950 1948 1946 0

10000

20000

30000

40000 kg

50000

60000

70000 24


Cyprinus carpio

years

2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1978 1976 1974 1972 1970 1968 1966 1964 1962 1960 1958 1956 1954 1952 1950 1948 1946 0

10000

20000

30000

40000 kg

50000

60000

70000

Rutilus prespensis

Year

2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1978 1976 1974 1972 1970 1968 1966 1964 1962 1960 1958 1956 1954 1952 1950 1948 1946 0

5000

10000

15000

20000 kg

25000

30000

35000

40000

25


Chondrostoma prespense

Year

2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 1978 1976 1974 1972 1970 1968 1966 1964 1962 1960 1958 1956 1954 1952 1950 1948 1946 0

10000

20000

30000

40000 kg

50000

60000

70000

80000

26


1.2 Limited fish stock assessment (Field sampling and survey) Methodology o

For the lakes, all 5 samplings planned for the survey were conducted and from all 7 critical sampling points planed, 3 in MK (Otesevo, Asamati and Ljubojno), 2 in GR and 2 in AL (one for each lake – Macro and Micro Prespa), two sampling points in Greece were not sampled due to already explained problems. Sampling points for Albania were Shuec for Micri Prespa and Bezmisht for Macro Prespa. The fish sampling in the lakes was performed according to the Swedish standard method for sampling freshwater fish with multi-mesh size gill nets (total length of 50 m. with different mesh size of each 10 m) Type I -10, 14, 18, 23 and 27 mm. Type II – 33, 38, 45, 55 and 60 mm. Gillnets with total length of 50 m. and following mesh size: 12, 14, 16, 18, 45, 50, 60 and 80 mm and cast nets for checkup. Multi-mesh size gill nets were set perpendicular to the Lake shore from the shallow to the deep part of the water in a specific way Type II nets were set in a both sides of Type one on a 50 m distance one from another with a smallest mesh size at the beginning. The other proposed gill nets and cast nets were used by chance depending of the weather and hydrological conditions.

Macedonian part

From five sampling campaigns 5478 fish individuals in total were processed for the survey. PSI Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid

27


First sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) – Otesevo JUNE 2011 Number of individuals

Total weight per species (g.)

19

193

202 19

1354,8 114

2 19

11 62,5

Phoxinus lumaireul Rhodeus amarus

2 117 35 6 26

10,5 2463 528 82 1144

Pseudorasbora parva Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Alburnoides prespensis Alburnus belvica

12 1 2 1

342 16 104 43

Rutilus prespensis

226 40 108

Cyprinus carpio

33mm. 38 mm. 45 mm.

3 1 1 none none

55 mm. 60 mm.

none none

Mesh size

10mm.

14mm.

18mm. 23mm. 27mm.

Species Alburnus belvica Alburnoides prespensis Pelasqus prespensis

Cyprinus carpio Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Cyprinus carpio

First sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) – Asamati JUNE 2011

Mesh size

Number of Total weight individuals per species (g.)

Species

8

51,5

Alburnus belvica

1 1

7 4,5

Alburnoides prespensis

14mm.

23 8

482 101

18mm. 27mm. 33mm.

1 6 10 1 1

20,5 236 345 3,5 156

Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Chondrostoma prespense

38 mm. 45 mm. 55 mm. 60 mm.

none none none none

10mm.


Rhodeus amarus

Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Lepomis gibbosus Cyprinus carpio

28


First sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) – Pretor JUNE 2011

Mesh size


Species

87

1057

Alburnus belvica

23 6

159 44,5

Rutilus prespensis

7 2

30,5 10,5

14mm.

4 5 2 124 7

16 29 14 2647,5 107,5

Pelasgus prespensis Lepomis gibbosus Rhodeus amarus

15 25,5 712 59


18mm.

2 3 17 2 1 2 1 1 1

38 27 35 47 47


1 1 none none none none none

30 104


10mm.

23mm.

27mm. 33mm. 38 mm. 45 mm. 55 mm. 60 mm.



Gambusia holbrooki Pseudorasbora parva Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Lepomis gibbosus Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Lepomis gibbosus Lepomis gibbosus Lepomis gibbosus Alburnus belvica Lepomis gibbosus

29


Second sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) – Otesevo JULY 2011

Mesh size

10mm.

14mm.

18mm.

23mm.

27mm. 33mm. 38mm. 45mm. 55mm. 60 mm.

Number of individuals


1 63 21 4 2 10 8 2 59 1 22 18 4 5 48 5 6 3 2 1 7 5 6 none none none

11,5 363,5 148 40 14,5 46 34 39 956,5 18 274 584,1 83 239 840 204 374 74,5 134 60 358,5 1236

Species Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Alburnoides prespensis Chondrostoma prespense Pseudorasbora parva Lepomis gibbosus Rhodeus amarus Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Chondrostoma prespense Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Squalius prespensis Lepomis gibbosus Cyprinus carpio Rutilus prespensis Lepomis gibbosus Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Lepomis gibbosus Cyprinus carpio Cyprinus carpio

Second sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) – Asamati JULY 2011

Mesh size


Species

5 40 Alburnus belvica 73 520,5 Rutilus prespensis 10mm. 6 40,5 Alburnoides prespensis 2 12 Pseudorasbora parva 11 39,5 Lepomis gibbosus 14mm. 68 1162 Rutilus prespensis 25 213,5 Lepomis gibbosus 20 624 Rutilus prespensis 18mm. 1 40 Chondrostoma prespense 21 329 Lepomis gibbosus 23mm. 1 33,5 Rutilus prespensis 5 292 Rutilus prespensis 27mm. 1 49,5 Cyprinus carpio 1 102 Squalius prespensis 33mm. none 38 mm. none 45mm. 1 44,5Ohrid Lepomis gibbosus PSI Hydrobiological Institute 55mm. 1 353 Cyprinus carpio 60 mm. none

30


Second sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) – Pretor JULY 2011 Mesh size

10mm.

14mm. 18mm. 23mm. 27mm.

33mm. 38 mm. 45 mm.

55mm.

60 mm.

Number of Total weight individuals per species (g.) 1 15 3 21 2 15 32 6 6 1 5 2 3 1 1 none none 3 25 1 1 19 none

Species

7,5 105,5 13 80,5 55,5 219,5 270 185,5 94,5 25 330,5 213,5 307 99,5 237

Alburnoides prespensis Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Lepomis gibbosus Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Barbus prespensis Squalius prespensis Chondrostoma prespense Cyprinus carpio

116 718,5 40 586 257

Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Chondrostoma prespense Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus


31


Third sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) – Otesevo AUGUST 2011 Mesh size

10 mm

14mm.

18mm.

23mm.

27mm.

33mm. 38mm. 45mm. 55mm. 60 mm.



18 14 2 1 8 18 58 1 1 46 58 2 1 3 1 107 2 1 63 1 4 4 1 5 1 1 none none none none

137,5 100,8 12,8 4,8 63,6 69,8 281,6 7,9 6,8 769,3 554,7 85,7 20,6 99,7 99,6 2048,3 99,8 41,4 1913,2 161 453 171,2 97,5 1591,8 192,8 131,8


Species Rutilus prespensis Alburnoides prespensis Pelagus prespensis Carassius gibelio Pseudorasbora parva Rhodeus amarus Lepomis gibbosus Cyprinus carpio Alburnoides prespensis Rutilus prespensis Lepomis gibbosus Alburnus belvica Alburnoides prespensis Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Alburnus belvica Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Squalius prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Carassius gibelio Cyprinus carpio Chondrostoma prespanse Carassius gibelio

32


Third sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) – Asamati AUGUST 2011

Mesh size

10mm.

14mm. 18mm. 23mm. 27mm. 33mm. 38mm. 45mm. 55mm. 60 mm.

Number of Total weight individuals per species (g.) 7 1 46 16 6 41 2 29 6 60 1 1 none none none none none none

48,8 6,8 320 75,7 22,1 627,9 16,2 263,1 187,4 1025,9 50,7 21,7

Species Alburnus belvica Alburnoides prespensis Rutilus prespensis Lepomis gibbosus Rhodeus amarus Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Lepomis gibbosus

Third sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) – Pretor AUGUST 2011 Mesh size

10mm.

14mm.

18mm. 23 mm. 27mm. 33mm. 38mm. 45mm. 55mm. 60 mm.

Number of Total weight individuals per species (g.) 2 11 1 1 1 17 6 27 4 1 33 none none none none none none none

19,6 68,9 4,5 6,9 3,7 254,8 49,5 249,9 109,7 18,5 603,4


Species Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Rhodeus amarus Pseudorasbora parva Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus

33


Fourth sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) – Otesevo SEPTEMBER 2011

Mesh size

10mm.

14mm.

18mm.

23mm. 27mm. 33mm. 38mm. 45mm. 55mm. 60 mm.



50 66 50 16 20 26 5 68 6 1 218 15 1 378 2 128 42

438,4 391,8 376,7 58,1 138 308,9 88,5 1099,6 59,4 6,5 2141,1 518,9 33,1 7969,1 72,3 4207,3 1800,5

Alburnus belvica Alburnoides prespensis Rutilus prespensis Rhodeus amarus Pseudorasbora parva Lepomis gibbosus Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Pseudorasbora parva Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Lepomis gibbosus

2 none none none

347,6

Cyprinus carpio

Species

Fourth sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) – Asamati SEPTEMBER 2011 Mesh size

10mm.

14mm.

18mm. 23mm.

27mm.

33mm. 38mm. 45mm. 55mm. 60 mm.

Number of Total weight individuals per species (g.) 11 2 280 41 10 6 3 53 3 3 194 24 4 249 2 3 91 2 24 1 1 none none

109,5 11,8 2061 167,9 74,2 55,8 59,4 892,7 13,6 32,2 512,3 847,1 88,1 4839 162,1 115,4 2212,1 134,6 1009,6 18 157


Species Alburnus belvica Alburnoides prespensis Rutilus prespensis Rhodeus amarus Pseudorasbora parva Lepomis gibbosus Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Rhodeus amarus Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Squalius prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Lepomis gibbosus Cyprinus carpio

34


Fourth sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) –Pretor SEPTEMBER 2011 Mesh size

10mm.

14mm.

18mm.

23mm.

27mm.

33mm. 38mm. 45mm. 55mm. 60 mm.

Number of Total weight individuals per species (g.) 16 8 56 8 57 6 15 69 6 198 34 3 279 10 2 73 5 2 20 2 2 3

121,1 55,4 412,1 65 225,8 53,6 283,4 1153,7 54,5 2076,3 1323,2 64,1 5315,7 623,5 74,8 2254,9 343,6 136,5 823,5 72,9 247,8 126,7

Species Alburnus belvica Alburnoides prespensis Rutilus prespensis Pseudorasbora parva Rhodeus amarus Lepomis gibbosus Alburnus belvica Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus Rutilus prespensis Cyprinus carpio Lepomis gibbosus

none none none

Fifth sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) –Otesevo OCTOBER 2011 Mesh size

10mm. 14mm. 18mm. 23mm. 27mm. 38mm. 45mm. 55mm. 60 mm.



2 5 166 none 2 none none none none none none

15,4 34,6 682

Alburnus belvica Pseudorasbora parva Rhodeus amarus

55,6

Lepomis gibbosus


Species

35


Fifth sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) –Asamati OCTOBER 2011 Mesh size 10mm. 14mm. 18mm. 23mm. 27mm. 38mm. 45mm. 55mm. 60 mm.

Number of Total weight individuals per species (g.) 38 7 none none none none none none none none

159,9 51,4

Species Rhodeus amarus Pseudorasbora parva

Fifth sampling campaign results (Lake Prespa) –Pretor OCTOBER 2011 Mesh size 10mm. 14mm. 18mm. 23mm. 27mm. 38mm. 45mm. 55mm. 60 mm.

Number of Total weight individuals per species (g.) 5 1 none none none none none none none none

17,9 7


Species Rhodeus amarus Pseudorasbora parva

36


Albanian part

MACRO PRESPA

First sampling campaign Macro Prespa – Bezmisht JUNE 2011


37


Second sampling campaign Macro Prespa – Bezmisht JULY 2011

Third sampling campaign Macro Prespa – Bezmisht AUGUST 2011


38


Fourth sampling campaign Macro Prespa – Bezmisht SEPTEMBER 2011

MICRO PRESPA

First sampling campaign MIcro Prespa – Shuec JUNE 2011


39


Second sampling campaign MIcro Prespa – Shuec JULY 2011

Third sampling campaign MIcro Prespa – Shuec SEPTEMBER 2011


40



41


o

For the tributaries – From the planed monitoring of the Prespa trout population –on four critical tributaries 3 in FYR Macedonia and 1 in GR, first sampling was performed in the period from 15th to 22nd of June by using the electrofisher ELT 60II GI Honda GXV50 on a transect of 100 m river length per station on all three rivers in FYR Macedonia: Leva, Kranska and Brajcinska Reka. Spring sampling was deliberately conducted in the condition of the high water level in the streams to compare the trout stock distribution and the spawning success (reproduction) in this year.

o

In FYR Macedonia, at Leva Reka from planed 4 stations (Figure I), two stations (3 and 4) were sampled. Sampling at stations 1 and 2 was impossible to be performed due to the high water level.

Figure I. Sampling stations at the Leva Reka Kranska Reka was planned to be sampled at 5 stations (Figure II), from which only stations 2 and 4 were sampled.

42


Figure II Sampling stations at the Kranska Reka

Brajcinska Reka was planned to be sampled at 7 stations (Figure III), from which station 5 (Rzanska Reka) and station 6 (Kriva Kobila) were sampled.

Figure III Sampling stations at the Brajcinska Reka

The second, autumn sampling of the tributaries was performed in the period from 22nd to 25th of September. The reliable differences in the Brajcinska trout distribution in the two investigated periods (spring and autumn) was recorded. Leva Reka from planed 4 stations, three stations 2 (main stream of the river), 3 (Sredna) and 4 (Biglicka) were sampled. Sampling at stations 1 (under the village of Leva Reka) was impossible to be performed due to the very low water level, as water is used for irrigation. Kranska Reka was planned to be sampled at 5 stations, from which 3 were completed. Due to the presence of impassible zone to the sampling point caused by ongoing building process of the small power-plant facility at the river, station 5 (Marusica) wasn’t sampled, and at station 3 small dam is already built. Stations 4 (Srbina), 2 (Reciste) and 1 (after the inflow of Plitna) were sampled. 43


Brajcinska Reka was planned to be sampled at 7 stations, from which 5 were completed. Only station 7 (Upper stream of Kriva Kobila) and station 4 (at the joint of Brajcinska Marusica and Drmisar) were not sampled, all the other five stations: station 6 (Kriva Kobila), station 5 (Rzanska Reka), station 3 (after the Stanisar inflow), station 2 (Baltanska Reka) and station 1 (between Brajcino and Ljubojno) were sampled. Number of measured and escaped individuals of Brajcinska trout (Salmo peristericus) during both, spring and autumn samplings are showed in the following table. River

Leva Reka

Kranska Reka

Station

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

Brajcinska

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Locality 100 m length of the river stream sampling Main river Main river Sredna Biglicka after the Plitna inflow Reciste the dam for the power plant Srbina Kranska Marusica Between Brajcino and Ljubojno Baltanska after the Stanisar inflow at the joint of Brajcinska Marusica and Drmisar Rzanska Kriva kobila Upper stream of Kriva Kobila

spring sampling spring spring sampling sampling measured escaped

autumn sampling autumn autumn sampling sampling measured escaped

0 1

1 1 0

0 0 0

8

0

25 15

13 8

5

0

32

13

7 11 28

1 6 8

33 19

9 6

0 2

15 12

9 1

44


o

Qualitative and quantitative fish composition consumed by cormorants (cormorant’s diet) was covered by sampling the cormorant regurgitates, that was conducted on the colony on the island Golem Grad (MK). All 3 planed sampling campaigns are already performed, but with a delay from the planned start in May. Unfortunately with this delay first hatchlings were not counted as colony recruitment. Two samplings were done at the beginning of the month and the third decade of June (June the 3rd and 21st) and the third campaign in the first decade of July (6th of July).

o

Qualitative composition of zooplankton community was obtained using plankton net during all 5 sampling campaigns.

45


Arctodiaptomus steindachneri o

Sampling for intermediate fish parasite hosts was performed using plankton and dredge nets in parallel to fish sampling campaigns in the lakes. Zooplankton samples were investigated for presence of parasites and also five individuals per fish species present in the catch. For the present fish parasites fishes were sampled and subjected to the routine methods of identification, dissection and observation. Cleaned parasites are separated and put in certain fixatives, prepared for determination with determined techniques of staining and clearing. In order to determinate the parasite species, the keys of Bauer (1985, 1987) and Lom and Dykova (1992) were used. The taxonomy of the parasites found is according to: Lom and Dykova (1992); Fauna Europea (2010) and World Register of Marine Species (2011).

Dactylogyrus erhardovae

o

Fish tissue samples for assessment of presence of five Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs – Haeptrachlor, Aldrin, Dieldrin, Endrin, p,p’ – DDT and gamma HCH – Lindane) were obtained during the fish sampling campaigns in the lakes for the four significant lake fish species (Barbusprespensis, Alburnus belvica, Cyprinus carpio, Rutilus prepsensis) and during the electrofishing campaign in the tributaries for Prespa trout (Salmo peristericus).Composite samples organized in 3 different length-age classes are partly obtained and preserved till processing.

Fish tissue sample were prepared in three stages: First stage – removal of the muscle tissue from bones and skin Second stage – cutting into small pieces and homogenized the muscle tissue (maceration) Third stage– extraction with magnetic stirrer at room temperature, with mixture hexane-acetone (1:1, V/V) and methanol 46


Lake Prespa Tributaries – Salmo peristericus electrofishing preliminary results: spring length classes Station

Leva 1

2

Locality

Main river

Main river

31-50 mm. 51-70 mm. 71-90 mm. 91-110 mm. 111-130 mm. 131-150 mm. 151-170 mm. 171-190 mm. 191-210 mm. 211-230 mm. 231-250 mm. 251-270 mm.

/ / / / / / / / / / / /

/ / / / / / / / / / / /

Kranska 3

Sredna

1

1

4

Biglicka

1 after the Plitna inflow

/ / / / / / / / / / / /

2

3

Reciste

the dam for the power plant

2 3 1 1 1

/ / / / / / / / / / / /

Brajcinska 4

Srbina

1 1 1 1 1

5

1

Kranska Marusica

Between Brajcino and Ljubojno

/ / / / / / / / / / / /

/ / / / / / / / / / / /

2

3

4

Baltanska

after the Stanisar inflow

at the joint of Brajcinska Marusica and Drmisar

/ / / / / / / / / / / /

/ / / / / / / / / / / /

/ / / / / / / / / / / /

5

6

7

Rzanska

Kriva kobila

Upper stream of Kriva Kobila

1 1 1 4 3 5 1

/ / / / / / / / / / / /

3 2 3 1 2 1

47


autumn length classes Station

Leva 1

Locality

Main river

31-50 mm. 51-70 mm. 71-90 mm. 91-110 mm. 111-130 mm. 131-150 mm. 151-170 mm. 171-190 mm. 191-210 mm. 211-230 mm. 231-250 mm. 251-270 mm. 271-290 mm.

/ / / / / / / / / / / / /

2 Main river

Kranska 3

Sredna

1

4

Biglicka

1 after the Plitna inflow

11 7 1 1 1 1 2 1

1

2

Reciste

7 3

3 1 1

3 the dam for the power plant

/ / / / / / / / / / / / /

Brajcinska 4

Srbina

3 1 9 12 7

5 Kranska Marusica

/ / / / / / / / / / / / /

1 Between Brajcino and Ljubojno

2

2

Baltanska

3 1

1

1 1

1 2 1

1 3 1

3

4

after the Stanisar inflow

at the joint of Brajcinska Marusica and Drmisar

11 6 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

/ / / / / / / / / / / / /

5

6

7

Rzanska

Kriva kobila

Upper stream of Kriva Kobila

1 3

1

5 3 5 2 9 3 1 1

2 3 4 3 2 2 1 1

/ / / / / / / / / / / / /

48


1.4. Processing and analysis of field survey data Fish Length Classes Cyprinus carpio - June 2011 (Locality Asamati)

100 80 %

60 40 20 0 221-225 Length classes

Rhodeus amarus - June 2011 (Locality Asamati)

100

%

80 60 40 20 0 71-75 Length classes Lepomis gibbosus - June 2011 (Locality Asamati)

100 80 %

60 40 20 0 61-65 Length classes

Chondrostoma prespensis - June 2011 (Locality Asamati)

100 80 %

60 40 20 0 131-135 Length classes


49


%

Hibrid- June 2011 (Locality Asamati)

50 40 30 20 10 0 Length classes

Alburnoides prespensis - June 2011 (Locality Asamati)

100

%

80 60 40 20 0 86-90

Length classes

%

Rutilus prespensis - June 2011 (Locality Asamati)

20 15 10 5 0

%

Length classes

25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes Rutilus prespensis - June 2011 (Locality Otesevo)


50


%

Pseudorasbora parva - June 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Rhodeus amarus - June 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Pelasgus prespensis - June 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Alburnoides prespensis - June 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes


51


%

Alburnus belvica - June 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 -1

Length classes

%

Cyprinus carpio - June 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Length classes

%

Rutilus prespensis - June 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Rutilus prespensis - June 2011 (Locality Pretor)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes


52

GEF/UNDP Integrated ecosystem management in the Prespa Lakes Basin of Albania, FYR Macedonia and Greece Transboundary Fish and Fisheries Management of the Prespa Lakes Basin Alburnus belvica - June 2011 (Locality Pretor)

%

15 13 11 9 7 5 3 1 -1

Length classes

%

Alburnoides prespensis - June 2011 (Locality Pretor)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Rhodeus amarus - June 2011 (Locality Pretor)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Lepomis gibbosus - June 2011 (Locality Pretor)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes


53


%

Gambusia affinis - June 2011 (Locality Pretor)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Pelasgus prespensis - June 2011 (Locality Pretor)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Chondrostoma prespensis - June 2011 (Locality Pretor)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Pseudorasbora parva - June 2011 (Locality Pretor)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes


54


%

Alburnus belvica - July 2011 (Locality Asamati)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Rutilus prespensis - July 2011 (Locality Asamati)

20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Alburnoides prespensis - July 2011 (Locality Asamati)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Squalius prespense - July 2011 (Locality Asamati)

100 80 60 40 20 0

Length classes


55


%

Lepomis gibbosus - July 2011 (Locality Asamati)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Cyprinus carpio - July 2011 (Locality Asamati)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Chondrostoma prespensis - July 2011 (Locality Asamati)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Cyprinus carpio - July 2011 (Locality Asamati)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes


56


%

Cyprinus carpio - July 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Squalius prespensis - July 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Rutilus prespensis - July 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Lepomis gibbosus - July 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes


57


%

Alburnoides prespensis - July 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Chondrostoma prespense - July 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Rhodeus amarus - July 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Pseudosbora parva - July 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes


58


%

Alburnus belvica - July 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Chondrostoma prespense - July 2011 (Locality Pretor)

100 80 60 40 20 0

Length classes

%

Barbus prespensis - July 2011 (Locality Pretor)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Alburnoides prespensis - July 2011 (Locality Pretor)

100 80 60 40 20 0

Length classes


59


%

Lepomis gibbosus - July 2011 (Locality Pretor)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Squalius prespensis - July 2011 (Locality Pretor)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Alburnus prespensis - July 2011 (Locality Pretor)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Cyprinus caprio - July 2011 (Locality Pretor)

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes


60


%

Rutilus prespensis - July 2011 (Locality Pretor)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Rutilus prespensis - August 2011 (Locality Asamati)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Lepomis gibbosus - August 2011 (Locality Asamati)

20 15 10 5 0

Length classes Rhodeus amarus - August 2011 (Locality Asamati)

50

%

40 30 20 10 0

Length classes


61


%

Alburnus belvica - August 2011 (Locality Asamati)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes Alburnoides prespensis - August 2011 (Locality Asamati)

20 %

15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Lepomis gibbosus - August 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Length classes

%

Alburnoides prespensis - August 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes


62


%

Carasius gibelio - August 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Pelasgus prespensis - August 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Rhodeus sericeus - August 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Pseudorasbora parva - August 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes


63


%

Ciprinus carpio - August 2011 (Locality Pretor)

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Rutilus prespensis - August 2011 (Locality Pretor)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Alburnus belvica - August 2011 (Locality Pretor)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Pseudorasbora parva - August 2011 (Locality Pretor)

100 80 60 40 20 0

Length classes


64


Rhodeus amarus - August 2011 (Locality Pretor)

%

100 80 60 40 20 0

Length classes

Lepomis gibbosus - August 2011 (Locality Pretor)

%

25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Rutilus prespensis - September 2011 (Locality Asamati)

20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Lepomis gibbosus - September 2011 (Locality Asamati)

20 15 10 5 0

Length classes


65


Alburnus belvica - September 2011 (Locality Asamati)

%

25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes Rhodeus amarus - September 2011 (Locality Asamati)

%

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Pseudorasbora parva - September 2011 (Locality Asamati)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Alburnoides prespensis - September 2011 (Locality Asamati)

100 80 60 40 20 0

Length classes


66


Cyprinus carpio - September 2011 (Locality Asamati)

25

%

20 15 10 5 0

Length classes Squlius prespensis - September 2011 (Locality Asamati)

50

%

40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Lepomis gibbosus - September 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Length classes

%

Rutilus prespensis - September 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Length classes


67


%

Alburnus belvica - September 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Cyprinus carpio - September 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Alburnoides prespensis - September 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Pseudorasbora parva - September 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes


68


%

Rhodeus amarus - September 2011 (Locality Otesevo)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Pseudorasbora parva - September 2011 (Locality Pretor)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Rhodeus amarus - September 2011 (Locality Pretor)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Lepomis gibosus - September 2011 (Locality Pretor)

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Length classes


69


%

Rutilus prespensis - September 2011 (Locality Pretor)

20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Alburnoides prespensis - September 2011 (Locality Pretor)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Length classes

%

Cyprinus carpio - September 2011 (Locality Pretor)

25 20 15 10 5 0

Length classes

%

Alburnus belvica - September 2011 (Locality Pretor)

20 15 10 5 0

Length classes


70


1.4. Assessment of the impact on basin’s ichthyofauna The ichthyofauna in Prespa Lakes basin is considered that have been affected on various levels as in direct impact (drastic fluctuation of the water level, fishing, fish eating birds, parasites) as well as in indirect impact (agricultural activities, pollution, changes in the water quality conditions, pollution etc.). Below are listed several examples describing various impacts:


71


Water level oscillations of the Lakes

OSCILLATION OF THE LAKE WATER LEVEL AT MACRO PRESPA - STATION STENJE "0" 847.48 m a.s.l. for the time period 1951-2010 (Source: National Hydrometeorological Services – Skopje

Cormorant regurgitates sampling results

TEXT CORMORANTS I(MPACT ON FISH AND FISHERIES

Preliminary results from the first cormorant regurgitates sampling No. of the tree

Total No. of the nests

No. of active nests

28 36 41 43

1 1 6 6

1 1 6 6


No. of regurgitated fish individuals 5 7 10 11

3.06.2011 Fish species Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica 72


45 46 49 53 54 56 59a 59b 70 71 73 104 118 120 134 136 168 Not marked Not marked Total:22

4 3 1 6 10 4

4 3 1 6 5 4

7

7

1 7 4 4 5 2 2 1 3 3 4

1 7 4 4 4 2 2 1 2 3 4

4 12 3 1 3 1 9 12 1 11 29 6 11 12 11 10 16 12 24 24 22

Preliminary results from the second cormorant regurgitates sampling Total No. of the nests

No. of active nests

6 14 15 16 33 35 41 42 43 44 45a 45b 46 47 48 49 51a 51b

2 4 5 8 2 4 6 2 6 3

2 4 5 5 2 4 6 2 6 3

4

4

3 3 2 1

3 3 2 1

5

5

54

10

5

55

1

1

No. of the tree


No. of regurgitated fish individuals 7 7 1 15 51 29 74 29 29 1 14 10 3 68 16 12 8 5 31 2 18

Cyprinus carpio Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Cyprinus carpio Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Cyprinus carpio Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica

21.06.2011 Fish species Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Cyprinus carpio Alburnus belvica 73


56 58 73 Total:21

4 3 4

4 3 4

11 33 6

Preliminary results from the second cormorant regurgitates sampling No. of the tree

Total No. of the nests

No. of active nests

128 135 145 146 151 164 230 Total:22

3 2 3 6 5 6 1

3 2 2 4 3 4 1

No. of regurgitated fish individuals 15 12 34 3 18 23 8

Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica

6.07.2011 Fish species Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica Alburnus belvica

Changes in the qualitative composition of Lake Prespa Zooplankton species:

Relative abundance for all four groups of the plankton community in Lake Prespa 100% 80% 60%

Mollusca

40%

Copepoda

20%

Cladocera

0% G.Grad G.Grad Slivnica Asamati Centralna Otesevo Stenje Pretor Asamati 03.06.11 06.07.11 06.07.11 29.07.11 29.07.11 29.07.11 28.08.11 28.09.11 28.09.11


Rotifera

74


Species

03.10. 01

ROTIFERA Asplanchna priodonta Kelicotia longispina Keratella guadrata Keratella coclearis Branchionus sp. Polyarthra vulgaris Trichocerca capucina Synchaeta sp. Filinia sp. CLADOCERA Daphnia cuculata Diaphanosoma leuchtembergianum Ceriodaphnia quadrangula Leptodora kindti Bosmina longirostris COPEPODA Arctodiaptomus steindachneri Mesocyclops leucharti Nauplii-Copepoda MOLLUSCA Dreissena polimorpha

5 m. depth

10 m. depth

15 m. depth

3500 2500 -

500 8500 1500 -

8000 1000 -

5500 500 -

-

-

-

-

1000

5500

10000

1500

1000

-

-

-

500

5000

7500

2500

3500 30000

7500 12000

10000 26000

4000 -

-

1000

2500

100

surface

Identified fish parasites One part of the established parasites has a wide range of spreading, and a wide spectrum of hosts, such as: Myxobolus dispar, Ichthyophthirius multifilis, Dactylogyrus extensus, Diplostomum sp., Tylodelphis clavata, Posthodiplostomum cuticola, Ligula intestinalis, Cystidicoloides tenuissima, Raphidascaris acus, Ergasilus sieboldi etc. The other part of the established parasites is stenoparasites or is on the border of stenoparasitizm, such as the majority of species from the genera Dactylogyrus and Gyrodactylus. The presence of 6 parasite species is recorded for the first time in the fish parasite fauna from the Lake Prespa and Macedonia: Dactylogyrus sp. (in Alburnus belvica), Gyrodactylus sp. (in Salmo peristericus), Diplozoon sp. (in Squalius prespensis), Diplozoon sp. (in Chondrostoma prespense), Diplostomum sp. (larvae) (in Rutilus prespensis), Diplostomum sp. (larvae) (in Alburnus belvica) and Tylodelphis clavata. Findings of the following parasites in their fish hosts are the first for Lake Prespa and Macedonia: Posthodiplostomum cuticola (larva) in Pseudorasbora parva and Pelasgus prespensis; Ergasilus


75


sieboldi in Pelasgus prespensis; Ichthyophthirius multifiliis and Ligula intestinalis (larva) in Rhodeus amarus. The pathological significance is associated with the following parasite species: Myxobolus dispar, Ichthyophthirius multifiliis, Dactylogyrus extensus, Eudiplozoon nipponicum, Diplostomum sp. (larvae), Tylodelphis clavata (larvae), Posthodiplostomum cuticola (larvae), Ligula intestinalis (plerocercoid), Cystidicoloides tenuissima and Ergasilus sieboldi. The helminth fauna of cyprinid fish from Lake Prespa is characteristic for the cyprinid fish from the waters of the Black Sea, Aegean and Adriatic watershed, with some exceptions, such as Cystidicoloides tenuissima, which parasitize salmonids, but seldom in other fish species. Ratio between the larvae which mature in birds compared with adult forms of parasites in fish is 1 : 0,63. In total, 18 species of adult forms of fish parasites and only 5 species of fish parasitic larvae, which mature in birds (Diplostomum sp. - metacercaria - in Rutilus prespensis and Alburnus belvica, Tylodelphis clavata – metacercaria, Posthodiplostomum cuticola – metacercaria and Ligula intestinalis - plerocercoid) are found. Larval stages of parasites are present in 50,0% of fish, adult parasites are present in 51,22% of fish (approx. equally). Prevalence of infestation with established species of parasites. Parasite species

Myxobolus dispar

No. of examined fish

% of infested fish 1

1.22

Ichthyophthirius multifiliis

7

8.54

Total infestation - Protozoa

8

9.76

Dactylogyrus alatus f. typica

2

2.44

Dactylogyrus elegantis

2

2.44

Dactylogyrus erhardovae

2

2.44

Dactylogyrus extensus

5

6.10

Dactylogyrus minor

3

3.66

Dactylogyrus sphyrna

5

6.10

Dactylogyrus sp. (in Alburnus belvica)

1

1.22

Gyrodactylus sp. (in Salmo peristericus)

5

6.10

Diplozoon sp. (in Squalius prespensis)

3

3.66

Diplozoon sp. (in Chondrostoma prespense)

1

1.22


82

No. of infested fish

76


Eudiplozoon nipponicum

6

7.32

Paradiplozoon alburni

1

1.22

28

34.17

Nicolla testiobliqua

1

1.22

Diplostomum sp. (larva, in Rutilus prespensis)

1

1.22

Diplostomum sp. (larva, in Alburnus belvica)

3

3.66

Tylodelphis clavata

14

17.07

Posthodiplostomum cuticola (larva)

40

48.78

Total infestation - Digenea

52

63.41

Ligula intestinalis (plerocercoid)

3

3.66

Total infestation - Cestoda

3

3.66

Cysticoloides tenuissima

2

2.44

Raphidascaris acus (larva)

6

7.32

Total infestation - Nematoda

8

9.76

Ergasilus sieboldi

13

15.85

Total infestation - Arthropoda

13

15.85

61

74.39

Total infestation - Monogenea

TOTAL INFESTATION – ALL FISH

82

Nicolla testiobliqua – original Myxobolus dispar Prevalence of infestation with species of parasites PSI Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid

77


120 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

100 83,33

80 63,63

60 40

28,57

Fish species Salmo peristericus

Parasite species Gyrodactylus sp.

Rhodeus amarus

Cyprinus carpio


Pelasgus prespensis

Pseudorasbora parva

Alburnus belvica


Rutilus prespensis

Salmo peristericus

0

Squalius prespensis

20

Prevalence No. of infested fish

No. of examined fish

100

45

5

5

100

45

3

60

2,33

5

100

5

5

100

6,4

2

33,33

1

1

16,67

1

3

50

5

5

83,33

3,6

5

41,67

2

2

16,67

15

6

50

8

7

63,63

12,57

Myxobolus dispar

1

7,14

1

Dactylogyrus sphyrna

5

35,71

4

2

14,29

3

1

7,14

1


Total infestation

5 5

Dactylogyrus elegantis Diplozoon sp.

6

Tylodelphis clavata (larva) Total infestation

6 Dactylogyrus extensus

Cyprinus carpio

Tylodelphis clavata (larva)

12

Eudiplozoon nipponicum Total infestation

Rutilus prespensis

of infestation

5

Diplozoon sp.


% of infested fish

5

Total infestation Squalius prespensis

Intensity

12

Dactylogyrus erhardovae Nicolla testiobliqua


14

78



14

100

12

1

7,14

5


7

50

15

Ligula (larva)

2

14,29

2

Cystidicoloides tenuissima

2

14,29

2

Ergasilus sieboldi

9

64,29

15,44

14

14

100

32

1

1

100

3

1

1

100

3

Ichthyophthyrius multifilis

6

42,86

1,5

Dactylogyrus alatus f. typica

2

14,29

2

Dactylogyrus minor

3

21,43

2

Dactylogyrus sp.

1

7,14

1

Paradiplozoon alburni

1

7,14

1

14

100

30

3

21,43

3


1

7,14

2

Raphidascaris acus (larva)

6

42,86

2,5

Ergasilus sieboldi

3

21,43

1

14

14

100

33,57

6

6

100

3,33

6

6

100

3,33

1

100

2

1

100

7

1

1

100

9

7

1

14,29

1

Diplostomum (larva)

sp.

intestinalis

Total infestation Alburnoides prespensis


Total infestation

Alburnus belvica

Posthodiplostomum cuticola (larva) Diplostomum (larva)

sp.

Total infestation Pseudorasbora parva


Total infestation Pelasgus prespensis

14


1

Ergasilus sieboldi Total infestation Rhodeus amarus

Ichthyophthyrius multifilis


79


Ligula (larva)

intestinalis

1

14,29

1

Total infestation Carassius gibelio

7 6

2 0

28,57 0

1 0

Total infestation Lepomis gibossus

6 5

0 0

0 0

0 0

Total infestation

5

0

0

0

82

61

74,39

21,52

TOTAL INFESTATION – ALL FISH

Number of parasite species in certain species of fish from the Lake Prespa

120 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

100

83,33

80

63,63

60 40

28,57

Rhodeus amarus

Cyprinus carpio


Pelasgus prespensis

Pseudorasbora parva

Alburnus belvica


Rutilus prespensis

Salmo peristericus

0

Squalius prespensis

20

As a comparison with previous investigations on other two natural lakes in Macedonia, for Lake Ohrid which is oligotrophic in the investigation from 1983 the lowest value of the ratio: larvae matured in birds: adult forms of parasites in fish = 1 : 2,5 was registered and for Lake Dojran which is eutrophic in the same year of investigation, the highest ratio: larvae matured in birds: adult forms of parasites in fish = 1 : 0,18 was registered. Ratio found in these ongoing investigations on Lake Prespa is 1 : 0,63which is even higher than the ratio found in our previous investigations (1 : 0,81) (Hristovski et al. 2006). With these investigations are confirmed results of: 1. Wisniewski (1958), who considers that a great number of fish parasites in eutrophic lakes are larval stages, which complete their life cycle in fish-eating birds and mammals, i.e. the ratio between fish parasitic larvae which mature in birds and adult parasites is increasing from oligotrophic to eutrophic systems; and 2. Esch (1971), who points out the higher number fish parasitic larvae which mature in birds from eutrophic systems, which is a consequence of different predator – prey relationships, whereas in oligotrophic waters insignificant water - terrestrial interactions exist. There are some changes in species composition of parasites comparing to the investigations 5 years ago as lack of Acantocephalans and other parasites with complex life cycle, parasites who need PSI Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid

80


intermediate hosts in their development, lack of some parasites found before, which are specific for certain fish species. These changes in the species composition of parasites suggests on the changes in the water environment of the Lake Prespa in last only 5 years as missing the intermediate hosts (representatives of plankton and bottom fauna) – some of them specific for this Lake, presence of fish-eating birds in such number that causes damages to the health of fish and entire ecosystem and further eutrophication and habitat loss. Organochlorine Pestecides


81



82


2. TRANSBOUNDARY FISH AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN

2.1. Stake Holder Findings The following questionnaire was prepared and distributed among different target groups of stakeholders.

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FISH AND FISHERIES IN PRESPA LAKES BASIN (in the lakes and in the tributaries) The following questionnaire is designed to receive feedback from the public with respect to the health and management of the fish and fisheries in the Prespa Lakes Basin. The information collected will be used strictly for the purposes of the Transboundary Fish and Fisheries Master Plan for the Prespa Lakes Basin Please answer as many questions as you can. Please speak with a Project TFFMPPLB representative if you have questions about this questionnaire. Name (optionally): __________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________ Municipality: _______________________________________________________ Organization/Affiliation (If applicable): __________________________________ Instructions:

Part I - Please circle one of the offered strength criteria 1 – weak; 3 – medium; 5 – strong Part II - The questions without offered criteria, please describe your opinion briefly

PART I No. 1 2 3 4

QUESTION How much do you know about the Prespa Lakes Fishes How much they are important How significant they are for the ecosystem How much they are endangered


STRENGTH CRITERIA 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 83


5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Are they well protected Are the alien fishes threat for the native ones Is there necessity for protection of the endemic species How much are the authorities involved in the protection of Prespa fishes Are the fish habitats enough protected How much positive are the fishing conditions What is the importance of the fishery in the region How do you find the importance of the commercial fishery How do you find the importance of the recreational fishery Are the fishes from Prespa important for the tourism What is the significance level of the fishery in the economy Is the fishery sustainable for living How much the agricultural activities in the basin are negatively influencing the life conditions of the fishes Is the fishery policy adequate for sustainable protection and use of the fishes What is the condition of the fish spawning grounds What is the condition of the tributary regarding the fish - Brajcinska What is the condition of the tributary regarding the fish – Kranska What is the condition of the tributary regarding the fish – Leva Reka What is the condition of the tributary regarding the fish – Golema Reka

1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3

5 5 5 5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1

3

5

1 1 1 1 1

3 3 3 3 3

5 5 5 5 5

Part II No. 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

QUESTION What measures should be taken to improve the life conditions of the fishes What would be needed to extract the alien fishes Is there necessity of the fish regulations, and if yes please state which Which types of fishing practices are present in your country and for which species How many fisherman can operate economically satisfactory for your part of the lakes In what manner can Improving the fishery reflect to other branches of livelihood What positive factors do you feel contribute to the overall quality of the fishery (e.g. forest cover, stewardship programs, habitat improvements,


ANSWER

84


31

32

33

legislation protecting environments/wildlife) What issues do you feel are impacting the fishery in the watersheds (e.g. loss of habitat, lack of stream bank vegetation, pollution/garbage, fishing pressure, public use, cattle crossings, urbanization/development, fishing access, fishing opportunities, catch rates) What actions should be taken to enhance the health of the watershed and the fisheries (i.e. tree plantings, garbage pick-up, habitat enhancement, stocking, increased enforcement of legislation) Are you involved in any stream Yes (please list them) stewardship programs No (why?

34

If No, would you be interested in becoming involved in stream stewardship initiatives

35

Are you interested in further participating in the development of the Transboundary Fish and Fisheries Management Plan of the Prespa Lakes Basin

36

Would you like to be contacted for further information on the please circle the answer and provide your e-mail (phone number) in the right box

37

38

39

Please list which issues should be contained in the training material for the professional and recreational fishermen Please list what issues should be contained in the Brochure on the fish and fishery of Prespa Lakes Basin Please express your expectations from the TFFMPPLB (if necessary use additional page)


Yes (in which one) No Yes

No YES please contact me with more information about the fisheries management plan. My phone number/email address : No

85


Please express your opinion about the Tentative Content of the Transboundary Fish and Fisheries Management Plan listed below. The items you think are needed please circle them and those you think are not needed please put X on the number or the letter of the heading. If you think other items should be enclosed please write them to the appropriate sector (e.g. New Heading with the respective numbers, new subheadings with the respective letter. The red colored text is representing additional items proposed from the survey group

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3. INTRODUCTION a. Purpose/aim of the Plan b. Goals and Objectives/ and Policy c. Sustainable Harvest d. General Problem Statement e. Interim Measures f.

Review of trilaterallegislation/Existing Plans, Statutes, and Rules

4. GENERAL LIFE HISTORY a. Description and Distribution b. Reproduction and Development c. Diet and Food Habits d. Migration Patterns e. Important habitats for fish f.

Threats

5. STATUS OF STOCKS 6. DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES a. Commercial Fishery b. Recreational Fishery 7. DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 8. FISHERIES a. Economic Aspects of the Fishery b. Economic Impact of Commercial Fishery c. Recreational Fishery Economics d. Social Aspects of the Fishery e. Commercial Fishermen PSI Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid

86


f.

Recreational Fishery

9. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS a. Habitat b. Water Quality & Quantity? c. Habitat and Water Quality Protection d. Recommended Management Actions 10. PRINCIPAL ISSUES AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS a. Identification of Issues b. Issues and Management Strategies c. Harvest Limits and fishing methods 11. MANAGEMENT PROGRAM a. Data Needs b. Proposal for developing Prespa tailored regulations c. Establishment of three lateral Fish and Fisheries Body/Committee with “specific rules and regulations”, to act as a consultative committee to bodies responsible for fishery management and other institutional measures if needed d. Management Strategies and Proposed Actions e. Habitat and Water Quality Management Recommendations f.

Research Needs Summary

12. MONITORING AND EVALUATION a. Monitoring of fish stocks b. Monitoring of fishery impact (objective statistics – CPU’s – catch per unit of efforts) c. Monitoring of TFFMPPLB implementation d. Evaluation indicators

Thank you for your input! Your answers will help us to complete the Transboundary Fish and Fisheries Management Plan of the Prespa Lakes Basin and to better manage the fisheries in this basin.


87


2.1.1. Results from Stake holder findings 1. How much do you know about the Prespa Lakes Fish? strong 23%

weak 14%

strong 23%

medium 74%

weak medium strong

medium6 63%

Macedonian side

Albanian side

2. How much they are important?

weak 8%

medium 21%

strong 71%

strong 35%

weak medium strong

Albanian side weak 6%

Macedonian side


weak 0%

medium 65%

Macedonian side

strong 72%

weak 3%

medium 22%

strong 35%

weak 0%

medium 65%

weak medium strong

Albanian side

88


4. How much they are endangered? weak 10%

weak 3%

medium 18%

strong 72%

strong 62%

weak medium strong

Macedonian side

Albanian side

5. Are they well protected?

medium 33%

mediu m 35%

strong 0%

medium 29%

strong 4% weak 63%

weak 71%

weak medium strong

Albanian side

Macedonian side 6. Are the alien fishes threat for the native ones? weak strong 10% 39%

medium 51%

Macedonian side


weak medium strong

strong 3%

weak 52%

medium 45%

Albanian side

89


7. Is there necessity for protection of the weak endemic species? 10%

strong 19%

weak 19%

medium 6%

strong 84%

medium 62%

weak medium

Albanian side

Macedonian side 8. How much are the authorities involved in the protection of Prespa fishes? strong 6%

strong 0%

medium 10%

weak 61%

medium 33%

weak 90%

weak medium strong

Macedonian side

Albanian side

9. Are the fish habitats enough protected ? strong 6% medium 29%

weak 65%

strong 0%

medium 35%

weak 65%

weak medium strong

Macedonian side


Albanian side

90


10. How much positive are the fishing conditions?

strong 0%

strong 8% weak 51%

medium 41%

weak 55%

medium 45%

weak medium strong

Albanian side

Macedonian side 11. What is the importance of the fishery in the region?

strong 3%

weak 16%

strong 31%

medium 53%

weak medium strong

medium 74%

Macedonian side

12. How do you find the importance of the commercial fishery?

strong 49%

weak 23%


strong 7%

weak 7%

medium 43% weak

medium 86%

medium strong

Macedonian side PSI Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid

Albanian side 91


13. How do you find the importance of the recreational fishery? strong 13%

weak 10% strong 53%

medium 37% weak medium strong

medium 62%

Macedonian side

14. Are the fishes from Prespa important for the tourism? weak 4%

weak 25%


strong 26%

medium 39% strong 57%

weak

medium 68%

medium strong

Albanian side

Macedonian side 15. What is the significance level of the fishery in the economy? strong weak 18% 29%

medium 53%

Macedonian side PSI Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid

weak medium strong

strong 3%

weak 58%

medium 39%

Albanian side 92


16. Is the fishery sustainable for living? strong 25%

weak 18%

strong 3%

medium 26%

weak 71%

weak medium strong

medium 57%

Macedonian side

Albanian side

17. How much the agricultural activities in the basin are negatively influencing the life conditions of the fishes? weak 12%

strong 6%

weak 52%

strong 43% weak medium strong

medium medium 45% 42%

Macedonian side

Albanian side

18. Is the fishery policy adequate for sustainable protection and use of the fishes?

weak 26%

strong 0%

strong 8% weak 45%

medium 47%

Macedonian side


weak medium strong

medium 74%

Albanian side

93


19. What is the condition of the fish spawning grounds? strong 4%

weak 51%

medium 45%

strong 10%

weak medium strong

Macedonian side

medium 55%

Albanian side

20. What is the condition of the tributary regarding the fish - Brajcinska?

21. What is the condition of the tributary regarding the fish – Kranska?

strong 8%

medium 37%

weak 35%

strong 4%

weak 55%

weak medium strong

weak 59%

medium 37%

weak medium strong

Macedonian side

Macedonian side

22. What is the condition of the tributary regarding the fish – Leva Reka? strong 0%

medium 37%

Macedonian side


weak medium strong

23. What is the condition of the tributary regarding the fish – Golema Reka? medium 25%

weak 63%

weak 75%

strong 0%

weak medium strong

Macedonian side

94


24. What measures should be taken to improve the life conditions of the fishes? Macedonian side: protection of the fish habitats, pollution reduction, science implementation, stopping uncontrolled overfishing, fishing ban for period of 5 years, construction of the hatchery. Albanian side: Enforcement of the law, protection of the fish spawning habitats, pollution reduction, stopping uncontrolled overfishing. 25. What would be needed to extract the alien fishes? Macedonian side: In most of the answers predominant are following: hard to catch, organizing relevant institutions together with fishermen, fishing by using special techniques without threats to the indigenous species, use of scientifically based methods, response from the relevant institutions, fishing by trolling nets and transfer to the fish farms or transfer to where they originated from. Albanian side: Fishing by using special techniques and special fishing gears without threats to the indigenous species, use of scientifically based methods 26. Is there necessity of the fish regulations, and if yes please state which? Macedonian side: Predominant answers: type of regulation for a total ban on fishing for a minimum of 2-3 years, general regulation, stated catch quotas for each of the three countries, fishing ban of 1-3 years minimum Albanian side: The same fishery regulation among three countries 27. Which types of fishing practices are present in your country and for which species? Macedonian side: fishing nets, trawling nets, cast nets, etc. Albanian side: Gill nets and trammel nets 28. How many fishermen can operate economically satisfactory for your part of the lakes? Macedonian side: 50-60 fishermen, 100, 40, do not know, preparation of a document for assessment of commercial sustainability which would include a fishing quota assessment, price per kg, etc. Hence, to evaluate the number of fishermen. Albanian side: 65-70 fishermen. 29. In what manner can improving the fishery reflect to other branches of livelihood? Macedonian side: fishing ban, tourism development, rural, agricultural tourism, with traditional cuisine and local products use, through recreation and sport fishing. Albanian side: Agro tourism, with traditional cuisine and local products use, through recreation and sport fishing. PSI Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid

95


30. What positive factors do you feel contribute to the overall quality of the fishery? Macedonian side: management programs, all listed, environment regulations, regulation for fish stock management. Albanian side: Restocking programs, enforcement of the law, protection of spawning areas, same regulation for fish stock management.

31. What issues do you feel are impacting the fishery in the watersheds (e.g. loss of habitat, lack of stream bank vegetation, pollution/garbage, fishing pressure, public use, cattle crossings, urbanization/development, fishing access, fishing opportunities, catch rates?) Macedonian side: All listed, fishing pressure, management type - private concessionary. Albanian side: All listed. 32. What actions should be taken to enhance the health of the watershed and the fisheries? (i.e. tree plantings, garbage pick-up, habitat enhancement, stocking, increased enforcement of legislation) Macedonian side: All listed, increased enforcement of legislation (at least during spawning season), stocking. Albanian side: All listed, restocking, increased enforcement of legislation. 33. Are you involved in any stream stewardship programs? Macedonian side: I do not know what it is, no, yes (UNDP) YES 14%

NO 86%

YES

NO

Albanian side: Yes (Fishery Management Organization) NO 10%

YES 90% 34. If No, would you be interested in becoming involved in stream stewardship initiatives?

Macedonian side: yes, no PSI Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid

96


NO 41%

YES 59%

YES

NO

35. Are you interested in further participating in the development of the Transboundary Fish and Fisheries Management Plan of the Prespa Lakes Basin?

Macedonian side: yes, no NO 35% YES 65% YES

NO

Albanian side: yes, no NO 30%

YES 70% 36. Would you like to be contacted for further information? Please circle the answer and provide your e-mail (phone number) in the right box. Collected information 37. Please list which issues should be contained in the training material for the professional and recreational fisherman.

Macedonian side: Fishing practices-commercial & recreational fishery, description of fish species in Prespa, environmental factors, fish threats, spawning and spawning grounds, fish stock protection, fish stock management, tourism, endemic & autochthonous species description.

Albanian side: (Mostly for young fishermen), Biology of commercial fish species, fishing practices, preparing and repairing fishing gears, use and repair outboard engine. 38. Please list what issues should be contained in the Brochure on the fish and fishery of Prespa Lakes Basin. PSI Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid

97


Macedonian side: fish species present, spawning grounds, fishing technique, fish threats, fish species overall, fish stock with the characteristics of endemic and indigenous species, environmental factors composition, management, recommendations, tourism and fishery, fish stock conservation , brochures is not needed. Albanian side: fish species present, spawning grounds, fishing technique, fish stock with the characteristics of endemic and indigenous species, environmental factors composition, management, recommendations, tourism and fishery, fish stock conservation. 39. Please express you expectations from the TFFMPPLB

Macedonian and Albanian side: To include common non fishing period for all of the three countries, including the visible activities, a description and explanation of all the things listed in the questionnaire that we were not informed, for example rivers management programs etc., association of all fishermen and institutions from all of the three countries, transformation of the management plan to management strategy of fish and fisheries in the Prespa Lakes Basin, including the competent authorities in the fish stock protection, adopting fishing ban measures, sanctions for unexecuted stocking of the concessionaires.


98


2.2. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MODELS (IN PROGRESS) Regarding Transboundary fishery management in the world quite low number of examples can be found. Like most relevant to our issue to Prespa Lakes can be considered Lake Constance (Germany – Austria – Switzerland) in Europe and The Great Lakes (USA –Canada). Unlike these, where the Fishery management is well establisht on the transboundary level, the four transboundary South Balkan Lakes (Dojran, Prespa, Ohrid and Skadar) are now in process of reestablishing the previous Fishery management agreements.

LAKE CONSTANCE

Lake Constance: >1,6 Million inhabitants in the catchment area. PSI Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid

99


Lake Constance: ~140 professional fishermen ~ 13 500 Anglers


100


Fisheries management of Lake Constance: Since medieval times, laws and regulations exist

5th July 1893:

The Agreement of Bregenz The oldest known and still operational International fishery treaty

The lake is treated as condominium

- The nearshoreregion (< 25m water depth) remains in national responsibility. - The deeper parts are defined as the offshore region and are open to all fishermen. - Legal fish sizes, closed seasons and legal fishing gear are equal to all fishermen. Systematic description of fishing gear - Constantyields, Protection of fish stocks, - Consideration of the natural variety, Nature conservation, -

The international co-operation, now lasting over 110 years, has often proved its worth in managing the problems of the lake. The acceptance of biological facts, the responsibility for the common lake, and fair, objective and trusting co-operation have been, until now, the essentials of the work of the International Deputies‘ Conference


101


THE GREAT LAKES The Great Lakes Fishery Commission was established by the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between Canada and the United States, which was ratified on October 11, 1955. It was organized in April 1956 and assumed its duties as set forth in the Convention on July 1, 1956. The commission has two major responsibilities: first, develop coordinated programs of research in the Great Lakes, and, on the basis of the findings, recommend measures which will permit the maximum sustained productivity of stocks of fish of common concern; second, formulate and implement a program to eradicate or minimize sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes. The commission is also required to publish or authorize the publication of scientific or other information obtained in the performance of its duties. In fulfillment of this requirement the commission publishes the Technical Report Series, intended for peer-reviewed scientific literature; Special Publications, designed primarily for dissemination of reports produced by working committees of the commission; and other (non-serial) publications. Technical Reports are most suitable for either interdisciplinary review and synthesis papers of general interest to Great Lakes fisheries researchers, managers, and administrators, or more narrowly focused material with special relevance to a single but important aspect of the commission's program. Special Publications, being working documents, may evolve with the findings of and charges to a particular committee. Both publications follow the style of the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. Sponsorship of Technical Reports or Special Publications does not necessarily imply that the findings or conclusions contained therein are endorsed by the Commission.

A JOINT STRATEGIC PLAN FOR MANAGEMENT OF GREAT LAKES FISHERIES Common Goal Statement

An essential first step in developing a common strategy for Great Lakes fishery agencies is toensure that the agencies hold common goals. Goal statements were obtained from all the agencies and compared for commonalities, differences, and conflicts. There are no overt conflicts of purpose among agencies and relatively few differences. Differences are largely matters of emphasis or coverage. Similarities in agency goals were used to formulate a goal statement that is believed to represent adequately the aims of the parties with respect to the Great Lakes. To secure fish communities, based on foundations of stable self-sustaining stocks, supplemented by judicious plantings of hatchery-reared fish, and provide rom these communities an optimum contribution of fish, fishing opportunities and associated benefits to meet needs identified by society for wholesome food,recreation,cultural heritage,employment and income, and a healthy aquatic ecosystem. The fishery resources of the Great Lakes are held in trust for society by governments. The agencies responsible for them have been charged with managing fisheries to provide continuing, valuable contributions to society. These contributions include such benefits as a healthy aquatic environment, aesthetic and recreational values, scientific knowledge, and economic activity as well as fish and fishing opportunities. The fishery resources have been diminished and much altered through exploitation, degradation of habitat, and the introduction or invasion of exotic biota. Much has been done to check, reverse, or compensate for this degradation, but much remains to be done. The fact that environmental considerations important to such efforts are often under the jurisdiction of PSI Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid

102


other agencies could complicate the task facing the fishery agencies. Stresses affecting fishery resources rarely act singly, often have complex interactions, and often impact several levels of the aquatic ecosystem so that remedial efforts must address problems on a comprehensive, whole-system basis. A natural focus of the fishery agencies, therefore, is the maintenance and development of entire fish communities that can provide improved contributions to society. Such an ecosystem approach requires protection and rehabilitation of aquatic habitat and effective fishery management to ensure stable self-sustaining foundations, especially at the forage-fish level, for the community while allowing for judicious stocking of hatchery-reared fish to complement or enhance natural production of predatory fish, meeting public demands, and rehabilitating depleted stocks of desirable species.


103


Integrated Ecosystem Management of the Lake Prespa Basin

Proposals for a Transboundary Fish and Fisheries Management Plan in Lake Prespa 1st DRAFT

November 2011

PSI Hidrobiological Institute - Ohird

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ATP CFP EEZ EFF EU EUR GEF highly migratory stocks HBIM IUU JSC MCS MAFWE M&E MEFWA MEPP MEY MoU MRDF MSY NGO RFMO straddling stocks SFMO SPS TAC transboundary stocks UN UNFA VMS WTP

Ability to Pay Common Fisheries Policy Exclusive Economic Zone European Fisheries Fund European Union Euro currency Global Environment Fund Fish stocks that roam over large distances and may be found in numerous State jurisdictions Hydro-biological Institute, Lake Ohrid (Macedonia) Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (fishing activities) Joint Steering Committee Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy (Macedonia) Monitoring & Evaluation Ministry of Environment, Fisheries and Water Administration (Albania) Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning (Macedonia) Maximum Economic Yield Memorandum of Understanding Ministry of Rural Development and Food (Greece) Maximum Sustainable Yield Non Government Organisation Regional Fisheries Management Organisation Fish populations or stocks that straddle the boundary of a State’s jurisdiction (some stocks straddle ‘out’ while others straddle ‘into’ the jurisdiction State Fisheries Management Organisation Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Total Allowable Catch A group of commercially exploitable organisms, distributed over, or migrating across, the boundary between two or more national jurisdictions whose exploitation can only be managed effectively by co-operation between the States concerned. United Nations United Nations Fish Agreement Vessel Monitoring System Willingness to Pay

105

CHAPTER I – the theory In preparing these proposals, it is first necessary to describe the changing international obligations related to transboundary fisheries management. There then follows a brief introduction to the theoretical management models developed from several studies and reports presented over the recent years. These have been adapted to take account of the situation in Lake Prespa.

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. The changing EU CFP and its impact upon transboundary fisheries management The EU policies are closely linked with international practices so they are considered as the benchmark for measuring fisheries management obligations that must be carried out by Member States and those in the pre-Accession process. However, the EU CFP is currently under structural change. In line with stakeholder demands, it is considered too complicated and not meeting the key objectives of ‘sustainable fisheries for access by future generations’. Indeed, it is agreed that the CFP requires a regional approach to the management of fish stocks and it must also be co-ordinated with environmental and development policies. This is referred to as the 'ecosystem approach’. In other words fisheries should be suitably integrated and structured within the wider context of other water activities such as transport, tourism, energy production (wind farms and solar) and aquaculture, i.e. a so-called ‘cluster’ of activities. There are thus several management and organisational interventions both being implemented and under discussion, which will have a direct impact on the CFP in the future. This will subsequently affect 3rd countries such as Albania and Macedonia which wish to apply the CFP rules and regulations to strengthen their own management of the fisheries sector as a whole. The key goal of the recent meeting by the Committee of Fisheries (February 2010) on CFP Reform 1 is simplification of both the resource conservation policy and the control of fishing activities. As regards resource conservation, the Committee prioritises simplifying:   

the management and conservation of certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks; technical measures for the protection of juvenile organisms; the collection and management of data needed for implementing the CFP.

The Committee further stresses that control of fishing activities needs simplification and should concentrate upon four areas:    

adjusting all the necessary legal provisions; computerising and automating certain procedures that are obligatory under the resource management and conservation policy; reducing reporting obligations for fishers and the authorities; improving the management of fishing authorisation.

It can be seen that these last three points directly impact upon transboundary fisheries management. Indeed, the beneficiaries and stakeholders need to be informed about the changes that are going to be 1

th

Committee of Fisheries, Report on the Green Paper for Reform of the CFP, 8 February 2010

106

made. The Committee goes on to report that generally, the reform of the CFP will need to be based upon three core principles (a threefold implementation imperative):   

protection and conservation of fish stocks (environmental dimension); a decent livelihood for fisheries operators (social dimension); economic profitability of fisheries (economic dimension).

These principles cannot be ranked in order of importance, but must fully converge to achieve a state of dynamic equilibrium, outside of which the fisheries sector cannot be made sustainable and will not be able to develop. These structural changes are welcomed by the fisheries sector in general. However, implementation of the CFP will also require changes to the management of the fisheries sector as a whole. Fishery administrations must abandon the traditional top-down approach, and lay emphasis instead upon (i) the principle of regionalisation and subsidiarity (horizontal de-centralisation) without leading to regional discrimination or to disruption of the common implementation of the fisheries policy, (ii) the re-definition and increased flexibility of the principle of relative stability, (iii) the increased participation of professionals and other stakeholders in the sector. The Committee firmly rejects any attempt to adopt a single Community fisheries management model, and calls instead for due account to be taken of the specific particularities of the various European sectors. Nevertheless, it stresses the need to avoid jeopardising either equality of opportunity among producers on the European market or the harmonisation of the conditions of competition. Again, these new principles will strongly impact the present Albanian and Macedonian fisheries sector which has enjoyed limited implementation of MCS measures, especially as regards control of fishing effort, reporting catch data, applying SPS measures and open and transparent marketing of products. It can be seen that besides simplification being a goal of the new CFP, there is also a trend towards liberalisation (clearly defined, de-bureaucratised and simplified models for managing small-scale fisheries) and voluntary compliance mechanisms, recognising the potential that self-management and regionalisation offer for the creation of a culture of compliance. In this way, the involvement of stakeholders in the design and management of fisheries policies can lead to more effective management measures, and thus the strengthening of positive innovation at individual, local or Member State level should be encouraged and incentivised. Furthermore, the role of inland fisheries should not be understated. In many countries there are more significant social impacts in terms of poverty reduction, employment and support to social development related to inland lakes than marine fisheries, even though the latter may be more economically important to the country in terms of investment and foreign exchange. This is especially so in Albania where the fisheries on Lakes Shkodra, Ohrid and Prespa play important and crucial roles for the local communities. The European Fund for Fisheries (EFF) is the financial component of the CFP. The main objective is for the relevant authorities to design a national strategic plan with the following priorities to:      

encourage the sustainable use of fishery resources and a sustainable balance between availability of resources and capacity of the fishing fleet; strengthen the competition and productivity of the fishing operators; promote fishing and production methods which are environmentally friendly; give an appropriate support to all sector stakeholders; protect a sustainable development of the fishing areas; develop a sustainable fishery in inland waters, aquaculture and processing industry for fishery and aquaculture products.

107

Adopting the above mentioned CFP trends and new initiatives of simplification, liberalisation, decentralisation and local involvement in fisheries management will clearly affect any planning that is being developed by 3rd countries such as Albania and Macedonia. However, it should also be borne in mind that the CFP is in the process of undergoing further radical changes in strategy and management so the ‘goal posts’ are moving. 1.2.

Further uncertainty considerations in transboundary fisheries management

Open access harvesting and the development of more efficient fishing methods have resulted in the over capitalisation of fisheries and subsequent depletion of fish stocks. This in turn has reduced the profitability of the fishing sector and also endangered the survival of many fish species and habitats. There are many examples where disputes concerning the management of fish stocks have been heated, and the problems associated with joint resource management have increased attention from policy makers. Conflicts in fisheries management are difficult enough to resolve within a single jurisdiction. The difficulties are compounded when different States are involved, whose interests may sharply diverge. And as mentioned above, the policy objectives at international level are also changing. The authorities involved in transboundary fisheries have thus recognised a mutual advantage in cooperative management of their resources. However, negotiations over harvest allocations have often proved to be arduous, characterised by periods of stalemate and interrupted by ‘fish wars’ between States. Indeed, a key uncertainty is the inevitability of errors in catch estimates which then directly impacts upon the harvest allocations. Negotiations between States involve an estimation of Maximum Sustainable Yields (MSYs) of their respective fisheries and this is usually put in terms of the Maximum Economic Yield (MEY). Management then becomes involved with method and degree: how great a safety margin should be allowed, and which methods of management are most likely to achieve the objective of sustainable fisheries? Because of the uncertainties, fisheries biologists have agreed to err on the side of caution. This is called the precautionary principle, whether by maintaining catch levels (fishing mortality) below estimated MSY levels, or maintaining stocks above the estimated MSY level (Roughgarden and Smith 1996). In practice these are equivalent. Provided that such objectives can be reliably achieved over the long term, then sustainable fisheries should be the result. Such scientific principles are also enshrined in international regulations including the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and also the FAO Codes of Practice. Another uncertainty is that agreements on joint management generally define the amount of fish left behind after harvest in each part of the transboundary fishery. The abandonment level, called the escapement, determines the future economic and biological development of the fishery. Intricacies arise when stock recruitment varies stochastically 2 or escapements are observed with error. Parties negotiating co-operative management can no longer directly observe adherence to the agreement by the other fishers. In addition, some States have opted to completely close their fishing activities in certain areas (often juvenile reserves) using environmental and species protection as arguments. The costs of its implementation on the high seas can be mitigated through increased recruitment of commercially viable species. Also, today fishing vessel activity can be controlled using cost-effective MCS measures including the use of automated VMS. However, on lakes, where the overwhelming harvesting is carried out by artisanal vessels, it is generally recognised that banning fishing completely is only a ‘stop-gap’ measure and only adds to illegal fishing pressures. It is difficult to relate to a family that their socio-economic position comes second place to a fish or a bird. Moreover, banning fishing on a lake is neither conservation nor protection unless it is combined to the socio-economic needs of the fisher community. The costs for 2

The term ‘stochastic’ is based on the theory of probability in that a system's subsequent state is determined by both predictable and random elements.

108

policing a lake shore and applying mandates can be high and other public demands on limited budgets are often considered more important. Conservation and protection is thus compromised and the objectives jeopardised. In other words, there must still be some element of responsible and sustainable fisheries management or else it will fail in the long term. How then can institutional frameworks be identified that will result in more successful management of transboundary fisheries? One challenge is that there is no international jurisdiction to enforce agreements. International law primarily regulates the relationship between States (and between States and international organisations). National law regulates the relationships between persons (including legal persons such as companies) within a particular State. In principle, national law applies only within the territory of the State and in areas over which the State exercises sovereign rights, such as the EEZ. National law also applies to the activities of nationals and fishing vessels of a State on their territorial waters in some situations, even in waters under the jurisdiction of other States. No transboundary fisheries management is likely to be effective unless it is based upon clear legal obligations and agreements that set out the rights and duties of the parties in a manner which accords with the international legal framework for fisheries management, and provides effective and efficient legal procedures and mechanisms for implementing these rules consistently

Although treaties are legally binding upon the contracting parties, co-operation solutions are also encouraged to be self-enforcing. This means that in spite of dispute settlement provisions and international courts, real enforcement should be carried out by third parties (Barrett, 2003). In addition, the ‘eyes and ears’ of neighbours are more effective at local level than with national enforcement mechanisms. Over the years, several studies 3 have been carried out developing various theories for co-operation. They provide insights into transboundary management problems and the dynamics of negotiations in search of co-operative agreements. The following Sections will review several options and discuss the practical opportunities and challenges for transboundary fisheries management in Lake Prespa. 1.3.

Some characteristics of transboundary fish stocks

Gulland (1980) presents a biological/geographical categorisation of transboundary fish stocks, which is useful when discussing the problems of managing the resources namely:  

stocks occurring between two or more States, but showing no clear migratory pattern; stocks occurring within two or more States, and displaying a clear pattern of movement from either (a) seasonal migration, or (b) according to different development stages.

In the first example, it is not always clear that exploitation on one side of the boundary will necessarily have a significant effect upon harvesting opportunities on the other side. It depends upon the fish species in question and the limnological 4 zone it inhabits. But it means that co-operative fisheries management of a shared fishery resource is not, in all cases, needed nor desired. As mentioned above, a fisheries management regime has costs and realising the benefits can require a significant investment in financial resources. The investment should properly be assessed in a cost/benefit analysis and if the results are negative, then obviously the case for co-operation collapses and each State can manage their own resources to the best of its ability, without reference to the other State(s). 3

For example, Hannesson (1995) and McKelvey (1997) address the management of a sequentially harvested fish stock. Hannesson examines co-operative management as a self-enforcing equilibrium. McKelvey studies the transboundary fishery problem in a principal-agent setting. Kaitala and Munro (1997) and Kaitala and Lindroos (1998) address the related question of the management of straddling fish stocks subject to multinational harvest in the high seas. 4 The littoral zone, a sloped area close to land; the photic or open-water zone, where sunlight is abundant; and the deepwater profundal or benthic zone, where little or no sunlight can reach.

109

In the second example, the harvesting activities of one State, sharing a fishery resource, do impinge upon the harvesting opportunities of the other State(s) sharing the resource. In other words, for sustainable and responsible fisheries management then co-operation must take place.

1.4.

Levels of co-operation in resource management and conservation

Gulland (1980) also presents 2 levels of co-operation. The first primary level consists of co-operation in research alone, without reference to co-ordinated management programmes. Since all parties should stand to benefit from improved information and data, this level of co-operation should be relatively easy to achieve. And this is usually the precursor for the secondary level of co-operation of active management. Active management involves the establishment of co-ordinated joint management programmes. This requires:   

allocation of harvest share amongst the participating States (or lake organisations); determination of an optimal management strategy, including the optimal lake harvests over time; implementation and enforcement of co-ordinated management agreements.

This will require: • • • • •

a co-operation management authority; a detailed joint management plan; a set of common objectives; agreed tools for managers, including indicators and reference points to monitor performance; a joint scientific body to provide advice.

The detailed joint management plan should be expected, at a minimum, to contain: (i) a description of the fishery, (ii) objectives of management, (iii) measures to achieve the objectives, (iv) indicators and reference points to be used to measure actual performance against objectives, (v) decision rules on how to change management when the objectives are not being reached, and (vi) information needs and research required to support management. Obviously, establishing co-operation at the secondary level is a much more formidable undertaking than just establishing co-operation at the primary level. Besides the expense and administrative complexities involved, numerous other problems and difficulties emerge. For example, even co-operation in research may lose its benign character. Research findings can influence harvest allocations, and thus can easily become tools of conflict in negotiations between and amongst the relevant States. In addition, whilst the discussions may concentrate upon single transboundary stocks, the reality in many if not most cases is likely to be far less simple. Certainly ecosystems may be shared in which there are interrelated transboundary stocks but these are complex and intricate (e.g. through predator-prey relationships). Next, for optimal management there is no assurance that the States will have identical resource management goals. For example, one State might favour lower long term TACs and the other higher TACs. Mutually acceptable compromises on resource management programme must be sought. Thus, establishing co-operative conservation and management at the secondary level can prove to be frustrating and costly. The anticipated cost might appear not only in economic terms, but also in the form 110

of perceived loss of sovereignty. If the net economic and political benefits from co-operative management appear not to be substantial, then States may conclude not to proceed.

1.5.

Different models for transboundary resource management and conservation

1.5.1. Non-cooperation models Whilst boundaries may define areas of exclusive access they do not necessarily improve working relationships particularly in situations where one State has considerably more access and control over the resources than the other. Inequities in resource sharing then exist. Non-cooperation in the stochastic transboundary fishery model is when each State decides their own harvest rates and allocation without considering its effect upon the other State(s). There are no negotiations or understandings between the parties and each maximises their expected revenues taking the other fleets’ escapements. At first sight this model is limited. Except in unusual circumstances, from society’s point of view there is mismanagement of the resources. The outcome will be similar to that encountered in an unrestricted open access domestic fishery, the so-called Bionomic Equilibrium (Gordon, 1954). This is characterised as a benchmark of undesirability in fisheries management. The overall outcome is that each State is driven to adopt strategies which each recognises as being undesirable. In a two State model non-cooperation is simple. One State can only guess at what the other fleet is doing. They can still manage their own fisheries using ‘good practices’ and this could still be sustainable. In a three State model, where two States agree to co-operate and the third not, then management can become very complicated. The overall conclusions from these models are that even when each State has full control of the harvest and escapement in their part of the ecosystem that the entire stock occupies, the non-cooperative escapement levels will be suboptimal. The implication of the analysis is straightforward. Even if States sharing a resource have the capability of effectively managing fishery resources within their domestic waters, one has no justification in assuming that, in the absence of co-operation, the resource management outcome will be ‘adequate’. The risk also exists that the outcome will be disastrous. Other than in exceptional cases, co-operation does matter. Moreover, co-operation is not to be seen merely as a useful supplement to resource management by individual states. Rather, it is to be seen as a fundamental prerequisite for effective resource management. 1.5.2. Ecosystem–based management Considerable effort has been directed in the last decade towards the development of an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management using the precautionary principles. One aspect of this is the development of models that take into account direct and indirect ecological interactions among species and their environment including analyses of fish habitats, ecosystem resilience, pollution impacts and critical food web connections. The aim is to implement an approach that is integrated and multidisciplinary. The expected results can be listed as follows: 





maintaining productivity: to ensure that the activity does not cause an unacceptable reduction in productivity (from primary production) so that it can play its historical role in the functioning of the ecosystem; preserving biodiversity: to ensure that the activity does not cause an unacceptable reduction in biodiversity by maintaining enough components (biotopes, lake morphology, species and populations) to preserve the structure and natural resilience of the ecosystem; protecting habitat(s): to ensure that the activity does not cause an unacceptable modification to the habitat that could be difficult or impossible to reverse in order to safeguard both the physical and chemical properties of the ecosystem. 111

The United Nations Fish Agreement (UNFA 1995) is targeted for the high seas fisheries but nevertheless it can easily be adopted to be the legal basis for lacustrine transboundary conditions. Like the EU CFP, it provides a framework for the management and conservation of straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks in areas regulated by regional fisheries organisations. Moreover, it gives obligations for using the ecosystem approach by minimising pollution, waste and discards of fish. It also reiterates obligations of States to control the fishing activities of their vessels. The most innovative aspect of the Agreement is the right of States to monitor and inspect vessels of other States and to verify compliance with the internationally (or regionally) agreed fishing rules. UNFA also provides a compulsory and binding dispute settlement mechanism to resolve conflicts in a peaceful manner. More proposals for such an Agreement and its possible use in the Lake Prespa situation is given in Section 2.2. 1.5.3. Co-operation models A co-operative management model for a shared fishery resource is considered as a theory of bargaining. There are several models which have been put forward with different objectives such as : 



  

each State is motivated by self-interest alone: in other words if they agree to co-operate, it is because each is convinced that they can gain more from co-operation than they could by engaging in competitive behaviour; each State is motivated by environmental considerations which are also transboundary: with fisheries being only of secondary importance e.g. when the water is being abstracted for drinking water or irrigation purposes; each State is motivated mostly by socio-economic reasons: this is usually where the development of lake areas is considered more important than the fisheries e.g. in tourist dominated locations; a cartel, where each State receives a TAC allocation and proceeds to harvest that allocation to the best of their ability; a monopoly 5, where the lowest cost State does all the harvesting and determines the resource management policy. They then compensate the other State(s) through payments.

Advanced mathematical models 6 also exist for a combination of those given above. In co-operative agreements, numbers are important. When more than two States are involved, there may be possibilities for the formation of sub-coalitions amongst the parties and then it is more difficult to achieve a stable and mutually supporting organisation. However, no matter which combination of objectives are sought, the key management element is to ensure that the agreements are effectively enforced. This is an issue of compliance. If communication between the parties to the agreement is good, but each lacks the assurance that the others will not cheat, the cooperative arrangement will not hold. For this reason the great majority of co-operative arrangements concerning transboundary stocks take the form of treaties (Owen, 2001). Treaties are legally binding on the contracting parties. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the treaty will be dependent upon the political will of the contracting parties. A closely related issue is whether participants in the co-operative resource management arrangement are protected against IUU fishing practices. If IUU is rampant, the co-operative arrangement will have great difficulty in surviving. The agreement must thus include measures to prevent and deter poachers, often referred to as ‘interloper issues’.

5

As one would anticipate, the global economic returns from the fishery in the monopoly are greater than they are in the cartel. Moving from a cartel to a monopoly exploitation and management of the resource should make each State better off in economic terms (Bjørndal, 2003). 6 They are often analysed under ‘game theory’ and with different ‘players’: which is more an indication of the similarity of the mathematical models to card games rather than the frivolous nature of the authors.

112

It should also be noted that there is no reason why States which share a fishery resource, should have the same management goals. If they have identical management goals then the theory tells us that over time, the States will attempt to institute a resource management programme which will maximise the economic returns from the fishery. They will then bargain over the division of the returns. If management goals differ, then the added problem has to be faced of developing a compromise resource management programme. 1.6.

Administration and organisational structures

1.6.1. Administration models Besides the legal framework for agreements between States, a co-operative fisheries management arrangement cannot survive without a sound administrative structure. However, there is no single model that ‘fits all’. Several different types or approaches have been implemented over the years depending upon circumstances and budget. Formal co-operative resource management bodies come at a cost, both in financial terms and a possible lessening of State sovereignty. In some cases, these costs can be avoided, or at least mitigated, through the use of informal structures. In other instances, only formal and legally binding agreements will suffice. Churchill and Rowe (1988) identify four categories of administrative structures namely:  

 

a set of agreements taking the form of a periodic (usually annual) arrangement negotiated under a pre-existing framework treaty (e.g. Norway and the EU Fisheries Agreement, 1980); a set of arrangements, whereby a bilateral commission is set up for the specific purposes of management of transboundary stocks (e.g. Pacific Salmon Treaty shared by Canada and the United States, 1985); regional fisheries management organisations, normally associated with straddling and highly migratory stocks(e.g. International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission, 1973); general co-operation agreements for the management of transboundary stocks on an ad hoc basis, but with the likelihood of the management measures being adopted continuing to be uncertain (e.g. Convention on Fisheries Co-operation Among the States Bordering the Atlantic Ocean, 1991).

In addition, the transboundary water resources are sometimes delegated to a regional commission and the more relevant in the European context are as follows:

• • • • • • • • • • •

Border River Commission between Finland and Sweden (Finland, Sweden); Finnish Norwegian Transboundary Water Commission (Finland, Norway); Guadiana River Commission (Spain, Portugal) (Spanish); International Commission for the Protection of Lake Geneva (France, Switzerland); International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine); International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe (Germany, Czech Republic); International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland); International Meuse Commission (Belgium, France) (French, Dutch, German); International Sava River Basin Commission (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Yugoslavia); Moselle Commission (France, Germany, Luxembourg) (French, German); Peipsi Center for Transboundary Co-operation (Estonia, Russia).

Perhaps the most well known freshwater administration is the International Commission for the Protection of Lake Constance. This is between Austria, Germany and Switzerland, with the Principality of Liechtenstein 113

also located in the lake basin region. Because it is considered a model for transboundary management more details of its administrative and organisation structure are given below. Lake Constance is a curiosity under international law. Clearly defined national frontiers between Switzerland and Germany exist in the Lower lake. In the Upper lake, only the shallow water area from the shoreline to 25m water depth is national territory of the bordering countries. The major part of the Upper Lake is considered as common property, a so-called ‘condominium’. The Commission was originally founded in 1959 with the main aim of preserving the lake ecosystem from further degradation. The key responsibilities are to monitor the lake, confirm the causes of its pollution, make recommendations for coordinated preventive measures and to discuss the future planned uses of the lake. In 1960 came an Agreement on the Protection of Lake Constance from Pollution which was signed into law in November 1961. The Commission meets at least once a year and is composed of delegates from member governments and a limited number of government officials As an advisory agency, it cannot decide on rules and actions connected with environmental protection and only gives recommendations to members. However, by agreement the regional governments are obliged to transform these recommendations into national law. A technical and scientific board of experts serves as official consultants to the Commission and they elaborate the research programme. This board has three Working Groups for studying special problems concerning the ‘Lake’, ‘Catchment Area’ and ‘Accident Defence’. The working results are summarised and reported as annual investigation data for lake monitoring as well as case studies and special topics. The Commission external communication is organised through media information, regular publications, special reports, Working Group public relations, and a website. Stakeholders are involved according to their national legal responsibilities. Financing comes from the lakeside federal states and cantons and the budget is according to their size, population and share of lake shore. There is also EU inter-regional financing for special projects. This example of transboundary fisheries management, the lessons learnt and recommendations over many years, should be used as a model for Lake Prespa. 1.6.2. Organisational models Several studies3 also show how critical the organisational structure is for the efficient management of the fisheries resources. This is often supported by threat policies which highlight the cost/benefits of cooperation. As mentioned above, no one structure ‘fits all’ but the basic elements involve the establishment of a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) which includes representatives from the State Fisheries Management Organisations (SFMOs). This is supported by a Joint Steering Committee (JSC) to administer the overall transboundary fisheries management and Working Groups for day-to-day management and ad hoc reports. A general overview is presented below but it is only indicative. Although States may decide upon any suitable structure, it should nevertheless include the following main components:

114

TRANSBOUNDARY FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

Regional Fisheries Management Orgainsation (RFMO)

State Fisheries Management Organisations (SFMOs)

Joint Steering Committee (JSC) Lake Working Groups

Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) The main objective of a RFMO is the management of a resource for a State, or group of States, that have expressed an interest in the sustainable and responsible harvesting of fisheries resources. This implies firm scientific knowledge and agreed harvest allocations based upon the MSY and MEY for each species. In practice, a RFMO sets rules and regulations that are acceptable to the stakeholders of each State. These are often established after intense discussions between the States. This can include rules on (i) inter-annual TAC flexibility, (ii) quota exchange (e.g. one species for another) and quota transfers, (iii) catch reporting, (iv) refusal of landings, (v) logbook format and reporting standards, (vi) prohibitions on certain types of fishery (protected areas, closed seasons, end-use of fish, (vii) prohibitions on certain species or sizes of fish on board; (viii) vessel markings/registration and gear to be used, (ix) permissible by-catch, (x) discards. Cooperation agreements will also include long term strategies e.g. avoiding IUU fishing activities, running joint inspection and observer schemes. The RFMO operations are also transparent and the proceedings and decision-making open to public access. This can be either through local media or web-based. These will also disseminate information about the present list of fishers, licensed vessels and TACs for each species. State Fisheries Management Organisations (SFMOs) The SFMO is usually comprised of all those who are actively involved in the management and exploitation of their territorial waters. Indeed, often it is an obligation of a fishing licence to join the SFMO and sometimes the State provides incentives such as fuel and marketing subsidies to encourage membership. They are often assisted externally by national scientific bodies for advice upon fishing methods and technologies. In addition, the SFMO is the co-ordination link between the local fishing community and the State inspectorate, police, and the courts to enforce the regulations. They also provide surveillance duties and ensure that the catch statistics are handed to the central authorities on a timely basis. The management and operations depend heavily upon local management skills and funding sources. According to Munro (2000), there are two main problems causing doubt about the effectiveness of SFMOs. First, there is the so-called interloper problem. It concerns the difficulty of controlling harvesting by nonmembers and individual vessels which seek targets-of-opportunity, and fish wherever they can, but with little interest in the long term conservation of the stocks. 115

Second, the so-called new member problem. There are inherent difficulties in negotiating mutually acceptable terms for new entrants to the SFMO. Indeed, the interests of current members and of the applicants are often strongly opposed because the current members face the likelihood of having to give up a portion of their present quotas to the newcomer. The applicant may believe that they are better off by staying outside of the organisation and continuing to harvest as an interloper. Both problems arise as major issues when trying to find a resolution for a just and reasonable share of the TAC under the SFMO. Kaitala and Munro (1997) argue that the resolution of the new member problem may call for the creation of de facto property rights of the SFMO members. This raises the question of whether a new member should be required to buy their way in through the purchase of quota shares. The quotas would take the form of individual transferable quota (Munro, 2000). Thus, the present SFMO members should become the sole beneficiaries of the fisheries resource. Moreover, a potential new entrant could only access the fish stock by buying the fishing rights and quota of an incumbent fleet. However, it is not evident that such a system based on assumptions of economic efficiency and resource sustainability is viable. It would vest substantial interests with the incumbent fleets which is likely to be strongly opposed by any potential entrant. Joint Steering Committee (JSC) The management arm of the RFMO is the JSC (or equivalent body). This is usually comprised of representatives from the RFMO and SFMO and includes scientific and industry representatives, key fishers and NGOs from each country. The main function of the JSC is to ensure all parties are keeping to the agreement(s). It will advise the RFMO on the status of the resources and likely consequences of policy choices. It will also prepare timetables for future meetings and agree the agenda for these meetings. Its key tasks will include responsibilities for the following:      

ensure consistency in approach across Working Groups (see below); provide multi-disciplinary feedback to Working Groups on reports and proposed recommendations; provide analyses and submit recommendations to parties involved in transboundary fisheries management; recommend dispute resolution processes to Working Groups and to the JSC; provide record-keeping, archival, co-ordination and general secretariat services to the Working Groups; maintaining a transboundary web-site for public access.

The JSC should meet at regular to achieve consensus on issues such as stock assessments, TAC allocations, State quotas (i.e. distribution), or changes to the governance structure such as the introduction of new Working Groups. This consensus is presented in the form of recommendations or guidance to national bodies such as the relevant national Ministries responsible for fisheries. Upon ratification, normal domestic implementation schedules are followed. Alternatively, if recommendations are rejected bilateral forum(s) will reconvene to resolve outstanding issues. Conflict avoidance and resolution are thus embedded in the governance framework and to this extent this governance arrangement complies with, and indeed supports, the dispute resolution principles expounded in UNFA. In cases where differences remain irreconcilable it may be necessary to revert to the relevant national legislation. Working Groups Taking the example of Lake Constance, the implementation of such a wide-ranging and integrated management objective such as transboundary fisheries is best co-ordinated through various Working Groups specifically set-up for this purpose. Although this can be more time-consuming, experience from other countries and regions show it is time well spent. The Working Groups should focus upon the immediate practical issues of implementation and enforcement applying international and national codes of practice. 116

These Working Groups will discuss, agree and implement different aspects of the transboundary agreement. Also, they are an important tool to detect and correct any misunderstanding. Obviously access to funding will determine the composition of the various Working Groups and the number of participants. Reporting to the JSC, their key functions include:            

overall management of the fisheries activities in their territorial waters; management of environmental impacts upon the lake; management of public relations and dissemination of information to the stakeholders, either generally at State level or to individual groups or persons; maintaining the national web-site; and providing information and data for the transboundary website; tourism and recreation development; general lake development (shoreline construction); catchment area/basin controls (including agriculture); water abstraction regulations (drinking and irrigation); services and industry (construction, pollution monitoring and control); energy production (wind and solar power installations); accident and contingency planning, mitigation of pollution threats; access to scientific and biological data and advice for research activities.

It can be seen that the ecological, social and economic development of the lake will be dependent upon the efficient and smooth operations of these Working Groups. Such Working Groups for Lake Prespa are recommended in Section 2.2. 1.7.

Institutional aspects of transboundary fisheries management

The key institutional aspects are accountability, transparency, adaptability, flexibility and efficiency. Each topic is discussed below. 1.7.1. Accountability and transparency The governance structure inspires confidence and credibility because it institutes both accountability and transparency. Working Groups operate on agreed rules and methodologies that are based on science. Peer review by the JSC is inherent in the recommendations. Working Group membership features appropriate government as well as industry representation. As such crucial stakeholder buy-in and compliance issues are minimized. Viewpoints are expressed in an environment characterised by process and criteria. Information is disseminated through the media and web-based public access. Observers can determine how and why recommendations have been made as well as examine the data and metadata. 1.7.2. Adaptability, flexibility and efficiency The evolution of the administrative and organisational structures is its adaptability. As mentioned above, transboundary fisheries management is a dynamic process. New Working Groups that can rely upon scientific expertise for dealing with endangered species, habitats and environmental pressures. Critical to the effectiveness of this regime is domestic implementation in each country. This approach ensures that each State has all the flexibility afforded to it by its respective set of regulatory and legislative controls. The system is also efficient in that it allows States to achieve economies of scale such as in research surveys. It allows for timely decision-making that is not unduly encumbered by protocol normally featured in more formal structures such as treaties, MoUs and with RFMOs. Working Groups can freely and expeditiously draw from the expertise of industry and government officials from each State. The structure produces timely results in an environment where complexity can be managed effectively. Furthermore, the approach provides for a level of integration not previously considered to be realistic – 117

without compromising domestic jurisdiction. Maintaining domestic implementation helps to minimise bureaucratic complications that might otherwise occur. In addition, inter-sectoral conflicts can be avoided because stakeholders, including government and industry, have a vehicle through which they can hear and be heard. The rigour of science and resource management processes is assured. 1.8.

Other important issues for transboundary fisheries management

1.8.1. The establishment of MCS measures Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) is an integral and essential component of any fisheries management regime. At the transboundary level it is even more important to assure each partner that the agreements are being complied with. The goal of MCS, is to maximise the economic opportunities and benefits from the State fisheries zone within sustainable harvesting limits. It involves the following components: monitoring: includes the collection, measurement and analysis of fishing activity such as: catch, species composition, fishing effort, by-catch, discards, area of operations. This information is primary data that fisheries managers use to arrive at management decisions. If this information is unavailable, inaccurate or incomplete, then managers will be limited in developing and implementing management measures; control: involves the specification of the terms and conditions under which resources can be harvested. These specifications are normally contained in national fisheries legislation and other arrangements that might be nationally, sub-regionally, or regionally agreed. The legislation provides the basis for which fisheries management arrangements, via MCS, are implemented. For maximum effect, framework legislation should clearly state the management measures being implemented and define the requirements and prohibitions that will be enforced; surveillance: involves the regulation and supervision of fishing activity to ensure that national legislation and terms, conditions of access, and management measures are observed. This activity ensures that resources are not over exploited, poaching is minimised and management arrangements are implemented. The enforcement of the control legislation is carried out by State Fisheries Inspectors. However, the costs in administration and operations are often limited due to limited allocations of the public budget. For this reason, the optimal enforcement is through SFMO self-enforcement and voluntary controls to protect the local and regional fisheries resources and prevent IUU fishing activities. 1.8.2. Protected Areas The simplest way to diversify the management of a given fishery resource is to exploit part of the resource whilst protecting the remainder. Protected and no fishing areas should become an integral component in the management of all fisheries management. The actual design and implementation of protected areas would depend on what is known about the biological characteristics of each particular species or species complex. The key components area: 1) The area included should be large enough to protect the resource in the event of over fishing in the unprotected area. Several mathematical models suggest that reserves need to include up to 50% of the original population in order to hedge successfully against overfishing. 2) The area should serve as a source capable of replenishing the exploited stock in the event of its depletion. In particular, reserves should protect spawning grounds and other areas critical to the viability of the population. 3) The areas should be rigorously and completely protected. Typically, areas will contain greater concentrations of fish than exploited areas, making them prime targets for IUU fishing. As in terrestrial reserves, poaching must be treated as a criminal activity.

118

It could be argued that in a lacustrine environment, the protected area should be large enough to maintain the bio-diversity of the original stock, or target species because re-stocking from hatcheries will mitigate over exploitation by fishing. Recommendations for the establishment of protected areas are given in the Lake Prespa Management Plan (Section 2.2.). 1.8.3. Aquaculture and re-stocking Unlike the situation where over-fishing can seriously deplete the target species rendering further fishing activities uneconomic (with the related socio-economic impacts for the local communities) the ecosystembased management allows for re-stocking. This was, and is a key activity for both the Macedonian and Albanian authorities. Allowing for some mitigation measures related to loss of biodiversity, nevertheless this needs to be promoted for Lake Prespa in the future. The science for growing and re-stocking the key species is already well developed. Economic viability and cost recovery mechanisms need to be studied and introduced to make the process sustainable. This could be combined with value-added processing so an integrated fisheries management plan can be introduced with aquaculture and marketing to promote employment, income generation and rural development for the whole area. 1.8.4. Compensation Compensation (also referred to as side payments) can be in the form of either monetary or non-monetary transfers. A non-monetary transfer may extend beyond the fishery itself, e.g. trade concession on products other than fish. The importance of compensation has become increasingly recognised over the past few years especially for mitigating some of the difficulties arising from States having differing resource management goals. Munro (1987) argued that, when there are differences in management goals, it is invariably the case that one State places a higher value on the fishery than the other(s). It might, for example, be that one State has lower harvesting costs than the other, or it may be that a State discounts the future economic returns from the resource less heavily. In any case, it is considered by many economists that when compensation is possible, then the optimal policy is one in which the management preferences of the State placing the highest value on the resource should be given the priority. That State should then proceed to compensate the other(s). 1.8.5. Stability Although this is an obvious prerequisite for transboundary fisheries management it is often overlooked. There are many inter-related factors involved. The key requirement for stable co-operation is when the States involved are certain they will be disadvantaged (either economically of otherwise) should either party make changes to the agreement. If one State benefitted from making changes then they would, and this will encourage the others to do the same. The next requirement for a stable solution has equal appeal to common sense and is sometimes referred to as satisfying the Individual Rationality Constraint. This is when an agreement is not stable unless the benefits are at least equivalent to those they would receive under conditions of non-cooperation. If the cooperation arrangement is such that the State finds its economic returns from the fishery are less than expected under non-cooperation, the State will be unwilling to co-operate. All participants (from State authority to fisher level) must fully comply with the provisions of the arrangement. In practice, of course, there is no justification for assuming that compliance will emerge on its own so there must also be effective implementation and enforcement measures. These will include: 

maintenance of a register for vessels authorised to fish the stock;

119



   

monitoring fishing activities (including, as appropriate, ready access to records relating to the authorisation to fish, the amount and species of quota, the area of operation, trip duration, fishing logs; the State authorities carrying out regular inspections of vessels, catch on board and catch landed; reciprocal monitoring and surveillance schemes by each State with the option to board, inspect, arrest and bringing into port/landing place any interlopers; observer programme(s) for scientific and enforcement purposes; as appropriate, joint education and awareness raising programmes addressed to all fishers, where institutional differences (e.g. capacity, means of control) may exist.

Bearing in mind that fisheries is dynamic and always changing, the co-operation arrangement must be able to withstand the shocks of unanticipated changes arising for example from environmental, economic, political and other factors. These will impact upon the agreed management objectives such as changes in the distribution, abundance and/or migration patterns of the target species. The planning should thus incorporate a review schedule, so that they can be evaluated and updated, as required. Research and monitoring of the changing natural, social, economic and political conditions should underpin the plans, so that adjustments in harvesting activities and management measures can be made. One important element will be the on-going co-operative scientific efforts to better understand the linkages between the changing bio-physical conditions and stock dynamics with the geographic distribution of the target species. In addition, changes in the relevant social, economic and political conditions should be routinely tracked and openly communicated between the co-operating parties.

120

CHAPTER 2 – Proposals These proposals are intended as 1st stage discussion topics for the transboundary fisheries management of Lake Prespa. Most references are to the existing successful freshwater fisheries management agreements mentioned in the previous Chapter. In some cases these have been in operation for several years so lessons learnt and recommendations have been adapted to fit the Lake Prespa situation. Further proposals will be made at a later stage of the project development.

2.

LAKE PRESPA TRANSBOUNDARY FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PLAN

2.1.

The main elements of the Management Plan

The Prespa watershed includes two inter-linked lakes, the Micro Prespa (47.4 km2) and Macro Prespa (285.4 km2). Micro Prespa is almost entirely situated in Greek territory, apart from a smaller area that belongs to Albania. The largest area of Macro Prespa belongs to Macedonia, while Albania and Greece have approximately 40km2 each. The proposed Management Plan is thus designed for the co-operation between the three States of Macedonia, Albania and Greece. It is presented in four phases namely (i) identification of priorities, (ii) implementation, (iii) monitoring and evaluation, (iv) updating and revision. Each phase is presented below. 2.2.

Identification of priorities

The aim of the present project is the integrated ecosystem management of the Lake Prespa Basin. Establishing a common transboundary fish and fisheries management system is clearly one of the key objectives. The primary purpose will be to provide the grounds for harmonisation of the different national fish and fisheries management practices by fully respecting the existing relevant national legislation. Such an effort, supplemented by a transboundary information system, would create the prerequisites for integrated fish and fisheries management in the region. In addition, the process is expected to contribute to the compliance efforts with the relevant EU acquis. It is also recognised that the present fish and fisheries management situation in the Lake Prespa Basin is complicated. Macro Prespa is by far the more important economically and a greater part is controlled by Macedonia. The State thus has little economic incentive to co-operate with its neighbours and it can be said the main drive is from a genuine acknowledgment and wish to improve the current situation. Albania has, and is showing considerable flexibility in joint co-operation management projects, also with a genuine wish to promote co-operation. However, Greece, the third State appears to have other priorities than fish and fisheries. They control the greater part of Micro Prespa and although the main pressures are coming from local NGOs as opposed to the State authorities, they are plans to protect their area by banning fisheries exploitation. Each and every point of view must be carefully examined in the light of the data available. The aim is to encourage co-operation through the promotion of mutually beneficial incentives and to mitigate the risks of non-cooperation by showing this is a less attractive option for the States concerned.

121

Based upon the different models presented in Chapter 1., the priorities needed to implement the Management Plan and the lead agencies involved are summarised in the Table below. They form the core of the Management Plan, together with an action timetable for strengthening transboundary fisheries management. The Management Plan is organised into 4 key, mid-term objectives (i) a programme and supporting actions to strengthen the administrative structures, (ii) a programme to strengthen the organisational structures, (iii) actions supporting the operational activities, (iv) enhancing information and public awareness. Priorities Objective 1: Strengthening the Administrative Structures Development of transboundary fisheries management Agreement harmonised with international and national legislation Development of joint Fish and Fisheries Management Plans Development of joint Lake Basin Development Plans Agreeing common fish and fisheries development objectives (common goals) Development and harmonisation of joint aquaculture programmes for re-stocking purposes Design and implementation of joint economic instruments (e.g. international donors) Development of State economic instruments (e.g. Eco-Fund) Designation of protected areas Classifying and managing land use capacity Objective 2: Strengthening the Organisational Structures Supporting co-operation agreements between SFMOs Establishment of the RFMO and the JSC Establishment of joint Working Groups (Lake, Catchment Area, Contingency Planning) Identification and support to NGOs and civil groups Identification and establishment of research sharing programmes Objective 3: Supporting the Operational Activities Development of MCS Plan and MCS Field Guide Development and implementation joint enforcement mechanisms Training of Fisheries Inspectors Establishment of joint inspection teams Developing small-scale electronic VMS Training of fishers and fishing community (good practices) Supporting self-enforcement and local involvement in decisionmaking Objective 4: Enhancing Information and Awareness Establishment of tri-lateral fishing database (electronic) Establishment and development of joint media and public access systems Organising research-based multi-disciplinary approach for data collection Allocation of TAC, species by species and for the overall Lake Basin Management of environmental and fisheries data Public awareness and involvement in decision-making Environmental education and training Note: ST = short –term (1-2 years) MT = medium – term (3-5 years)

Lead Organisation

Period

MAFWE, MEFWA, MRDF, HBIM

ST

MAFWE, MEFWA, MRDF, HBIM MAFWE, MEFWA, MRDF, HBIM MAFWE, MEFWA, MRDF, HBIM

ST MT ST


MT

Donor agencies (e.g., GEF, EU)

ST

MAFWE, MEFWA, MRDF, HBIM HBIM, MEFWA, MRDF MEPP, MEFWA, Cadastre

ST MT MT

MAFWE, MEFWA, MRDF, HBIM MAFWE, MEFWA, MRDF, HBIM MAFWE, MEFWA, MRDF, HBIM

ST ST ST-MT

HBIM, MEFWA, MRDF, NGOs HBIM, MEFWA, MRDF HBIM, MEFWA, MRDF, SFMOs HBIM, MEFWA, MRDF, RFMO MAFWE, MEFWA, MRDF HBIM, RFMO MAFWE, MEFWA, MRDF, HBIM SFMOs, RFMO SFMOs, RFMO

ST ST ST ST ST-MT MT MT ST ST

HBIM, RFMO RFMO

ST MT


ST

RFMO HBIM, RFMO HBIM, RFMO HBIM, RFMO

MT MT ST ST

Objective 1. Strengthening the Administrative Structures 122

The highest priority set of actions is to make the existing structures more effective. Reform begins with a proposed programme of urgent low and no-cost actions that should be taken. This will be supported by (i) developing the transboundary Agreement based upon international and national legislation to improve the legal framework, (ii) the development of joint plans for overall management of the resources and Lake Basin with common goals and establishment of protected areas, (iii) to integrate economic instruments into the planning so that the cost/benefit analyses for co-operation is viewed as being significantly advantageous for all the States involved. Objective 2. Strengthening the Organisational Structures This will include (i) supporting the already existing SFMOs and promoting active co-operation agreements between them, (ii) establishing the RFMO, JSC and Working Groups to make them effective. The involvement of NGOs and other civil groups in fisheries management will also be promoted. Key to the Working Group activities is the Identification and establishment of research sharing programmes. Objective 3. Supporting the Operational Activities Taking the measures already being supported by the EU projects in Albania, the aim is to further develop the MCS measures as a basis for transboundary co-operation. This will include (i) training of each State Fisheries Inspectorate (with joint inspection teams) and stakeholders in the proposed transboundary Agreement and in good practices, (ii) supporting self-enforcement by stakeholders and local involvement in decision-making for resource protection. Objective 4. Enhancing Information and Awareness The Management Plan participatory process supports (i) establishing a tri-lateral fishing database (electronic) which can be readily accessed by the public and other interested parties, (ii) the development and efficient operation of a reliable, updatable information system, including the management of data for improving analysis, decision-making and public awareness, (iii) implementing public awareness programmes for building responsibility amongst stakeholder groups with environmental education and training conducted through both formal and non-formal channels. Better environmental information and a better-educated public could help address the key problem areas by broadening government and public perception about the risks and costs of a degraded Lake environment. This will also help the States to more efficiently focus resources on priority problems. In addition, by increasing public involvement, there will be more pressure on the decision-makers to tackle the key issues facing the transboundary management issues. These four objectives and related priorities will be further developed by the project Working Groups. 2.3.

Implementation

The Management Plan is intended to be implemented over a 5 year period from 2012-2016. For this reason only short-term (i.e. 1-2 years) and medium-term priorities (3-5 years) have been selected. This refers to the starting time frame and not the overall period for completion of the project proposals. Additional measures will be identified during the second half of the project period and based upon the results of the monitoring and evaluation phase. 2.4.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

M&E should be based upon a set of indicators prepared by the RFMO with assistance from scientific institutes in Macedonia, (HBIM), Albania (MEFWA) and MRDF (Greece). They will report whether the objectives and priorities are being achieved based upon the following measurements:  

Reduction and prevention of pollution; Improved access to fisheries infrastructure and services; 123

  

The sustainable use of resources by stakeholders; The promotion of sustainable and responsible practices e.g. incorporated in into the transboundary policies, programmes and projects that sustain the environment and resources; Reduction and minimisation of vulnerability to accidents and hazards through contingency indicators.

These indicators must be regularly analysed if they are to be effective tools for monitoring the implementation of the Management Plan. Other important sources of monitoring information will include:  

mid and end-of-project reviews for transboundary fisheries management related programmes and investments; periodic and regular Management Plan performance reviews (e.g. every 12 months) to assess its relevance and effectiveness.

To enhance information dissemination and public awareness, regular publication and distribution of the indicators should be carried out. Also, the RFMO and reports prepared by the Working Groups should include these analyses. Moreover, the dedicated web-site should report the results for public access. Indeed, dissemination of monitoring information is part of public feedback and a useful resource to improve the performance in implementing the Management Plan. Regular and formal evaluation should then take place by the RFMO. In addition, activities for environmental and fisheries protection and management require wide participation, consensus and democratic mechanisms. 2.5.

Updating and revision

Stakeholder participation in updating and revising the Management Plan should be included in the transboundary fisheries management Agreement. If the key objectives are not being met, or one State may feel that the process of co-operation is not meeting the desired results, then it is important to assess why and to jointly develop the mitigating measures.

2.6.. Financing the Management Plan The Management Plan will depend upon the following funding sources: • Governmental resources - revenues from central government, local government resources, charges on publicly-provided services, other fees from licences and taxes; • Private sector support - e.g. financing by industry for their fisheries expenditures, and public-private partnerships to finance improved infrastructure and services; • International financing - credits and grants from bi-lateral donors and international NGOs, and grants and loans from international development agencies. No matter how difficult the decision-making will be, there is no getting away from the fact that the critical problem areas for the Lake Prespa Basin will have costs, especially for setting up the administrative and organisational structures, regular joint meetings, research-based activities and public dissemination of information. Such funds are limiting for any State. However, it should be remembered that these are important investments and must be made at some stage, if he States are to develop the transboundary fisheries management objectives and to meet the EU Regulations and international environmental standards. 124

Furthermore, the costs and cost recovery mechanisms should be fully explored. Account should be taken of the willingness to pay (WTP) and ability to pay (ATP) criteria. Stakeholders will benefit and regional development will be assisted and promoted. Land process should increase. In addition, it is the rate of return upon investment that is the key issue. With proper management (by the RFMO), efficient cost recovery mechanisms in place (polluter pays principle, licence fees, tourism development ) all lake communities and industry should contribute to the cost of the fisheries (and environmental) services being provided. This will also be supported by other economic instruments and the establishment of the EcoFund is seen as one of the priority actions for each State. This will be important for sustainable financing in the future and can also be a kick-start for attracting new investments in an enriched, better managed and cleaner lake ecosystem.

125

FISHERY, QUOTAS, PROTECTION, ECONOMY (in progress)

5.1. Quantitative and qualitative composition of fish population Nineteen species of fish are found in the Prespa lakes at the current time. Eleven of these are indigenous, while the remaining eight are alien species that have been introduced. (Five other alien species were recorded in the second half of the twentieth century but these are no longer found amongst the fish fauna of the lakes.) The most widely distributed species of fish in the Prespa lakes at the current time belong to the carp family (Cyprinidae). Other native species found are as follows: Salmonidae – trout (1); Cobitidae – loaches (1); Anguillidae - eels (1). Alien species introduced into the lakes include the following: Siluridae – wells (1); Poecilidae (1); Centrachidae – perches (1). The Prespa Lake, taking in consideration the composition of its fish population is typically cyprinid lake. Besides the presence of cyprinid fishes, the Lake contains exemplars of river trout Salmo peristericus, coming from the rivers Brajchinska and Leva. From the native fishes the family Cyprinidae includes 8+1 species: Rutilus prespensis - roach, Pelasgus prespensis – Prespa minnow, Squalius prespensis - chub, Phoxinus lumaireul - Eurasian common minnow, Chondrostoma prespense - Prespa nase, Barbus prespensis – Prespa barbell, Alburnus belvica - belvica (nivichka), Alburnoides prespensis – Prespa spirlin (shlunec) and Cyprinus carpio – carp (which anyway is introduced – alien species, but being present more than 2000 years, in the fishery practice it is accepted as native one). The family of loaches (Cobitidae) is presented by one species, the stone loach Cobitis meridionalis. The family Anguillidae is presented by one species, the European eel Anguilla anguilla (L.). As far as allochthonous (introduced species) are concerned, for more than 12 years we can notice the presence of the catfish Silurus glanis and there are some caught exemplars weighting up to 36 kilograms. fished.

The prucian carp, Carassius gibelio has been present for more than two decades and can also be

The sunfish Lepomis gibosus is present more than one decade and it is very common since it can be caught in all fishing nets. Also Pseudorasbora parva – stone moroko, Gambusia holbrooki – mosquito fish, Rhodeus amarus – bitterling and Tinca tinca – tench are present alien species in the Prespa fish fauna. Apart from the above mentioned aliens, during the past another 5 species were recorded as present for a certain period of time. These are: Salmo letnica – Lake Ohrid trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss - rainbow trout, Parabramis pekinensis – white Amur bream, Ctenopharingedon idella – grass carp and Hypophthalmichthys molitrix – silver carp. None of them, no longer is present. From the aspect of commercial fishery the Prespa fishes are of relatively low market valued species, compared to the neighboring Lake Ohrid, where the trout species are with much higher market prices. As in the case with other natural lakes, the Prespa Lake has also suffered from great changes regarding the fish ecology and especially regarding the spawning of the alburnus and the carp. In the past the alburnus was spawning near the coast of the Lake, nowadays the alburnus is spawning in the middle areas of the Lake. The carp is in similar situation, varying from year to year.

126

As far as economically more important fishes are concerned, the alburnus is dominant specie with 65% of the total ichtyomass, than the carps with 20%, pearl roach 6%, prucian carp with 5%, and 4% for the other fish species. The sunfish has not been taken in consideration Annual yield of the commercially most important fish species at Macro Prespa on the Macedonian part (MK) and Albanian part (AL) in kg per hectare

SPECIES Alburnus Carp roach Carassius Other TOTAL

kg/ha MK 14.3 4.4 1.32 1.1 0.88 22

AL 33.1 4.2 0.9 1.12 39.32

DEFINING MODELS OF PRESPA LAKES FISHING Macedonian part The commercial, recreational and sport fisheries are authorized in the fishing area of the Prespa Lakes. Commercial fishing At the Macedonian part of the fishing area Prespa Lake, commercial fishing is allowed with minimum 30 professional fishermen. According the amounts of allowable catch (yield), and regarding fast growth rate of the commercial fish species, with much higher reproductive rate than the slow growing fish, that from the annual fish production of 363 tons (for the Macedonian part) 70% of it can be used for fishing purposes. Or in total 254 tons of Total Allowable Catch Quota (TACQ). For organizing the commercial fishery, construction of three landing sites must be done i.e. one in the area of Pretor, second in the area of Asamati village and third one in the area of village Stenje. These landing sites must have conditions for first hand sale (fresh fish). The fishing will be performed in a period out of the bans for given species. Recreational fishing Recreational fishing is organized along the shoreline from shore and with anchored small boat on a distance not bigger than 200 m from the shore, which represents the recreational zone of this fishing area, with exceptions of the localities declared like natural spawning grounds. Sport fishing For sport fishing special treks are foreseen: at the village of Stenje, Otesevo and near the inlet from Golema River. The treks must be visibly marked. Aquaculture In the watershed of Prespa Lake aquaculture of alochtonous fish is forbidden.

127

MEASURES FOR PROTECTION AND SUSTAINING THE FISH Physical guarding of the fish According the terrain configuration around the Macedonian part of the Prespa Lake, at least 12 fish guardians (rangers) for the commercial and 2 for recreational fishing are needed. The work of this service should be according the defined “Plan for the fish protection” prepared by the concessionary (FMO’s) which is a part of the “Annual program for protection and usage of the fish” that is previously approved by an institution authorized for the issues of fish and fisheries. Monitoring of the water quality, fish monitoring The concessionary or the FMO’s both for commercial and recreational fishery should permanently care about the fish and report about eventually negative moments registered at the field. Visible changes in the water quality and habitats should also be reported. Apart from this permanent monitoring of the water quality and other biological parameters should be provided at several monitoring stations nearby the following localities: Konjsko, Stenje, Otesevo, the inlet of Golema River, Asamati, Krani and inlet of the Brajcinska River. The sampling should be done on a minimum seasonal base and more if necessary. The fish health should be according the regulations within the Veterinary medicine. Planning of selective and ameliorative fishing At present only ameliorative fishing of the “sunfish” (Lepomis gibosus) is foreseen. Also, as this fish appears as a “by catch” and the fishermen are mainly returning back in the lake (where it survives again 90%), measures for financial compensation for it if brought on the landing sites should be introduced. In that way the reduction of its population will have greater effect. Determining the allowable smallest catchable size per species The sizes are based according the first maturity of the species. Carp Chub Barbell Nase (undermouth) Roach Alburnus (belvica)

Cyprinus carpio Squalius prespensis Barbus prespensis Chondrostoma prespense Rutilus prespensis Alburnus belvica

35 cm 25 cm 20 cm 25 cm 15 cm 12 cm

The rest of the autochthonous (native) fish are not allowed for fishing, and for all alochthonous fishes there are no limits. In the Prespa Lake watershed fishing of the noble crayfish (Astacus) is banned. Determining the allowable smallest catchable size per species (Albania) Carp Chub Barbell Nase (undermouth) Roach Alburnus (belvica)

Cyprinus carpio Squalius prespensis Barbus prespensis Chondrostoma prespense Rutilus prespensis Alburnus belvica

30 cm 15 cm 25 cm 15 cm 12 cm 10 cm

128

Determining the spawning periods of the commercially most valued fishes per species The natural spawning periods per species quite often vary from year to year, and here wide ranges of period are proposed: SPECIES Time period Carp Chub Nase Barbell Belvica

Macedonian part from to 01 April 01 May 01 April 01 May 01 May

30 June 31 May 31 May 30 June 30 June

Albanian part from to 15 April 15 April 15 April 15 April 01 April

Greek part from to

15 May 15 May 15 June 15 June 31 July

Defining natural fish spawning grounds On the Macedonian part these are the followings: - the boundaries of the locality Ezerani along the shoreline and at distance of 1 km from the shore; - along the shore and distance of 1 km from the shore from the South end of the village Konjsko to the border with Albania, and - the area around the island Golem Grad in a belt of 50 m from its shore. lake.

The spawning grounds must be visually marked with signs on the shore and floating marks in the

In the period from 01 April till June 30 at Lake Prespa fishing and disturbing is forbidden in the areas where the fish are spawning around the reed belts and 1 km from the shore. Stocking of the lake At the Macedonian part of the lake within the next 6 years stocking of the lake with 1,5 million carp fingerlings is planned with weight from 5 – 10 g. This material has to be obtained from carp spawners from the Lake Prespa. TOTAL ALLOWABLE FISH CATCH QUOTAS

Annual TAFCQ for commercial fishing in kg SPECIES MACEDONIAN PART ALBANIAN PART Macro Prespa Macro P. Micro P. Carp 35.000 25.000 8.000 Chub 6.000 3.000 200 Nase 1000 1.000 200 Barbell 400 250 50 Roach 14.000 7.000 400 Belvica 170.000 200.000 2.500 TOTAL 226.400 236.250 11.350 All other alochtonous No limit 9.000 7.000 fish

GREEK PART Macro P. Micro P.

No limit

No limit

129

Annual TAFCQ for recreational fishing in kg MACEDONIAN PART ALBANIAN PART Macro Prespa Macro P. Micro P. Carp 5.000 1.000 200 Chub 3.000 50 50 Nase 200 Barbell 200 50 50 Roach 6.000 Belvica 18.000 500 200 TOTAL 31.400 1.600 300 All other alochtonous No limit No limit No limit fish SPECIES

GREEK PART Macro P. Micro P.

No limit

No limit

At the Macedonian par of Lake Prespa for the recreational fishing, the number of fishing days for the cyprinid fishes, apart from the carp, differs and is 9485 f.d. or number of daily fishing licenses with 4 kg of total daily catch per license. For the carp there are 1000 fishing days (or licenses) with total catch of 5 kg per license. Maximum allowed fishing gears and fishing equipment Commercial fishery At the Macedonian part fishing is allowed with standing and trawling nets as well line with hooks. Carp fishing is allowed with standing (gill nets) with length not longer than 50 m per net with height of 5 m and mesh size not less than 45 mm from knot to knot. For the rest of the fishes, gill nets with maximum length of 45 m and 3 m height and minimum mesh size of 16 mm. Trawling nets can be also used with maximum length (both wings) of 500 m, maximum height 3 m and minimum mesh size of the “bag” of 14 mm. Line with hooks can be used for wells fishing with maximum 50 hooks. For performing commercial fishery minimum required fishing equipment is 15 small boats with an outboard engines on each. Maximum allowed fishing gear per fisherman SPECIES MACEDONIAN PART ALBANIAN PART GREEK PART Macro Prespa Macro P. Micro P. Macro P. Micro P. Carp 15 10 5 Chub 15 10 5 Nase By catch By catch By catch Barbell By catch By catch By catch Roach 15 10 5 Belvica 20 25 10 Wells 1 line with 50 hooks Recreational fishery For all fishes two fishing rods with three hooks on each line of the rods, or three rods with one hook on each one.

130

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE FISHERY AT PRESPA LAKES At the Macedonian part of Prespa Lake, according the given allowable fishing quotas an annual amount of cca 270.000,00 EUR can be obtained as market sales. Here we had to add the indirect sale in the restaurants, housing, tourism etc. Hence, although it is artisan fishery it represents not a negligible part of the economy of this area. The price of the concession on Prespa Lake fishery within the next 6 years is 24.400,00 EUR on annual basis. From other hand, the presence of endemic fish species in the lake attracts other incomes and investments which globally are raising the role of the fish and fisheries in improvement the whole socioeconomic and ecosystem development on more significant level. Note: This section and the whole Management plan at present are in further progress of adjustment.

131


3. TRAINING MATERIAL

KEY HABITAT DESCRIPTION AND SPAWNING GROUNDS Due to the diverse constituents of Prespa Lakes basin, karstic (lime stone) massif from the western and granite massif from the eastern side, and according to different bathymetry, we can designate several main types of habitats. These are in close relation to the fish ecology, especially on their spawning and feeding ecology. But due to the severe oscillations in the water volume of the lakes, most of them are quite changed or altered. The most important feature which occurred as a result of the water volume shrinking was reducing of the previous upper littoral parts of the lakes, from one hand, whereas this parts became beaches. Consequently, appears change of the bottom surface ratio littoral-sublittoral-profundal. Namely, the profundal (the zone where no vegetation exists) was shrinking in favour to the littoral and sublittoral. Thus, the surface of the emerged and submerged vegetation (up to the depths of favourable light penetrates) increased, which from other point of view led to bigger macrophyte vegetation production. Also as the nutrient load from the watershed didn't decreased and the temperature increased in bigger parts of the lake water in summer, algae blooms appear more intensive in more places of the lakes. From other hand, the declined water temperature in winter in this areas, didn't allow full mineralization (decomposition) of the vegetation biomass. As a result of this processes, additional deposition appeared at the bottom, which afterwards in summer periods leads towards oxygen depletion (first time registered in 1989 - "Report on Lymnological investigations of the three great natural lakes in Macedonia" - Hydrobiological Institute Ohrid") Having in mind the spawning ecology of Lakes Prespa fishes, it was obvious that these changes will affect consequently.

Psi Hydrobiological Institute - Ohrid

132


Lakes Prespa watershed basin 3.3. Spawning grounds The indigenous fishes from Prespa Lakes, according the spawning substrate can be divided into four groups: a) b) c) d)

psamophylic - fine send substrate phytophilic - on macrophyte vegetation litophylic - on gravel and rocky substrate, and fluviatilic - spawning in the tributaries

Hence, the following types of spawning grounds can be designated: 3.2.1. Shallow send bottom with submerged vegetation This type is the most represented one apart from the rocky parts of the lake shore and bottom. Previously, before the lakes shrinking, mainly the bleak (Alburnus belvica), and the chub (Squalus prepsensis) during their spawning season were getting out on the beaches (in a very shallow water and even on dry) to perform their "sexual dance".


133


Submerged vegetation In our days, both species have migrated in the deeper parts of the lake (quite away from the shore) for their spawning, where submerged vegetation is occurring as a result of the abovementioned reasons in the previous chapters. At present in the very shallow parts of the lake just some of the minnows can be found to spawn. Another important thing is that some of the introduced fish species are also chasing the indigenous fishes from this spots which in origin were "reserved" for them. 3.2.2. Shallow send bottom with emerged vegetation (reed belts) This type - the reed belts - concerns mainly the common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and part of the population of the native roach. With the changes in the water volume, parts of these reed belts has become on land and in other parts (mainly in Micro Prespa) they have been extended into the lake further on.

The reed belt It is worth to mention here (according personal communications with the fishermen) that spawning of the carp in present days can occur outside the reed belts areas and in deeper waters. 3.2.3. Swamps and marshlands


134


These types of habitat are mostly occurring in Micro Prespa and especially at its South and North part.

Lake Micri Prespa marshland 3.2.4. Rocky bottom Rocky bottom parts, like fish spawning ground are the smallest part of Prespa Lakes bottom. There are quite significant changes in the presence of this type of substrate with the water level decline. This mostly affects the endemic Prespa barbell because, unlike the rest of the cyprinid fishes, its eggs are not sticking for the substrate. 3.2.5. Rivers In the case of Prespa Lakes, according to the existing and our data, except for Salmo peristericus, the endemic trout and Chondrostoma prespense the endemic nase (undermouth), the rivers doesn't have other big importance for the rest of the species like spawning grounds. Their worsen water quality just negatively implies to the whole lakes ecosystem.


135


Provisional maps of some spawning grounds

In progress are mapping of the rest of the maps.


136