Fishes in Lakes Prespa and Ohrid Threats and Conservation needs Spase Shumka Agricultural University of Tirana

Based on field surveys and observations on fishery and plankton, monitoring data available, examining the extensive published record, conducting interviews, we aim to: 1. assess threats to Lakes Ohrid and Prespa (endemic) biodiversity, in terms of fishes. 2. summarize existing conservation activities and strategies, and 3. outline future conservation needs for Lakes Ohrid and Prespa in light of national commitments to EU and other international binding documents and species conservation.

In case of lakes Ohrid and Prespa, the species conservation cannot be achieved without an integrated approach! To that fact the fish ’ s conservation is an ecosystem approach rather than a species oriented plan.

The threat assessment carried for this presenation is based on the guidelines provided by both the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA). IUCN threat classes were used, which 5 are primarily designed to assess key threats to species. They involve past, ongoing and future threats, using a time frame of three generations or ten years, whichever is the longer (not exceeding 100 years in the future) as required by the Red List Criteria (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, 2010). Environmental impacts were assessed using the scoring scheme provided by GIWA, which is more 10 ecosystem oriented. Four impact scores ranging from 0 (no known impact) through 1 (slight impact), 2 (moderate impact) to 3 (severe impact) were used to quantify the importance of each key issue. Details on determining impact scores can be found in the GIWA Methodology handbook for scaling and scoping (GIWA, 2001).

Conservation areas in the transboundary Ohrid Prespa lakes region

Threat classKey threatImpact OhridMean impactImpact PrespaMean impact 1. Households/Commercial 1.1. Housing and urban araes33 (2.66) Commersial/industry Tourism/recreation Agriculture/aquaculture 2.1. Annual perrenials22 (1.75) Wood / pulp planrtaions Livestock/Framing Aquaculture Energy production/mining 3.1.Oils/Gass Mining/Quarrying Renewable energy Transport/service corridors 4.1. Roads/railwayas Utility/services Shiping lines Flight paths0 0 5.Biological resources use 5.1. Hunting/trapping tererstrial animals33 (2.75)22 (2.25) 5.2.Gathering terestrial plants Logging/wood harvesting Fishing/harvesting aquaric resources Human intrusion/disturbance6.1. Recreational activities War, civil unrest/military excersises Work and other activities Natural system modifications 7.1. Dams/water management/use Fire/fire supression Other ecosystem modifications Invasive/other problematic species, genes 8.1. Non native species Problematic native species0 0 Introduced genetical material Pollution 9.1. Domestic and urban pollution33 (2.6) Industrial/military effluents Grabage/solid waste Air-borne pollutants Agriculture forestry effluents Exces energy Geological events Volcanous earthquarks/tsunamis Avallanches/lanslides Climate changes/severe weather Habitat shifting/alteration32 (2.25)22 (2.33) Droughts Temperature extreme Storms/flooding Other impacts 0

The common general threats to environment of the project area are as follows: Unsustainable use of natural resources, including all resources; Unsustainable management of forests and illegal logging; Practices of tree lopping, overgrazing; Inadequate river basin management affecting aquatic ecosystems, Loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitats due to urbanization and land development, Loss of native plant and animal species, both wild species and traditional breeds, Introduction of alien invasive species of flora and fauna into ecological system, Pressure of tourism on biodiversity of the mountain, coastal and marine ecosystems, Pollution of the environment by industrial and agricultural pollutants, and municipal waste, Insufficient law enforcement, in particular in physical planning and preventing illegal activities threatening the state of environment and integrity of nature. The common general threats to environment of the project area are as follows: Unsustainable use of natural resources, including all resources; Unsustainable management of forests and illegal logging; Practices of tree lopping, overgrazing; Inadequate river basin management affecting aquatic ecosystems, Loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitats due to urbanization and land development, Loss of native plant and animal species, both wild species and traditional breeds, Introduction of alien invasive species of flora and fauna into ecological system, Pressure of tourism on biodiversity of the mountain, coastal and marine ecosystems, Pollution of the environment by industrial and agricultural pollutants, and municipal waste, Insufficient law enforcement, in particular in physical planning and preventing illegal activities threatening the state of environment and integrity of nature.

No.Species Ohrid Lake Origin Prespa Lake Origin IUCN red List Berne Convention Annex Albanian Red List 2007 Observed in Albanian part of Lakes first time 1Anguilla anguilla* Native CR Last Alburnoides prespensisNativeVU 3Alburnoides ohridanus Native VU 4Alburnus belvicaNativeCR 5Alburnus scoranza Native LC 6Barbus prespensisNativeVU LRcd 7Barbus rebeli Native LC 8Carassius gibelioNonantive Chondrostoma prspenseNativeVU 10Chondrostoma ohridanus Native LC 11Cobitis meridionalisNativeVU&LRlc 12Cobitis ohridana Native LC 13Barbatula sturany Native LC 14Cyprinus carpio Nonnative DD 15Gobio ohridanus Native VU 16Ctenopharyngodon idellaNonnative Pachychilon pictum Native LC 18Gambusia holbrookiNonnative LRlc Hypophthalmichthys militrixNonnative Lepomis gibbousNonnative Pelasgus prespensisNativeEN 22Pelasgus minutus Native DD 23Phoxinus limarieus Native LC 24Pseudorasbora parvaNonnative Rhodeus amarusNonnative VU Rutilus prespensisNativeLC 27Rutilus ohridanusNativeLC 28Salmo afeliosNativeEN 29Salmo balkanicusNativeDD 30Salmo letnicaNativeNonnativeDD VU Salmo lumiNativeDD 32Salmo ohridanus Native VU 33Salmo peristericusNativeEN 34Scardinus knezeviciVU 35Silurus glanisNonnativeLC& Squalius prespensisNativeLC 37Squalius squalius Native LC 38Tinca tincaNonnativeLC Last Telestes montenegrinus Native 40Prabramis pekinensisNonnative Onchorynchus mykissNonnative 1979

The species categories in Micro Prespa lake

Species composition in the stock catched

The differences among catches in Albania and Greece

The % fishes in catch at Macro Prespa

The mean CPUE for Macro Prespa lake

Prespa lake: The fish stock/h/m2/net

Matrix demand for Macro Prespa Lake to fulfill the EU WFD (S.Shumka, 2010)

What is needed in the current state? (i)Additional elements ‘remediation’s’ in all lakes of concern; (ii) Reduction of fertilizers/manures in all sides of littoral countries; (iii) Small scale facility of water treatment in case of rural areas and high cost when comes to apply the commercial treatments; (iv) Habitat restoration; (v) Cooperating with neighbors in Water Management practices and vi) Respect ESPO convention in case of transboundary water bodies. What is needed in the current state? (i)Additional elements ‘remediation’s’ in all lakes of concern; (ii) Reduction of fertilizers/manures in all sides of littoral countries; (iii) Small scale facility of water treatment in case of rural areas and high cost when comes to apply the commercial treatments; (iv) Habitat restoration; (v) Cooperating with neighbors in Water Management practices and vi) Respect ESPO convention in case of transboundary water bodies.