Fishes in Lakes Prespa and Ohrid Threats and Conservation needs

1. Fishes in Lakes Prespa and Ohrid Threats and Conservation needs Spase Shumka Agricultural University of Tirana sprespa@gmail.com

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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).

5. Conservation areas in the transboundaryOhridPrespa lakes region

7. 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.

9. The species categories in Micro Prespa lake

10. Species composition in the stock catched

11. The differences among catches in Albania and Greece

12. The % fishes in catch at Macro Prespa

13. The mean CPUE for Macro Prespa lake

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

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

16. What is needed in the current state? • Additional elements ‘remediation’s’ in all lakes of concern; • Reduction of fertilizers/manures in all sides of littoral countries; • 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.