Fishes in Lakes Prespa and OhridThreats and Conservation needs

Spase ShumkaAgricultural University of Tiranasprespa@gmail.com

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, and3. 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 byboth the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)and the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA). IUCN threat classes wereused, which 5 are primarily designed to assess key threats to species. They involvepast, 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 theRed List Criteria (IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee, 2010). Environmentalimpacts were assessed using the scoring scheme provided by GIWA, which is more10 ecosystem oriented. Four impact scores ranging from 0 (no known impact) through1 (slight impact), 2 (moderate impact) to 3 (severe impact) were used to quantify theimportance 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 class Key threat Impact Ohrid Mean impact Impact Prespa Mean impact1. Households/Commercial 1.1. Housing and urban araes 3 3 (2.66) 2 2

1.2. Commersial/industry 2 0 1.3. Tourism/recreation 3 1

2. Agriculture/aquaculture 2.1. Annual perrenials 2 2 (1.75) 2 22.2. Wood / pulp planrtaions 1 1 2.3. Livestock/Framing 1 3 2.4. Aquaculture 3 0

3. Energy production/mining 3.1.Oils/Gass 0 3 0 23.2. Mining/Quarrying 3 2 3.3. Renewable energy 0 0

4. Transport/service corridors 4.1. Roads/railwayas 3 3 0 24.2.Utility/services 0 2 4.3.Shiping lines 0 0 4.4. Flight paths 0 0

5.Biological resources use 5.1. Hunting/trapping tererstrial animals 3 3 (2.75) 2 2 (2.25)5.2.Gathering terestrial plants 2 1 5.3. Logging/wood harvesting 3 3 5.4.Fishing/harvesting aquaric resources 3 3

6. Human intrusion/disturbance 6.1. Recreational activities 3 2 2 2 6.2. War, civil unrest/military excersises 0 0 6.3. Work and other activities 1 1 7. Natural system modifications 7.1. Dams/water management/use 0 2.5 1 2.5

7.2.Fire/fire supression 2 2 7.3. Other ecosystem modifications 3 2

8. Invasive/other problematic species, genes

8.1. Non native species0 2 2

8.2. Problematic native species 0 0 Introduced genetical material 2 2

9. Pollution 9.1. Domestic and urban pollution 3 3 (2.6) 3 39.2. Industrial/military effluents 3 0 9.3.Grabage/solid waste 3 3 9.4. Air-borne pollutants 1 0 9.5. Agriculture forestry effluents 3 3 9.6. Exces energy 0 0

10. Geological events 10.1. Volcanous 0 0 0 010.2.earthquarks/tsunamis 0 0 0 010.3. Avallanches/lanslides 0 0 0 0

11. Climate changes/severe weather 11.1. Habitat shifting/alteration 3 2 (2.25) 2 2 (2.33)11.2. Droughts 3 3 11.3. Temperature extreme 2 2

11.4. Storms/flooding 1 0 11.4. 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

OriginIUCN red List

Berne Convention Annex

Albanian Red List 2007

Observed in Albanian part of Lakes first time

1 Anguilla anguilla* Native Native CR Last 19962 Alburnoides prespensis Native VU 3 Alburnoides ohridanus Native VU4 Alburnus belvica Native CR 5 Alburnus scoranza Native LC6 Barbus prespensis Native VU LRcd 7 Barbus rebeli Native LC8 Carassius gibelio Nonantive 19739 Chondrostoma prspense Native VU 10 Chondrostoma ohridanus Native LC11 Cobitis meridionalis Native VU & LRlc 12 Cobitis ohridana Native LC13 Barbatula sturany Native LC14 Cyprinus carpio Nonnative Nonnative DD 15 Gobio ohridanus Native VU16 Ctenopharyngodon idella Nonnative 197917 Pachychilon pictum Native LC18 Gambusia holbrooki Nonnative LRlc 200619 Hypophthalmichthys militrix Nonnative 197920 Lepomis gibbous Nonnative 199621 Pelasgus prespensis Native EN 22 Pelasgus minutus Native DD23 Phoxinus limarieus Native LC24 Pseudorasbora parva Nonnative Nonnative 199825 Rhodeus amarus Nonnative Nonnative VU 199226 Rutilus prespensis Native LC 27 Rutilus ohridanus Native LC28 Salmo afelios Native EN29 Salmo balkanicus Native DD30 Salmo letnica Native Nonnative DD VU 198231 Salmo lumi Native DD32 Salmo ohridanus Native VU33 Salmo peristericus Native EN 34 Scardinus knezevici VU35 Silurus glanis Nonnative LC & 199636 Squalius prespensis Native LC 37 Squalius squalius Native LC38 Tinca tinca Nonnative LC Last 199639 Telestes montenegrinus Native40 Prabramis pekinensis Nonnative 197341 Onchorynchus mykiss Nonnative 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.