Transcript Slide 1
Fishes in Lakes Prespa and Ohrid Threats and Conservation needs Spase Shumka Agricultural University of Tirana [email protected] 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 class 1. Households/Commercial 2. Agriculture/aquaculture 3. Energy production/mining 4. Transport/service corridors 5.Biological resources use 6. Human intrusion/disturbance 7. Natural system modifications 8. Invasive/other problematic species, genes 9. Pollution 10. Geological events 11. Climate changes/severe weather Key threat 1.1. Housing and urban araes 1.2. Commersial/industry 1.3. Tourism/recreation 2.1. Annual perrenials 2.2. Wood / pulp planrtaions 2.3. Livestock/Framing 2.4. Aquaculture 3.1.Oils/Gass 3.2. Mining/Quarrying 3.3. Renewable energy 4.1. Roads/railwayas 4.2.Utility/services 4.3.Shiping lines 4.4. Flight paths 5.1. Hunting/trapping tererstrial animals 5.2.Gathering terestrial plants 5.3. Logging/wood harvesting 5.4.Fishing/harvesting aquaric resources 6.1. Recreational activities 6.2. War, civil unrest/military excersises 6.3. Work and other activities 7.1. Dams/water management/use 7.2.Fire/fire supression 7.3. Other ecosystem modifications 8.1. Non native species 8.2. Problematic native species Introduced genetical material 9.1. Domestic and urban pollution 9.2. Industrial/military effluents 9.3.Grabage/solid waste 9.4. Air-borne pollutants 9.5. Agriculture forestry effluents 9.6. Exces energy 10.1. Volcanous 10.2.earthquarks/tsunamis 10.3. Avallanches/lanslides 11.1. Habitat shifting/alteration 11.2. Droughts 11.3. Temperature extreme Impact Ohrid 3 2 3 2 1 1 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 2 3 3 3 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 2 3 3 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 Mean impact Impact Prespa Mean impact 3 (2.66) 2 2 0 1 2 (1.75) 2 2 1 3 0 3 0 2 2 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 3 (2.75) 2 2 (2.25) 1 3 3 2 2 2 0 1 2.5 1 2.5 2 2 2 3 (2.6) 0 0 0 2 (2.25) 2 0 2 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 2 (2.33) 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. Ohrid Origin No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Species Anguilla anguilla* Alburnoides prespensis Alburnoides ohridanus Alburnus belvica Alburnus scoranza Barbus prespensis Barbus rebeli Carassius gibelio Chondrostoma prspense Chondrostoma ohridanus Cobitis meridionalis Cobitis ohridana Barbatula sturany Cyprinus carpio Gobio ohridanus Ctenopharyngodon idella Pachychilon pictum Gambusia holbrooki Hypophthalmichthys militrix Lepomis gibbous Pelasgus prespensis Pelasgus minutus Phoxinus limarieus Pseudorasbora parva Rhodeus amarus Rutilus prespensis Rutilus ohridanus Salmo afelios Salmo balkanicus Salmo letnica Salmo lumi Salmo ohridanus Salmo peristericus Scardinus knezevici Silurus glanis Squalius prespensis Squalius squalius Tinca tinca Telestes montenegrinus Native Lake Prespa Lake Origin Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Nonantive Native Native Native Native Native Nonnative Native Nonnative IUCN List CR VU VU CR LC VU LC Observed in Berne Albanian Albanian part red Convention Red List of Lakes first Annex 2007 time Last 1996 LRcd 1973 VU LC VU LC LC DD VU & LRlc Nonnative Native Nonnative Nonnative Nonnative Native Native Native Nonnative Nonnative Native Native Native Native Native Native Nonnative Nonnative Native Nonnative Native Nonnative Native Native Nonnative Native 1979 LC LRlc 2006 1979 1996 EN DD LC VU LC LC EN DD DD DD VU EN VU LC LC LC LC 1998 1992 VU & 1982 1996 Last 1996 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.