Report on a feasibility study for
establishing transboundary Man and
Biosphere Reserve Shkodra/Skadar Lake
Cover photos: Shkodra/Skadar Lake, Montenegro and Albania; © Ana Katnic, Nela Vesovic Dubak, Maras Rakaj
Feasibility study for establishing Transboundary Man and Biosphere Reserve (TB MAB BR)
Shkodra/Skadar Lake
Originator: NGO Green Home and NGO INCA
Project: Towards the designation of Lake Shkodra/Skadar as Trans-boundary Biosphere Reserve
Funding: UNESCO PARTICIPATION PROGRAMME 2012-2013
Author: Ana Katnic, MSc., Independent consultant
Special note: The report here in hand was prepared by the independent consultant and it does not imply
the attitude of any interest side.
Acknowledges:
I would like to thank all the participants in the meetings for sharing information and discussing issues
openly and constructively. I would like to thank Jovana Janjusevic and Zamir Dedej for being sincerely
and professionally engaged in facilitating the research and SHs participation process.
List of abbreviations
ALB – Albania
BR – Biosphere Reserve
CBC – Cross-border Cooperation
CEPF - Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
CSBL - Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity at Lakes Prespa, Ohrid and Shkoder
EU – Europe Union
GEF - Global Environment Fund
GH – Green Home
GIZ - German international cooperation organization
GWP‐Med – Global Water Partnership – Mediterranean
IBA – Important Bird Area
ICC - International Coordinating Council
IHP - International Hydrological Programme
INCA - Institute for Nature Conservation in Albania
IPA – Important Plant Area
IPA – Instrument for Pre-Accession
IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature
IWRM - Integrated Water Resources Management ()
KAP – ‘Kombinat’ Aluminum Plant
LSIEMP - Lake Integrated Ecosystem Management Project
MAB - Man and Biosphere
MAP - Madrid Action Plan
MDD - Mura Drava Danube
MNE - Montenegro
MORT - Ministry of Sustainable development and protectio
MoU – Memorandum of Understanding
NGO – Non-governmental Organization
NP – National Park
PA – Protected area
PAP/RAC - Priority Actions Programme Regional Activity Centre
REC - Regional Environmental Center
SAP - Stabilization and Association Agreements
TB - Trans-boundary
UNDP – United Nations Development Programme
UNECE - United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNOPS - United Nations Office for Project Services
WB – World Bank
WH – World Heritage
WNBR - World Network of Biosphere Reserve
WWF – World Wildlife Fund
Background
In the framework of the UNESCO Participation Programme 2012-2013, NGO Green Home from
Montenegro together with NGO INCA (Institute for Nature Conservation in Albania) is implementing the
project: “Towards the designation of Lake Shkodra/Skadar as Trans-boundary Biosphere Reserve”.
This project is relying on the results and cooperation of two NGOs, accomplished during the project:
“Supporting the proposed Trans-boundary Biosphere Reserve of Lake Shkodra/Skadar area through a
participatory approach” (IPA cross border programme, 2009). The bases for continuation of the
designation process was laid down by producing studies and reports on socio-economic and
environmental context of the area, access to global knowledge on Man and Biosphere Reserves (MAB
BR), successful competition of training activities and production of training materials done within
capacity building component of the project and by involvement of wide range of stakeholders, building
this way strong transboundary cooperation platform and stakeholders interest and commitment.
Approved and supported by National Commission of Montenegro for UNESCO and Ministry of
Sustainable development and protection (MORT) from Montenegro, NGO Green Home obtained funds
from UNESCO Participation Programme, 2012-2013, for the project: “Towards the designation of Lake
Shkodra/Skadar as Trans-boundary Biosphere Reserve”. Project had so far resulted in several studies on
tourism and governance in Montenegro and Albania, discussions and production of a map for zoning in
form of a proposal and establishment of MAB Committee in Albania. As both countries were faced with
the challenging process of finalization and submission of Nomination file, the Montenegrin authorities
were requesting in detail information on the process of designation, opportunities and benefits of the
designation, MAB Programme and requirements and obligations that will come from the designation.
This particularly in terms of conflicts and development constrains that might emerge if/when the site is
proclaimed. As a consequence of these, the originally planned production of draft nomination file was
replaced with the activities on preparing the report “Feasibility study for establishing Transboundary
Man and Biosphere Reserve Shkodra/Skadar Lake”.
Methodology
The “Feasibility study for establishing Transboundary Man and Biosphere Reserve Shkodra/Skadar Lake”
report is to be done in order to analyze and identify priorities, gaps and opportunities of transboundary
protection and cooperation. Also, on a capacity building and policy level it is planned to facilitate the
understanding of the MAB Programme and practices as to improve decision making process and
involvement of different relevant stakeholders. This is was done through multi-stakeholder workshop
and meetings discussing the process of designation in the complex and open-ended context of
Shkodra/Skadar Lake region.
The production of the study report involved broad range of actions at different levels, integrating the
various layers of work as to facilitate and support the participative approach, knowledge and ownership
building:
 Background Research on global and regional knowledge, processes, trends, context and cases,
review of the national documentation on both sides and review of all available local documentations
in English and Montenegrin language was done.
 Semi-structured interviews/meetings were held with decision makers and key stakeholders in two
countries, discussing political will and understanding of the process, as well as the capacity of
governments and other stakeholders at regional and local levels. This was done in order to assess
commitment and identify necessary actions in the process of establishment TB MAB BR and further.
Recommendations were seek for targeting key issues, key actors and knowledge gaps that this study
should cover. The list of meetings is given in the Annex I.
 Questioner was composed based on the IUCN Guide, (Erg et al. 2012) and adjusted to correspond to
specific needs for the information in the context of TB MAB BR Shkodra/Skadar Lake designation. It
was distributed among wider group of SHs from both sides in order to analyze the opinion and
attitude toward many elements of TB cooperation. In the Annex II the questioner form, as well as
the list of SHs that filled it in is given.
 Two day workshop was organized in order to
improve the knowledge and discuss stirring the
management and coordination of different
sectors and stakeholders for securing the
conservation and sustainable development.
Various contexts, of the TB project area were
analyzed in terms of issues, commonalities and
differences. Know-how practices on transboundary natural resource management were
elaborated with the intention to widen the
perspectives on possible scenarios of the TB
MAB BR designation process. The workshop
also served the cause of identifying capacity Figure 1: Workshop group work, January, 2014. ©NGO Green
Home
building gaps as well as “empowerment gaps”
important for participation process and further involvement of SHs. The workshop agenda and list
of the participants is given in the Annex III.
 Briefings with NGO GH Project leader and with project task group were organized when required.
Lessons learned and follow ups were discussed and reported on.
 Reporting: preparation of 1. Draft was done in order to share the findings with the project task
group and the SHs, providing one more opportunity to discuss and ask for additional information.
After that, the Final report was produced, to be translated in Montenegrin and Albanian and
distributed to all the participants and wider, and to serve as a backbone for continuation of the
designation process.
Contents
List of abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Background ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 4
Recent history of transboundary cooperation of two countries in the region of Shkodra/Skadar Lake ..... 7
1.
Environmental Context ..................................................................................................................... 3
Main issues............................................................................................................................................ 3
Shkodra/Skadar Lake transboundary contexts ............................................................................................. 3
2.
Socio-economic context .................................................................................................................... 7
3.
Political context of two countries ..................................................................................................... 8
4.
International context ...................................................................................................................... 10
International framework of designated MAB BR ................................................................................ 12
Man and Bipsphere Reserve Programme ................................................................................................... 12
Management of BRs ............................................................................................................................ 13
MAB National Committee/Focal point ............................................................................................... 13
De-designation – removing from the WNBR list ................................................................................. 13
MAB vs. WH ........................................................................................................................................ 14
MAB BR vs. NP..................................................................................................................................... 14
Transboundary MAB BR ...................................................................................................................... 14
Benefits, opportunities ................................................................................................................................. 2
Challenges and constrains ............................................................................................................................ 4
Process of Shkodra/Skadar Lake TB BR designation future steps ................................................................ 7
Top down approach starting points ...................................................................................................... 8
Bottom up approach ............................................................................................................................. 9
Annex I: List of Meetings........................................................................................................................... 2
Annex II: Questioner form and list of SHs that filled in the questioner.................................................... 3
Annex III: Workshop agenda and list of participants of the workshop .................................................... 8
References .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Recent history of transboundary cooperation of two countries in the
region of Shkodra/Skadar Lake
2000 –The first international project, “Promotion of Networks and Exchanges in SEE countries”, started
its implementation. The main aim of the project was to enhance cooperation between neighbouring
countries over shared natural resources.
2000-2009 – Cross-border Forum for Skadar/Shkoder Lake has been established, gathering
representatives of different institutions from two countries relevant for the management and protection
of Skadar/Shkoder Lake (Ministries, National Park, local authorities, NGOs, nature protection institutes,
educational institutions). They further enhanced cooperation between two countries through many
different activities implemented jointly.
2003 – Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed by two relevant Ministries from two involved
countries over environmental protection and implementation of the principle of sustainable
development.
2005 – International conference on the theme "Lake Skadar international designations for territorial
development”, that NGOs Green Home and INCA took inspiration from, was laid down on this occasion
in October 2005. Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic of Montenegro and Prime Minister Sali Berisha of
Albania in their respective speeches underlined
the
importance
of
coordinated
and
comprehensive territorial development plans for
this important lake and its watershed shared
between their two countries.
The meeting was organized by the "Dinaric Arc
Initiative", a framework of collaboration between
Figure 2: High level meeting, occasion of the Prime Ministers
the relevant offices of UNESCO, WWF, IUCN,
speeches, October, 2005 (Ramsar Convention web site:
UNDP and the Council of Europe. The meeting's
www.ramsar.org).
main objective was to discuss with all major
stakeholders the future development scenarios
of the transboundary territory of Skadar Lake and
its catchment basin, a unique wetland in the karst
landscape of southeastern Europe, boasting an
extraordinary natural and cultural heritage.
2008-2012 -Skadar/Shkoder Lake Integrated Ecosystem Management Project (LSIEMP), the largest
international project regarding management of Skadar/Shkoder Lake resources supported by GEF and
WB (≈5milion€) was launched. Through this project, the Agreement between the Ministry of Tourism
and Environment of Montenegro and Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration of
the Republic of Albania for the protection and sustainable development of the Skadar/Shkoder-Shkoder
Lake has been signed, thus establishing Skadar/Shkoder-Shkoder Lake Commission.
This provided basis for committed promotion of sustainable, equitable and efficient water use through
the advancement of the integrated transboundary cooperation and harmonization approaches.
However, sustainability of initiatives, cooperation and joint platforms were ensured neither by projects
nor by SHs, suggesting that more concentrated commitment and clear leadership is required.
Several ongoing TB projects on the Lake are listed here:
- GIZ - Improving the transboundary water management: Conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity at Lakes Prespa, Ohrid and Shkoder (CSBL);
- CEPF, IUCN with NGOs Green Home and INCA - Supporting the Long-Term Sustainable
Management of Transboundary Lake Skadar/Shkoder ;
- CEPF, NoéConservation - Conservation of Pelicans, a key biodiversity Species of Skadar/Shkoder
Lake.
Most of the TB Shkodra/Skadar region activities are focused on the area of the Lake. The wider area is
targeted by the following projects:
- Drin River basin UNOPS project funded by GEF "Enabling Trans-boundary Cooperation and
Integrated Water Resource Management in the Extended Drin River Basin".
and some TB projects on the Buna/Bojana River such as:
- PAP/RAC, GWP‐Med and UNESCO‐IHP in coordination with the Albanian and Montenegrin
ministries: The Buna/Bojana Transboundary Integrated Management Plan
Financing of transboundary coordination, planning and operations in the area has been largely relied
on the international donors. External financing allows the implementation of policy reforms and
investments, but is usually not sustainable over time. Efforts to develop local resources or revenues
for lake basin management have to be developed. Consequently it is important that external funds
are used to initiate management changes that are self-sustaining - at least to a large extend – within
the basin countries (ILEC, 2005).
Shkodra/Skadar’s Lake basin is
shared between Montenegro
Shkodra/Skadar Lake transboundary contexts and Albania with the ratio 2/3
to 1/3 respectively. The Lake is
the largest in the Balkan and of
a special importance for countries sharing it, both as a resource and protected area. It is also
internationally important biodiversity hotspot and a water-shared system. It is astonishing place
boasting with rich natural and cultural heritage.
1. Environmental Context
The Montenegrin side of the basin of Shkodra/Skadar Lake has been proclaimed a National Park (IUCN
category II) in 1983, while the Albanian side is a protected area “Managed Natural Reserve” (IUCN
category IV). Since 2005 Buna/Bojana River is also nationally protected on Albanian side with the status
"Protected Waterscape/Landscape" (IUCN category V). In 1995, 20.000ha of the Lake in Mne has been
included in the Ramsar list of wetlands of international importance based on the richness and diversity
of ornithofauna and in 2006, 49,562ha of Shkodra Lake together with Buna/Bojana River in Alb1,
receiving the transboundary character. Skadar/Shkoder Lake region is on the list of Important Plant
Areas (IPA). It is on the list of Important Bird Areas (IBA), too. Based on the criteria of Bern Convention,
17 Emerald habitats with good representation have been identified in the Lake region. Although the
work on identification of Natura 2000 habitats, based on the Habitat and Bird directives of the EU, has
started for Montenegro and Albania, the list of those habitats is not yet complete.
Total biodiversity is high, and the region is considered to be a biogenetic reserve of European
importance. The large, geographically and ecologically connected complex system of wetlands of
Skadar/Shkoder Lake and the Buna/Bojana River has been identified as one of the 24 transboundary
wetland sites of international importance known as “Ecological Brick Sites” (UNECE, 2009).
Both countries are taking actions to protect this unique ecosystem. Almost the whole of the Lake
Skadar/Shkoder and Buna/Bojana River area is under national protection status and on a list of
Ramsar internationally important wetlands. Regarding management of the protected areas,
Montenegro is more advanced. Still, many issues remain unresolved and many laws lagging with
implementation. Harmonization of measures across borders and integral management with special
accent on local population would be beneficial for both protection and sustainable development of
this area.
Main issues
The challenges of protecting the biodiversity of the Shkodra/Skadar Lake region are of many origins:
natural such as flooding, earthquake, natural and human caused eutrophication of the lake and natural
and manmade climate changes. Moreover, there has been an evident loss of biodiversity caused by the
high anthropogenic pressure, notified in several studies. However, recent research and information on
biodiversity state of the Lake is poor. Due to the nutrient loading, the lake has eutrophied slightly. The
direct and indirect pressures from human activities are concerning on both sides:
1
Source: http://www.ramsar.org
- Water regime
The hydrology of the water shared
system of Shkodra/Skadar Lake is very
complex. The most important
tributaries of Shkodra/Skadar Lake
enter the lake from the north:
Morača, Crnojevida River, Orahovštica,
Karatuna, Baragurška River in
Montenegro, and Perroi, Thate, Rjolli
and Vraka River in Albania. Most of
the water of Shkodra/Skadar Lake
comes from the Morača River, 62%.
The lake is also supplied with water
through sub–lacustric springs. The
Lake discharges through the 44 km
long Buna/Bojana River (shared by
Figure 3: Transboundary Surface Water Bodies: Second Assessment of
Transboundary Rivers, Lakes and Groundwaters (UNECE, 2011).
Albania and Montenegro) into the
Adriatic Sea. The connection between
Drin River, Buna/Bojana River and Skadar/ Shkoder Lake determines the seasonal variations in the state
and characteristics of the lake, and has an important impact on the morphology of the Buna/Bojana
delta. The hydrological regime is conditioned, among others, by water releases from big hydro-power
dams in the Drin River in Albania. The Drin drainage into the Buna River inhibits the free water discharge
from the Lake and affects also the water regime at the Buna. This combined with the uneven
distribution of rainfall over the year, are the main reasons for flooding - most frequently and intensively
present in November and December. Flooding in the Montenegrin parts of the Lake has harmful effects
on hygiene for the local population. In some regions the surface run-off reaches figures which are about
6 times greater than the world average (World Bank, 2003). There are times that the river reverses flow.
The Buna/Bojana bed is lower than sea level (“crypto depression”), resulting in saltwater intruding into
the lake’s outlet.
The impacts on the lakes-rivers-wetlands-groundwater system of the current economic development
proposals for small hydro-power plants on Moraca and plans in both countries that involve alternative
uses of water and the water bodies (such as: deepening the Buna/Bojana River bed from Albanian side
for the reason of cleaning the sediment and lessening the effects of often flooding, and ensuring the
connection of the Lake with the Sea) need to be clearly understood, before any decision is taken. These
are and will remain the key issues and concerns of so far national decisions to be lied down in
transboundary level.
The fact that the water bodies of focus are components of a broader hydrological system that drains
into the Adriatic, could “raise” the level of plans and management from a single country and single
water body to an area that covers almost twenty percent of the Balkan Peninsula.
- Pollution
Agricultural as well as industrial pollution (heavy industries in the Montenegrin side from Niksic and
Podgorica (KAP as the most prominent)), and pollution from municipal wastewaters of both countries
(mostly from Podgorica, Cetinje, Shkodra), reach the lake both through surface and groundwater (due to
the karstic geology). Heavy metal pollution, especially in lake sediments, and moderate pathogen loads
have been observed locally in the aquifer. The Drin contributes to some extent, with trace metals
originating from the disposal of by-products from iron and copper mines located upstream. Industrial
and municipal water pollution outlets of the sewage waters from towns and villages discharged directly,
cause enrichment of waters with nutrients and
chemical detergents increasing the eutrophication
of waters and the accumulation of harmful
chemicals in the food chain.
In the Zeta Plain, approximately 9.000ha of land is
used for agricultural purposes: about 4000ha of
vineyards and orchards (mainly ‘Plantaže’
Company) and about 5000ha of other crops. There
are no precise figures on the amount of fertilizer
used, but the estimates are that it is about 2970t
per year. Agriculture uses about 80t per year of
herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and pesticides.
A good portion of these chemicals (some of which
are poisons of category III and IV), migrate into the
lake. The total flooded area of agricultural land is
estimated at about 5000ha, and the amount of
water used for irrigation is approximately
1500000m3 per year (Radujkovic et Sundic, 2012).
Inadequate solid waste management in both
countries and illegal disposal of wastes directly to
the water bodies has exerted pressure on the
lake’s system. In the vicinity of Lake
Skadar/Shkoder, in the municipalities of Golubovci
and Tuzi, there are about fifteen of these, where
construction waste, municipal solid waste and so Figure 4: Indicative location of the main pollution sources and
pressures in the Shkoder Basin (Royal Haskoning, 2006).
called “garden waste” is disposed, with a total
volume of 12300m3. In the “garden waste” there is often plastic, glass and paper packaging of toxic
herbicides and pesticides, with the remains of the same. Although inspections in charge remove this
waste, population creates new dumplings, with the same type of waste (Vugdelic, 2012). In Albania
these contribute to a large amount of unpleasant materials on the lakes shores. The main polluter with
solid waste and wastewaters is the city Shkodra with about 110.000 inhabitants, and the villages Zogaj
and Shiroke on the west part of the Lake, and Gril, Koplik, Sterbeq, Kamice and Gashaj on the east side
of the lake. Certain toxic and even hazardous substances can be washed out from the dumping site, and
get into the lake. The total annual quantity of such waste is not known, but it’s a big problem for
lakesides pollution of Albanian part (WB, 2008). It is also a very unpleasant and affects the tourism
industry spoiling the scenery and impression.
- Land use changes
In the Montenegrin part, arable land makes up 40%, and pastures 10% of the basin. In the Albanian part,
13% of the land is used for agricultural activities, while 64% is forests, pastures and abandoned land
(UNECE, 2009). The expansion of human settlements (construction, tourism, and agricultural activities
expansion) in the “transit” zone – outside of protected areas, is putting a pressure on the Lake’s
ecosystem and ecosystem services. Illegal building and extraction of resources inside the PA borders,
(ex. extraction of sand and gravel from the water beds, uncontrolled harvesting of reed and peat, illegal
logging, over-harvesting of medicinal plants, etc.) is causing fragmentation and degradation of habitats,
erosion and is spoiling the landscape. Unsustainable forest management in the Albanian side and
subsequent erosion as well as illegal construction, has led to the deterioration of shoreline habitats. In
the Montenegrin part there are illegal constructions even within the National Park borders. In the
Albanian side 32% of the population in the area lives in illegal settlements. The coastal zone of
Buna/Bojana is perhaps the most affected area in this regard. In Montenegro the Velika Plaza beach, in
spite of its proclamation as a Natural Monument, is degraded due to illegal building, excavation of sand
and hunting (Faloutsos, 2006).
- Introduction and spread of invasive
species
Strategic target 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy
to 2020: combat with invasive species, is
becoming an EU priority and a concern. In the
region of Lake Skadar most worrying is the
spread of the Ailanthus altissima in the vicinity
of the villages and along the roads and Amorpha
fruticosa on the lake shores, riversides and
tributaries banks. Also Xanthium strumarium
have already occupied large surface of the Lake
shores. In recent years some invasive weedy
species little or previously unknown with the
presence in the Lake, have been identified:
Bidens frondosa, Elodea canadensis (in the Figure 5: Amphora fruticosa at Skadar Lake. ©SlavicaDjurovic (NPs
southern part of the Lake) and Paspalum
of Montenegro)
distichum, still with limited spread.
- Illegal hunting and fishing
There are still many problems with illegal hunting, noted by media, locals and experts. The monitoring is
weak and limited to certain species and places. Even with the ban for hunting in all NPs in Montenegro
and a current 2 years ban in whole Albania, enforcement of laws and regulations is lagging behind. Also,
illegal fishing and use of inadequate means is still huge problem. In addition, as noted by SHs,
management of fish population practice that involve ban in fishing every year for couple of months is set
in different period in each country. The data on fish stock are still missing in order to make a good
estimation and decisions for proper management and control.
- Low environmental awareness
Lack of alternative ways for local and regional economic development, are at the root of a constant
battle between protection and development stirring unsustainable use of the resources. Conflicts, low
level of trust between local population in the protected area and its surrounding and the authorities in
charge are common feature of this area. As the human pressure on the Lake is high on both sides and as
the Lake was and it is traditionally used as a generator of the local economy, urgent measures are
needed for reconciliation of the conservation approach and involvement of local SHs of the wider area
in planning and management that will bring improvements long term. The UNESCO designation could
serve to boost the pride in the place and engage locals in sustainable actions.
The Shkodra/Skadar Lake ecosystem occurs across two state boundaries and is subject to some
common and some different possibly conflicting, and unsustainable developments, management and
land use practices. Thus TB cooperation and harmonization is necessary for the well being of the
ecosystem services exposed to political rather than ecological boundaries.
2. Socio-economic context
The countries of focus are among the poorest countries in Europe with their economies sill in a
transition period towards a market economy, both ranking as the upper middle-income countries. An
additional overriding factor is the complex set of conflicts of the recent past that have left their mark,
and contribute to the social problems. A history of non-sustainable management of the environment
and the natural resources as a result of strangling for economic growth adds to the picture (Faloutsos et
al., 2006).
The Lake Shkoder/Skadar basin is a region with rich cultural heritage and history of more than 2000
years. In both countries, there are numerous sites of cultural and historic importance, including
archaeological sites, monasteries and other cultural monuments such as rural settlements of
ethnographic importance with potential for rural tourism development. Coexistence of groups of
different ethnic and religious background for a long period of time has influenced the history, culture
and development in the region.
The population in the Lake basin is about 600,000 people (65 percent of the inhabitants live on the
Montenegrin side). More than 60 percent of the population is urban and live in a few cities – Shkodra
and Malesi e Madhe (Albania) and Podgorica, Niksic, Danilovgrad, and Cetinje (Montenegro). The rural
population is spread out around the Lake in number of villages (36 in Montenegro and about 25 in
Albania).
In Montenegro, the area surrounding the Lake is heavily depopulated and in an advanced demographic
aging process, with young people migrating to cities and coastal areas. On the contrary, Shkoder city is
expanding. In comparison to Montenegro, in Albania the local economy and infrastructures are
somewhat less developed. The growing emigration, lack of connection to electricity networks, and the
weak economy have created poor social integration and social capital, and reduced willingness for local
initiatives, investments, and creativity (WB, 2004).
The main human activities are agriculture, livestock, fishery and tourism. The main human activities in
the Albanian part of the basin are agriculture and livestock. Fishing is an activity exercised by both
countries local population, currently not well controlled and without exact statistics on. Tourism is
practiced more on the Montegrin side. In Albania it has been developed mainly in the west part of the
Lake and in Velipoja beach near the delta of River Buna. Tourist settlements are of small and medium
size, but in some specific areas like Velipoja coast, tourist settlements are hugely expanding in its
northern part and toward Viluni lagoon in the west.
Poor socioeconomic conditions and subsequent poor social cohesion resulted in weak local groups, what
became a factor of the limited public participation in the management of the Lake and the basins. In the
Montenegrin part of the Lake, local communities are fragmented: the fishermen and agricultural
cooperatives are weak. In the Albanian side, the farmer cooperatives have disintegrated; local
communities are not able to mobilize citizens (GEF, 2004). Week voice, visibility and economy of the
local population allow very often the utilization of this resource to be subjected to different, very
often illegal or ad hock plans for development. Also, poorly informed or uninterested local community
groups in combination with the absence of sustainable development policy and actions in general,
have a negative impact on the Lake and the basins, putting into effect a lot of illegal activities.
Consequently a lot of the pressure for economic gain and issues are generated in the zone outside of
PAs (transit area) and in a smaller scale within the PAs, influencing the ecosystem and its future in the
great extent. Rural development and tourism together with the moderate renewable energy plans and
trends are to be further discus in the framework of transboundary sustainable vision and clear directions
of the wider water shared system Shkodar/Skadar Lake area.
The Shkodra/Skadar Lake region contains many untapped potentials, which are to be explored and
put in service of sustainable living. Engaging key stakeholders – public and private – in transforming
the way the Lake is used such that it is sustainable, efficient and equitable, should be the principle of
local and regional economy development.
3. Political context of two countries
In the two countries the national policies in the post-conflict era have been formulated in an evolving
environment at national and regional levels, guided mainly by political and socio-economic factors. The
address of several pressing needs and problems e.g. poverty and unemployment, has dictated strategic
choices and decisions in terms of both formulation of policies and setting of priorities for their
implementation. As an outcome, sustainable management has been sporadic and rather low in the
agenda, still highly dependent on political will and structure. The environmental administration is in
general weak and public participation and awareness is limited since formal and clearly defined
processes have not been established. Legislation has been fragmented, sometimes overlapping or even
contradictory. Thus, the need to increase the income of the inhabitants has led to the deterioration of
natural resources of the lakes basin.
Both countries have been in past and are further working toward relevant legislation improvements,
policy plans and strategies. The stumbling factors of significant improvement on the ground could be as
follows. Given the sectoral organization of governments it is rare to find an integrated policy specifically
on the Lake basin management. The governments’ intentions for managing the Lake are contained in
different strategies without sustainable development and environmental principles integration,
moreover without long term and clear impact formulation. The limited coordination among different
management agencies and their unclear or overlapping competencies are additional reasons for result
to be limited: actions by one sector often undermine or compromise the actions of another.
Further to this, there are institutional constrains of the environment sectors, national protection and
management system: low level of priority given to government policy in the field of environment, long
lasting and repeated revision and updates of strategies and laws, low enforcement and commitment,
lack of clear vision and directions, weak institutional capacities and accountability, poor horizontal and
vertical coordination, etc.
For the framework of TB MAB BR to be fully effective, the environmental sector have to find the capacity
to take the stirring for sustainable development of the complex open-ending context across multiple
levels and sectors, one step further, from national to the transboundary and international scale. In that
endeavour it needs to be long term committed to poverty eradication and environmental conservation,
meeting wider societal objectives, such as the equity aspects of sustainable development. This will also
require overcoming coordinating failures in public policies at national and than transboundary level and
transition to a society that guards the future and pursue the common good.
The environmental sector in Albania is recently showing major authority in executing some of the
environmental policies and decisions such as two year ban on hunting in the whole country, plans to ban
logging, strong commitment to building better system of protection and control and also plans for
establishment of direct management units for PAs – in the country with largest percentage of PAs in SEE.
Albanian high ranking representatives are showing a lot of enthusiasm for TB MAB BR process and
designation. The commitment is expressed in understanding the MAB Program and having a vision on
what country specific and TB targets are to be achieved. Also there is an indicated possibility for funding
the work of management organisation of the future TB MAB BR from state budget. Recently, MAB
Comity was established in the country with no BR sites so far. The willingness for meeting, discussing
and signing MoU with the neighbouring Montenegrin counterparts is expressed too. There is a well
established cooperation and connection of top environmental and the regional authority
representatives in the case of Shkodra County (Qark), showing synergy in the goals and aspirations
toward establishment of the TB MAB BR site. The head of regional Council of Shkodra expressed
willingness and commitment to work on the issues of pollution especially in terms of wastewater
treatment in Shkodra, and expressed eagerness to work on water transport and tourism opportunities
with the Montenegrin counterparts. However, political commitment here is highly dependent on the
structure and willingness of decision makers.
On Montenegrin side the main issues are sectorial plans for usage of the resources. For this reason
there is a need for wider plethora of ministerial sectors to be involved in the process in order to give the
required acknowledge of the plan and process and in order to agree about the policies integration and
stirring in direction of the future TB MAB BR goals. Wastewater collection and treatment facilities as
well as the construction of solid waste management facilities are also concern of Montenegrin side.
Both sides agreed that these require urgent measures expected to be improved trough MAB TB BR
process and designation.
Understanding of the model and commitment to the TB MAB BR is focused on the designation process
itself, rather than on a long term plan for building ‘site of excellence’, within government but also civil
sectors of both sides. The issues of joint management, funding, ecosystem services, etc., are still not
considered. This will need to be improved also for preparation of Nomination file, were the indication of
these is nowadays requirement.
The exact level of public participation in the decision making in each country is not clear. It is also
unclear the division of mandate and roles. The access to information and joint planning are on the poor
level. There are examples suggesting that stakeholder involvement is inadequate, partial or conflicting.
There is lack of relevant experience, mechanisms and capacity at the local level to carry out the new
tasks and involve the local communities. This might require a long run intervention.
Local organization/authorities (representatives) still have limited understanding of the issues in the
context of designation and management of future TB MAB BR. It seems that Albanian SHs are grassing
more on the idea and commitment. However, the representation is also more harmonious in terms of
environmentally related positions and organizations involved. This might need to be improved form
more diverse, multi-sectoral and multi-layer representation. Montenegrin SHs are strongly reflecting the
issue of top down approach, emphasizing that they have no mandate to get involve, decide, or plan.
They express reluctance in significance of being involved in the designation process and further activities
on sustainable development, also being skeptical about the approach and achievements that could be
made. This confirms the reality of weak joint planning and participation practices experience, which
demand more attention in order to be enhanced. The opportunity lies in having a well managed and
controlled process of engagement, ensuring sustainability. Also, good showcases should be presented to
serve as an inspiration and to catalyze replication nationally and locally.
Work with local population – still remains a challenge as they are not properly organized in bodies that
might represent their interest. However they are very important in the process of designation and
further establishment of TB BR. There are many studies showing that proper involvement of SHs in the
early stage of PAs designation is increasing the opportunity for its well functioning latter on. Bottom up
approach has to go hand in hand with the top down one for the success of the designation and further
management.
4. International context
Transboundary cooperation for the management of each of the shared lake bodies is being influenced
by the developments at the political and socio-economic scene at national and regional level and the
bilateral or multilateral relations of the littoral countries. In an environment - throughout the European
Continent - in which cooperation is being promoted at all levels, the involvement of the EU and several
UN agencies as well as other international organizations and NGOs has been catalytic (Faloutsos et al.,
2008). There are certain specific positive steps made that are encouraging for the future TB cooperation
of the Lakes in this region (Ohrid, Prespa, Skadar Lakes). Still, a long way is ahead till Integrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM) is applied.
EU accession is a strategic choice of two countries. Albania holds potential candidate status while
Montenegro is candidate country, advancing in the region. The SAA signed by both countries foresees
the establishment of bilateral agreements with neighboring countries in the region, covering
environmental and transboundary water issues. The on-going reforms in two countries which have the
approximation of the EU acquis communautaire as a common driving force, and the EU accession as a
common final aim, will gradually lead to a de facto harmonized legal framework. This provides a golden
opportunity for the promotion of the cooperation in the Lake.
The cross border cooperation is supported by IPA programmes and funds, too. The general aim of cross
border cooperation is to reduce the negative effects of borders as administrative, legal and physical
barriers, tackle common problems and exploit untapped potential. Through joint management of
programmes and projects, mutual trust and understanding are strengthened and the cooperation
process is enhanced.
On the other hand, the biosphere reserve concept has been especially well received by developing
countries, with the notion of dual conservation and sustainable development objectives attractive for
encouraging socio-economic development in conservation landscapes.
Transboundary biosphere reserve represents a new and most interesting development, which has been
greatly favored recently by the collapse of the iron curtain in Europe. The interest of such bilateral sites
is clear in ecological terms (particularly for protection of fauna), in management terms (larger units with
compatible methods) and of course as a symbol of peace with great political visibility. The difficulties of
this approach should not however be underestimated (unwanted movements of people, language
barriers, etc.), but its advantages for emulation in good management practices and for exchange of
experience are significant. This development should therefore be strongly encouraged (UNESCO, 2001).
The world network of 610 Biosphere Reserves, including 12 transboundary BRs in 117 countries (ICC,
2012), adds to the wealth of experience gathered over 40 years in sustainable development. Six of these
TB BRs are in Europe. The most recent ones (2012) are: West Polesie TB BR (Belarus/Poland/Ukraine)
and Mura Drava Danube - MDD, (Croatia/Hungary). Ministerial declaration for extending TB BR MDD on
3 more countries is signed by Ministers of Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, Slovenia and Austria. The
neighbouring countries (Albania and the FYR of Macedonia) submitted the Nomination file to MAB
Secretariat for the Ohrid and Prespa Lake.
Ramsar and MAB BR: Programme of joint work between the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, 1971)
and the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme has been accepted by the 26th Meeting of Ramsar’s
Standing Committee (2001) and by the MAB International Coordinating Council (2002).The joint
programme has been developed in recognition of the fact that there is mutual interest in the activities
of the Ramsar Convention and the Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB) particularly in the areas of
the identification and designation of sites, site management planning, assessment and monitoring, and
communication, education and public awareness.
The implementation of the joint programme recognizes that successful implementation of the wise
(sustainable) use and conservation of Ramsar sites and Biosphere Reserves depends upon the full
participation of all stakeholders, including local communities and indigenous people, as well as a
balanced approach in relation to the maintenance of wetland goods and services and the socioeconomic and cultural features. The Memorandums and cooperation have been agreed on and funding
secured to support the activities of the joint programme.
The Man and Biosphere Programme
declared the harmonious development
Man and Bipsphere Reserve Programme of man and nature to be its key goal.
The Statutory Framework and the
World Network of Biosphere Reserves
(WNBR) was initiated in 1975 as a nature protection programme focused on representative landscapes,
integrating management, education and research. “Seville Strategy” was elaborated during an
international conference in Seville, Spain, in 1995 and re-confirmed during the Seville +5 conference in
Pamplona in 2000 (UNESCO MAB, 2002). New issues and programmes such as sustainable tourism,
quality economy, education for sustainable development and climate change were newly reflected in
the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) for 2008–2013 (UNESCO MBA, 2008).
According to the Seville Strategy, all Biosphere Reserves should have the following three main functions:
 conservation in situ of natural and semi-natural ecosystems and landscapes;
 development: demonstration areas for ecologically and socio-culturally sustainable use;
 logistic support of research, monitoring, education, training and information exchange.
Accordingly biosphere reserves are organized into three interrelated zones:
 the core area
 the buffer zone
 the transition area
Only the core area requires legal protection and hence can correspond to an existing protected area
such as a nature reserve or a national park. This zoning scheme is applied in many different ways in the
real world to accommodate geographical conditions, socio-cultural settings, available legal protection
measures and local constraints. This flexibility can be used creatively and is one of the strongest points
of the Biosphere Reserve concept, facilitating the integration of protected areas into the wider
landscape.
Today post-Seville biosphere reserves are the only international designations covering all major
ecosystem types, including urban ecosystems, where more than 80% of the total area designated lies
outside of legally protected core zones. There is perhaps no better set of internationally networked
areas where conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and its relationships to broader regional
sustainable development perspectives could be studied and tested and the gained experience and
knowledge shared amongst all nations of the world (Ishwaran, 2008).
“The essence of a biosphere reserve is not merely protection or conservation but the building of a
mutually beneficial relationship between conservation and development using research, monitoring,
capacity building and participatory management approaches as tools to build conservationdevelopment linkages” (ICC, 2012: CONF 201/2, p 11).
The term biosphere reserve is therefore a misnomer: the designation is neither restrictive nor exclusive,
except as a legally designated core zone is required. Taken as a whole it is not a protected area as
defined by IUCN. Rather it is the only global designation – or accreditation – for an area demonstrating
excellence in sustainable development in practice. Thus, many BRs are building a name and logo that
represent the designated place and its vision, as to overcome the confusion of the concept of reserve
and the designation principles of BR which is sustainable development.
International framework of designated MAB BR
Biosphere reserves are not the object of a binding international convention or treaty but are governed
by a “soft law” — the Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves — adopted by the UNESCO General
Conference and which all member countries are committed to apply. In consequence, the UNESCO
Secretariat does not have a ‘policing function’ and it is the responsibility of each country, through its
MAB National Committee or Focal Point, to ensure that the Biosphere Reserves respond to the criteria
and function properly. In most countries it is not necessary to enact special national legislation for
biosphere reserves but rather to use the existing legal frameworks for nature protection and land/water
management.
Thus said, an increasing number of countries are now giving biosphere reserves a special legal status in
order to reinforce their application. In the case of a perceived problem, e.g. plans to construct an oil
refinery within the site, the biosphere reserve status should be used as a platform for dialogue to arrive
at an optimal solution. The MAB Secretariat will remind the concerned MAB National Committee/Focal
Point of its responsibility in such cases.
The actual strength of the BR approach is: To those who dislike or despair of the highly regulatory
approach to environmental protection, the BR offers a more constructive and conciliatory approach.
Management of BRs
UNESCO does not require any change in law or ownership: each Biosphere Reserve has its own system
of governance to ensure it meets its functions and objectives. The management system of a Biosphere
Reserve needs to be open, evolving and adaptive in order for the local community to better respond to
external political, economic and social pressures, which would affect the ecological and cultural values
of the area. Hence it is necessary to set up an appropriate governance mechanism, for instance a
committee or board, to plan and co-ordinate all the activities of all the actors concerned, each within
their own mandate and competence. Usually a Biosphere Reserve coordinator is named as the contact
person for all matters dealing with the biosphere reserve.
MAB National Committee/Focal point
Is to be established in each country where MAB BRs are designated (even better when planned to be
designated) as today’s MAB Programme requirement. Its role is very important in the process of
designation, monitoring and reporting, in the horizontal and vertical coordination, and networking. In
the process of designation and successful management, the role of the MAB National Committee/Focal
point is:
1. To promote, facilitate and support the establishment of Biosphere Reserves;
2. To identify societal needs and politically relevant issues (various sectors involved);
3. To stimulate, support and coordinate interdisciplinary research (scientific community involved –
not only ecology! – and use of the Biosphere Reserves network as a territorial lab);
4. To disseminate good practices and deliver policy advises (liaising with surrounding territories
and governmental bodies).
And further in networking:
5. To promote cross-border cooperation;
6. To participate in regional/international projects;
7. To exchange on good practices (bi-directional) and benefit from capacity-building efforts;
8. To promote sustainable development;
9. To develop links with other UNESCO Programmes (IHP, WH convention, etc).
De-designation – removing from the WNBR list
The Statutory Framework makes provision for a periodic review every 10 years. The periodic review
reports are prepared by the concerned authority, and forwarded to the UNESCO Secretariat. The reports
are examined according to a set procedure. In the event that a site designated as a biosphere reserve
does not satisfy the criteria, after a reasonable period of time the area will no longer be referred to as a
biosphere reserve of the World Network. To date, this procedure has never reached this conclusion.
However several counties have voluntarily withdrawn “non-functional” sites and this has been
commended by the MAB International Coordination Council.
There are number of challenges in applying the Biosphere Reserve concept internationally, with
implementation lagging in many examples. However, with the more rigorous approach to evaluating
sites since 2011/2012, it is likely that those Biosphere Reserves that do not function as the concept
intends, i.e. a ‘Biosphere Reserve’ in label alone rather than in practice, will be withdrawn from the
WNBRs in the near future, improving the successes of MAB globally (Coetzer et al., 2013).
MAB vs. WH
A biosphere reserve is a representative ecological area with three mutually reinforcing functions:
conservation, sustainable development and logistic support for scientific research and education.
Collectively, all biosphere reserves form a World Network linked by exchanges of experience and
knowledge. They are part of a UNESCO scientific programme, governed by a “soft law”, the Statutory
Framework.
Natural World Heritage sites must be of outstanding universal value in accordance with the UNESCO
Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972). Efforts to enhance local
development and to promote scientific understanding are the means to ensure the protection of the
natural World Heritage values. The application to WH list is also consisted of well elaborated
Management plan, not required for MAB BR sites.
In some instances, a core area of a biosphere reserve can meet World Heritage criteria. In that case, the
usually larger biosphere reserve can therefore serve as a complementary means to protect the integrity
of the World Heritage site.
MAB BR vs. NP
Biosphere reserve: conservation of cultivated
landscape, by sustainable cultivation, at least 5
% core area, Nature conservation including men
and economy
National Park: conservation of natural areas, by
nature conservation, at least 75 % core area,
nature conservation often excluding men or
limiting the activity.
Transboundary MAB BR
TB BRs provide a tool for common management. A TB BR is an official recognition at the international
level and by a UN institution of a political will to co-operate in the conservation and sustainable use,
through common management, of a shared ecosystem. It also represents a commitment of two or more
countries to apply together the Seville Strategy for biosphere reserves and its objectives.2
2
Source: www.unesco.org
Benefits, opportunities
The actual benefits realized within MAB programme will
depend upon the perceived need, the local capacity and the
opportunity to meet these through a BR type designation. Also
political will have an important role in this setting.
There are numbers of excellent opportunities present in biosphere reserves, not only for ecosystem
conservation and global-change scenarios given their typically larger sizes, but also for structured
interdisciplinary research (Coetzer et al. 2013). The biosphere reserve concept can be used as a
framework to guide and reinforce projects to enhance people’s livelihoods and ensure environmental
sustainability. UNESCO’s recognition can serve to highlight and reward such individual efforts. The
designation of a site as a ‘Biosphere Reserve’ can raise awareness among local people, citizens and
government authorities of environmental and development issues. It can help to attract additional
funding from different sources. At the national level, biosphere reserves can serve as pilot sites or
‘learning places’ to explore and demonstrate approaches to conservation and sustainable development,
providing lessons which can be applied elsewhere. In addition, they are a concrete means for countries
to implement Agenda 21, the Convention on Biological Diversity (for example the ecosystem approach),
many Millennium Development Goals (for example on environmental sustainability), and the UN Decade
of Education for Sustainable Development. In the case of large natural areas which straddle national
boundaries, transboundary biosphere reserves can be established jointly by the countries concerned,
testifying to long-term cooperative efforts.3 There are already well functioning BR sites. The potential is
wide4:
 a short term reward in terms of a globally respected designation/quality assurance; The designation
has the potential to:
o attract those in search of a high quality sustainably managed environment and associated
services (leisure, recreation, adventure, study, pleasant living environment) – increase in
tourist numbers;
o provide a practical and unifying focus for sustainable development initiatives;
o raise the levels of awareness, understanding and pride in the local environment and the way
in which it is managed, which in turn can inject and attract dynamism into the local
economy;
o lever in additional support or project funds by both assuring the quality of the environment
and the sustainability of the local economy.
 access to associated marketing opportunities for sustainably produced products or sustainably
managed environments;
 increase the added and real value of the products from the site;
 provide a practical focus on an identified human-natural system, or a particular “place”, whose
characteristics can be seen to improve through the BR implementation;
 improve governance mechanism for sustainable development management and coordination;
 link the place with international networks through which to share experience and develop
partnerships.
 honour international recognition and visibility of the strong commitment for transboundary
coordination and management.
3
Different web sources: http://www.watertonbiosphere.com/benefits-biosphere-reserve.html;
http://intim8ecology.wordpress.com/biospheric/, http://www.georgewright.org/mab,
http://tourismplanningprofessionals.com/?p=472, etc.
4
Source: Adjusted from Hambrey et al., 2008
The BR label is the only existing global “standard” associated with area based sustainable
development and associated products.
Additional potentials that can be utilized working with local population in the BRs are laid down below:
 Clear functional links between the quality of the environment and the lives of local people;
 Large enough area to support significant sustainable land use activity and levels of production or
products which can usefully be marketed under a BR/sustainable development label.
 A perception of need for regeneration, new initiative, a new way of doing things amongst the local
population and especially key players – and broadly based interest in sustainable development;
 Opportunity for improved livelihoods, income or new development related to the qualities of the
natural environment (e.g. local food or wood products; outdoor recreation; tourism);
 The existence of local crafts or local processing of food and natural products.
 High levels of awareness of natural values;
 Local institutions or individuals keen to “champion” development and conservation;
 Strongly supportive local government – preferably with boundaries coincident with the BR;
 A coherent community – a common sense of identity and pride – preferably related in some way to
the natural environment (e.g. fisheries, farming, shooting, education, recreation etc).
 Involvement of local community in the management (design, planning and implementation) having
participation processes high on the development and protection agenda.
Once significant achievements are maid and designation is functional, benefits could be further achieved
on national and transboundary level:
 Economies of scale (e.g. in training programmes, promotion programmes, access to rural
development funding, dissemination of best practice)
 Sectoral management integration (LAGs, tourism clustering – DMO/RMO and other economic
clustering);
And on WNBR level:
 Sharing of experience and learning;
 Representation of BR interests and experience at international level.
The researches on BR networks reveals a wide variety of mutually supportive activity, including joint
research and learning; training and demonstration; capacity building; marketing; monitoring and
information; fund raising; and awareness raising.
However, there should be no rush to designate TB BR in order to create a “fully functioning
cooperation”. It takes much time and effort to raise support and awareness to a level likely to create
demand for, and underpin a successful BR, as some cases illustrate. The emphasis should be directed
toward quality and success of future TB BR to prove the approach and enhance the starting point of
the designation and the brand.
Available information suggests that though steps are taken,
environmental management is still weak in the countries
concerned and the management of the lake basins remains
Challenges and constrains unsustainable. The management of biosphere reserves in
the region is not on the required level, too. The reasons are
manifold. The difficult conditions of the past e.g. political instability, long transition period of the
countries towards a market based economy, poor social cohesion, weak commitment to sustainable
development, etc., are some. Unsustainable practices of different economic activities have resulted in
numerous pressures exerted on the natural resources. This was interconnected with developmental
policies that didn’t incorporate principles of sustainability, and were translated in implementation of ad
hoc and non-integrated sectoral activities. Sectoral organization of governments and poorly coordinated
institutions with limited human and financial capacities further exacerbated the situation. The legal
frameworks and the non integrated management instruments have been proven weak tools for
addressing the relevant difficult challenges.
The slowdown of the BR designation in the Lake region is associated with the challenges listed above.
Also the process was weakened by the capacity to organise the process, especially in the area of building
the necessary ownership on Montenegrin side. In situations like this the following constrains can be
identified: 5
- Lack of authority and capacity (no of staff and knowledge) in environmental sector structures;
lack of leadership and clear vision often follows, leading to environmental sector inferiority.
- Additionally, environmental sectors are fragmented and often not aligned across sectors and
levels.
- Weak environmental governance capacity at the municipal level adds to constrains.
- Sectoral decision makers are unaccustomed to applying a watershed perspective to resource
management challenges.
- Sectors are managed and regulated independently and often have different goals and objectives
within the same watershed/basin.
- In Montenegro lately, the protected areas are required to fund their own management activities
and receive no financial or institutional support from the Government, possibly precluding any
active conservation work from being done.
- Also new BR is not to be financially supported from central budget in Montenegro.
- In the Albanian part of Shkodra Lake and Buna River, the legal status of the Protected Areas
Management Directorate precludes them from establishing their own bank accounts and
managing their own finances.
- In Albania there is still no direct management organization appointed for each PA, but are all
managed by Forest Directorate.
- Protected area managers have little experience in applying new age principles to the challenge
of conserving biological diversity within and around the protected areas, having also weak
absorption capacities and proactive drive, what could be a hold down issue in the process of
establishment TB BR.
- NGOs on MNE side are not seen as strong partner by relevant government counterpart, failing
to generate ownership building and commitment.
5
Source: (Adapted from) UNDP, Project document. GEF “Integrated Ecosystem Management in the Prespa Lakes Basin of
Albania, FYR Macedonia and Greece” Project
-
Existing data is largely outdated and incomplete on both sides and country data on ecosystem
parameters is held and not shared by interested organizations and individuals.
Monitoring dataset and practices are just developing on the external fund basis, what might be
proved to be unsustainable.
There is a serious lack of regulatory powers on both sides.
Community and users involvement in natural resource management in both countries is very
low and there are still no functioning mechanisms to give local authorities and resource users
more of a stake in the benefits of conservation. This is true for virtually all sectors including
agriculture, fisheries, forestry, wildlife, protected areas.
At trans-boundary level:
- Transaction costs associated with moving to the next level from trans-boundary agreement
upon the principles and basis for trans-boundary cooperation to developing and supporting
specific mechanisms for cooperation. For example, the trans-boundary coordination body
might be required, with a formal, legal mandate, full-time professional staff, and appropriate
allocation of resources.
- Also, the administration costs of public participation processes can be unexpectedly high.
- Data sharing on key issues affecting this Lake region is limited to a few narrow topics and
hampered by disparate sampling strategies, methods of gathering data, and ingrained
reluctance to share data. Data is perceived as a commodity and not a shared scientific
resource.
- Restricted access to data and poor communication among the states has led in the past to
differing development interventions and plans, often reflecting national, rather than transboundary priorities. It is not easy to inflict on this.
- The insufficient nexus of rules at single country level is coupled by a limited – until now –
legal framework at transboundary level. A way to promote such a scheme is by promoting
the harmonization of existing national legislation. Such effort is essential since only through
harmonization can in the Lake Shkodra/Skadar region or each one of the Lakes of the
neighboring countries be treated as an uninterrupted system to be managed in an integrated
way. Progress until now has been limited, though some steps are taken.
- Yet enforcement problems exist throughout the region.
Based on these, a set of key challenges need to be further discussed:
- Proceed with the on-going process of the designation at national and transboundary level
securing coordination, stronger commitment and ownership that will provide the basis for
integrated and sustainable management of the lake basins.
- Secure the continuation of the process after the designation has been obtained by long term
plan and commitment of SHs, ensuring the recourses for the realization of the identified goals
and support to establishment and operation of the TB MAB BR management body for actions
toward utilizing the concept and building site of excellence.
- Develop mechanisms that will facilitate the sustainable financing of the natural resources
management in accordance with the “user” and “polluter pays” principle, in consistency with
the socio-economic realities also at local level.
- Harmonize rules and regulations for the management of shared lake basin.
- Introduce more human-centered conservation approaches, as the Biosphere Reserve model,
that implemented effectively, is especially valuable in this regard.
Having it all laid down, the activities and issues in the region of Lake Shkodra/Skadar call for strong,
clear and long-term integrated transboundary management. This requires the existence of an
established and well functioning process coordinated by a management body at national and
transboundary level. Hence, while the NGOs are the pioneers in promoting public participation and
initiatives promoting social cohesion supported through external funded programmes, for the
success on the long run the government counterparts need to be fully committed and engaged too.
Until that synergy is achieved, each year the Lake is not managed properly, stakeholder
expectations, local and regional economy and funds are wasted, and unsustainable, uncontrolled
economy is entrenched.
Process of Shkodra/Skadar Lake TB BR designation future steps
There is call for working, in a well adjusted manner, at different levels:
Local: Present and demonstrate the feasibility of sustainable development trough successful show
cases, demonstration that BR “model” works. Build the understanding of the MAB Programs and of the
role locals could take on, as to support their empowerment and commitment. Break the fame of the
‘reserve’ name and work on the sustainable living concept and activities for Lake Shkodra/Skadar region.
As the conclusion to the two day workshop, a participant said: “we do not need the place to admire the
beauty and die of starvation, what we need is the synergy of people, their activities and nature”. Work
with local municipal level need to be enhanced, for knowledge and understanding, but for engagement
and commitment building, too. Local administrative units could be vital for ensuring seed money for
management of MAB BR. Therefore, encouraging upshots that MAB Programe brings should be
enhanced by public participation processes. Public awareness and information campaigns and education
can lead to awareness raising, empowerment of user groups and promotion of their effective
participation in the decision making and the sustainable management of the Lakes and the basin.
However, careful plan dependant of the situation and context of the resources vs. effects that needs to
be made in order to achieve desired.
In the case of the Lake Skadar region more resources might be needed as to engage SHs, sometimes
having face to face intervention, considering the low interest and agility at the moment. Such activities
have to be strategically supported and linked to ensure direction, continuity and effectiveness.
Two NGOs involved already have the necessary experience and benefit from local population trust.
Therefore they could play a major role on this level. They already reached significant level for
understanding MAB Programme, designation process, the benefits and challenges. INCA representative
reflected that since the process started the knowledge evolved even within civil sector from protection
of nature focus to today’s vision of TB region development achieved trough sustainable activities and
safeguard of the environment hand in hand, where local population is seen as beneficiaries. Both NGOs
involved in the process emphasized coordination as a fundamental component for successful alignment
of the economic activities and sectors and conservation goals as a prerequisite for work on important
common issues such as illegal activities, integral branding of the place, ecotourism, etc.
National: Build strong ownership and leadership over the process within decision makers. In order to do
this the case for improvement of environment, while creating jobs and social cohesion, under the
umbrella of the internationally recognized site of excellence need to be made! This could be supported
by establishing multi-sectoral working groups in both countries of the same level, consisted of: different
ministerial representatives, horizontal coordination bodies representatives (if any), vertical coordination
bodies (if any), and operational MAB Comity/Focal point representative. Establishment of MAB National
Committee or focal point in Montenegro is a requirement, too. Connect the influencing Physical
Planning, Policies, and laws into the common vision of the future BR, aligning directions and pointing out
issues could be part of the working group tasks!
There is an evident demand to work closely on sectoral integration. Thus, there might be a necessity for
this process to be facilitated by the relevant independent national/international consultant that can
work on the technical but also on crosscutting issues of sectoral coordination. There is also need for
looking ahead when planning the designation, ensuring the sustainability of the process, fulfillment of
the long term sustainable development and integral management goals and utilization of the benefits
that are given as enhanced opportunities, rather than an ex-ante of the designation.
Cross-border: Both countries high representatives emphasized appreciation to the MAB BR designation
and common awaiting to work on the pollution and other issues in a coordinated way. The statements
need to be expanded to the well formulated way forward, within the designation and coordination
process, and reconfirmed in the formal and well prepared meetings and agreements. The complex
situation advocates for establishment of mechanisms for well-built cooperation for exchange of the data
and experience between decision makers and managers in order to come to common vision. Therefore,
facilitating and ensuring open and trustful process of this key component, between the ministerial
representatives of two countries but other SHs too, is the early stage requirement. Signing off the
declaration or other kind of formal document, confirming the commitment, formulated trough aims and
actions of two governments toward establishment of TB MAB BR need to be facilitated and ensured.
International: Work closely with National Commission promoting the model on the international level
and with UNESCO Venice and Paris offices, involving possibly UNESCO Ambassadors of two countries.
Benefit from the catalytic involvement of the international community for the enhancement of
cooperation on the management of the lakes and their basins, both at national and transboundary level.
The process of designation is neither easy nor short coming. It usually takes lots of time from the idea to
initiation of the process and building commitment, up to submitting the Nomination file and inscription
in the WNBR list. For the success of the process of Nomination file preparation both approaches need to
be applied, top down and bottom up.
Top down approach starting points
Different sectors and national policies need to be translated into mechanisms to ensure that access to
the resources of the Lake and its basin is allocated fairly and efficiently between the competent uses and
users. The very important and basic of these principles in the Lake region context need to involve 3 key
issues:
- Long term vision and strategic directions formulation under the umbrella of new TB MAB BR.
- Proper, clear zoning and mechanisms for its enforcement aligned with physical plan.
- Very concretely, work toward enforceable effluent discharge standards.
First zoning proposal is already maid (figure 6 below) during the course of actions consisted of meetings
and roundtable discussions. It raised a lot of debates and it certainly needs to be worked on more in
terms of:
- Complying the proposed core zones with the already nationally designated protected zones, in
order to ensure legally binding conservation function (weather with nature reserves or NP
borders).
- Complying the buffer zone with the surface of the ecologically connected and correlated system.
- Following trends/requirements of the ‘new age’ BR, where transition zone is a large area
suitable for promotion and work on sustainable development, but where influence and also
pressures from human activities on the ecosystem are present.
- All together considering wider surface, as MAB BR do embrace complex and challenging socioeconomic, political and environmental contexts of the ecological connected system.
- Comply with the vision and strategic direction, access and benefit sharing issues of the future TB
BR.
Figure 6: Firs zoning proposal done based on the discussions and two baseline maps analyze. © Danilo Mrdak
Bottom up approach
Involvement of the local communities in the designation is critical for the success and management of
the future TB MAB. There are several instruments to be discussed and promoted for the engagement of
local stakeholders in the process of preparing nomination file and further. The efforts need to be
directed toward inspiring and directing people and their actions in order to change undesirable behavior
and to reinforce sustainable ones. This means discussions on access and benefit sharing between SHs
and local management organizations. Some of the mechanisms and topics could be:
- Levies and subsidies for stimulating
- Empower locals by giving them
implementation of the joint strategic
knowledge and involving them.
vision and sustainable use of natural
- Support their better cohesion.
resources.
- Celebrate champions of the sustainable
- Building and marketing a unique brand.
use.
- Raise the proud in the place with locals.
- Involve local youth in the activities.
Annex I: List of Meetings
1. Zoran Mrdak, Director; National Parks of Montenegro. January, 28th 2014
2. Bosiljka Vukovid, Head of the Division for the Support to the National Council for Sustainable
Development, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism, Montenegro. February, 4th 2014.
3. Lidija Šdepanovid, deputy director for environmental protection; Minena Batakovic, advisor in
monitoring department; Environmental Protection Agency of Montenegro- EPA. February, 4th 2014.
4. Ivana Vojinovid, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism, Montenegro.
February, 5th 2014.
5. Daliborka Pejovid, State Secretary, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism, Montenegro
February, 7th 2014.
6. Djana Bejko, Deputy Minister at Ministry of Environment Albania; Maxhid Cungu, Head of Regional
Council of Shkodra; February, 9th 2014.
Annex II: Questioner form and list of SHs that filled in the questioner
Prepared by:
Originator:
Project:
Project
assignment:
Funding:
Independent Consultant, Ana Katnic, MSc
NGO Green Home Project
Towards the designation of Lake Shkodra/Skadar as Trans-boundary Biosphere
Reserve
Feasibility study for establishing Transboundary Man and Biosphere Reserve (TB
MAB BR) Shkodra/Skadar Lake
UNESCO PARTICIPATION PROGRAMME 2012-2013
Description:
Before the governments of two countries, Montenegro and Albania, face the
process of finalization and submission of Nomination file, the activities are to be
directed toward production of the “Feasibility study for establishing Transboundary
Man and Biosphere Reserve Shkodra/Skadar Lake”. This is in order toanalyse
challenges and opportunities of transboundary protection and cooperation
under MAB BR Programme, in a participative manner, involving wider group
of relevant stakeholders.
Geographical area: Skadar Lake region and possibly Bojana/Buna River, no borders are defined jet.
This questioner is sent to public, civil and private sector SHs of both countries, to national, regional and
local stakeholder groups. The analyze and conclusions of the answers will be presented and discussed at
the workshop, to be held end of January, 2014. The venue details and invitations will be sent to you
separately. Both will serve as inputs to the feasibility study report, especially to the chapters on: benefits
and resources, necessary steps, support, management and political settings.
The consultant is obliged to exerciseindependent and objective interest in having two-way, wider group
SH’s communication. The consultant has a duty to reflect clearly and effectively the issues and
possibilities with stakeholders and partners.
For all your questions or doubts, do not hesitate to contact NGO Green Home Project Leader,
JovanaJanjusevic:Phone/Fax: + 382 20609375, E-mail: [email protected], or
independent consultant Ana Katnic: [email protected].
Thank you for finding the time and taking an interest in this process.
Ana Katnic
Independent consultant
Biodiversity, Protected areas,Sustainable development,
Project management, Project monitoring and evaluation
Name
of
the
questioned:
Title of position:
Institution/
Organization:
Place:
Date:
Questioner to determine feasibility for transboundary designation: Man and Biosphere Reserve
Shkodra/Skadar Lake region
Explanation on the questioner: Mark the right answer by circling it. You can circle more than one answer.
When question is referring to you/your organization circle one or the other in the question and then give
the answer.
1.
3.
Do you have any knowledge on the UNESCO MAB BR programe?
Yes
No
Some
How did you obtain it?
Literature
Work
Course/workshop
Study-tour
Other:
List protected areas present in this region in your country:
4.
List transboundary protected areas in this region, if any:
5.
List management authorities of protected areas in your country:
6.
List transbounday management authorities:
7.
List any authority that should/could have some management role in the current setting and it is
not involved at the moment:
8.
List any authority that should/could have some management role in trans-boundary PA
coordination:
9.
Is the conservation function of the protected areas in this region fulfilled at the moment?
Yes
To some extend
No
Explain:
Which alternative/additional structures need to be established to have efficient management of
protected areas in this region in the current set up?
2.
10.
11.
12.
What is the level of managementauthorities cooperation between two countries at the
moment?
No cooperation
Communication
Consultations
Collaboration
Coordination of planning
Full cooperation
Explain:
What is the level of cooperation of you/your organization with the neighboring
individuals/organisations?
No cooperation
Communication
Consultations
Collaboration
Coordination of planning
Full cooperation
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Explain:
Would establishment of transboundarycooperation help to protect, restore, maintain or
sustainably use any species and/or habitats and/or ecosystems?
Yes, significantly
To some extent
Not at all
Maybe
Not applicable
Would establishment of UNESCO TB MAB BR help to protect, restore, maintain or sustainably
use any species and/or habitats and/or ecosystems?
Yes, significantly
To some extent
Maybe
Not at all
Not applicable
Would establishment of UNESCO TB MAB BR improve livelihoods of local people?
Yes, significantly
To some extent
Not at all
Maybe
Not applicable
Explain:
Would establishment of UNESCO TB MAB BR improve political, social and economic outlook of
the region?
Yes, significantly
To some extent
Not at all
Maybe
Not applicable
Explain:
When the process of establishing UNESCO TB MAB BR should be taking place?
Immediately Mid-term (in next 2-5 years) Long term (in the next 5-10years) Never
What are the problems/treats of this region?
Would it be possible to overcome them through establishment of UNESCO TB MAB BR?
Yes, significantly
To some extent
Not at all
Maybe
Not applicable
Explain:
Which activities would/could be performed better if UNESCO MAB BR is established?
Conservation Sustainable use Tourism
Intensive use of the resources
What are the downsides of TB MAB BR establishment in this region?
Is there any pressure (political, public, international, etc.) to establish UNESCO MAB BR in the
region?
Yes
To some extent
Not at all
Is there any planning or other documents promoting establishment UNESCO MAB BR in this
region?
Yes
Not clearly
None at all
I don’t know
Explain:
Would establishment of UNESCO MAB BR in this regionimprove/contribute to any of these?
Knowledge
Capacity building
Financial resources
Visibility
Networking
Are the protection and development objectives of protected areas on each side similar?
Yes, significantly
To some extent
Not at all
I don’t know
List administrative units (municipalities/communes/ protected areas) that should be part of the
UNESCO MAB BR area from your country?
Would you/your organization like to take part in the establishment of UNESCO MAB BR?
Yes Maybe No
What are the main obstacles for establishment of UNESCO MAB BR in the region?
Are there any major political issues that might hold back the establishment of TB MAB BR?
Yes
To some extend
Maybe
None
Would key stakeholders benefit form establishment of UNESCO MAB BR?
Yes, majority
Only some
None
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Would any SH be in a disadvantage position if TB MAB BR is established?
Yes, many
Only some
None
Why:
Are people/SHs/ willing to share resources with neighboring counterparts?
Yes majority
Only some
None
Is there a serious lack of human capacities/resources for management of MAB BR?
Yes
No
Who should lead the establishment process?
Is there any obstacle for communication between the countries SHs?
Infrastructure Culture Language Knowledge Approach Other:
No
Explain:
Are there any preconditions/obstacles that need to be fulfilled/overcame, in order to have the
process of TB MAB BR completed?
Some questions are guided by: IUCN, 2012.,Initiating effective trans boundary conservation
37.
Additional remarks on the topic:
38.
Comments on the method:
39.
Comments on the questioner:
Questioners from Montenegro:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Radosav Nikčevid, Head of executive Board, NGO ‘Zeleni Crne Gore’
Nikoleta Nikčevid, Informator, TO Bar
Damir Mašovid, Advisor, Municipality Bar
Nikola Vukanovid, Expert advisor for Marketing, National Parks of Montenegro
Mirela Kalamperovid, Advisor and Secretary for International Affairs and Youth, Municipality Cetinje
Milica Krezovid – šestovid, employee on probation, NGO Young info-Montenegro
Miodrag Rašovid, deputy director paper ‘Monitor’
Emin Adžovid, Management Secretary, Municipal district Tuzi
Ivan Čađenovid, Journalist, Daly paper ‘Vijesti’
Questioners from Albania:
10.
11.
12.
13.
Idriz Kurtaj, Environmental expert, Protected Area, Koplik
Festim Broja, Biology expert, Directory of Forest Services in Shkodra
Edmond Terthorja, Chairman, Regional Environmental Agency, Shkoder
Dritan Dhora, Senior expert, Regional Environmental Agency, Shkoder
14. Simon Smalaj, Chief of Management office, Directory of Forestry Service Malesi e Madhe, Koplik,
Malesi e Madhe
15. Arben Brojai , Expert , Directory of Forestry Service, Koplik Malesi e Madhe
16. Qemal Zenelaj, Expert, Kastart Commune
17. Bruna Broqaj, Finance Director, Bashot Commune, Koplik
18. Besmir Hykaj, Support Services Director, “Malesi e Madhe” Forest Service Directorate
19. Enida Verça, “Journalism and Communication” student, Shkoder
20. Klevisa Çira, “Journalism and Communication” student
21. Elsiona Ymeri, Biologist, Civil society, Koplik
22. Ejëll Kalaj, Headmaster, “Dod Kaçaj” Highschool, Bajzë, Kastra commune inhabitant
23. Ramdar Mane, Bashkia Koplik
24. MirsadaHasaj, Teacher/Masters Student in Geography, Malesi e Madhe
25. Vlash Limadi, Director, Education Office, Malesi e Madhe
Annex III: Workshop agenda and list of participants of the workshop
Dan I: Četvrtak, Januar 30
10.00
Dolazak i registracija učesnika
30’
10.30
Uvodna obradanja:
Green Home – gđica Jovana Janjuševid
Institut za zaštitu prirode u Albaniji – gdin Zamir Dedej
15’
10.45
Predstavljanje inicijative, projekta i rezultata:
Green Home: Jovana Janjuševid
INCA: Zamir Dedej
Diskusija i pitanja
15’
11.00
Predstavljanje TB MAB BR procesa proglašenja u regionu: Studija slučaja MuraDrava–Dunav,gđa Duška Dimovid, WWF Dunavsko-Karpatski Program
30’
Kafe pauza
11.30
12.00
Uvod u radionicu:
Nezavisni konsultant: gđa Ana Katnid,
Diskusija i pitanja
30’
30’
12.30- 14.00 Ručak
Radionica I dio Moderator - Ana Katnid, nezavisni konsultant
14.00
- Predstavljanje:
 Zaštidena područja
 Trendovi i studije slučaja
 UNESCO proces proglašavanja
 Principi dobrog upravljanja
15.30
Radne grupe kroz različite aspekte:
 Kontekst životne sredine
 Politički kontekst
 Društveni kontekst
 Ekonomski kontekst
Izvještavanje u plenumu
Zaključci
Dan II: Petak, Januar 31
09.30
Predstavljanje procesa proglašenja MAB rezervata biosfere u Crnoj Gori i
uopšteno
Generalni sekretar Nacionalne komisije za saradnju sa UNESCO u Crnoj Gori: gđa
Marija Raznatovid
1h30’
1h00’
16.30
10.00
Predstavljanje procesa proglašenja MAB rezervata biosfere u Albaniji, inicijativa
45’
30’
20’
Prespa – Ohrid, KfW predstavnik
10.20
Predstavljanje procjena i rezultata projekta
Albanija – Genti Kromidha: Rezultati 2 konsultativna sastanka u Skadru i Kopliku
Crna Gora – Danilo Mrdak: Zonacija potencijalnog TB MAB BR Skadarsko jezero
10.40
11.00
20’
20’
Kafe pauza
Radionica, II dio
11.30
Rad u grupama povodom TB MAB BR Skadarsko jezero:
 Zoniranje
 Posvedenost
 Struktura
 Finansiranje
1h30’
13.00
Ručak
14.30
Zajednički rad na mogudnostima i koristima
30’
15.00
Zajednički rad na ekonomičnosti
30’
15.30
16.00
Zajednički rad na bududim koracima i vremenskom okviru
30’
Ispunjavanje upitnika
16.45
Zaključci
17.10
Završetak radionice
45’
Feasibility of establishing Trans-boundary Man and Biosphere Reserve Shkodra/Skadar Lake
Workshop, Bar 30-31 January 2014
01.
02.
03.
04.
05.
06.
07.
08.
09.
10.
11.
Name
Ana Katnid
Marija Ražnatovid
Goran Škatarid
Nikola Vukanovid
Radosav Nikčevid
Mr Nikoleta
Nikčevid
Damir Mašovid
Mihailo Burid
Amra Strujid
Jelena Lakid
Milica Krezovid-
Organisation/institution
Nezavisni konsultant
Nacionalna komisija za UNESCO
NPSJ
JP Nacionalni parkovi CG
Zeleni-Crne Gore
TO Bar
Contact
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Opština Bar
Zeleni-Crne Gore
NVO Bonum
NVO ’Mladiinfo’
NVO ’Mladiinfo’
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Šestovid
Miodrag Rašovid
Ivan Čađenovid
Aida Ramovid
Emin Adžovid
Amra Pepid
Mirela
Kalamperovid
Momčilo
Martinovid
Ruža Dirovid
Biserka
Stamatovid
Duška Ljiljanid
Anđela Vlahovid
Sanaj Čabarkapa
Emma Heywood
Aleksandra
Rolovid
Duška Dimovid
Genti Kromidha
Diana Muriqi
29.
Donalda Lacej
30.
Suzana Golemi
31.
Lindita Bushati
32.
Nadire Agaj
33.
Tauland Bejko
34. Amela Zaganjori
35.
Mahir Hoti
36. Dajana Maraqeshi
37.
Aurela Rrukaj
38. Ramadan Mema
39.
Qemal Mehja
40.
Zamir Dedej
41.
Maja Kandid
42. Jovana Janjuševid
43.
Katarina
Ljubisavljevid
44. Marija Vugdelid
45. Jovana Drobnjak
46.
Thiniaq(?) Lako
47.
Vasil Male
48.
Andon
Mazenkofski
49.
Donaldo Lacej
Monitor
ND ’Vijesti’
Gradska opština Tuzi
Gradska opština Tuzi
Gradska opština Tuzi
Prijestonica Cetinje
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Prijestonica Cetinje
[email protected]
Agencija za zaštitu životne sredine
CG
Turistička organizacija glavnog
grada Podgorice
NVO Zeleni Crne Gore
Zeleni Crne Gore
NVO Ekosfera
Undiscovered Montenegro
NVO Green Home
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
WWF
INCA
Univ. ’L. Gurakuqi’
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Univ. ’L. Gurakuqi’
USH ’Luigj Gurakuqi’
[email protected]
[email protected]
Forumi Shqiptar, Liqeri i Shkodres
Forumi Shqiptar Lipeni Shkodres
Forumi Shqiptar Lip. Shk.
Forumi Shqiptar Liqeni Shk
Forumi ShqiptarLipeni Shk
Forumi ShqiptarLipeni Shk
Dshpyor Shkoder
INCA
NVO ’Green Home’
Green Home
NVO Crnogorsko društvo ekologa
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
UDG
UDG
TBR Prespa project
P. K. Prespa Al.
TBR. Pespa project
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] (?)
[email protected]
[email protected]
Univ. I Shkodres
[email protected]
[email protected]
References
Coetzer,K. L., Witkowski,E. T. F. and Erasmus,B. F. N., 2013.Reviewing Biosphere Reserves globally:
effective conservation action or bureaucratic label? Biol. Rev.
Erg, B., Vasilijevid, M., McKinney, M. (eds.), 2012. Initiating effective transboundary conservation: A
practitioner’s guideline based on the experience from the Dinaric Arc. Gland, Switzerland and Belgrade,
Serbia: IUCN Programme Office for South-Eastern Europe.
European Commission, 2011. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020,
COM(2011) 244 final
Faloutsos, D., 2012. Drin Basin: A Situation Analysis. GWP-Med
Faloutsos, D., Constantianos, V., Scoullos, M., 2006. Assessment of the Management of Shared Lake
Basins in Southeastern Europe. A report within GEF IW:LEARN Activity D2. GWP-Med, Athens
GEF, 2004. Lake Shkoder Integrated Ecosystem Management Project Preparation Mission. Unpublished
Getzner M., Jungmeier M. & Pfleger B., 2012.Evaluating Management Effectiveness of National Parks as
a Contribution to Good Governance and Social Learning, In Tech
Hambrey, J., Evans, S., Price, M. and Moxey, A. 2008. The potential for Biosphere Reserves to achieve UK
social, economic and environmental goals. Report by Hambrey Consulting For DEFRA Ref: CR 0393
ILEC, 2005. Managing Lakes and their Basins for Sustainable use: A Report for Lake Basin Managers and
Stakeholders. International Lake Environment Committee Foundation: Kusatsu, Japan
Ishwaran,N., Persic,A. and Tri, N.H. 2008, Concept and practice: the case of UNESCO biosphere
reserves.not published
Ministry of tourism and environment, 2008. Montenegro tourism development strategy to 2020.
Radujkovic, B. & Sundic, D. 2012. Pollution of the Skadar Lake. Unpublished
UNDP, 2007. Project document. GEF “Integrated Ecosystem Management in the Prespa Lakes Basin of
Albania, FYR Macedonia and Greece”.
UNECE, 2009. Assessment of transboundary rivers, lakes and groundwaters In South-Eastern Europe
discharging in the Adriatic sea. ECE/MP.WAT/2009/10
UNESCO, 1987.Appendix A from Practical Guide from Man in the Biosphere
UNESCO, 2001.Seville + 5, International meeting of experts. MAB report series no. 69
Vugdelic, M. 2012. Analysis of synergies, gaps and complementarities on integrated environmental
management at regional level Skadar Lake – Montenegro. Unpublished
Water Notes and Water Fact Sheets.The World Bank, Washington D.C.
World Bank, 2003b. Water Resources Management in South Eastern Europe, Volume II, Country
World Bank, 2008. PAD - Project Appraisal Document Lake Skadar-Shkoder integrated ecosystem
management project. Washington dc, World Bank and global environment facility (GEF).
http://iwlearn.net/iw-projects/1665/experience-notes-and-lessons-learned
www.ramsar.org
www.unesco.org