Content uploaded by Aleksander Trajce
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aleksander Trajce on Jun 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Project "Landscape Scale Conservation in the Prespa Lake Basin – Transboundary
Species and Habitat Conservation Action Plans"
Brown Bear Conservation Action Plan
for the Prespa Lakes’ Watershed
A. Stojanov, Gj. Ivanov, V. Avukatov, A. Trajçe, A. Karamanlidis, L. Georgiadis, L.
Krambokoukis and D. Melovski
January 2012
2
Brown Bear Conservation Action Plan
for the Prespa Lakes’ Watershed
The present Conservation Action Plan is the product of data analysis carried out in the
framework of the project “Landscape Scale Conservation in the Prespa Lake Basin –
Transboundary Species and Habitat Conservation Action Plans. The project was undertaken
within the UNDP project “Integrated ecosystem management within the Prespa lake
watershed”.
Report prepared by:
A. Stojanov, Macedonian Ecological Society
Gj. Ivanov, Macedonian Ecological Society
V. Avukatov, Macedonian Ecological Society
M.Sc. A. Trajçe, Protection and Preservation of Natural Environment in Albania
Dr A.A. Karamanlidis, ARCTOUROS
L. Georgiadis, ARCTUROS
M.Sc. L. Krabokoukis, ARCTUROS
D. Melovski, Macedonian Ecological Society
Process facilitation and document editing by:
Gabriel Schwaderer, Euronatur Foundation
Dr. Lawrence Jones-Walters, European Center for Nature Conservation
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged:
Stojanov, A., Ivanov, Gj., Trajçe, A., Karamanlidis, A., Georgiadis, L., Krambokoukis, L. and
Melovski, D. (2012). Conservation Action Plan for Brown bear in the Prespa Lakes’
Cover photo: Macedonian Ecological Society
Watershed. Final Report pp 54.
3
Contents
Summary.................................................................................................................................................4
Part I BACKGROUND INFORMATION ......................................................................................................5
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................5
2. General information on the Prespa Lake watershed..........................................................................6
1.1 Area of interest for the brown bear conservation........................................................................7
1.2 Physical features and hydrology...................................................................................................8
1.3 Geology.........................................................................................................................................8
1.4 Climatic features...........................................................................................................................9
2. Species information ............................................................................................................................9
2.1 Species Description.......................................................................................................................9
2.2 Ecology and habitat requirements..............................................................................................11
2.3 Population status........................................................................................................................12
2.4 Review of relevant research and conservation projects on the Brown bear .............................14
3. Conservation status ..........................................................................................................................17
3.1 National and International conservation status.........................................................................17
3.2 National protection status..........................................................................................................18
4. Socio-economic role and importance of the species........................................................................18
4.1 Human attitudes towards bears in Prespa Lake Basin................................................................18
4.2 Bear caused damages in Prespa Lake Watershed.......................................................................19
Part II. CONSERVATION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS .........................................................22
6. Threats analysis.................................................................................................................................22
7. Identified corridors for Brown bear in Prespa Region......................................................................24
8. Overarching goal and overview of aims and objectives ...................................................................32
10. References ......................................................................................................................................51
4
Summary
The Brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) is the largest of the carnivore species found in the area of
Prespa Lakes’ watershed. Indeed, it is clear from surveys of public opinion that it enjoys
considerable popularity among the local population, as well as having full legal protection in
all three countries sharing Prespa Lakes’ watershed. It is a species with a number of habitat
requirements and its presence can be indicative of general ecosystem health. As for other
large carnivores, the brown bears are territorial animals and use very large areas. As a result
they are very difficult to conserve on traditional scales of protected areas and in single
countries. Instead, there is a need for transboundary cooperation between the three
countries sharing Prespa Lakes’ watershed in the development of coordinated management
and conservation plans for the species which will secure its survival for future generations.
Brown bear inhabits the mountainous forested areas that surround the Prespa Lake
watershed. Brown bear population estimates are still uncertain and figures are more or less
expert guesstimates. Based on the available scientific data, the estimated number of bears
in the broader area of the Prespa Lakes’ watershed is up to60 individuals.
Several projects and programmes focusing directly or indirectly on Brown bear protection
and conservation have been implemented in all three countries sharing Prespa Lakes’
watershed during the last 15 years. All of them provided solid ground data which can be
used in future planning and preparation of appropriate measures for conservation and
management of the brown bear population in broader Prespa region.
Having in mind all the above and especially the recent new bear genetic background it is
obvious that the bear population of the Prespa area plays a very critical role in the genetic
continuation of the western Balkan bear population of Dinaric – Pindus mountain range. This
means that Prespa Transboundary Park must be a core protection area which with the
combination of the neighbouring protected areas as Natura 2000 sites, can create a
important network of protected areas which can be used as a base for the protection of the
brown bear in West Balkans.
The Brown Bear Conservation Action Plan is the first comprehensive document to
systematically offer fundamental guidelines for brown bear management in the broader
Prespa Region. This plan is based on the recent scientific and ecological knowledge on
brown bear from all three countries sharing Prespa Lakes’ watershed. It is also based on the
accepted and ratified international conventions, plans and recommendations related to
brown bear conservation and protection worldwide. This action plan is not solid and final, but
an adaptive and flexible tool that can be changed subject to revisions made over periods of
time.
In the first part of this document (PART I), we provide background information including a
brief description of the study area, information on brown bear status, biology and ecology,
and we present the conservation and legal protection status of brown bear in all three
countries sharing Prespa Lakes watershed. In the second part (PART II) we describe the
threats and limiting factors to which the brown bear population is exposed, and we focus on
the overarching goal of this action plan, as well as all aims, objectives and recommended
actions defined for fulfilling the overarching goal.
5
Part I BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Introduction
1.1. Action Plans
The aim of the UNDP/GEF “Integrated ecosystem management in the Prespa Lakes
Basin” is to mainstream ecosystem management objectives and priorities into productive
sector practices and policies in the Prespa watershed. The project is designed to strengthen
capacity for restoring ecosystem health and conserving biodiversity at the local, national and
trans-boundary level in the three riparian countries in the Prespa region by piloting
ecosystem-oriented approaches into spatial planning, water management, agriculture, forest,
fisheries and protected areas management.
On the basis of the i) Technical Assessment Report for the Prespa Park Coordination
Committee in transboundary ecosystem management (2007), ii) Technical Task Team (TTT)
assessment and evaluation of national information in support of the Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), iii) development of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) in the
Prespa Lakes Basin-National Report, as well as iv) the Assessment prepared in the frame of
the Project-Consulting Services of training on Conservation and Action Planning for Priority
Transboundary Habitats and Species in the Prespa Lakes basin-Preparatory Phase (2009),
and v) based on proposed selection criteria (DEKONS-EMA 2009), three priority habitats
and three priority species have been proposed for protection. Findings and proposals for
protection of these priority habitats and species were presented on the session of the
Monitoring Committee for Prespa Park, on 26 November 2009. The following species and
habitats were adopted as priority and relevant status papers (DEKONS-EMA 2010) were
prepared for them, namely:
Species: Mountain tea (Sideritis raeseri); Prespa barbel (Barbus presepensis) as key
species enforcing the protection of other endemic fish species and Brown bear (Ursus
arctos).
Habitats: Grecian Juniper woods; Reedbeds and Caves not open to public.
This proposed Conservation Action Plan presents the overall conservation goal and strategy,
institutional setup, threats and efficient conservation actions for Brown bear.
1.2. Transboundary aspects of the conservation
Transboundary conservation is increasingly important in protecting and maintaining large
ecosystems and enhancing the socioeconomic development in concerned areas.
Transboundary conservation can have much greater impact than smaller, localized and
national projects. Collaborative projects between adjacent countries can protect large areas,
support species migrations and reduce the risk of biodiversity loss. Habitats become less
fragmented and a greater number of species can be protected. In addition, transboundary
projects generate increased income opportunities and the chance for countries to overcome
previously frosty relationships.
As for other large carnivores, brown bears are territorial animals and use very large areas.
As a result they are very difficult to conserve at traditional scales of protected areas and
single countries. Instead of this, there is a need for transboundary cooperation, in this case
between the three countries sharing Prespa lakes’ watershed in the development of
6
coordinated management and conservation plans for the species which will secure its
survival for the future generations.
Many conservation actions for brown bear study and conservation have been carried out
during last two decades as shown in sections from the chapter 2.4 of this document.
However, official and coordinated trilateral cooperation in relation to conservation of the
whole biodiversity of Prespa did take place until the year 2000.
In February 2000, the Prime Ministers of Albania, Macedonia and Greece signed the
“Declaration on the creation of the Prespa Park and the Environmental Protection and
Sustainable Development of the Prespa Lakes and their surroundings”, which is the first
trans boundary agreement for establishing a protected area in the Balkan Peninsula. With
that declaration, the entire Prespa Lakes watershed forms the Transboundary Prespa Park
(TPP), the first transboundary protected area in the Balkans. Based on that declaration,
the Prespa Park Coordination Committee (PPCC) and its Secretariat were established, and
forwarded important actions to support transboundary cooperation in Prespa. After two years
in 2002, a Memorandum of Understanding and Cooperation in the field of environmental
protection (MoU), was signed between the Ministry for the Environment, Physical Planning
and Public Works of the Hellenic Republic and the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of
Albania. The focus of the (MoU), is to especially cooperate in the environmental protection
and sustainable development of the Prespa lakes and their surroundings (Kazoglou et al.,
2010). A significant step for consolidation of the conservation, revitalization and proper
management of habitats and biodiversity at transboundary level was achieved with the latest
“Agreement on the protection and Sustainable Development of the Prespa Park Area”,
signet by the Ministers of the Environment of Albania, Macedonia and Greece and the
European Commissioner for the Environment in February 2010.
2. General information on the Prespa Lake watershed
The Prespa lakes’ watershed is located in the central-western part of Balkan Peninsula and
it is shared between Albania, Greece and the FYR of Macedonia. Geographically, it is
divided into two sub-watersheds: the Greater Prespa Lake (synonyms: Macro Prespa Lake,
Liqeni i Prespes, Limni Megali Prespa, Golemo Prespansko Ezero) and the Lesser Prespa
Lake (synonyms: Micro Prespa Lake, Liqeni i Prespes, Limni Mikri Prespa or Malo
Prespansko Ezero). The largest part of the Greater Prespa Lake watershed is situated in the
FYR of Macedonia, while Albania and Greece share the smaller part (Fig. 1). The Lesser
Prespa Lake watershed is shared between Greece (approx. 80% of the watershed) and
Albania (Fig. 1). Prespa watershed territory belongs to three local administrative units, each
in one country: municipality of Resen - FYR of Macedonia, the municipality of Korcha (mostly
commune Liqenasi) - Republic of Albania and the municipality of Florina - Republic of
Greece. About 30,000 inhabitants live in the Prespa region. The total area of the combined
sub-watersheds and lakes is 1218.1 km2(Perennou et al., 2009). According to Chavkalovski
(1997) the total area of the hydrological basin is 1349.2 km2, out of which 1095.3 kmk2
belong to Greater Prespa Lake and 254.0 km2to Lesser Prespa Lake.
7
Fig. 1 Balkan Peninsula with emphases on Prespa Lake’s watershed
1.1 Area of interest for the brown bear conservation
Brown bears, like other large carnivores, are territorial animals, occupy very large areas and
can travel very long distances in search for food, new territories, etc. An individual bear can
be present in the mountainous areas within the boundaries of Prespa Lake watershed, but at
the same time a part of its home range can be outside these “artificial” boundaries.
Therefore, considering the biological and ecological needs of the brown bear, we enlarged
the area of interest for this project (Transboundary Prespa Park which is equivalent to
Prespa watershed) for the Brown Bear Conservation Action Plan by including the entire
8
mountain massifs that surround the Prespa lakes watershed – Galichica/Mali e Thatë and
Baba/Varnountas/Triclario mountain massifs (Fig. 2). These mountains have stable brown
bear populations and serve as core areas. Moreover, on a broader scale, we defined the
functional and the potential bear corridors that connect these mountains with the
neighbouring brown bear core areas (Polis, Morava, Gramos, Verno, Voras and Nidze Mts.).
We consider that brown bear Prespa core area connection to Bigla-Plakenska Planina to
north already exists.
1.2 Physical features and hydrology
The two Prespa lakes are situated in a plain of an elevation of about 850-900 m a.s.l. which
is surrounded by high mountain ranges that create the Prespa lakes’ watershed. These are:
the Baba Mountain Range (Pelister, 2601 m) and Mt. Varnountas (2330 m) to the east of the
lakes, Plakenska Planina (Stalev Kamen, 1998 m) and Bigla (1656 m) to the north, Galichica
(Vir, 2287 m) and Mali Thate / Suva Gora (2284 m) to the west, Mt. Ivan (1770 m) and
Triklario / Sfika (1750 m) to the south-southeast.
The Greater Prespa Lake has a surface area of 253.6 km2(Perennou et al. 2009) or 273.2
km2at water level of 851.83 m a.s.l. (Chavkalovski 1997). The maximum depth of Greater
Prespa Leke is 54 m, its average depth 18.8 m and the length of its shoreline 100.1 km.
Because water goes downward through the limestone into Ohrid Lake near the locality of
Zavir (Vragodupka), the water level and the surface of the lake fluctuate annually and
through the years. The annual oscillations vary between 0.5 m and 1.75 m, while periodical
oscillations are up to 4.5 m (Chavkalovski 1997). However, for nine years (from 1987 to
1995) the Greater Prespa Lake level dropped by 6.05 m which exceeds the natural variation
by 1.55 m (Chavkalovski 1997). Based on hydrological analysis, Chavkalovski (1997, 2000)
ascribes the decrease of the water level of 3.29 m to artificial outflow (water for irrigation
purposes in the three countries). The water level is currently at approx. 843-845 m a.s.l.
(Due to the constant fluctuations of the lake’s level throughout time, the absolute elevation,
the surface area and the maximum depth is somewhat arbitrary. Additionally, the three
countries that share the lake use different system for elevation measurement which also
contributes to variation of figures in the existing literature.) The Macro Prespa Lake
watershed is characterized by a developed hydrographic network in its eastern and northern
part and a less developed hydrographic network in its western and the southern part. On the
eastern part there are several permanent watercourses out of which small rivers Kranska
Reka and Brajcinska Reka in FYR of Macedonia and Agios Germanos in Greece (Crivelli et
al. 2008) are the most prominent. In the northern part the most important permanent river is
Golema Reka.
The Lesser Prespa Lake has a surface area of 47.4 km2 (Perennou et al. 2009). It has a
maximum depth of 8.4 m, a maximum length of 13 km and the water level has been at
approximately 853-854 m a.s.l. over recent years.
Since 1975, the water level of Lesser Prespa Lake has remained higher than that of Greater
Prespa Lake (Hollis and Stevenson 1997). An alluvial isthmus 4 km long and 100-500 m
wide separates the two lakes. The lakes are linked by a small channel located at the
westernmost part of the isthmus. Water outflows from the former to the latter are controlled
by a sluice gate – road bridge system originally built in 1969 (first gate positioned in 1987) on
the channel connecting the two lakes. This system was restored in 2004 to allow for control
of the water level of the Lesser Prespa Lake (Kazoglou et al. 2010).
1.3 Geology
The rock masses belong to the West-Macedonian geotectonic unit (Klincarov 1997).
Mountains to the east are composed of silicate rocks (schist, magmatic and volcanic rocks),
9
while mountains to the north, south and west are mainly carbonaceous (limestone complex).
Due to the porous limestone rocks to the west there is an underground water flow from the
Prespa Lakes to the lower Ohrid Lake, where water appears as numerous sub-lacustrine
and strong surface springs, such as Drilon in Albania and St. Naum in the FYR of
Macedonia. The lowland part of the valley is composed of a clastic complex of sediments
(clay sediments, fluvioglacial residues, alluvial sediments, lake-swamp sediments and
proluvial deposits).
1.4 Climatic features
The climate of the area is under Mediterranean and continental influences and could be
characterized as Continental-Central European. The main climatic modifier is the water
mass of the Greater Prespa Lake with its thermodynamic inertia which influences the entire
Prespa watershed area. The average annual air temperature was 10.2°C in 1931 - 1960 and
9.6°C in 1961-1987. According to more recent data (for the period 1991-1995) average air
temperature in the northern part of the lower part of the watershed is 9.5°C (Resen
meteorological station) and 10.8°C in eastern part (Pretor meteorological station) (Ristevski
et al. 1997). The warmest month is July, with an average monthly temperature of 19.2°C and
the coldest is January, with an average temperature of 0.2°C (Lazarevski 1993). The earliest
freezing temperatures occur in October and the latest in May. The average freezing period is
167 days. Rainfalls are under the influence of the Mediterranean pluviometric regime. Rains
mainly occur in late autumn and winter, while the least amount of rainfall is recorded in July
and August. Average rainfall in 1961-1991 was 730 mm/m2. In the lower parts of Prespa,
precipitation ranges between 600 and 700 mm, in the mountain belt it increases up to 800-
900 mm, and in the high-mountain belt it is up to 1000 mm (it can reach 1400 mm in the
most humid years) (Ristevski 2000).
Prespa is characterized by a unique regime of local winds conditioned mainly by the Greater
Prespa Lake’s water mass and by the unequal warming of the air over the lake surface and
above the ground.
According to the thermal and pluviometric regime in the Prespa Lake region, the following
climate zones exist in the area (Ristevski 2000):
-hot sub-mediterranean climate zone (600-900 m), which is more characteristic for the
southern part of the watershed and especially for Lesser Prespa Lake watershed and
Albanian part of the Greater Prespa Lake
-cold sub-mediterranean climate zone (900-1100 m)
-submontane climate zone (1100-1300 m)
-mountain sub-mediterranean climate zone (1300-1650 m)
-subalpine climate zone (1650-2250 m)
-alpine climate zone (above 2250 m).
2. Species information
2.1 Species Description
The Brown bear living in the Balkan Peninsula (and consequently in the Prespa Region)
belongs to the nominal subspecies Ursus arctos L. arctos, the same as the whole European
Brown bear population (Ruskov and Markov 1974). Recent morphological and genetic
studies showed that the bears from the Balkans differ from the Russian-Carpathian
populations (Central, Eastern and Northern Europe) and are close to the other
Mediterranean populations (Spassov 1997; Taberlet and Bouvet 1994).
10
Brown bear is the largest carnivore on the European continent. The adult females weigh on
average 100 kg, while the average weight of the males is 150 kg. However, sometimes
individuals can grow to over 300 kg. During the year, the weight of adult individuals can vary:
they are the heaviest in late autumn before hibernation and weigh least at the beginning of
summer, after the rutting season. Brown bears have furry coats in shades of brown, blonde,
black, or a combination of these colours. According to some unverified observations, the
Balkan bear shows remarkable polymorphism regarding its coloration, having a high
percentage of rather light (golden) specimens (Spassov 1990). The Brown bear is a
plantigrade, as are humans, and can stand up on its hind legs. The forelegs end in massive
paws with strong claws 5-6 cm in length which are mainly used for digging. The claws are
not retractable as in cat species, and have relatively blunt points and are always visible in
footprints.
Bears are solitary and elusive animals. Males and females meet only during the mating
period. The family group, composed always of female and cubs, forms a strong nucleus that
usually splits after two years. They have a predominantly nocturnal activity pattern which has
come mainly as a result of hunting and the high disturbance potential in multi-use
landscapes (Swenson et al. 1996; Swenson 1999). There is a difference between the activity
pattern of yearling and adult bears, with subadults being somewhat in between (Kaczensky
et al. 2005). Adults are mainly nocturnal, whereas the yearling can be found active at any
time.
The Brown bear is an omnivore species that adapts its diet according to food availability and
human activities in its habitat/home range. As a result of regional differences in the quality
and availability of foods, Brown bears have a broad diet range between regions (Krechmar
1995; Jacoby et al. 1999). For instance, in the central part of Sweden Brown bears obtain
44-46% and 14-30% of their total annual energy from berries and ungulates, respectively,
and the rest from insects (14-22%, mostly ants) and forbs and graminoids (12-18%) (Dahle
et al. 1998). In the central part of Norway they obtain 65-87% from ungulates (mainly sheep),
6-17% from berries and the rest from ants, forbs and graminoids (Dahle et al. 1998). In
Croatia bears derive up to 95% of their dietary food energy from plants (Cicnjak, 1991). In
Greece the bear’s annual diet is dominated by food items of plant origin (87%), followed by
animal material (13%), mostly insects (Mertzanis 1994; Mertzanis et al. 2004). Although
there is a lack of data on the feeding ecology of bears in Macedonia and Albania, we
assume that they have the same food habits as those in Greece, as the Brown bear
populations from the Balkan lineage are very close to one another (Taberlet and Bouvet,
1994), and bear populations in Macedonia and Albania constitute the connecting populations
between the Brown bear populations of Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia in the north and the endangered Brown bear population
of Greece, where the species reaches its southernmost European distribution (Mertzanis,
1999). Brown bear’s food varies seasonally. The main food in spring consists of some
remains of acorns and herbaceous plants. During summer the major part of the food
consists of soft fruits (fruits from Pyrus sp., Malus sp., Prunus sp., Vaccinium sp., etc.), with
a maximum in autumn. Besides the fruits, hard masts, mainly acorns and beech masts are
essential food for bears in autumn. Animal material consists primarily of ants (maximum
consumption in summer), whereas the percentage of other mammal prey (dominance of
domestic ungulates, especially cattle, with the highest number of attacks concentrated in
autumn) is considerably low – 2% of the total diet (Mertzanis 1994).
Brown bears have relatively low reproductive rates, with females giving birth at most every
second year. Bears mate from the end of May until mid-June. The males travel great
distances during this period, and fight among themselves when they compete for the same
female. The embryo in the uterus has delayed implantation, with the greater part of its
development occurring during the last three months of the gestation, which is seven months
long. Cubs are born from January to March in the following year. A bear spends the winter in
11
a specifically selected and prepared den, usually located in small hollows in rocks, which
bears adapt to their needs by digging. The female usually gives birth to 1-4 cubs weighing
approximately 350 g. They are born blind and hairless. The survival of the cubs is influenced
by several factors, grouped as nutritional (food availability, condition of the mother), social
(mainly intraspecific predation) and disturbance factors (mainly by humans). Several studies
have shown that the factor that most influences cub survival is infanticide (cubs killed by
non-related male) (Bunnell and Tait 1985; Swenson 2001). The survival of the cubs has
been found to vary within an area (Swenson et al. 1997) and spatially among areas
(McLellan 1994; Swenson et al. 1997). The estimated mortality rate of bear cubs in Sweden
was 0.35 (n=126) in the south and 0.04 (n=78) in the north (Swenson 2001). The cubs stay
with the mother their entire first year of life and separate from her at the age of one and a
half years, when the next mating takes place. Brown bears reach sexual maturity at the age
of 3-4 years, and can survive in nature until the age of 10-20 years.
2.2 Ecology and habitat requirements
For its biological needs the brown bear has distinct requirements for different habitat
characteristics. The Brown bear used to live in lowland forests, flood plains and natural
meadows. As the human population spread, bears were pushed into areas less suitable for
humans. Thus, in recent times they can be found in mountainous forested areas. The crucial
habitats for the Brown bear are the old broadleaf forests (oak and beech forests) and mixed
forests with openings and undergrowth of fruit bushes. Occasionally, bears can be found
above the upper limit of the forest belt, attracted by the livestock and the blueberries.
The average daily movement of a bear is 1.6 km, while the maximum is over 10 km. There
are seasonal differences in Brown bear movement and activity. Bears show increased
activity during the mating period (from May to mid-June) when the males and females roam
to mate, and in autumn, when bears look for mature forests with large quantities of food,
such as beech nuts and acorns. In areas with scarce food (low mast production for example)
the home range expands while bears would still use small patches of their home range
resulting in an increase in the distance of the core areas. Besides, bears expand their home
range not only in width but move to lower elevation (closer to human settlements) in search
of alternative foods (Kozakai et al. 2011).
In winter their activity decreases as they retreat to inaccessible, quiet areas to den and for
females also to give birth.
The individual territory of Brown bear varies. For instance, in northern parts of Sweden, the
size of an adult female home range varied between 171-1,024 km2, while the size of an adult
male home range was considerably bigger and varied between 236-2,364 km2(Bjarvall et al.
1990). In Croatia by using radio telemetry the individual territory was estimated to be
between 6,000 and 22,400 ha (Huber and Roth, 1993). In Greece, using the same method,
up to 31,000 ha was estimated as individual territory for a female with cubs (Mertzanis et al.
2004). The size of a home range depends on many factors, such as: sex, age, body size,
food availability and population density (Dahle and Swenson 2003; Dahle et al. 2006).
Home-range sizes are larger for males than for females, and home-range size increases
with increasing body size, but is not related to individual age. Home-range size is decreasing
with the increase of the population density. Males and oestrous females use large ranges in
the mating season, but decrease their ranges after the mating season, because both sexes
of this species roam to mate. Females with cubs restrict their range size during the mating
season in order to avoid contact with infanticidal males and increase their ranges in the
postmating season. There are no significant differences between spring, summer and
autumn range sizes; average winter range is significantly smaller than other seasonal
ranges.
12
There are facts, like people’s statements and findings from winter field work (Melovski et al.
2008) in western Macedonia (bear tracks in deep snow in February) indicating that perhaps
some bears are waking up earlier from hibernation or will not start hibernating at all. During
the wintertime weather conditions are unsuitable for the bear (very cold temperatures, deep
snow cover etc.) and the preferred food articles are scarce or nowhere to find. The above-
mentioned situation is extremely difficult for the bears and not so fortunate for people sharing
the same habitats with bear. Factors that can disturb the bear’s hibernation are sometimes
natural, such as unusually high average temperatures during the wintertime, scarce food
availability before the bear starts hibernating (autumn); or caused by people, inclluding
disturbance and inappropriate management of bear’s food resource (hard mast and fruit
trees, berries etc.). If a bear does not hibernate during winter they suffer stress and need
more food while high energy nutrients (like hard mast and berries) are not available, so, they
must turn to food rich in proteins in order not to starve (Vaughan 2009). It means that in such
conditions bears must turn to predation and scavenging and the easiest way to obtain such
food is the livestock near or in human settlements. In this case conflicts between people and
bears are inevitable. To summarise, disturbance in the process of hibernation is a problem
for the bear’s physical condition and health, it influences the survival rate of adults and
especially bear cubs and increases the potential conflicts between bears and humans.
2.3 Population status
Population estimates and the status of the brown bear in Prespa Lake’s watershed or the
project’s study area are uncertain and figures are more or less expert ‘guesstimates’. The
only systematic population study of the brown bear in the study area is the genetic study
conducted by the research team of ARCTUROS with around 18 bears identified by genetic
sampling (Karamanlidis 2007; Karamanlidis et al. 2011). Based on the inventories of the
Directorate of Forests and Pastures of Korcha district, there are seven bears in the National
park Prespa (Albania). The Macedonian share of the population is estimated to be up to 10
bears in NP Galicica and from 20 to 30 bears in NP Pelister (DEKONS-EMA 2010). Summed
figures indicate that the population of the Brown bear in the study area numbers around 60
individuals (Tab. 1).
Tab.1 Estimated number of bears in Prespa Lakes’ watershed
Subregion/Country Number bears per
subregion/country
Macedonia (NPs Galicica and
Pelister) 35
Albania (NP Prespa) 7
Greece (NP Prespa) 18
Sum (total) 60
The 18 bears in the Greek Prespa area is a small part of a great bear population which is
distributed at the wider Peristeri Mountain range including the Mountains of Varnountas,
Verno, Triklario and Askio. It should be mentioned that according the results from
ARCTUROS last genetic analysis research the Peristeri subpopulation has significant
genetic differentiation from the Pindos subpopulation in Greece and common genetic
characteristic with the bears in Macedonia and Albania.
Having in mind all the above and especially the recent new bear genetic background it is
obvious that the bear population of Prespa area plays a very critical role in the genetic
continuation of the western Balkan bear population of the Dinaric – Pindus mountain range.
13
This means that the Prespa Transboundary Park must be a core protection area which with
the combination of the neighbouring protected areas as Natura 2000 sites, can create a very
important network of protected areas which can be used as a base for the protection of the
brown bear in the West Balkans.
Fig. 2 Brown bear distribution in Prespa Region
Brown bear inhabits the mountainous forested areas that surround the Prespa lakes’
watershed (the Baba Mountain Range and Mt. Varnountas to the east of the lakes,
Plakenska Planina and Bigla to the north, Galichica and Mali Thate / Suva Gora to the west
14
and Mt Ivan and Triklario to the south-southeast.). The core areas of the bear population in
broader Prespa Lake watershed are Galichica/Mali e Thatë and Pelister/Vicci Mts. (Fig. 2).
2.4 Review of relevant research and conservation projects on the Brown
bear
2.4.1. ARCTOS project
The ARCTOS project was implemented by the Greek NGO Arcturos in two phases (first
phase 1994-95:LIFE93NAT/GR/010800, second phase 1997-99: LIFE96NAT/GR/003222).
In order to conserve the natural areas which act as linkage areas between bear populations
in the Balkans, the project has achieved cross-border cooperation with the neighbouring
countries (Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Macedonia). Project ARCTOS supported the
BALKAN NET for conservation of the bear and other large carnivores by organizing
meetings, seminars, transborder scientific research and implementing other common
conservation actions.
2.4.2. RODOPI-GRAMOS project
The LIFE-Nature project RODOPI-GRAMOS (LIFE99NAT/GR/006498) implemented by the
Greek NGO ARCTUROS was aiming at the “Implementation of Management Plans in
Gramos and Rodopi Areas, Greece” aiming at the conservation and management of
priorities species such as the brown bear and Directive 92/43/EU Habitat Types such as
Black Pine habitats (implementation period: March 2000 –February 2002).
2.4.3. Population estimation of brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) and lynx (Lynx lynx L.) in
the wider mountain range of Voras.
In the framework of the project with the title: “Environmental Protection and Sustainable
Development”, supported and co-financed by the Greek Ministry of Environment
ARCTUROS implemented a special conservation project (implementation period: March
2003 – February 2004) for the population estimating of brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) and
lynx (Lynx lynx L.) in the wider mountain range of Voras.
2.4.4. TEDDY project
The TEDDY project (1996-97) was a joint transboundary project initiated by the Greek-based
NGO Arcturos, with input from NGOs in neighbouring countries. The overall aim of the
project was to create a network for awareness raising and the conservation of wildlife and
nature in European countries that are host to bear populations. The method applied in this
project was a questionnaire survey among local inhabitants living in the “bear area” (western
Macedonia). The questionnaire was disseminated by representatives of MES, Bird Study
and Protection Society of Macedonia and students from the Faculty of Natural Sciences and
Mathematics (Institute of Biology), during the period September 1996 to February 1997.
Another component of the project was raising awareness among the local people about the
Brown bear, carried out by a group of journalists from the NGOs “Journalists’ Environmental
Center” – ERINA. The themes concerned the conservation of the Brown bear, the dancing
bear problem, legislation and hunting, and field guides for signs of and damage caused by
Brown bears. This project was the first step towards the better study and protection of the
Brown bear in this region. The results of the project are compiled in the Compendium on the
Status of the Brown bear in the South Balkans.
15
2.4.5. BALKAN NET project
The BALKAN NET project (1997-98 and 1999-2002) aimed to continue and extend the
activities of an established network between the Balkan countries for awareness raising and
sustainable nature conservation in areas hosting Brown bear populations and to include
Macedonia in its actions. The Network concerns organizations dealing directly or indirectly
with the natural environment (non-governmental organizations, organizations of local
authorities as well as public services). The main goal of the project was the preservation of
the Brown bear population and its habitat in the Balkan area.
2.4.6. ECO-NET, DAC/OECD project
The ECO-NET, DAC/OECD project with the title “Creation of a network for the legal
protection and management of protected areas in the Southern Balkans” had a long term
aim the legislative harmonisation and management of protected areas in co-operating
Balkan countries. The implementation partner was NGOs from Greece, Albania, Macedonia,
Bulgaria, and F.R. Yugoslavia. (Implementation period: 2001 –2002).
2.4.7. INTERREG III A/CARDS GREECE – FYR Macedonia project
The INTERREG III A/CARDS GREECE – FYR Macedonia project with the title “Activities for
the protection of mountainous ecosystems based on the protection of the Brown Bear”
focused on mountainous areas of Vernon and Varnountas in prefecture of Florina.
(Implementation period: 2005 – 2006).
2.4.8. Hellenic Bear Register project
Since 2005 ARCTUROS has been implementing the Hellenic Bear Register project which
focuses on monitoring of the Brown Bear in Greece using genetic analysis and the
establishment of a permanent system to supply hairs in area of Grevena and Florina
(Mounts of Verno and Varnountas). In 2010 with the support of the Greek Ministry of
Environment, Energy and Climate Change the project was extended to the main bear
distribution areas as a 1st Genetic Registration of Brown Bear in Greece giving an estimate
of a minimum population of 400 bears.
2.4.9. Balkan Lynx Recovery Programme (2006-2009)
In 2006, the Macedonian Ecological Society together with the Protection and Preservation of
Natural Environment in Albania started together with EuroNatur and Kora the partnership
project “Balkan Lynx Recovery Programme”, which aims to secure the survival of the
remaining Balkan lynx population in Macedonia and Albania through the establishment of a
series of protected areas as well as through improved wildlife management within and
outside future transboundary protected areas where strongholds of the Balkan lynx exist.
One of the project tasks was to conduct a lynx baseline survey to assess the distribution and
the relative abundance of lynx and its potential prey species, as well as for the Brown bear
and wolf by conducting questionnaires in possible lynx distribution areas.
2.4.10. “ECO-INFO II” project
The “ECO-INFO II” project with the title: ‘Expanding the cooperation between environmental
information centres in the framework of improvement of environmental information services
and contribution to the sustainable development of mountain areas’ was implemented by the
NGO MOLIKA in Macedonia with the main aim of creating the Large Carnivore Information
Center in Nizhepole, close to National Park Pelister. Its duration was one year (April 2007-
16
April 2008) is funded by the Hellenic Aid Agency of Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
ARCTUROS.
2.4.11. “Monitoring of fauna in Grammos” project
The project for “Monitoring of fauna in Grammos” in the period 2007-2008 was an activity in
the wider project with the title “Joint strategy and collaboration in environmental protection
and resource management of Grammos mountain” implemented in the framework of the
program INTERREG III A/CARDS GREECE–ALBANIA 2000-2006, with the cooperation of
Prefecture of Kastoria.
2.4.12 “Development of National Ecological Network MAK-NEN" (2008-2011)
The project is implemented by the Macedonian Ecological Society (MES) together with
ECNC- European Centre for Nature Conservation from the Netherlands, in cooperation with
and supported by the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning of the Republic of
Macedonia. The main goal of the project was to develop a national ecological network in the
Republic of Macedonia, as part of the Pan-European Ecological Network (PEEN), that will
contribute to the country’s efforts to halt the loss of biodiversity. The Brown bear has been
chosen as a flagship species to promote and further develop the network of ecological
corridors for the large carnivores in Macedonia, as well as providing a platform for more
efficient work towards biodiversity protection in general.
2.4.13 “Status of brown bears in Albania and FYR Macedonia”
The project was led by the NGO ARCTUROS and implemented through the local
cooperation of the NGOs Macedonian Ecological Society (MES) and MOLIKA from
Macedonia and Transborder Wildlife Association (TWA) from Albania in the period 2007-
2009. The main aim of the project was to collect information that will enable a preliminary
assessment of the current status of brown bears in Macedonia and Albania and prepare
groundwork for the effective conservation and management of the species in future. The
project supported in cooperation with the Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game Management
of University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences of Vienna and funded by IBA,
ALERTIS, WSPA and ARCTUROS.
2.4.13. Recreation of the BALKAN NET
The project “Recreation of the BALKAN NET, a network of conservation bodies in countries
sharing continuous large carnivore populations” implemented with the NGOs ARCTUROS
(Greece) aiming at the re-establishment of the network with the participation of the Faculty of
Veterinary Medicine University of Zagreb (Croatia), Transborder Wildlife (Albania), Wildlife
Conservation Society MUSTELA (Serbia), Faculty of Forestry, University of Sarajevo
(Bosnia and Herzegovina), Bulgarian Biodiversity Preservation Society-SEMPERVIVA
(Bulgaria) and MOLIKA (Macedonia) as va olunteer. Its duration was nine months
(September 2007-June 2008) and it was funded by the SEE.ERA.net project.
2.4.13. The “CALCHAS” project
The Calchas project is a LIFE+ Environment and governance project for the development of
an integrated analysis system for the effective fire conservancy of forests. The project
intends to install 10 meteorological stations in the area of Grammos in order to ecosystem
monitor and prevent forest fire disaster. Coordinating beneficiary is Agricultural University of
Athens and partners National Technical University of Athens, Terra Nova Ltd, Marac
Electronic S.A. Union of Cyprus Comunities and ARCTUROS. (Implementation period:2010-
2013).
2.4.14 “Promoting techniques for reducing conflict between brown bears and humans
in Albania”
17
The project was implemented by the NGO PPNEA with the financial support of the European
Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) in the period 2008-2010. The main aim of the
project was to identify the main conservation concerns of brown bears in Albania, the most
conspicuous human-brown bear conflicts and promote techniques and measures for conflict
reduction. The results of the project revealed that the main conservation concern for brown
bears in Albania is their use for human entertainment and public attraction objects, rather
more than illegal killings originating from conflicts. Brown bears and other wildlife species are
increasingly being used either dead or alive by roadside restaurants or other private
enterprises as attraction animals, possibly to attract more clients in their premises.
2.4.15 “Balkan Lynx Recovery Programme – Phase II (2010-2012)”
The project “Balkan Lynx Recovery Programme – Phase II” is a continuation of the
programme for lynx conservation in Macedonia and Albania that started in 2006. The
activities proposed in Phase II are defined according to the experiences gained so far
and they are consistent with the activities proposed in the range-wide “Strategy for
the Conservation of the Balkan Lynx in Macedonia and Albania”. Thus, the project we
present
here is a logical continuation of the work conducted so far towards the recovery
of the Balkan lynx
. Besides the many activities within the project, there is a continuation of
the activities regarding the lynx monitoring in Macedonia and Albania, which will result in the
collection of new ground data on lynx, but also for the other large mammalian species,
including the brown bear.
3. Conservation status
3.1 National and International conservation status
The Brown bear is listed as a protected species or a species with unfavorable conservation
status in many international conventions and agreements, including: Annex II and IV of EU
Habitat Directive (94/43/EEC), on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of
European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), Appendix II of the CITES
Convention, in the Corine list of Threatened species and in the EMERALD Resolution No. 6
(1998). It is categorized as an LC (Least Concern) species on the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Animals (European Threat Category).
In Albania, the Brown bear is classified as a Vulnerable (VU) species according to the Red
List of Albania (Misja 2006; MoEFWA 2007). In the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan (Bego et al. 1999) the Brown bear is selected as a priority species and the development
of an action plan for its conservation is recommended as an immediate action to take. In
2007 an action plan was compiled and adopted by the Ministry of Environment, however no
concrete action has so far been seen in relationto the document.
In the Red Data Book of threatened species in Greece (Karandinos & Legakis 1992) it is
considered as an "endangered species".
Although there is still no Red List in Macedonia, the Brown bear is mentioned as an
important species for conservation at national level in the Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan of the Republic of Macedonia (2004).
18
3.2 National protection status
The Brown bear is listed as a protected species according to the national legislation of all
three countries sharing Prespa Lake Basin.
3.2.1 Macedonia
Brown bear in Macedonia has been protected by the Law on Hunting since 1996 (Official
gazette of RM 20/96). According to Articles 9 and 13 of the new Law on Hunting adopted in
2009, the bear is considered as a protected game species and its hunting is permanently
prohibited. Nevertheless, there is an exception. Hunting might be allowed with permission
from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy (MAFWE) and the Ministry of
Environment and Physical Planning (MEPP) for scientific and educational purposes, for zoos
and natural history museums, for breeding and the prevention of contagious diseases, as
well as when the species is causing damage (Articles 15, 16 par. 5).
According to the Law on Nature Protection, Article 35 (Official Gazette of RM No. 67/2004)
Brown bear is proclaimed as a strictly protected species (Lists for designation of strictly
protected and protected species, Official Gazette of RM No. 139/2011).
3.2.2 Greece
Brown bears are fully protected in Greece and according to the Forestry Code (Legislative
decree 86/1969, article 258) the killing, capturing, possession and exhibition of bears is
illegal. The species is also listed as a priority species in Annex II of the European directive
92/43 EEC.
3.2.3 Albania
The Brown bear in Albania enjoys a full legal protection status sanctioned by the new Law
on Wildlife Protection (2008) and Law on Hunting (2010). The species has been considered
as fully protected at least since 1956 as it is sanctioned on the respective governmental
decrees of the time.
4. Socio-economic role and importance of the species
As the humans changed and pushed out the bears from most of their natural habitats, bears
today live in close proximity with humans in more or less human modified landscapes. In
these landscapes, bears, in order to satisfy their biological needs, make contacts with
humans and their property which results with many conflicts. Therefore, the future of brown
bears will mainly depend on their acceptance by humans. Thus, there is a need to focus on
people who share the landscape with bears in order to explore their knowledge and
perception concerning bears. Accordingly, understanding and documenting the people’s
attitudes towards bears is as important as ecological issues for defining appropriate
management measures for conserving the bear populations.
4.1 Human attitudes towards bears in Prespa Lake Basin
The human dimension surveys carried out in the three neighboring countries of Prespa
region (Arcturos 1997; Arsovska 1997; Arcturos 2002; Melovski et al. 2008; Ivanov et al.
2008; Keçi et al. 2008; Krambokoukis 2010; Karamanlidis 2010; Trajçe 2008; Trajçe 2010;
19
Krambokoukis and Hornigold 2011) have shown that local people have very positive
opinions about brown bear and do not consider it as a dangerous or harmful animal (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 People’s attitude towards bears in Prespa Region
Most of the respondents would like to have bears in their area and believe that bear
presence can be beneficial for the area. In all three countries local people are in favour of
bear conservation and stated that bears should be protected by law (Fig. 4)
Fig. 4 People’s opinion regarding bear protection
4.2 Bear caused damage in Prespa Lake Watershed
Most of the interviewees confirmed at least one type of conflict with bears in their areas,
whether attacks on livestock or damage to agriculture. In the Albanian and Greek part of
20
Prespa Basin, the majority of the respondents claimed that they had suffered damage to
livestock caused by bears, whereas in FYR of Macedonia the percentage of people that
claimed damage is lower (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5 Presence of Brown bear depredation on livestock
In the Greek part, bears are mainly causing damage to free grazing livestock (Fig. 6) while in
Albania and FYR of Macedonia the majority of the respondents suffered damage to cattle,
goats and sheep (Fig.7). In all three countries, bears cause significant damage to beehives
(Fig. 6 and 7).
Fig. 6 Type of bear depredation in Greece
21
Fig. 7 Type of bear depredation in Macedonia and Albania
Agricultural damage seems to be another source of conflict between humans and bears in
Prespa Region. In the Albanian and Greek part, bears mainly cause damage to crops
(mainly wheat), whereas in FYR of Macedonia most of the respondents stated that they had
suffered damage to orchards (Fig. 6 and 8).
Fig. 8 Bear caused damage on agriculture in Macedonia and Albania
Despite the fact that there are many conflicts between humans and bears, these conflicts are
generally tolerated by the local population compared to the conflicts with the wolf (Trajçe,
2010). With some exceptions, most of the locals stated that bears causing conflicts should
not be killed, but the ministries and state institutes should apply their instruments in order to
solve the problems of conflict.
22
Part II. CONSERVATION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
6. Threats analysis
Aside from the fact that the Brown bear in the study area (Prespa lakes’ watershed) is within
the transboundary protected area and it is protected by law and the fact that Brown bear has
no natural enemy, its existence and movement still depends on human willingness to accept
the bear in their environment. The population of Brown bear in Prespa basin is exposed to
real threats, most of them due to human activities.
6.1 Poaching and illegal trade
So far, the literature data (ARCTUROS 2002; ARCTUROS 2005; Ivanov et al. 2007; Keçi et
al. 2007) and field experience (ARCTUROS 2008, unpublished data) have identified illegal
hunting (poaching) as one of the biggest threats to the bear’s existence. Bears are hunted,
shot, trapped and killed or sold; if a mother is killed the cubs are domesticated, sold or given
to zoos or private collections. Poaching occurs everywhere! Somewhere more and
somewhere less like in the protected areas (national parks) and heavily kept hunting
reserves. The proof for this is the actual distribution: the bear is best distributed in the
protected areas because there is no poaching, or at least it is not significant. There are
unconfirmed indications of setting poison baits to eradicate “pest” animals such as wolves
and others. It is known that bears occasionally scavenge and feed on carcasses, this makes
them a “risky link” in the poisoning chain. Dancing bears have not been seen in the Prespa
region, but there are a few cases of illegal bear trading in-between neighboring countries
(Arcturos 2002). Live or dead (trophy), bears are sold by poachers to private collectors or to
private (illegal) zoos etc.
6.2 Habitat fragmentation and connectivity loss
Generally, the habitats presently occupied by the bear in the study area are in more or less
good condition (Arcturos 2002). This is mainly because of the rural-urban migration and
abandonment of the mountain villages. The best preserved bear habitats occur in FYR of
Macedonia and Greece while in Albania forests are heavily used/managed and only partly
suitable. Due to fragmentation of bear habitats core areas are distinct and the corridors
between are lost or not functional. Such conditions restrict the bear’s movement and do not
allow extension of their area. Poor road infrastructure and traffic density only slightly
fragment the bear’s habitat and influence its migration, while for bear – vehicle accidents
have been reported at Greek part (Vrontero) of Prespa (ARCTUROS 2005, unpublished
data). However, the existing and planned highways and especially in combination with other
infrastructure (such as wind-farms) and industrial type of activities (mines) are/will be a
potential obstacle for bear migration and will cause fragmentation of their habitat and
population. Isolated small bear populations are not viable and with time will decrease in
number and eventually become extinct.
In order to assess the current situation concerning the status of habitat fragmentation and
connectivity of the brown bear core areas in Prespa, as well as their connectivity with
neighbouring core areas out of Prespa region, analyses were done based on GIS
methodology. The results are shown in Chapter 7 below and they include: identified corridors
23
with short descriptions, their function, identified problems and recommended measures for
maintenance of their functionality.
6.3 Human-bear conflicts
Due to the high migration rates during the 1950s to the 1970s from rural to urban areas and
the parallel decrease in livestock breeding, human–bear conflicts have dropped
considerably. Investigations showed that most people – especially permanent residents of
rural areas consider bear damage as a “natural part of rural life” and do not perceive it as a
threat (Arcturos 2002). However, bears were reported to cause significant damage to crops,
fruit trees, and big livestock and to a lesser extent to beehives (Trajce et al. 2008; Keci et. al.
2008). Human-brown bear conflicts are believed to explain to a certain extent the reasons for
illegal killing of brown bears. The percentage of people who complained is small but not
realistic, as, for various reasons, bear depredation is not always reported. Unsolved and
repeated conflicts accumulate anger in people and they usually think that the only solution is
killing the animal (revenge). Indeed, very often the wrong bear is shot, because bears are
very difficult (almost impossible) to distinguish only by sight alone. Solving human-large
carnivores’ conflicts requires hard and long-lasting work with local people and the results
usually take years to realise.
6.4 Lack of natural food resources
Bears are omnivorous animals that mostly feed on plant food. With this kind of diet, bears
need big quantities of food to satisfy their daily need and much more to make adipose
reserves for hibernation. The current forestry practices are not so much in the bear’s favor.
Clear cuts in oak forests and intensive exploitation of beech forests do not allow forests to
mature and produce hard mast (acorns). Difficult economic condition and unemployment in
rural areas made people dependent on the exploitation of natural resources. Harvesting of
non timber forest products and fire wood makes the only income in some areas. This
intensive, uncontrolled, and often inappropriate harvesting leaves less food for the bears.
With low natural food sources bears are forced to look for food around human settlements
(beehives, crops, fruit trees, livestock etc.), and that creates conflicts.
6.5 Disturbance
Bears try to avoid people. Their movement and activities are discrete especially during the
reproductive period and while hibernating. Hibernating dens are usually located in rocky
areas hardly accessible for people in winter condition, plus people go less in the forests in
winter time. The main disturbance comes from poachers and recreationalist. To solve this
problem it is important to map the bear dens or to identify possible den areas. Also, the
territories of females with yearlings can be identified and publicised so that people are aware
of them.
6.6 Lack of knowledge
Lack of knowledge is never a direct threat but always contributes to misunderstanding or
mismanagement. With no systematic research and monitoring of the bear’s population and
ecology in Prespa region (and broadly on Balkans) appropriate activities and measures can’t
be drafted and most of the time solutions will come from expert experience or compromise
rather than from the situation in the field. Monitoring capacity of the local protected area
management bodies is weak but improving.
24
6.7 Poor communication
Several stakeholders can be identified/considered that are connected or influence single
bears or even whole local populations. Most important are protected areas’ management
bodies, local hunters and farmers (bee keepers, livestock breeders, landowners); Local
NGO’s, tour operators, forestry districts, collectors of non timber forest products etc. are also
important. There is a general impression that all these stakeholders barely meet and the
communication between them is low or absent. Additionally the general public and locals are
not informed of the stakeholder’s activities or that information is not available for the public.
This is the biggest cause for generating mistrust of the previously-mentioned stakeholders or
the institutions they represent.
7. Identified corridors for Brown bear in Prespa Region
In order to identify the core areas and possible corridors for brown bear in the Prespa
Region, a large number of digital cartographic data (layers) was used, like:
National protected areas and areas proposed for protection in FYR of Macedonia,
Albania and Greece;
Internationally proclaimed/designated areas like: Emerald network sites, Ramsar and
UNESCO sites, Important Plant Areas, Important Bird Areas, Prime Butterfly Areas etc.
Distribution of forest, grassland and shrub habitats and agricultural land in FYR of
Macedonia based on Corine Land Cover, 2000
Data on Brown Bear distribution in FYR of Macedonia, Albania and Greece
Additionally, modeling of the suitability of habitats for bear was conducted by application of
appropriate software packages.
25
Fig. 9 Identified core areas and corridors for Brown bear in Prespa region
The following corridors were identified:
Linear corridor 1 (Istok Planina) – connects the CA Galichica NP with the CA Ilinska-
Plakenska-Bigla Mts.
Description: This corridor occupies the northern slopes of the mountain Galichica and
southern parts of Plakenska Planina, i.e. it stretches along the course of the rivers (Openica
(Opejnca) and Kriva Reka with a divide at the Bukovo pass (1207 m). The area is well
afforested with almost 66% forest. Unfortunately, clear-cut is a frequently practiced method
of forest use. Agricultural land (small fields, gardens, orchards and meadows) are
represented by 16.3%. The functioning of the corridor is under the influence of several Ohrid
and Resen villages, namely: Kosel, Openica, Vapila, Sirula, Rasino, Kuratica, Zavoj,
Svinjishta, Rechica, Plake, Gorno Krushje, Dolno Krushje, Leva Reka and Izbishte. Asphalt
road extends along the whole length of the corridor in a parallel direction, connecting Ohrid
and Resen.
Function: Corridor Istok Planina is the most important corridor for the Brown bear
population in core area (CA) Galichica through which connection is established with other
core areas in the western part of Macedonia. If this corridor did not exist, then populations
26
from Galichica would be fully isolated (there is a weak connection in the southern parts of
Galichica in the Republic of Albania). Certainly, the corridor is important for other animals as
well (wolf, roe deer, wild boar, wildcat, lynx and potentially chamois).
Identified problems:
Existing regional road
Planned construction of modern highway
Uncontrolled hunting and poaching
Inadequate forestry practices
Inadequate legal protection
Recommendations:
Restriction of speed
Measures to mitigate adverse effects of the highway construction
Restriction and control of hunting (eradication of poaching)
Sustainable use of forests
Re-proclamation of the protected area Leskodol
Linear Corridor 2 (Qafë Plloçë) – connects CA Galichica /Mali e Thate with CA
Polis/Valamara in Albania.
Description: This corridor stretches from the Galichica/Mali i Thatë mountain chain in the
east to the Valamara Mountain in the west. The area is intensively used by humans and the
landscape is largely agricultural. Vast areas were transformed into fruit tree plantations in the
past, however most of these now seem to be abandoned and destroyed. The natural
vegetation is mainly represented by patches of degraded scrubland. Currently there is no
indication that this corridor is being used by bears; however the landscape structure and
topography assessment imply that the area has high potential for bears to use the corridor, if
appropriate measures of landscape management were to be implemented. Several inhabited
places and their associated activities influence the functioning of this corridor. These include
the villages: Peshkëpi, Alarup, Bletas, Blacë, Çërravë, Leshnicë, Stropckë, Grabovicë,
Dardhas, Pretushë, Grunjas, Prenisht. The corridor is also cross-cut by the national road
Pogradec-Korçë.
Function: The area of Qafë Plloçë might not have such a conspicuous role as a connecting
corridor presently as to date there is no firm indication that brown bears from the core areas
of Valamara and Galichica use it to interconnect with each other. However, even if the two
sub-populations do not connect at the current stage, Qafë Plloça represents the highest
probability corridor for these two sub-populations to connect in the future, based on the
area’s landscape characteristics and topography.
Identified problems: Currently, the habitats found in Qafë Plloça are not considered
suitable for bear movement and dispersal as the area is dominated by human-altered
27
landscapes and extensively used for agricultural activities. Before the 1990s the hilly areas
were ripped off their natural vegetation and transformed to fruit tree plantations (mainly
apples), however these plantations were mainly abandoned and destroyed after the 90s.
Nowadays Qafë Plloça’s landscape is mostly dominated by degraded scrublands, arable
land, pastures and erosion areas. The major problems identified for its functioning as a
corridor are:
Existing national motorway
Planned construction of modern highway
Uncontrolled hunting and poaching
Inadequate landscape management
Extensive and intensive agricultural activities
Over-grazing
Over-logging
Inadequate legal protection
Recommendations:
Improve landscape management and planning
Re-forestation of badlands/erosion areas
Promote natural vegetation regeneration
Limit grazing and logging activities
Review infrastructure development plans and adapt them accordingly
Linear Corridor 3 (Cangonji Gorge) – connects CA Galichica/Mali e Thate with the CA
Morava Mt.
Description: This corridor stretches from the Galichica/Mali i Thatë mountain chain on the
north to the Morava Mountains on the south. The area is intensively used by humans and
the landscape is largely agricultural. The natural vegetation is mainly represented by
degraded scrublands and the hilly areas were transformed to fruit tree plantations in the past
– however latterly these have been abandoned and destroyed (Fig.10). Currently, there is no
indication that this corridor is being used by bears; however the landscape and topography
assessment imply that the area has the highest potential for bears to use the corridor, if
appropriate measures of landscape management were to be implemented. Several inhabited
places and their associated activities influence the functioning of this corridor. These include
the villages: Zvezda, Burimi, Mançurisht, Zëmblak and Cangonj. The corridor is also cross-
cut by the national road Korçë-Bilisht that connects Albania with Greece and by Devolli river.
Function: The area of Cangonji gorge represents a potentially good corridor even though to
date there is no firm indication that brown bears from the core areas of Mali i Thatë and
Morava use it to interconnect with each other. However, even if the two sub-populations do
28
not connect at the current stage, Cangonji represents the highest probability corridor for
these two sub-populations to connect in the future if landscape management practices are
improved and oriented towards the functioning of a natural corridor.
Fig. 10 View of Cangonji gorge and Ivan mt. from Morava mt. (Photo A. Trajce)
Identified problems: Currently, most of the habitats found in Cangonji gorge are not
considered suitable for bear movement and dispersal as the area is dominated by human-
altered landscapes and extensively used for agricultural activities. The landscape is mostly
dominated by degraded scrublands, arable land, pastures and erosion areas in the northern
parts, whereas the habitats and forest conditions seem to be in a better condition in the
southern parts. The major problems identified for its functioning as a corridor are:
Existing national motorway
Planned construction of modern highway
Planned construction of wind-power turbines along the gorge
Planned construction of a trans-national gas-pipeline
Uncontrolled hunting and poaching
Inadequate landscape management
Extensive and intensive agricultural activities
Over-grazing
Over-logging
Inadequate legal protection
29
Recommendations:
Improve landscape management and planning
Re-forestation of badlands/erosion areas
Promote natural vegetation regeneration
Limit grazing and logging activities
Review infrastructure development plans and adapt them accordingly
Corridor 4 (Gramos-Triklario) – connects CA Pelister/Varnountas Mt. with CA Gramos Mt.
Description: This corridor connects the main Pindus bear population with the Dinaric bear
population (in general). Following the borders between Greece and Albania, this corridor
starts at the northern areas of Mount Grammos, has a main section of hilly areas mixed with
oak forests and agricultural lands and end at the south slopes of the Triklario Mount. Until
the present, agriculture is the main human activity in low land, while at the south slopes of
Triklario bauxite mines are active periodically. The main future human intervention in relation
to the corridor will be the construction of the highway of Siatista – Kastoria - Krystallopigi as
a vertical axis of the Egnatia Highway and connection with Korcha (E45 highway).
Function: According the Greek Bear Register project of ARCTUROS based on genetic
analysis the area of the corridor as well the wide area of Korcha and Kastoria has not been
functional for long time as the genetic results give a differentiation of bear subpopulations
between Peristeri (in mountains Baba – Varnountas – Vernon- Askio) and Grammos. The
increasing number of the bears in combination with the changes in the landscape and
human activities provides a trend for more intense function of the corridor. At the northern
part of the corridor considerable numbers of car accidents increased the dead bears on the
roads.
Identified problems:
Existing national road with high traffic density
The designing and near future construction of the new high speed highway Kastoria -
Krystallopigi
The coexistence conflict problems especially at cultivation and close to villages areas
Poaching
Recommendations:
Low speed limits at the national roads
Construction of special mitigation measures in the design for the new highway Kastoria –
Krystallopigi in combination with the appropriate fence
Increasing public awareness
Management of the waste bins and garbage’s
30
Enforcing prevention measures
Enforcing hunting control
Corridor 5 (Vernon-Voras-Kajmakchalan) – connects CA Verno with CA Voras-
Kajmakchalan.
Description: This corridor connects the Mounts of Verno and Voras/Kajmakchalan. This
corridor starts at the eastern areas of Mount Verno, has a main section of lowland hilly areas
and end at the west slopes of the Voras Mount. The Verno slopes are covered mainly by oak
forest until the Village of Kleidi, while above Kleidi the landscape is characterized by open
natural pastures in combination with agricultural fields until the Village of Kelli. Actually, this
natural corridor between the two mountain massifs divides the basins of Florina and
Amyndeo. South of Kleidi the corridor borders with the lake of Petron. The old and new road
which connects Amyndeo with Florina are the regional roads which cross the corridor and
create serious fatal cases of bear-vehicles accidents. Important human interventions on the
corridor are the coal mine in Vevi and Kleidi, the lime mines in Vevi, while several wind-
farms are designed to be established.
Function: The Verno – Voras/Kajmakchalan corridor is very important for the
communication of the bear population between the two mountains. It is crucial to mention
that there was no bear presence at Voras Mount for at least 20 years and no other bear
population in the neighboring areas, this corridor therefore played the main linkage zone role
for the reappearance of the bear at the mountain chain of Voras – Vermio – Pieria -
Olympus. The Kleidi pass of the new road (Fig. 11) has been a particulary fatal point for
wildlife as 4 bears and 2 wolves have been killed due to car collisions the last 5 years. To
mitigate the problem ARCTUROS in cooperation with the Region of West Macedonia
constructed special road signs about the bear’s presence on 45 pass spots across the
region. Kleidi pass was one of the most important. The current and future human activities
as the extension of the coal mines in combination with the planned wind-farms will need
special effort for management for ensuring the functionality of the corridor.
31
Fig. 11 View of Kleidi pass (Photo: L.Georgiais)
Identified problems:
The absence of the appropriate mitigation measures at the Amyndeo – Florina national
road.
Existing regional road in parallel way with the new road
The intensive presence of industrial scale of human activities
The coexistence conflict problems especially at cultivation and close to villages areas
Recommendations:
Low speed limits at the national roads
Construction of special mitigation measures at the new road
Large scale implementation of Strategic Environmental Assessment of all the human
activities especially those with industrial character
Enforcing the natural and ecological services of the corridor with the appropriate
management of the natural areas
Enforcing prevention measures for bear – human conflicts
32
8. Overarching goal and overview of aims and objectives
The Brown Bear Conservation Action Plan is the first comprehensive document to
systematically offer fundamental guidelines for brown bear management in broader Prespa
Region. This plan is based on the recent scientific knowledge about brown bear from all
three countries sharing Lake Prespa’s watershed. It is also based on the accepted and
ratified international conventions, plans and recommendations related to brown bear
conservation and protection worldwide. This action plan is not solid and final, but it is an
adaptive and flexible tool that can be changed subject to revisions made over periods of
time.
The overarching goal of this conservation action plan is to ensure the long-term
favourable conservation status of the European Brown Bear population and the
sustainable management, restoration and protection of its habitats and ecological
corridors, in the Prespa watershed and beyond, including across trans-national
boundaries.
In order to achieve this overarching goal, aims, objectives and recommended actions were
defined according to known threats to brown bear population in Prespa lakes’ watershed. All
aims, objectives and recommended actions defied for reaching the overarching goal are
presented in Chapter 9.
9. Detailed Action Plan
To fulfill the overarching goal of the Brown Bear Conservation Action Plan for Lake Prespa’s
watershed, 7 main aims were defined: eliminate poaching and trade, safeguard coherent
bear range/habitat, reduce the human-bears’ conflicts, secure the natural supply and
diversity of food production, to have sufficient knowledge, minimize disturbance and Improve
communication. To fulfill these aims 20 objectives and 81 recommended actions were
elaborated through a participative process involving Brown bear experts from all three
countries and external consultants. Some of the objectives/recommended actions may be
involved in more than one aim/objective. With very few exceptions, all the objectives and the
recommended actions concern all three countries that share the Lake Prespa’s watershed. A
detailed action plan for Brown bear for the 5–year period is given in Tab.2. All identified
actions are elaborated based on their priority for implementation, timeframe and responsible
institution for their implementation.
Prioritization is done on 3 levels:
Prioritization is carried out at 3 levels:
-I (first priority) means immediate action is required,
-II (second priority) means the action should be implemented in the frame of this
action plan, and
-III (third priority) is given to the actions which implementation should start in the
frame of this action plan.
The proposed actions are divided into 3 groups based on the timeframe needed for their
implementation:
-ST (short term) – the action can be implemented in the period of one year,
-MT (medium term) – the period of implementation of certain action is between 1-3
years,
-LT (long term) - the period of implementation of certain action is between 3-5 years.
33
Actions should ideally be implemented on a transboundary level with cooperation among
scientists, the local governments, the management bodies of the national parks and other
local NGOs, under the umbrella of the Transboundary Prespa Park.
Aim 1: Eliminate poaching and trade. To fulfill this aim, effective enforcement of the
existing legislation is necessary (objective 1.1) and a need for raising public awareness
among stakeholders was identified (objective 1.2).
In order to effectively enforce the provisions of the existing legislation in the three countries it
is important to improve the rangers system in protected areas (through training, empowered
authorization, national/transboundary teams etc.); to Increase controls in the Prespa Region
to eliminate poaching; to establish monitoring and reporting programme and a database
where all information about poaching cases will be registered; as well as to organize special
facilities and a system for confiscations, treatment, hospitality and management of captive
bears at national level.
For raising awareness among stakeholders it is crucial to prepare information materials and
to organize campaigns and educational programmes for the local stakeholders. It is
important to organize meetings for awareness raising of different stakeholders (Central
Government and relevant Ministries, as well as with hunters, livestock owners, farmers and
beekeepers).
Aim 2: Safeguard coherent bear range/habitat. To fulfill this aim, the following three
objectives were defined: manage, enhance and protect permeability of corridors within and
beyond Prespa (objective 2.1), identify bottlenecks in current ecological networks (objective
2.2) and maintain the natural capacity of the habitat (objective 2.3).
During the preparation of this Conservation action plan the brown bear corridors in the
Prespa region were identified, but there is a need for preparation of a detailed study in order
to prescribe all requisite activities for management of bear corridors. Identified measures
need to be integrated into other sectoral strategic documents/plans (eg.: forest management
plans, local development/spatial plans). Monitoring of the functionality of the proposed
corridors should be established and all information collected should be shared among key
stakeholders. Some of the proposed measures for protection/management of corridors
include: building of green bridges/wildlife passages (locations on Bitola-Ohrid, Vernon-Voras
Kajmakchalan, Gramos-Askio Cangonji gorge corridors should be identified), planting of
native wild fruit trees, limit and control human activities in the identified corridors (eg. mining,
quarrying etc.) and appropriate management of forest roads (minimize disturbance).
In the Greek part of Prespa region, it is important to implement the European legal
framework for SEA –Strategic Environmental Assessment on corridors level.
Aim 3: Reduce the human-bears’ conflicts. To fulfill this aim, the following four objectives
were defined: improve the implementation of damage compensation system (only
Macedonia & Greece) (objective 3.1), promote preventative measures (objective 3.2), raise
awareness of the public (objective 3.3) and increase capacity of the key stakeholders
(objective 3.4).
The existing damage compensation system in Macedonia and Greece is not implemented
well and needs to be improved. In this respect, there is a need to enforce the existing
legislation by the relevant institutions in order to minimize the possible conflicts that appear
from bear inflicted damage on human property. Also, it is important to estimate and monitor
the real damages occurring in Prespa region, as well as to raise awareness among local
farmers for the procedures of the existing compensation systems.
The human-bear conflicts can be also minimized by taking preventative measures, such as
to introduce livestock guarding dogs, manage/control dumping of domestic waste that is
attractive to bears etc. It is important to take preventative measures because subsidies are
34
given only in cases where proactive preventative measures were undertaken. In addition,
there is na eed for capacity building of the authorities staff through specific training for better
management of the existing and possible conflict problems, and if possible to create
emergency teams in each country that will directly deal with the conflicts and define
protocols for all actions and responsibilities of the teams.
For raising awareness among local stakeholders it is crucial to prepare information materials
and to organize campaigns and educational programmes, as well as to organize regular
meetings with the local stakeholders (hunters, livestock owners, farmers and beekeepers).
Aim 4: Secure the natural supply and diversity of food production. To fulfill this aim,
following two objectives were defined: maintain the natural capacity of the habitat (objective
4.1) and promote sustainable use of natural resources (objective 4.2).
For maintaining the natural capacity of the habitat, it is important to integrate appropriate
measures into the forest management plans in all three countries, like: plant native wild fruit
trees, introduce appropriate grazing management, reduce the negative impact of the
infrastructure development (eg. Hydroelectric plants damaging riverine vegetation) etc.
It is also very important to promote the sustainable use of natural resources by producing
information materials, organizing campaigns and educational programmes, as well as
organizing regular meetings with the local stakeholders (Forestry Service on central and
peripheral-regional level, hunters, livestock owners, farmers and beekeepers).
Aim 5: To have sufficient knowledge. To fulfill this aim, the following four objectives were
defined: support scientific research (objective 5.1), support transboundary exchange of
information (objective 5.2), collect international/national knowledge and experience
(objective 5.3) and Increase capacity of relevant institutions for research and monitoring
(objective 5.4).
As the current knowledge for brown bear in Prespa region is not sufficient (especially in
Macedonia and Albania) there is a need to support scientific research through establishment
of a monitoring and reporting programme in the region. Before the programme starts, a gap
analysis should be performed to see what data are available and what data needs to be
improved or provided. There should be standardized methodology used between the
countries to collect information on population structure, land tenure system, feeding ecology
etc., as well as to collect and exchange traditional knowledge and practices. It is important to
incorporate the scientific research needs in the future transboundary management plan.
To support transboundary exchange of information, there is need to create a joint monitoring
network consisting of local stakeholders that can be involved in the monitoring and reporting
programme (game wardens, park rangers, hunters etc.) It is very important to provide
regular meetings for the monitoring network members. The data collected through the
monitoring network should be stored into a joint database and some of them available on a
web portal.
Inform and introducing the monitoring network members with the international/national
knowledge and experience is crucial. This can be done by creating a literature database
(accessed through the web portal – online library), organizing meetings with
international/national experts and conducting study tours and training to best-practice
countries/areas.
Before involving interested parties in the research programme and monitoring network, it is
very important to increase their capacity for research and monitoring, by providing
appropriate training in monitoring techniques and methods to relevant institutions and
improving the knowledge in national parks’ administration for the importance of brown bear
monitoring and conservation.
35
Aim 6: Minimize disturbance. To fulfill this aim, the following three objectives were defined:
ensure optimal conditions for hibernation (objective 6.1), ensure optimal conditions for
reproduction (objective 6.2) and ensure safe movement/dispersal corridors (objective 6.3).
To ensure optimal conditions for hibernation and reproduction of brown bears, the den and
breeding areas in Prespa region need to be identified, and afterwards to review zoning of
protection depending on the findings and increase protection level in hibernation areas (eg.
Exclude hunting, logging, etc.).
To ensure safe movement of individual bear through the identified corridors, it is important to
take some preventative measures, like: limit and control human activities in the identified
corridors (eg. hunting, mining, quarrying etc.) and ban hunting on bottlenecks (eg. green
bridges).
Aim 7: Improve communication. To fulfill this aim, following two objectives were defined:
make information available to the public, local communities and visitors (objective 7.1) and
address and establish trilateral communication (objective 7.2).
It is important to share the information about the bear monitoring and conservation activities
with the public, local communities and visitors. This can be done by producing information
materials, organizing campaigns and educational programmes, as well as to organizing
regular meetings with the local stakeholders (hunters, livestock owners, farmers and
beekeepers).
As the smaller, localized and national projects can not be efficient for brown bear
conservation in Prespa region, there is a need for transboundary cooperation in
development and implementation of coordinated management and conservation plans for
the species which will secure its survival for future generations. This includes establising
cooperation and networks of responsible authorities such as national parks, forestry
services, environmental agencies, municipalities etc., creating a trilateral bear
communication group (e.g. to appoint communication officers in each country) which will
meet on regular basis, creating a web portal and joint database.
A detailed review of all actions together with their prioritization, timeframe and responsible
institutions/organizations for implementations is given in the Tab. 2.
36
Tab. 2 Detailed review of all aims, objectives and actions
Threat Aims Objectives Actions Implementation Timeframe1Prioritization2
Poaching/trapping/poisoning
and trade (dancing bears,
private ZOOs, restaurant
bears, trophy etc.; MKD &
AL)
1)
Eliminate
poaching and
stopping illegal
captivity of bears
and trade
1.1 Effective enforcement
of existing legislation 1.1.1 Improve rangers system National parks’
authorities,
hunting
associations
from the region;
scientists LT
1
1.1.2 Increase controls National parks’
authorities,
hunting
associations LT
1
1.1.3 Establish monitoring and reporting
programme Transboundary
Prespa Park LT 1
1.1.4 Establish a database Transboundary
Prespa Park ST 1
1.1.5 Organizing special facilities and
system for confiscations, treatment,
hospitality and management of captive
bears at national level
National parks’
authorities
LT
2
1.2 Rising awareness
among stakeholders 1.2.1 Organize campaigns/educational
programmes National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists MT
1
1.2.2 Publication/production of info
materials National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists ST
1
1ST=Short term action (1 year); MT=Medium term action (1-3 years); LT=Long term action (3-5 years)
21=Immediate action; 2=Action in the frame of this action plan; 3=Action to start in the frame of this action plan
37
1.2.3 Meetings with Central Government
and relevant Ministris National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
Transboundary
Prespa Park MT
2
1.2.4 Meetings with hunters National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
Transboundary
Prespa Park MT
1
1.2.5 Meetings with livestock
owners/farmers/beekeepers National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
Transboundary
Prespa Park MT
1
Habitat fragmentation and
loss of connectivity
(deforestation, road
infrastructure, ineffective
cooperation beyond Prespa
boundaries etc. ; MKD, AL)
2)
Safeguard
coherent bear
range/habitat
2.1 Manage, enhance
and protect permeability
of corridors within and
beyond Prespa
2.1.1 Preparation of study for all requisite
activities for management of all bear
corridors in Prespa region
Scientists,
National parks’
authority MT 1
2.1.2 Plant native fruit trees within the
corridors National parks’
authorities ST 3
2.1.3 Monitoring the functionality of the
proposed corridors Scientists,
trained NPs stuff LT 2
2.1.4 Integrate measures into other
strategic plans (eg.: forest management
plans, local development/spatial plans)
National parks’
authorities,
scientists ST 1
2.1.5 Share information about the
proposed corridors among key
stakeholders
Transboundary
Prespa Park,
local NGOs ST 1
2.1.6 Implementation of the European legal
framework for SEA –Strategic
Environmental Assessment on corridors
level (GR)
Relevant
ministry, Prespa
Park-GR MT
2
2.1.7 Limit and control human activities in
the identified corridors (eg. mining,
quarrying etc.)
National parks’
authorities LT 2
38
2.2 Identify bottlenecks in
current ecological
networks
2.2.1 Identify locations for green
bridges/wildlife passages in Bitola-Ohrid
corridor
Relevant
experts and
scientists ST 1
2.2.2 Identify locations for green
bridges/wildlife passages in Vitsi-Voras
corridors
Relevant
experts and
scientists ST 1
2.2.3 Identify locations for green
bridges/wildlife passages in Gramos-Askio Relevant
experts and
scientists ST 1
2.2.4 Identify locations for green
bridges/wildlife passages in Cangonji gorge Relevant
experts and
scientists ST 1
2.3 Maintain the natural
capacity of the habitat 2.3.1 Plant native fruit trees National parks’
authorities ST 3
2.3.2 Integrate appropriate measures into
forest management plans National parks’
authorities,
relevant experts
and scientists LT
2
2.3.3 Appropriate management of forest
roads (minimize disturbance) National parks’
authorities LT 2
Human-bear conflicts
(damage to
property/production)
3)
Reduce the
human-bears
conflicts
3.1 Improve the
implementation of
damage compensation
system (only MKD & GR) 3.1.1 Estimate the real damages
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists ST
1
3.1.2 Monitor the damages
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists LT
2
3.1.3 Enforce the legislation
Transboundary
Prespa Park,
National parks’
authorities MT
2
3.1.4 Awareness raising for farmers
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs MT 1
39
3.2 Promote preventative
measures 3.2.1 Manage/control the dumping of
domestic waste that is attractive to bears
National parks’
authorities,
Transboundary
Prespa Park MT/LT
3
3.2.2 Link to compensation system
(subsidies proactive preventative
measures)
Local NGOs,
relevant
ministries, NPs LT 2
3.2.3 Introduce and maintain livestock
guarding dogs Local NGOs MT 3
3.2.4 Training the authorities staff for
problems management
Transboundary
Prespa Park,
local NGOs ST 1
3.3 Raise awareness of
the public 3.3.1 Organize campaigns/educational
programmes
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists MT
1
3.3.2 Publication/production of info
materials
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists MT
1
3.3.3 Meetings with hunters
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists ST
1
3.3.4 Meetings with livestock
owners/farmers/beekeepers
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists ST
1
3.4 Increase capacity of
the key stakeholders 3.4 1 Establish an emergency team in each
country
National parks’
authorities,
hunting
associations ST
3
3.4.2 Establish protocol for actions
National parks’
authorities,
relevant experts
and scientists ST
2
40
Lack of food {inappropriate
forest management (eg.
coppicing and pollarding,
stripping fodder/schneiteln)}
4)
Secure the natural
supply and diversity
of food production
4.1 Maintain the natural
capacity of the habitat 4.1.1 Plant native fruit trees National parks’
authorities MT 3
4.1.2 Integrate appropriate measures into
forest management plans
National parks’
authorities,
scientists LT 1
4.1.3 Introduce appropriate grazing
management
National parks’
authorities,
scientists LT 3
4.1.4 Reduce the negative impact of
infrastructure development (eg.
Hydroelectric plants damaging riverine
vegetation)
National parks’
authorities,
scientists,
NGOs LT
2
4.2 Promote sustainable
use of natural resources 4.2.1 Organize campaigns/educational
programmes National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists MT
1
4.2.2 Publication/production of info
materials
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists MT
1
4.2.3 Meetings with hunters
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists ST
1
4.2.4 Meetings with Forestry Service on
central and peripheral-regional level (GR)
Transboundary
Prespa Park,
NGOs MT 2
4.2.5 Meetings with livestock
owners/farmers/beekeepers
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists ST
1
Lack of knowledge (water
availability, population
status, ecology and biology)
5)
To have sufficient
knowledge 5.1 Support scientific
research 5.1.1 Gap analysis
Relevant
experts and
scientists ST 1
41
5.1.2 Collect information on population
structure, land tenure system, feeding
ecology
Relevant
experts and
scientists,
trained NPs stuff LT
2
5.1.3 Standardize methodology between
the three countries
Relevant
experts and
scientists ST 1
5.1.4 Incorporate scientific research needs
in future transboundary management plan
National parks’
authorities,
scientists ST 2
5.1.5 Establish monitoring and reporting
programme National Parks
authority,
Transboundary
Prespa Park ,
scientists LT
1
5.1.6 Collect and exchange traditional
knowledge and practices
NGOs,
Transboundary
Prespa Park MT 2
5.2 Support
transboundary exchange
of information 5.2.1 Create a joint monitoring network Transboundary
Prespa Park ST 1
5.2.2 Create a web portal Transboundary
Prespa Park ST 2
5.2.3 Create a joint database Transboundary
Prespa Park ST 1
5.2.4 Network meets on regular basis Transboundary
Prespa Park MT 2
5.3 Collect
international/national
knowledge and
experience
5.3.1 Invite international/national experts to
network meetings Transboundary
Prespa Park MT 1
5.3.2 Create literature database (accessed
through the web portal – online library) Transboundary
Prespa Park ST 2
5.3.3 Conduct study tours and trainings to
best-practice countries/areas
Transboundary
Prespa Park,
NGOs MT 2
42
5.4 Increase capacity of
relevant institutions for
research and monitoring
5.4.1 Improve knowledge in national parks’
administration for brown bear monitoring
and conservation
Relevant
experts and
scientists,
NGOs MT
1
5.4.2 Provide appropriate training (and
include in study tours) to relevant
institutions
Relevant
experts and
scientists MT 1
5.4.3 Involve interested parties in the
research programme and monitoring
network
Transboundary
Prespa Park,
NGOs MT 1
Disturbance
6)
Minimize
disturbance 6.1 Ensure optimal
conditions for hibernation 6.1.1 Identify den areas
Relevant
experts and
scientists MT 2
6.1.2 Increase protection level in
hibernation areas (eg. Exclude hunting,
logging, closing of secondary or blind forest
roads etc.)
National parks’
authorities
MT
3
6.1.3 Review zoning of protection
depending on the findings
Relevant
experts and
scientists,
National parks’
authorities MT
3
6.2 Ensure optimal
conditions for
reproduction
6.2.1 Identify breeding areas Relevant
experts and
scientists MT 2
6.2.2 Increase protection level in breeding
areas (eg. exclude hunting, logging, etc.) National parks’
authorities LT 3
6.2.3 Review zoning of protection
depending on the findings
Relevant
experts and
scientists,
National parks’
authorities MT
3
6.3 Ensure safe
movement/dispersal
corridors 6.3.1 Limit and control human activities in
the identified corridors (eg. hunting, mining,
quarrying etc.)
National parks’
authorities,
hunting
associations LT
2
43
6.3.2 Ban hunting on bottlenecks (eg.
green bridges)
National parks’
authorities,
hunting
associations LT
2
Poor communication
7)
Improve
communication 7.1 Make information
available to the public,
local communities and
visitors
7.1.1 Organize campaigns/educational
programmes National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists MT
1
7.1.2 Publication/production of info
materials (use synergies, existing
mechanisms, successful models, etc.)
Transboundary
Prespa Park,
national park
authorities,
NGOs MT
1
7.1.3 Meetings with hunters
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists ST
1
7.1.4 Meetings with livestock
owners/farmers/beekeepers
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs,
scientists ST
1
7.2 Address and
establish trilateral
communication
7.2.1 Ensure full integration with the
development and implementation of the
management plan
Transboundary
Prespa Park MT 2
7.2.2 Create a trilateral bear
communication group (ex. appoint
communication officers in each country)
Transboundary
Prespa Park ST 2
7.2.3 Establish cooperation and networks
of responsible authorities as National
Parks, Forestry Services, Environmental
Agencies, Municipalities etc.
Transboundary
Prespa Park
LT
1
7.2.4 Create a web portal Transboundary
Prespa Park ST 1
7.2.5 Create a joint database Transboundary
Prespa Park ST 1
7.2.6 Group meets on regular basis Transboundary MT 1
44
Prespa Park
Priority actions:
Action 1.1.1 Improve rangers system
To decrease the level of poaching in broader Prespa lakes’ watershed, there is a need to improve the rangers and game warden system in all
three countries, especially in Macedonia and Albania. This can be done by increasing the capacity of the park rangers and game warden
services, to empower their authorization when dealing with poaching, and eventually forming national or transboundary teams (consisting of
park and game wardens, police officers and inspectors from relevant ministries) for preventing and reducing the poaching. A leading
organization in fulfilling this activity will be the national parks’ authorities and the hunting associations from the region in collaboration with the
relevant ministries, environmental and forestry agencies from all three countries. This Action is closely connected with Action 1.1.2 Increased
controls – improved rangers/game wardens system will lead to increased field controls.
Time scale: Long term
Prioritization: Immediate action
Approximate costs: 5.000 €
Priority
action(s) Short description Budget Stakeholders Leader(s)/potential
implementers Monitoring Indicators
Improve rangers
system Need of improving the rangers system in all
three countries by increasing the capacity of
the rangers and game warden services, giving
police powers to park rangers and game
wardens, and eventually forming national or
transboundary teams for preventing and
5.000€ Rangers from
NPs, game
wardens,
relevant
ministries
National parks’
authorities, hunting
associations from the
region; scientists
National
parks’
authorities
Trainings/works
hops organized;
empowered
authorization
obtained;
eventually
45
reducing the poaching. national/transbo
undary teams
established.
Action(s) 1.2.1; 3.3.1; 4.2.1 and 7.1.1 Organize campaigns/educational programmes
This action is included in several aims of this conservation action plan due to its importance. Raising awareness among the stakeholders is
crucial for Brown bear conservation. For conservation management to be effective, it should be implemented with the full support of the local
community. Thus, it is very important to organize campaigns or educational programmes that will increase public awareness on the importance
of brown bear as well its ecological role and significance, the threats to brown bear survival and the necessity of management measures for its
protection and conservation. These campaigns/educational programmes will include production of information materials like leaflets, brochures
and posters for brown bear and its habitats, organizing lectures and forums, creating a webpage as part of the websites of the national parks
targeted media work. Local hunters, farmers, beekeepers and livestock breeders will be the main target groups for these
campaigns/educational programmes, but the information will also be disseminated also to the general public. The activities should be
undertaken by the management bodies of the National Parks (NPs) involved in collaboration with scientists from the NPs, local NGOs and
external collaborators.
Time scale: Medium term
Prioritization: Immediate action
Approximate costs: 20.000 €
Priority
action(s) Short description Budget Stakeholders Leader(s)/potential
implementers Monitoring Indicators
Organize
campaigns/educ
ational
programmes
Campaigns and educational programmes are
important to increase public awareness on the
importance of brown bear as well its ecological
role and significance, the threats to brown bear
survival and the necessity of management
measures for its protection and conservation.
20.000
€Hunters,
farmers,
livestock
breeders
National parks’
authorities, local
NGOs, scientists
Transboundary
Prespa Park Number of
brochures,
leaflets and
other info
materials;
number of
46
These campaigns/educational programmes will
include production of information materials like
leaflets, brochures and posters for brown bear
and its habitats, creating a webpage as part of
the websites of the national parks and targeted
media work.
TV
interviews;
number of
newspaper
articles;
organized
forums etc.
Action 2.1.1 Preparation of study for all requisite activities for management for all bear corridors in Prespa region
During the preparation of this action plan, 8 brown bear corridors in Prespa region were identified and briefly described (the corridors
themselves and the main threats, functionality and short recommendations). The next step will be to prepare a more detailed study for the
threats and the actions to be taken for management and conservation of the corridors. Relevant experts/scientists from all three countries will
be engaged for the preparation of this study. All relevant sectors (forestry, transport, rural development, energy etc.) will be involved in the
process of the preparation of the study.
Time scale: Medium term
Prioritization: Immediate action
Approximate costs: 28.000 €
Priority
action(s) Short description Budget Stakeholders Leader(s)/potential
implementers Monitoring Indicators
Preparation of
study for all
requisite activities
for management
for all bear
corridors in
Prespa region
28.000€ National parks’
authorities,
relevant
ministries,
forestry
companies,
public
Scientists, National
parks’ authority National parks’
authority Prepared
study.
47
enterprises.
Action 5.1.5 Establish a monitoring and reporting programme
The proper management and conservation of brown bears in Prespa Lakes watershed requires systematic monitoring of the brown bear
population and its habitats. Thus, there is a need for the establishment of a transboundary monitoring system for brown bear in Lake Prespa’s
broader watershed that will continuously provide data on the numbers, distribution, trend, gender and age structure and other ecological and
biological parameters of the population, as well as data on condition of the bear habitats. All these data will be used for preparing proper
management plans and decision making regarding the brown bear population. Establishment of a monitoring programme includes capacity
building (training of staff) and supply of a technical infrastructure for data management, analysis and reporting. Leading organizations for
implementing this action are the national parks in collaboration with relevant ministries, environmental and forestry agencies, scientists, local
NGOs and other external collaborators. Data collected and analysed as part of the monitoring system should be made regularly available to the
site managers, decision-makers and environmental policy makers that require it, and more generally perhaps, to all the public that has any
interest in Prespa.
Time scale: Long term
Prioritization: Immediate action
Approximate costs: 118.500 €
Priority
action(s) Short description Budget Stakeholders Leader(s)/potential
implementers Monitoring Indicators
Establish
monitoring and
reporting
Proper management and conservation of
brown bears in Prespa Region can be assured
only by establishment of transboundary
monitoring system which will provide reliable
118.500
€National parks,
hunting
associations,
environmental
National Parks
Authority,
Transboundary
Prespa Park ,
Transbounda
ry Prespa
Park
Monitoring
programme is
established;
monitoring
48
programme data on status of brown bear population and its
habitats in the area. and forestry
agencies,
NGOs,
scientists/bear
experts,
relevant
ministries from
all three
countries
scientists center created
and equipped;
necessary field
equipment
provided etc.
Action 5.2.1 Create a joint monitoring network
This action is very closely connected to the Actions 5.1.5 and 7.2.2. The joint Brown bear monitoring network will consist of all
institutions/organizations and individuals participating in the conservation activities and in the monitoring. In addition, these network members
help disseminate information to the local population. The leading organization for implementing this action will be the Transboundary Prespa
Park.
Time scale: Short term
Prioritization: Immediate action
Approximate costs: 10.000 €
Priority
action(s) Short description Budget Stakeholders Leader(s)/potential
implementers Monitoring Indicators
Create a joint
monitoring The joint Brown bear monitoring network will
consist of all institutions/organizations and
individuals participating in the conservation
10.000€ National parks,
hunting
associations,
Transboundary
Prespa Park Transboundary
Prespa Park Number of
monitoring
49
network activities and in the monitoring, as well as in
disseminating information to the local
population.
environmental
and forestry
agencies,
NGOs,
scientists/bear
experts
members.
Action 5.2.3 Create a joint database
This action is very closely connected to the Actions 5.1.5 and 7.2.5. The creation of a joint database is very important for storage and easy
access of all collected data from the monitoring programme. It will be constantly fed with data by the transboundary monitoring network
members, and will be maintained and updated by qualified persons. The joint database should be available to all network members. The
leading organization for implementing this action will be the Transboundary Prespa Park.
Time scale: Short term
Prioritization: Immediate action
Approximate costs: 2.500 €
Priority
action(s) Short description Budget Stakeholders Leader(s)/potential
implementers Monitoring Indicators
Create a joint
database The joint database will be important tool
for data storage and management. It will
be constantly fed up with data by the
monitoring network, and will be
maintained and updated by qualified
persons.
2.500 € National parks,
hunting
associations,
environmental
and forestry
agencies,
NGOs,
scientists/bear
experts
Transboundary
Prespa Park Transboundary
Prespa Park Fully
operational
database is
created;
number of
data entered
etc.
50
51
10. References
ARCTUROS. (1997). The Brown bear in the south Balkans – A Compendium. Project Teddy (EU).
Thessaloniki, 141 pp.
ARCTUROS. (2002). Protected areas in the southern Balkans. Legislation, Large Carnivores,
Transborder Areas. Ministry of Environment, Land Planning and Public Works – YPEHODE.
Thessaloniki, 228 pp.
ARCTUROS. 2005. The Brown Bear in Greece. Biology, Ecology, Protection. Thessaloniki. pp.71. (in
Greek)
Arsovska, S. (1997). Study using questionnaires on the conservation status of the Brown bear (Ursus
arctos) in interborder areas of southern Balkan countries – Final report.
Bego et al. (1999). Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity Protection. p106 Tirana, (1999).
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan of the Republic of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Ministry of Environment and Physical Planing, Skopje, 2004, pp. 128.
Bjarvall et al. (1990). Large Home Ranges and Possible Early Sexual Maturity in Scandinavian Bears.
In: Bears: Their Biology and Management, Vol. 8. A Selection of Papers from the Eighth International
Conference on Bear Research and Management, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, February 1989.
(1990), pp. 237-241.
Bunnell, F.L & D.E.N. Tait. (1985). Mortality rates of North American bears. Arctic 38: 316-323.
Chavkalovski, I. (1997). Hydrology of Prespa Lake. Proceedings of the International Symposium
“Toward Integrated conservation and Sustainable Development of Transboundary Macro and Micro
Prespa lakes”, Korcha, Albania, pp. 9-14.
Chavkalovski, I. (2000). Anthropogenic influence on the denivelation of Macro and Micro Prespa
Lake. Proceedings of the International Symposium “Sustainable Development of Prespa Region”,
Oteshevo, pp. 250-257.
Cicnjak, L. (1991). Food habits and habitat use by European brown bear in Croatia, Yugoslavia. A
thesis for the degree of Master of Science (Wildlife ecology), University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1991.
88 pp.
Crivelli,A.J., Koutseri, I & S.Petkovski. 2008. The Prespa Trout, Salmo peristericus, Karaman 1938.
Species Action plan, Society for the Protection of Prespa, Agios Germanos, Greece
Dahle, B., O.J. Sorensen, E.H. Wedul, J.E. Swenson & F. Sandegren. (1998). The diet of brown bear
Ursus arctos in central Scandinavia: effect of access to free-ranging domestic sheep Ovis aries.
Wildlife biology 4: 3 (1998).
Dahle, B. and J.E. Swenson. (2003). Home ranges in adult Scandinavian brown bears Ursus arctos:
effect of population density, mass, sex, reproductive status and habitat type. Journal of Zoology 260:
329-335.
Dahle et al. (2006). Factors influencing home-range size in sub-adult brown bears. Journal of
Mammalogy 87(5): 859-865. 2006.
DEKONS-EMA (2009). Selection of priority species and habitats in prespa region. Report. Consulting
Services of training on Conservation and Action Planning for Priority Transboundary Habitats and
Species in the Prespa Lakes basin-Preparatory Phase. UNDP, Skopje.
52
DEKONS-EMA (2010). Status Papers on Priority Species and Habitats including information on
current management arrangements and institutional mandates/jurisdiction. Consulting Services of
training on Conservation and Action Planning for Priority Transboundary Habitats and Species in the
Prespa Lakes basin-Preparatory Phase. UNDP, Skopje.
Hollis G.E, Stevenson A.C. (1997). The physical basis of the Lake Mikri Prespa systems: Geology,
climate, hydrology and water quality. Hydrobiologia 351: 1-19
Huber, D. and H. Roth. (1993). Movements of brown bears in Croatia. Acta Theriologica 38 (2): 151-
159.
Ivanov, Gj., A. Stojanov, D. Melovski, E. Keçi, A. Trajce, O. Qazimi, G. Schwaderer, A. Spangenberg,
J. Linnell, U. Breitenmoser, and M. von Arx. (2007). Conservation status of the critically endangered
Balkan lynx in Albania and Macedonia. Proceedings of 3rd Congress of ecologists of the Republic of
Macedonia with international participation, [06.-09.10.2007., Struga.] - Macedonian Ecological
Society, Skopje, 2008.
Jacoby, M.E., G.V. Hilderbrand, C. Servheen, C.C. Schwartz, S.M. Arthur, T.A. Hanley, C.T. Robbins
& R. Michener. (1999). Tropic relations of brown and black bears in several western North American
ecosystems. Journal of Wildlife Management 63: 921-929.
Kaczensky, P., D. Huber, F. Knauer, H. Roth, A. Wagner & J. Kusak. (2005). Activity patterns of
brown bears (Ursus arctos) in Slovenia and Croatia. Journal of Zoology 269 (2006) 474–485.
Kazoglou Y, Xega N, Doleson F. (2010). Guidelines for wetland vegetation management in Lake
Micro Prespa, Prespa National Park, Albania. Women Association of Micro Prespa, Prespa National
Park (Forest Service Directorate, Korca), Society for the Protection of Prespa, UNDP Albania – Small
Grants Programme, pp 44 + 6 Appendices
Krambokoukis., L. (2010). Electric Fences Around Apiaries are Effective Against Brown Bear (Ursus
arctos) Raids in Kastoria Prefecture, Northern Greece. University of Leicester, UK. ARCTUROS NGO,
Greece.
Krambokoukis L. and K. Hornigold. (2011). Pilot Application of the Transboundary Monitoring System
for the Prespa Park: Workshop on Brown Bear Monitoring and Questionnaire Survey, Final report,
Society for the Protection of Prespa,Agios Germanos, 2011.
Karamanlidis A.A., Youlatos D., Sgardelis S., Scouras Z. (2007). Using sign at power poles to
document presence of bears in Greece. Ursus 18:54-61
Karamanlidis A. A. (2010). Final Report on the project “Status of brown bears (Ursus arctos) in
Albania and FYR Macedonia”, pp.93, Thessaloniki, 2010.
Karamanlidis A.A., Straka M., Drosopoulou E., de Gabriel Hernando M., Kocijan I., Paule L. and
Scouras Z. (2011). Genetic diversity, structure, and size of an endangered brown bear population
threatened by highway construction in the Pindos Mountains, Greece. European Journal of Wildlife
Research. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg 2011, pp 12.
Karandinos, M. & Legakis, E. (1992). The Red Data Book of Threatened Vertebrates of Greece,
H.Z.S. & H.O.S., Athens: 43–81.
Keçi, E., A. Trajce, O. Qazimi, Gj. Ivanov, D. Melovski, A. Stojanov, U. Breitenmoser, M. von Arx, G.
Schwaderer, A. Spangenberg, and J. Linnell. (2007). Conflicts with lynx and other large carnivores in
Macedonia and Albania. Proceedings of 3rd Congress of ecologists of the Republic of Macedonia with
international participation, [06.-09.10.2007., Struga.] - Macedonian Ecological Society, Skopje, 2008.
53
Klincarov S. (1997) Geological-hydrological characteristics of Prespa Basin and their influence on the
hydrological conditions of the lake. Proceedings of the International Symposium “Towards Integrated
Conservation and Sustainable Development of Transboundry Macro and Micro Prespa Lakes”, 24-26
October, 1997, Korcha, Albania, pp 79-83
Kozakai C., Yamazaki K., Nemoto Y., Nakajima A., Koike S., Abe S., Masaki T. and Kaji K. (2011).
Effect of Mast Production on Home Range use of Japanese Black Bears. Journal of Wildlife
Management May 2011 : Vol. 75, Issue 4, pg(s) 867-875.
Krechmar, M.A. (1995). Geographical Aspects of the Feeding of the brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) in
the Extreme Northeast of Siberia. Russian Journal of Ecology 26: 436-443.
Lazarevski, A. (1993): Climate in Macedonia. Skopje pp.236-240.
McLellan, B. (1994). Density-dependent population regulation of brown bears. Pages 15-24 in M.
Taylor (Editor) Density-dependent population regulation in black, brown and polar bears. International
Conference on Bear Research and Management Monograph. Series 3.
Melovski, D., Ivanov Gj., Stojanov A., Trajçe A., von Arx M., Linnell J. & U. Breitenmoser. (2008).
Technical report on Lynx Baseline Survey. Balkan Lynx Recovery Programme 2006-2009.
Mertzanis, Y. (1994). Brown bear in Greece: distribution, present status-ecology of a northern pindus
subpopulation. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(1):187-197.
Mertzanis G. (1999). Status and management of the brown bear in Greece. Pages 72-81 in C.
Servheen, S. Herrero & B. Peyton (compilers) Bears – Status survey and Conservation Action Plan.
IUCN Publications, Gland, Switzerland.
Mertzanis, Y., Bousbouras, D. & Bourdakis, S. (2000). Status of brown bear (Ursus arctos L.)
populations and habitat in the area of Prespa Lakes.Proceedings of International symposium
Sustainable development of Prespa region, Oteshevo, 23-25.06.2000. Macedonian Ecological
Society, Skopje, 2000, pp 56-66.
Mertzanis, Y., I. Ioannis, A. Mavridis, A. Nikolau, S. Reigler, A. Reigler & A. Tragos. (2004).
Movements, activity patterns and home range of a female brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) in the
Rhodopi mountain range, Greece. Belg. J. Zool. 134 (1): 97-108.
Misja, K. (2006). Libri and Kuq and Faunës Shqipëtare. Tirane. p. 333.
MoEFWA. (2007).
Decision No.
146, dt. 8. 5. 2007, for “Approved the red List of Flora and Fauna”.
Perennou C, Gletsos M, Chauvelon P, Crivelli A, DeCoursey M, Dokulil M, Grillas P, Grovel R,
Sandoz A. (2009) Development of a Transboundary Monitoring System for the Prespa Park Area.
Agios Germanos, pp 381
Ristevski, P., Monevska, S. & Popovski, B. (1997). Characteristics of temperature, pluviometric and
evaporation regiome of Prespa lake basin. Proceedings of the International Symposium “Toward
Integrated conservation and Sustainable Development of Transboundary Macro and Micro Prespa
lakes”, Korcha, Albania.
Ristevski P (2000) Climatic and agroclimatic characteristics in the Prespa Lake Basin. International
Symposium-Sustainable Development of Prespa Region, Oteshevo, pp 212-223
54
Ruskov M. and G. Markov. (1974). Der Braunbar (Ursus arctos L.) in Bulgarien. Z. Saugetierkunde
39: 358- 368.
Spassov, N. (1990). Note on the colouration and taxonomic status of the bear (Ursus arctos L.) in
Bulgaria. Historia Naturalis Bulgarica, Sofia, No. 2.
Spassov, N. (1997). Evidences for a Late Pleistocene isolation and a separate taxonomic status of
the Mediterranean brown bear and the conservation value of the Balkan bear population. Historia
Naturalis Bulgarica 7: 109-113.
Swenson et al. (1996). Winter den abandonment by brown bears Ursus arctos: causes and
consequences. Wildlife biology 3-1 (1997).
Swenson et al. (1997). Infanticide caused by hunting of male bears. Nature 386: 450-451.
Swenson, J.E. (1999). Does hunting affect the behavior of brown bears in Eurasia? Ursus 11:157-
162.
Swenson, J.E. (2001). Factors associated with loss of brown bear cubs in Sweden. Ursus 12: 69–80.
Taberlet, P. and J. Bouvet. (1994). Mitochondrial DNA polymorphism, phylogeography, and
conservation genetics of the brown bear Ursus arctos in Europe. Proc Biol Sci. 255(1344): 195-200.
Trajçe, A., Keçi, E., Mersini K. and S. Shumka.( 2008). Final Report. Baseline Survey on Lynx, Prey
and other Carnivores in Albania. Balkan Lynx Recovery Programme 2006-2009. pp: 111, Tirana,
2008.
Trajçe, A. (2010). Conservation planning for guilds or individual species? The relative perceptions of
wolves, bears and lynx among the rural Albanian public. M.Sc Thesis, University of Oxford. Oxford,
UK.
Vaughan R. M. (2009). The influence of food availability on America black bear (Ursus americanus)
physiology, behaviour and ecology. Bilogy of Bear Intrusions: 9-17 (2009).
