Report on a feasibility study for establishing transboundary Man and Biosphere Reserve Shkodra/Skadar Lake

Cover photos: Shkodra/Skadar Lake, Montenegro and Albania; © Ana Katnic, Nela Vesovic Dubak, Maras Rakaj

Feasibility study for establishing Transboundary Man and Biosphere Reserve (TB MAB BR) Shkodra/Skadar Lake Originator: NGO Green Home and NGO INCA

Project: Towards the designation of Lake Shkodra/Skadar as Trans-boundary Biosphere Reserve

Funding: UNESCO PARTICIPATION PROGRAMME 2012-2013

Author: Ana Katnic, MSc., Independent consultant

Special note: The report here in hand was prepared by the independent consultant and it does not imply the attitude of any interest side.

Acknowledges: I would like to thank all the participants in the meetings for sharing information and discussing issues openly and constructively. I would like to thank Jovana Janjusevic and Zamir Dedej for being sincerely and professionally engaged in facilitating the research and SHs participation process.

List of abbreviations ALB – Albania BR – Biosphere Reserve CBC – Cross-border Cooperation CEPF - Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund CSBL - Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity at Lakes Prespa, Ohrid and Shkoder EU – Europe Union GEF - Global Environment Fund GH – Green Home GIZ - German international cooperation organization GWP‐Med – Global Water Partnership – Mediterranean IBA – Important Bird Area ICC - International Coordinating Council IHP - International Hydrological Programme INCA - Institute for Nature Conservation in Albania IPA – Important Plant Area IPA – Instrument for Pre-Accession IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature IWRM - Integrated Water Resources Management () KAP – ‘Kombinat’ Aluminum Plant LSIEMP - Lake Integrated Ecosystem Management Project MAB - Man and Biosphere MAP - Madrid Action Plan MDD - Mura Drava Danube MNE - Montenegro MORT - Ministry of Sustainable development and protectio MoU – Memorandum of Understanding NGO – Non-governmental Organization NP – National Park PA – Protected area PAP/RAC - Priority Actions Programme Regional Activity Centre REC - Regional Environmental Center SAP - Stabilization and Association Agreements TB - Trans-boundary UNDP – United Nations Development Programme UNECE - United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNOPS - United Nations Office for Project Services WB – World Bank WH – World Heritage WNBR - World Network of Biosphere Reserve WWF – World Wildlife Fund

Background

In the framework of the UNESCO Participation Programme 2012-2013, NGO Green Home from Montenegro together with NGO INCA (Institute for Nature Conservation in Albania) is implementing the project: “Towards the designation of Lake Shkodra/Skadar as Trans-boundary Biosphere Reserve”. This project is relying on the results and cooperation of two NGOs, accomplished during the project: “Supporting the proposed Trans-boundary Biosphere Reserve of Lake Shkodra/Skadar area through a participatory approach” (IPA cross border programme, 2009). The bases for continuation of the designation process was laid down by producing studies and reports on socio-economic and environmental context of the area, access to global knowledge on Man and Biosphere Reserves (MAB BR), successful competition of training activities and production of training materials done within capacity building component of the project and by involvement of wide range of stakeholders, building this way strong transboundary cooperation platform and stakeholders interest and commitment. Approved and supported by National Commission of Montenegro for UNESCO and Ministry of Sustainable development and protection (MORT) from Montenegro, NGO Green Home obtained funds from UNESCO Participation Programme, 2012-2013, for the project: “Towards the designation of Lake Shkodra/Skadar as Trans-boundary Biosphere Reserve”. Project had so far resulted in several studies on tourism and governance in Montenegro and Albania, discussions and production of a map for zoning in form of a proposal and establishment of MAB Committee in Albania. As both countries were faced with the challenging process of finalization and submission of Nomination file, the Montenegrin authorities were requesting in detail information on the process of designation, opportunities and benefits of the designation, MAB Programme and requirements and obligations that will come from the designation. This particularly in terms of conflicts and development constrains that might emerge if/when the site is proclaimed. As a consequence of these, the originally planned production of draft nomination file was replaced with the activities on preparing the report “Feasibility study for establishing Transboundary Man and Biosphere Reserve Shkodra/Skadar Lake”.

Methodology

The “Feasibility study for establishing Transboundary Man and Biosphere Reserve Shkodra/Skadar Lake” report is to be done in order to analyze and identify priorities, gaps and opportunities of transboundary protection and cooperation. Also, on a capacity building and policy level it is planned to facilitate the understanding of the MAB Programme and practices as to improve decision making process and involvement of different relevant stakeholders. This is was done through multi-stakeholder workshop and meetings discussing the process of designation in the complex and open-ended context of Shkodra/Skadar Lake region. The production of the study report involved broad range of actions at different levels, integrating the various layers of work as to facilitate and support the participative approach, knowledge and ownership building:

Background Research on global and regional knowledge, processes, trends, context and cases, review of the national documentation on both sides and review of all available local documentations in English and Montenegrin language was done.

Semi-structured interviews/meetings were held with decision makers and key stakeholders in two countries, discussing political will and understanding of the process, as well as the capacity of governments and other stakeholders at regional and local levels. This was done in order to assess commitment and identify necessary actions in the process of establishment TB MAB BR and further. Recommendations were seek for targeting key issues, key actors and knowledge gaps that this study should cover. The list of meetings is given in the Annex I.

Questioner was composed based on the IUCN Guide, (Erg et al. 2012) and adjusted to correspond to specific needs for the information in the context of TB MAB BR Shkodra/Skadar Lake designation. It was distributed among wider group of SHs from both sides in order to analyze the opinion and attitude toward many elements of TB cooperation. In the Annex II the questioner form, as well as the list of SHs that filled it in is given.

Two day workshop was organized in order to improve the knowledge and discuss stirring the management and coordination of different sectors and stakeholders for securing the conservation and sustainable development. Various contexts, of the TB project area were analyzed in terms of issues, commonalities and differences. Know-how practices on trans-boundary natural resource management were elaborated with the intention to widen the perspectives on possible scenarios of the TB MAB BR designation process. The workshop

also served the cause of identifying capacity building gaps as well as “empowerment gaps” important for participation process and further involvement of SHs. The workshop agenda and list of the participants is given in the Annex III.

Briefings with NGO GH Project leader and with project task group were organized when required. Lessons learned and follow ups were discussed and reported on.

Reporting: preparation of 1. Draft was done in order to share the findings with the project task group and the SHs, providing one more opportunity to discuss and ask for additional information. After that, the Final report was produced, to be translated in Montenegrin and Albanian and distributed to all the participants and wider, and to serve as a backbone for continuation of the designation process.

Figure 1: Workshop group work, January, 2014. ©NGO Green Home

Contents

List of abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 4

Recent history of transboundary cooperation of two countries in the region of Shkodra/Skadar Lake ..... 7

1. Environmental Context ..................................................................................................................... 3

Main issues ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Shkodra/Skadar Lake transboundary contexts ............................................................................................. 3

2. Socio-economic context .................................................................................................................... 7

3. Political context of two countries ..................................................................................................... 8

4. International context ...................................................................................................................... 10

International framework of designated MAB BR ................................................................................ 12

Man and Bipsphere Reserve Programme ................................................................................................... 12

Management of BRs ............................................................................................................................ 13

MAB National Committee/Focal point ............................................................................................... 13

De-designation – removing from the WNBR list ................................................................................. 13

MAB vs. WH ........................................................................................................................................ 14

MAB BR vs. NP ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Transboundary MAB BR ...................................................................................................................... 14

Benefits, opportunities ................................................................................................................................. 2

Challenges and constrains ............................................................................................................................ 4

Process of Shkodra/Skadar Lake TB BR designation future steps ................................................................ 7

Top down approach starting points ...................................................................................................... 8

Bottom up approach ............................................................................................................................. 9

Annex I: List of Meetings ........................................................................................................................... 2

Annex II: Questioner form and list of SHs that filled in the questioner .................................................... 3

Annex III: Workshop agenda and list of participants of the workshop .................................................... 8

References .............................................................................................................................................. 11

2000 –The first international project, “Promotion of Networks and Exchanges in SEE countries”, started its implementation. The main aim of the project was to enhance cooperation between neighbouring countries over shared natural resources. 2000-2009 – Cross-border Forum for Skadar/Shkoder Lake has been established, gathering representatives of different institutions from two countries relevant for the management and protection of Skadar/Shkoder Lake (Ministries, National Park, local authorities, NGOs, nature protection institutes, educational institutions). They further enhanced cooperation between two countries through many different activities implemented jointly. 2003 – Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed by two relevant Ministries from two involved countries over environmental protection and implementation of the principle of sustainable development. 2005 – International conference on the theme "Lake Skadar international designations for territorial development”, that NGOs Green Home and INCA took inspiration from, was laid down on this occasion in October 2005. Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic of Montenegro and Prime Minister Sali Berisha of

Albania in their respective speeches underlined the importance of coordinated and comprehensive territorial development plans for this important lake and its watershed shared between their two countries. The meeting was organized by the "Dinaric Arc Initiative", a framework of collaboration between the relevant offices of UNESCO, WWF, IUCN, UNDP and the Council of Europe. The meeting's main objective was to discuss with all major stakeholders the future development scenarios of the transboundary territory of Skadar Lake and its catchment basin, a unique wetland in the karst landscape of southeastern Europe, boasting an extraordinary natural and cultural heritage.

2008-2012 -Skadar/Shkoder Lake Integrated Ecosystem Management Project (LSIEMP), the largest international project regarding management of Skadar/Shkoder Lake resources supported by GEF and WB (≈5milion€) was launched. Through this project, the Agreement between the Ministry of Tourism and Environment of Montenegro and Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration of the Republic of Albania for the protection and sustainable development of the Skadar/Shkoder-Shkoder Lake has been signed, thus establishing Skadar/Shkoder-Shkoder Lake Commission. This provided basis for committed promotion of sustainable, equitable and efficient water use through the advancement of the integrated transboundary cooperation and harmonization approaches. However, sustainability of initiatives, cooperation and joint platforms were ensured neither by projects nor by SHs, suggesting that more concentrated commitment and clear leadership is required.

Recent history of transboundary cooperation of two countries in the

region of Shkodra/Skadar Lake

Figure 2: High level meeting, occasion of the Prime Ministers speeches, October, 2005 (Ramsar Convention web site: www.ramsar.org).

Several ongoing TB projects on the Lake are listed here: - GIZ - Improving the transboundary water management: Conservation and sustainable use of

biodiversity at Lakes Prespa, Ohrid and Shkoder (CSBL); - CEPF, IUCN with NGOs Green Home and INCA - Supporting the Long-Term Sustainable

Management of Transboundary Lake Skadar/Shkoder ; - CEPF, NoéConservation - Conservation of Pelicans, a key biodiversity Species of Skadar/Shkoder

Lake. Most of the TB Shkodra/Skadar region activities are focused on the area of the Lake. The wider area is targeted by the following projects:

- Drin River basin UNOPS project funded by GEF "Enabling Trans-boundary Cooperation and Integrated Water Resource Management in the Extended Drin River Basin".

and some TB projects on the Buna/Bojana River such as: - PAP/RAC, GWP‐Med and UNESCO‐IHP in coordination with the Albanian and Montenegrin

ministries: The Buna/Bojana Transboundary Integrated Management Plan

Financing of transboundary coordination, planning and operations in the area has been largely relied on the international donors. External financing allows the implementation of policy reforms and investments, but is usually not sustainable over time. Efforts to develop local resources or revenues for lake basin management have to be developed. Consequently it is important that external funds are used to initiate management changes that are self-sustaining - at least to a large extend – within the basin countries (ILEC, 2005).

Shkodra/Skadar’s Lake basin is shared between Montenegro and Albania with the ratio 2/3 to 1/3 respectively. The Lake is the largest in the Balkan and of

a special importance for countries sharing it, both as a resource and protected area. It is also internationally important biodiversity hotspot and a water-shared system. It is astonishing place boasting with rich natural and cultural heritage.

1. Environmental Context The Montenegrin side of the basin of Shkodra/Skadar Lake has been proclaimed a National Park (IUCN category II) in 1983, while the Albanian side is a protected area “Managed Natural Reserve” (IUCN category IV). Since 2005 Buna/Bojana River is also nationally protected on Albanian side with the status "Protected Waterscape/Landscape" (IUCN category V). In 1995, 20.000ha of the Lake in Mne has been included in the Ramsar list of wetlands of international importance based on the richness and diversity of ornithofauna and in 2006, 49,562ha of Shkodra Lake together with Buna/Bojana River in Alb1, receiving the transboundary character. Skadar/Shkoder Lake region is on the list of Important Plant Areas (IPA). It is on the list of Important Bird Areas (IBA), too. Based on the criteria of Bern Convention, 17 Emerald habitats with good representation have been identified in the Lake region. Although the work on identification of Natura 2000 habitats, based on the Habitat and Bird directives of the EU, has started for Montenegro and Albania, the list of those habitats is not yet complete. Total biodiversity is high, and the region is considered to be a biogenetic reserve of European importance. The large, geographically and ecologically connected complex system of wetlands of Skadar/Shkoder Lake and the Buna/Bojana River has been identified as one of the 24 transboundary wetland sites of international importance known as “Ecological Brick Sites” (UNECE, 2009).

Main issues The challenges of protecting the biodiversity of the Shkodra/Skadar Lake region are of many origins: natural such as flooding, earthquake, natural and human caused eutrophication of the lake and natural and manmade climate changes. Moreover, there has been an evident loss of biodiversity caused by the high anthropogenic pressure, notified in several studies. However, recent research and information on biodiversity state of the Lake is poor. Due to the nutrient loading, the lake has eutrophied slightly. The direct and indirect pressures from human activities are concerning on both sides:

1Source: http://www.ramsar.org

Shkodra/Skadar Lake transboundary contexts

Both countries are taking actions to protect this unique ecosystem. Almost the whole of the Lake Skadar/Shkoder and Buna/Bojana River area is under national protection status and on a list of Ramsar internationally important wetlands. Regarding management of the protected areas, Montenegro is more advanced. Still, many issues remain unresolved and many laws lagging with implementation. Harmonization of measures across borders and integral management with special accent on local population would be beneficial for both protection and sustainable development of this area.

- Water regime The hydrology of the water shared system of Shkodra/Skadar Lake is very complex. The most important tributaries of Shkodra/Skadar Lake enter the lake from the north: Morača, Crnojevida River, Orahovštica, Karatuna, Baragurška River in Montenegro, and Perroi, Thate, Rjolli and Vraka River in Albania. Most of the water of Shkodra/Skadar Lake comes from the Morača River, 62%. The lake is also supplied with water through sub–lacustric springs. The Lake discharges through the 44 km

long Buna/Bojana River (shared by Albania and Montenegro) into the Adriatic Sea. The connection between Drin River, Buna/Bojana River and Skadar/ Shkoder Lake determines the seasonal variations in the state and characteristics of the lake, and has an important impact on the morphology of the Buna/Bojana delta. The hydrological regime is conditioned, among others, by water releases from big hydro-power dams in the Drin River in Albania. The Drin drainage into the Buna River inhibits the free water discharge from the Lake and affects also the water regime at the Buna. This combined with the uneven distribution of rainfall over the year, are the main reasons for flooding - most frequently and intensively present in November and December. Flooding in the Montenegrin parts of the Lake has harmful effects on hygiene for the local population. In some regions the surface run-off reaches figures which are about 6 times greater than the world average (World Bank, 2003). There are times that the river reverses flow. The Buna/Bojana bed is lower than sea level (“crypto depression”), resulting in saltwater intruding into the lake’s outlet. The impacts on the lakes-rivers-wetlands-groundwater system of the current economic development proposals for small hydro-power plants on Moraca and plans in both countries that involve alternative uses of water and the water bodies (such as: deepening the Buna/Bojana River bed from Albanian side for the reason of cleaning the sediment and lessening the effects of often flooding, and ensuring the connection of the Lake with the Sea) need to be clearly understood, before any decision is taken. These are and will remain the key issues and concerns of so far national decisions to be lied down in transboundary level.

- Pollution Agricultural as well as industrial pollution (heavy industries in the Montenegrin side from Niksic and Podgorica (KAP as the most prominent)), and pollution from municipal wastewaters of both countries (mostly from Podgorica, Cetinje, Shkodra), reach the lake both through surface and groundwater (due to the karstic geology). Heavy metal pollution, especially in lake sediments, and moderate pathogen loads have been observed locally in the aquifer. The Drin contributes to some extent, with trace metals originating from the disposal of by-products from iron and copper mines located upstream. Industrial and municipal water pollution outlets of the sewage waters from towns and villages discharged directly,

Figure 3: Transboundary Surface Water Bodies: Second Assessment of Transboundary Rivers, Lakes and Groundwaters (UNECE, 2011).

The fact that the water bodies of focus are components of a broader hydrological system that drains into the Adriatic, could “raise” the level of plans and management from a single country and single water body to an area that covers almost twenty percent of the Balkan Peninsula.

cause enrichment of waters with nutrients and chemical detergents increasing the eutrophication of waters and the accumulation of harmful chemicals in the food chain. In the Zeta Plain, approximately 9.000ha of land is used for agricultural purposes: about 4000ha of vineyards and orchards (mainly ‘Plantaže’ Company) and about 5000ha of other crops. There are no precise figures on the amount of fertilizer used, but the estimates are that it is about 2970t per year. Agriculture uses about 80t per year of herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and pesticides. A good portion of these chemicals (some of which are poisons of category III and IV), migrate into the lake. The total flooded area of agricultural land is estimated at about 5000ha, and the amount of water used for irrigation is approximately 1500000m3 per year (Radujkovic et Sundic, 2012). Inadequate solid waste management in both countries and illegal disposal of wastes directly to the water bodies has exerted pressure on the lake’s system. In the vicinity of Lake Skadar/Shkoder, in the municipalities of Golubovci and Tuzi, there are about fifteen of these, where construction waste, municipal solid waste and so called “garden waste” is disposed, with a total volume of 12300m3. In the “garden waste” there is often plastic, glass and paper packaging of toxic herbicides and pesticides, with the remains of the same. Although inspections in charge remove this waste, population creates new dumplings, with the same type of waste (Vugdelic, 2012). In Albania these contribute to a large amount of unpleasant materials on the lakes shores. The main polluter with solid waste and wastewaters is the city Shkodra with about 110.000 inhabitants, and the villages Zogaj and Shiroke on the west part of the Lake, and Gril, Koplik, Sterbeq, Kamice and Gashaj on the east side of the lake. Certain toxic and even hazardous substances can be washed out from the dumping site, and get into the lake. The total annual quantity of such waste is not known, but it’s a big problem for lakesides pollution of Albanian part (WB, 2008). It is also a very unpleasant and affects the tourism industry spoiling the scenery and impression.

- Land use changes In the Montenegrin part, arable land makes up 40%, and pastures 10% of the basin. In the Albanian part, 13% of the land is used for agricultural activities, while 64% is forests, pastures and abandoned land (UNECE, 2009). The expansion of human settlements (construction, tourism, and agricultural activities expansion) in the “transit” zone – outside of protected areas, is putting a pressure on the Lake’s ecosystem and ecosystem services. Illegal building and extraction of resources inside the PA borders, (ex. extraction of sand and gravel from the water beds, uncontrolled harvesting of reed and peat, illegal logging, over-harvesting of medicinal plants, etc.) is causing fragmentation and degradation of habitats, erosion and is spoiling the landscape. Unsustainable forest management in the Albanian side and subsequent erosion as well as illegal construction, has led to the deterioration of shoreline habitats. In the Montenegrin part there are illegal constructions even within the National Park borders. In the Albanian side 32% of the population in the area lives in illegal settlements. The coastal zone of

Figure 4: Indicative location of the main pollution sources and pressures in the Shkoder Basin (Royal Haskoning, 2006).

Buna/Bojana is perhaps the most affected area in this regard. In Montenegro the Velika Plaza beach, in spite of its proclamation as a Natural Monument, is degraded due to illegal building, excavation of sand and hunting (Faloutsos, 2006).

- Introduction and spread of invasive species

Strategic target 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020: combat with invasive species, is becoming an EU priority and a concern. In the region of Lake Skadar most worrying is the spread of the Ailanthus altissima in the vicinity of the villages and along the roads and Amorpha fruticosa on the lake shores, riversides and tributaries banks. Also Xanthium strumarium have already occupied large surface of the Lake shores. In recent years some invasive weedy species little or previously unknown with the presence in the Lake, have been identified: Bidens frondosa, Elodea canadensis (in the southern part of the Lake) and Paspalum distichum, still with limited spread.

- Illegal hunting and fishing There are still many problems with illegal hunting, noted by media, locals and experts. The monitoring is weak and limited to certain species and places. Even with the ban for hunting in all NPs in Montenegro and a current 2 years ban in whole Albania, enforcement of laws and regulations is lagging behind. Also, illegal fishing and use of inadequate means is still huge problem. In addition, as noted by SHs, management of fish population practice that involve ban in fishing every year for couple of months is set in different period in each country. The data on fish stock are still missing in order to make a good estimation and decisions for proper management and control.

- Low environmental awareness Lack of alternative ways for local and regional economic development, are at the root of a constant battle between protection and development stirring unsustainable use of the resources. Conflicts, low level of trust between local population in the protected area and its surrounding and the authorities in charge are common feature of this area. As the human pressure on the Lake is high on both sides and as the Lake was and it is traditionally used as a generator of the local economy, urgent measures are needed for reconciliation of the conservation approach and involvement of local SHs of the wider area in planning and management that will bring improvements long term. The UNESCO designation could serve to boost the pride in the place and engage locals in sustainable actions.

The Shkodra/Skadar Lake ecosystem occurs across two state boundaries and is subject to some common and some different possibly conflicting, and unsustainable developments, management and land use practices. Thus TB cooperation and harmonization is necessary for the well being of the ecosystem services exposed to political rather than ecological boundaries.

Figure 5: Amphora fruticosa at Skadar Lake. ©SlavicaDjurovic (NPs of Montenegro)

2. Socio-economic context The countries of focus are among the poorest countries in Europe with their economies sill in a transition period towards a market economy, both ranking as the upper middle-income countries. An additional overriding factor is the complex set of conflicts of the recent past that have left their mark, and contribute to the social problems. A history of non-sustainable management of the environment and the natural resources as a result of strangling for economic growth adds to the picture (Faloutsos et al., 2006). The Lake Shkoder/Skadar basin is a region with rich cultural heritage and history of more than 2000 years. In both countries, there are numerous sites of cultural and historic importance, including archaeological sites, monasteries and other cultural monuments such as rural settlements of ethnographic importance with potential for rural tourism development. Coexistence of groups of different ethnic and religious background for a long period of time has influenced the history, culture and development in the region. The population in the Lake basin is about 600,000 people (65 percent of the inhabitants live on the Montenegrin side). More than 60 percent of the population is urban and live in a few cities – Shkodra and Malesi e Madhe (Albania) and Podgorica, Niksic, Danilovgrad, and Cetinje (Montenegro). The rural population is spread out around the Lake in number of villages (36 in Montenegro and about 25 in Albania). In Montenegro, the area surrounding the Lake is heavily depopulated and in an advanced demographic aging process, with young people migrating to cities and coastal areas. On the contrary, Shkoder city is expanding. In comparison to Montenegro, in Albania the local economy and infrastructures are somewhat less developed. The growing emigration, lack of connection to electricity networks, and the weak economy have created poor social integration and social capital, and reduced willingness for local initiatives, investments, and creativity (WB, 2004). The main human activities are agriculture, livestock, fishery and tourism. The main human activities in the Albanian part of the basin are agriculture and livestock. Fishing is an activity exercised by both countries local population, currently not well controlled and without exact statistics on. Tourism is practiced more on the Montegrin side. In Albania it has been developed mainly in the west part of the Lake and in Velipoja beach near the delta of River Buna. Tourist settlements are of small and medium size, but in some specific areas like Velipoja coast, tourist settlements are hugely expanding in its northern part and toward Viluni lagoon in the west. Poor socioeconomic conditions and subsequent poor social cohesion resulted in weak local groups, what became a factor of the limited public participation in the management of the Lake and the basins. In the Montenegrin part of the Lake, local communities are fragmented: the fishermen and agricultural cooperatives are weak. In the Albanian side, the farmer cooperatives have disintegrated; local communities are not able to mobilize citizens (GEF, 2004). Week voice, visibility and economy of the local population allow very often the utilization of this resource to be subjected to different, very often illegal or ad hock plans for development. Also, poorly informed or uninterested local community groups in combination with the absence of sustainable development policy and actions in general, have a negative impact on the Lake and the basins, putting into effect a lot of illegal activities. Consequently a lot of the pressure for economic gain and issues are generated in the zone outside of PAs (transit area) and in a smaller scale within the PAs, influencing the ecosystem and its future in the great extent. Rural development and tourism together with the moderate renewable energy plans and

trends are to be further discus in the framework of transboundary sustainable vision and clear directions of the wider water shared system Shkodar/Skadar Lake area.

3. Political context of two countries In the two countries the national policies in the post-conflict era have been formulated in an evolving environment at national and regional levels, guided mainly by political and socio-economic factors. The address of several pressing needs and problems e.g. poverty and unemployment, has dictated strategic choices and decisions in terms of both formulation of policies and setting of priorities for their implementation. As an outcome, sustainable management has been sporadic and rather low in the agenda, still highly dependent on political will and structure. The environmental administration is in general weak and public participation and awareness is limited since formal and clearly defined processes have not been established. Legislation has been fragmented, sometimes overlapping or even contradictory. Thus, the need to increase the income of the inhabitants has led to the deterioration of natural resources of the lakes basin. Both countries have been in past and are further working toward relevant legislation improvements, policy plans and strategies. The stumbling factors of significant improvement on the ground could be as follows. Given the sectoral organization of governments it is rare to find an integrated policy specifically on the Lake basin management. The governments’ intentions for managing the Lake are contained in different strategies without sustainable development and environmental principles integration, moreover without long term and clear impact formulation. The limited coordination among different management agencies and their unclear or overlapping competencies are additional reasons for result to be limited: actions by one sector often undermine or compromise the actions of another. Further to this, there are institutional constrains of the environment sectors, national protection and management system: low level of priority given to government policy in the field of environment, long lasting and repeated revision and updates of strategies and laws, low enforcement and commitment, lack of clear vision and directions, weak institutional capacities and accountability, poor horizontal and vertical coordination, etc. For the framework of TB MAB BR to be fully effective, the environmental sector have to find the capacity to take the stirring for sustainable development of the complex open-ending context across multiple levels and sectors, one step further, from national to the transboundary and international scale. In that endeavour it needs to be long term committed to poverty eradication and environmental conservation, meeting wider societal objectives, such as the equity aspects of sustainable development. This will also require overcoming coordinating failures in public policies at national and than transboundary level and transition to a society that guards the future and pursue the common good. The environmental sector in Albania is recently showing major authority in executing some of the environmental policies and decisions such as two year ban on hunting in the whole country, plans to ban

The Shkodra/Skadar Lake region contains many untapped potentials, which are to be explored and put in service of sustainable living. Engaging key stakeholders – public and private – in transforming the way the Lake is used such that it is sustainable, efficient and equitable, should be the principle of local and regional economy development.

logging, strong commitment to building better system of protection and control and also plans for establishment of direct management units for PAs – in the country with largest percentage of PAs in SEE. Albanian high ranking representatives are showing a lot of enthusiasm for TB MAB BR process and designation. The commitment is expressed in understanding the MAB Program and having a vision on what country specific and TB targets are to be achieved. Also there is an indicated possibility for funding the work of management organisation of the future TB MAB BR from state budget. Recently, MAB Comity was established in the country with no BR sites so far. The willingness for meeting, discussing and signing MoU with the neighbouring Montenegrin counterparts is expressed too. There is a well established cooperation and connection of top environmental and the regional authority representatives in the case of Shkodra County (Qark), showing synergy in the goals and aspirations toward establishment of the TB MAB BR site. The head of regional Council of Shkodra expressed willingness and commitment to work on the issues of pollution especially in terms of wastewater treatment in Shkodra, and expressed eagerness to work on water transport and tourism opportunities with the Montenegrin counterparts. However, political commitment here is highly dependent on the structure and willingness of decision makers.

On Montenegrin side the main issues are sectorial plans for usage of the resources. For this reason there is a need for wider plethora of ministerial sectors to be involved in the process in order to give the required acknowledge of the plan and process and in order to agree about the policies integration and stirring in direction of the future TB MAB BR goals. Wastewater collection and treatment facilities as well as the construction of solid waste management facilities are also concern of Montenegrin side. Both sides agreed that these require urgent measures expected to be improved trough MAB TB BR process and designation. Understanding of the model and commitment to the TB MAB BR is focused on the designation process itself, rather than on a long term plan for building ‘site of excellence’, within government but also civil sectors of both sides. The issues of joint management, funding, ecosystem services, etc., are still not considered. This will need to be improved also for preparation of Nomination file, were the indication of these is nowadays requirement. The exact level of public participation in the decision making in each country is not clear. It is also unclear the division of mandate and roles. The access to information and joint planning are on the poor level. There are examples suggesting that stakeholder involvement is inadequate, partial or conflicting. There is lack of relevant experience, mechanisms and capacity at the local level to carry out the new tasks and involve the local communities. This might require a long run intervention. Local organization/authorities (representatives) still have limited understanding of the issues in the context of designation and management of future TB MAB BR. It seems that Albanian SHs are grassing more on the idea and commitment. However, the representation is also more harmonious in terms of environmentally related positions and organizations involved. This might need to be improved form more diverse, multi-sectoral and multi-layer representation. Montenegrin SHs are strongly reflecting the issue of top down approach, emphasizing that they have no mandate to get involve, decide, or plan. They express reluctance in significance of being involved in the designation process and further activities on sustainable development, also being skeptical about the approach and achievements that could be made. This confirms the reality of weak joint planning and participation practices experience, which demand more attention in order to be enhanced. The opportunity lies in having a well managed and controlled process of engagement, ensuring sustainability. Also, good showcases should be presented to serve as an inspiration and to catalyze replication nationally and locally.

Work with local population – still remains a challenge as they are not properly organized in bodies that might represent their interest. However they are very important in the process of designation and further establishment of TB BR. There are many studies showing that proper involvement of SHs in the early stage of PAs designation is increasing the opportunity for its well functioning latter on. Bottom up approach has to go hand in hand with the top down one for the success of the designation and further management.

4. International context

Transboundary cooperation for the management of each of the shared lake bodies is being influenced by the developments at the political and socio-economic scene at national and regional level and the bilateral or multilateral relations of the littoral countries. In an environment - throughout the European Continent - in which cooperation is being promoted at all levels, the involvement of the EU and several UN agencies as well as other international organizations and NGOs has been catalytic (Faloutsos et al., 2008). There are certain specific positive steps made that are encouraging for the future TB cooperation of the Lakes in this region (Ohrid, Prespa, Skadar Lakes). Still, a long way is ahead till Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is applied. EU accession is a strategic choice of two countries. Albania holds potential candidate status while Montenegro is candidate country, advancing in the region. The SAA signed by both countries foresees the establishment of bilateral agreements with neighboring countries in the region, covering environmental and transboundary water issues. The on-going reforms in two countries which have the approximation of the EU acquis communautaire as a common driving force, and the EU accession as a common final aim, will gradually lead to a de facto harmonized legal framework. This provides a golden opportunity for the promotion of the cooperation in the Lake. The cross border cooperation is supported by IPA programmes and funds, too. The general aim of cross border cooperation is to reduce the negative effects of borders as administrative, legal and physical barriers, tackle common problems and exploit untapped potential. Through joint management of programmes and projects, mutual trust and understanding are strengthened and the cooperation process is enhanced. On the other hand, the biosphere reserve concept has been especially well received by developing countries, with the notion of dual conservation and sustainable development objectives attractive for encouraging socio-economic development in conservation landscapes. Transboundary biosphere reserve represents a new and most interesting development, which has been greatly favored recently by the collapse of the iron curtain in Europe. The interest of such bilateral sites is clear in ecological terms (particularly for protection of fauna), in management terms (larger units with compatible methods) and of course as a symbol of peace with great political visibility. The difficulties of this approach should not however be underestimated (unwanted movements of people, language barriers, etc.), but its advantages for emulation in good management practices and for exchange of experience are significant. This development should therefore be strongly encouraged (UNESCO, 2001). The world network of 610 Biosphere Reserves, including 12 transboundary BRs in 117 countries (ICC, 2012), adds to the wealth of experience gathered over 40 years in sustainable development. Six of these TB BRs are in Europe. The most recent ones (2012) are: West Polesie TB BR (Belarus/Poland/Ukraine) and Mura Drava Danube - MDD, (Croatia/Hungary). Ministerial declaration for extending TB BR MDD on

3 more countries is signed by Ministers of Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, Slovenia and Austria. The neighbouring countries (Albania and the FYR of Macedonia) submitted the Nomination file to MAB Secretariat for the Ohrid and Prespa Lake. Ramsar and MAB BR: Programme of joint work between the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, 1971) and the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme has been accepted by the 26th Meeting of Ramsar’s Standing Committee (2001) and by the MAB International Coordinating Council (2002).The joint programme has been developed in recognition of the fact that there is mutual interest in the activities of the Ramsar Convention and the Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB) particularly in the areas of the identification and designation of sites, site management planning, assessment and monitoring, and communication, education and public awareness. The implementation of the joint programme recognizes that successful implementation of the wise (sustainable) use and conservation of Ramsar sites and Biosphere Reserves depends upon the full participation of all stakeholders, including local communities and indigenous people, as well as a balanced approach in relation to the maintenance of wetland goods and services and the socio-economic and cultural features. The Memorandums and cooperation have been agreed on and funding secured to support the activities of the joint programme.

The Man and Biosphere Programme declared the harmonious development of man and nature to be its key goal. The Statutory Framework and the World Network of Biosphere Reserves

(WNBR) was initiated in 1975 as a nature protection programme focused on representative landscapes, integrating management, education and research. “Seville Strategy” was elaborated during an international conference in Seville, Spain, in 1995 and re-confirmed during the Seville +5 conference in Pamplona in 2000 (UNESCO MAB, 2002). New issues and programmes such as sustainable tourism, quality economy, education for sustainable development and climate change were newly reflected in the Madrid Action Plan (MAP) for 2008–2013 (UNESCO MBA, 2008). According to the Seville Strategy, all Biosphere Reserves should have the following three main functions:

conservation in situ of natural and semi-natural ecosystems and landscapes;

development: demonstration areas for ecologically and socio-culturally sustainable use;

logistic support of research, monitoring, education, training and information exchange. Accordingly biosphere reserves are organized into three interrelated zones:

the core area

the buffer zone

the transition area Only the core area requires legal protection and hence can correspond to an existing protected area such as a nature reserve or a national park. This zoning scheme is applied in many different ways in the real world to accommodate geographical conditions, socio-cultural settings, available legal protection measures and local constraints. This flexibility can be used creatively and is one of the strongest points of the Biosphere Reserve concept, facilitating the integration of protected areas into the wider landscape. Today post-Seville biosphere reserves are the only international designations covering all major ecosystem types, including urban ecosystems, where more than 80% of the total area designated lies outside of legally protected core zones. There is perhaps no better set of internationally networked areas where conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and its relationships to broader regional sustainable development perspectives could be studied and tested and the gained experience and knowledge shared amongst all nations of the world (Ishwaran, 2008).

The term biosphere reserve is therefore a misnomer: the designation is neither restrictive nor exclusive, except as a legally designated core zone is required. Taken as a whole it is not a protected area as defined by IUCN. Rather it is the only global designation – or accreditation – for an area demonstrating excellence in sustainable development in practice. Thus, many BRs are building a name and logo that represent the designated place and its vision, as to overcome the confusion of the concept of reserve and the designation principles of BR which is sustainable development.

International framework of designated MAB BR Biosphere reserves are not the object of a binding international convention or treaty but are governed by a “soft law” — the Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves — adopted by the UNESCO General Conference and which all member countries are committed to apply. In consequence, the UNESCO

“The essence of a biosphere reserve is not merely protection or conservation but the building of a mutually beneficial relationship between conservation and development using research, monitoring, capacity building and participatory management approaches as tools to build conservation-development linkages” (ICC, 2012: CONF 201/2, p 11).

Man and Bipsphere Reserve Programme

Secretariat does not have a ‘policing function’ and it is the responsibility of each country, through its MAB National Committee or Focal Point, to ensure that the Biosphere Reserves respond to the criteria and function properly. In most countries it is not necessary to enact special national legislation for biosphere reserves but rather to use the existing legal frameworks for nature protection and land/water management. Thus said, an increasing number of countries are now giving biosphere reserves a special legal status in order to reinforce their application. In the case of a perceived problem, e.g. plans to construct an oil refinery within the site, the biosphere reserve status should be used as a platform for dialogue to arrive at an optimal solution. The MAB Secretariat will remind the concerned MAB National Committee/Focal Point of its responsibility in such cases. The actual strength of the BR approach is: To those who dislike or despair of the highly regulatory approach to environmental protection, the BR offers a more constructive and conciliatory approach.

Management of BRs

UNESCO does not require any change in law or ownership: each Biosphere Reserve has its own system of governance to ensure it meets its functions and objectives. The management system of a Biosphere Reserve needs to be open, evolving and adaptive in order for the local community to better respond to external political, economic and social pressures, which would affect the ecological and cultural values of the area. Hence it is necessary to set up an appropriate governance mechanism, for instance a committee or board, to plan and co-ordinate all the activities of all the actors concerned, each within their own mandate and competence. Usually a Biosphere Reserve coordinator is named as the contact person for all matters dealing with the biosphere reserve.

MAB National Committee/Focal point

Is to be established in each country where MAB BRs are designated (even better when planned to be designated) as today’s MAB Programme requirement. Its role is very important in the process of designation, monitoring and reporting, in the horizontal and vertical coordination, and networking. In the process of designation and successful management, the role of the MAB National Committee/Focal point is:

1. To promote, facilitate and support the establishment of Biosphere Reserves; 2. To identify societal needs and politically relevant issues (various sectors involved); 3. To stimulate, support and coordinate interdisciplinary research (scientific community involved –

not only ecology! – and use of the Biosphere Reserves network as a territorial lab); 4. To disseminate good practices and deliver policy advises (liaising with surrounding territories

and governmental bodies). And further in networking:

5. To promote cross-border cooperation; 6. To participate in regional/international projects; 7. To exchange on good practices (bi-directional) and benefit from capacity-building efforts; 8. To promote sustainable development; 9. To develop links with other UNESCO Programmes (IHP, WH convention, etc).

De-designation – removing from the WNBR list The Statutory Framework makes provision for a periodic review every 10 years. The periodic review reports are prepared by the concerned authority, and forwarded to the UNESCO Secretariat. The reports are examined according to a set procedure. In the event that a site designated as a biosphere reserve does not satisfy the criteria, after a reasonable period of time the area will no longer be referred to as a biosphere reserve of the World Network. To date, this procedure has never reached this conclusion.

However several counties have voluntarily withdrawn “non-functional” sites and this has been commended by the MAB International Coordination Council. There are number of challenges in applying the Biosphere Reserve concept internationally, with implementation lagging in many examples. However, with the more rigorous approach to evaluating sites since 2011/2012, it is likely that those Biosphere Reserves that do not function as the concept intends, i.e. a ‘Biosphere Reserve’ in label alone rather than in practice, will be withdrawn from the WNBRs in the near future, improving the successes of MAB globally (Coetzer et al., 2013).

MAB vs. WH A biosphere reserve is a representative ecological area with three mutually reinforcing functions: conservation, sustainable development and logistic support for scientific research and education. Collectively, all biosphere reserves form a World Network linked by exchanges of experience and knowledge. They are part of a UNESCO scientific programme, governed by a “soft law”, the Statutory Framework. Natural World Heritage sites must be of outstanding universal value in accordance with the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972). Efforts to enhance local development and to promote scientific understanding are the means to ensure the protection of the natural World Heritage values. The application to WH list is also consisted of well elaborated Management plan, not required for MAB BR sites. In some instances, a core area of a biosphere reserve can meet World Heritage criteria. In that case, the usually larger biosphere reserve can therefore serve as a complementary means to protect the integrity of the World Heritage site.

MAB BR vs. NP Biosphere reserve: conservation of cultivated landscape, by sustainable cultivation, at least 5 % core area, Nature conservation including men and economy

National Park: conservation of natural areas, by nature conservation, at least 75 % core area, nature conservation often excluding men or limiting the activity.

Transboundary MAB BR TB BRs provide a tool for common management. A TB BR is an official recognition at the international level and by a UN institution of a political will to co-operate in the conservation and sustainable use, through common management, of a shared ecosystem. It also represents a commitment of two or more countries to apply together the Seville Strategy for biosphere reserves and its objectives.2

2 Source: www.unesco.org

The actual benefits realized within MAB programme will depend upon the perceived need, the local capacity and the opportunity to meet these through a BR type designation. Also political will have an important role in this setting.

There are numbers of excellent opportunities present in biosphere reserves, not only for ecosystem conservation and global-change scenarios given their typically larger sizes, but also for structured interdisciplinary research (Coetzer et al. 2013). The biosphere reserve concept can be used as a framework to guide and reinforce projects to enhance people’s livelihoods and ensure environmental sustainability. UNESCO’s recognition can serve to highlight and reward such individual efforts. The designation of a site as a ‘Biosphere Reserve’ can raise awareness among local people, citizens and government authorities of environmental and development issues. It can help to attract additional funding from different sources. At the national level, biosphere reserves can serve as pilot sites or ‘learning places’ to explore and demonstrate approaches to conservation and sustainable development, providing lessons which can be applied elsewhere. In addition, they are a concrete means for countries to implement Agenda 21, the Convention on Biological Diversity (for example the ecosystem approach), many Millennium Development Goals (for example on environmental sustainability), and the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. In the case of large natural areas which straddle national boundaries, transboundary biosphere reserves can be established jointly by the countries concerned, testifying to long-term cooperative efforts.3 There are already well functioning BR sites. The potential is wide4: a short term reward in terms of a globally respected designation/quality assurance; The designation

has the potential to: o attract those in search of a high quality sustainably managed environment and associated

services (leisure, recreation, adventure, study, pleasant living environment) – increase in tourist numbers;

o provide a practical and unifying focus for sustainable development initiatives; o raise the levels of awareness, understanding and pride in the local environment and the way

in which it is managed, which in turn can inject and attract dynamism into the local economy;

o lever in additional support or project funds by both assuring the quality of the environment and the sustainability of the local economy.

access to associated marketing opportunities for sustainably produced products or sustainably managed environments;

increase the added and real value of the products from the site; provide a practical focus on an identified human-natural system, or a particular “place”, whose

characteristics can be seen to improve through the BR implementation; improve governance mechanism for sustainable development management and coordination; link the place with international networks through which to share experience and develop

partnerships. honour international recognition and visibility of the strong commitment for transboundary

coordination and management.

3 Different web sources: http://www.watertonbiosphere.com/benefits-biosphere-reserve.html;

http://intim8ecology.wordpress.com/biospheric/, http://www.georgewright.org/mab, http://tourismplanningprofessionals.com/?p=472, etc. 4 Source: Adjusted from Hambrey et al., 2008

Benefits, opportunities

The BR label is the only existing global “standard” associated with area based sustainable development and associated products. Additional potentials that can be utilized working with local population in the BRs are laid down below: Clear functional links between the quality of the environment and the lives of local people; Large enough area to support significant sustainable land use activity and levels of production or

products which can usefully be marketed under a BR/sustainable development label. A perception of need for regeneration, new initiative, a new way of doing things amongst the local

population and especially key players – and broadly based interest in sustainable development; Opportunity for improved livelihoods, income or new development related to the qualities of the

natural environment (e.g. local food or wood products; outdoor recreation; tourism); The existence of local crafts or local processing of food and natural products. High levels of awareness of natural values; Local institutions or individuals keen to “champion” development and conservation; Strongly supportive local government – preferably with boundaries coincident with the BR; A coherent community – a common sense of identity and pride – preferably related in some way to

the natural environment (e.g. fisheries, farming, shooting, education, recreation etc). Involvement of local community in the management (design, planning and implementation) having

participation processes high on the development and protection agenda. Once significant achievements are maid and designation is functional, benefits could be further achieved on national and transboundary level: Economies of scale (e.g. in training programmes, promotion programmes, access to rural

development funding, dissemination of best practice) Sectoral management integration (LAGs, tourism clustering – DMO/RMO and other economic

clustering); And on WNBR level: Sharing of experience and learning; Representation of BR interests and experience at international level. The researches on BR networks reveals a wide variety of mutually supportive activity, including joint research and learning; training and demonstration; capacity building; marketing; monitoring and information; fund raising; and awareness raising.

However, there should be no rush to designate TB BR in order to create a “fully functioning cooperation”. It takes much time and effort to raise support and awareness to a level likely to create demand for, and underpin a successful BR, as some cases illustrate. The emphasis should be directed toward quality and success of future TB BR to prove the approach and enhance the starting point of the designation and the brand.

Available information suggests that though steps are taken, environmental management is still weak in the countries concerned and the management of the lake basins remains unsustainable. The management of biosphere reserves in the region is not on the required level, too. The reasons are

manifold. The difficult conditions of the past e.g. political instability, long transition period of the countries towards a market based economy, poor social cohesion, weak commitment to sustainable development, etc., are some. Unsustainable practices of different economic activities have resulted in numerous pressures exerted on the natural resources. This was interconnected with developmental policies that didn’t incorporate principles of sustainability, and were translated in implementation of ad hoc and non-integrated sectoral activities. Sectoral organization of governments and poorly coordinated institutions with limited human and financial capacities further exacerbated the situation. The legal frameworks and the non integrated management instruments have been proven weak tools for addressing the relevant difficult challenges.

The slowdown of the BR designation in the Lake region is associated with the challenges listed above. Also the process was weakened by the capacity to organise the process, especially in the area of building the necessary ownership on Montenegrin side. In situations like this the following constrains can be identified: 5

- Lack of authority and capacity (no of staff and knowledge) in environmental sector structures; lack of leadership and clear vision often follows, leading to environmental sector inferiority.

- Additionally, environmental sectors are fragmented and often not aligned across sectors and levels.

- Weak environmental governance capacity at the municipal level adds to constrains. - Sectoral decision makers are unaccustomed to applying a watershed perspective to resource

management challenges. - Sectors are managed and regulated independently and often have different goals and objectives

within the same watershed/basin. - In Montenegro lately, the protected areas are required to fund their own management activities

and receive no financial or institutional support from the Government, possibly precluding any active conservation work from being done.

- Also new BR is not to be financially supported from central budget in Montenegro. - In the Albanian part of Shkodra Lake and Buna River, the legal status of the Protected Areas

Management Directorate precludes them from establishing their own bank accounts and managing their own finances.

- In Albania there is still no direct management organization appointed for each PA, but are all managed by Forest Directorate.

- Protected area managers have little experience in applying new age principles to the challenge of conserving biological diversity within and around the protected areas, having also weak absorption capacities and proactive drive, what could be a hold down issue in the process of establishment TB BR.

- NGOs on MNE side are not seen as strong partner by relevant government counterpart, failing to generate ownership building and commitment.

5 Source: (Adapted from) UNDP, Project document. GEF “Integrated Ecosystem Management in the Prespa Lakes Basin of

Albania, FYR Macedonia and Greece” Project

Challenges and constrains

- Existing data is largely outdated and incomplete on both sides and country data on ecosystem parameters is held and not shared by interested organizations and individuals.

- Monitoring dataset and practices are just developing on the external fund basis, what might be proved to be unsustainable.

- There is a serious lack of regulatory powers on both sides. - Community and users involvement in natural resource management in both countries is very

low and there are still no functioning mechanisms to give local authorities and resource users more of a stake in the benefits of conservation. This is true for virtually all sectors including agriculture, fisheries, forestry, wildlife, protected areas.

Based on these, a set of key challenges need to be further discussed: - Proceed with the on-going process of the designation at national and transboundary level

securing coordination, stronger commitment and ownership that will provide the basis for integrated and sustainable management of the lake basins.

- Secure the continuation of the process after the designation has been obtained by long term plan and commitment of SHs, ensuring the recourses for the realization of the identified goals and support to establishment and operation of the TB MAB BR management body for actions toward utilizing the concept and building site of excellence.

- Develop mechanisms that will facilitate the sustainable financing of the natural resources management in accordance with the “user” and “polluter pays” principle, in consistency with the socio-economic realities also at local level.

- Harmonize rules and regulations for the management of shared lake basin. - Introduce more human-centered conservation approaches, as the Biosphere Reserve model,

that implemented effectively, is especially valuable in this regard.

At trans-boundary level: - Transaction costs associated with moving to the next level from trans-boundary agreement

upon the principles and basis for trans-boundary cooperation to developing and supporting specific mechanisms for cooperation. For example, the trans-boundary coordination body might be required, with a formal, legal mandate, full-time professional staff, and appropriate allocation of resources.

- Also, the administration costs of public participation processes can be unexpectedly high. - Data sharing on key issues affecting this Lake region is limited to a few narrow topics and

hampered by disparate sampling strategies, methods of gathering data, and ingrained reluctance to share data. Data is perceived as a commodity and not a shared scientific resource.

- Restricted access to data and poor communication among the states has led in the past to differing development interventions and plans, often reflecting national, rather than trans-boundary priorities. It is not easy to inflict on this.

- The insufficient nexus of rules at single country level is coupled by a limited – until now – legal framework at transboundary level. A way to promote such a scheme is by promoting the harmonization of existing national legislation. Such effort is essential since only through harmonization can in the Lake Shkodra/Skadar region or each one of the Lakes of the neighboring countries be treated as an uninterrupted system to be managed in an integrated way. Progress until now has been limited, though some steps are taken.

- Yet enforcement problems exist throughout the region.

Having it all laid down, the activities and issues in the region of Lake Shkodra/Skadar call for strong, clear and long-term integrated transboundary management. This requires the existence of an established and well functioning process coordinated by a management body at national and transboundary level. Hence, while the NGOs are the pioneers in promoting public participation and initiatives promoting social cohesion supported through external funded programmes, for the success on the long run the government counterparts need to be fully committed and engaged too. Until that synergy is achieved, each year the Lake is not managed properly, stakeholder expectations, local and regional economy and funds are wasted, and unsustainable, uncontrolled economy is entrenched.

There is call for working, in a well adjusted manner, at different levels: Local: Present and demonstrate the feasibility of sustainable development trough successful show cases, demonstration that BR “model” works. Build the understanding of the MAB Programs and of the role locals could take on, as to support their empowerment and commitment. Break the fame of the ‘reserve’ name and work on the sustainable living concept and activities for Lake Shkodra/Skadar region. As the conclusion to the two day workshop, a participant said: “we do not need the place to admire the beauty and die of starvation, what we need is the synergy of people, their activities and nature”. Work with local municipal level need to be enhanced, for knowledge and understanding, but for engagement and commitment building, too. Local administrative units could be vital for ensuring seed money for management of MAB BR. Therefore, encouraging upshots that MAB Programe brings should be enhanced by public participation processes. Public awareness and information campaigns and education can lead to awareness raising, empowerment of user groups and promotion of their effective participation in the decision making and the sustainable management of the Lakes and the basin. However, careful plan dependant of the situation and context of the resources vs. effects that needs to be made in order to achieve desired. In the case of the Lake Skadar region more resources might be needed as to engage SHs, sometimes having face to face intervention, considering the low interest and agility at the moment. Such activities have to be strategically supported and linked to ensure direction, continuity and effectiveness. Two NGOs involved already have the necessary experience and benefit from local population trust. Therefore they could play a major role on this level. They already reached significant level for understanding MAB Programme, designation process, the benefits and challenges. INCA representative reflected that since the process started the knowledge evolved even within civil sector from protection of nature focus to today’s vision of TB region development achieved trough sustainable activities and safeguard of the environment hand in hand, where local population is seen as beneficiaries. Both NGOs involved in the process emphasized coordination as a fundamental component for successful alignment of the economic activities and sectors and conservation goals as a prerequisite for work on important common issues such as illegal activities, integral branding of the place, ecotourism, etc. National: Build strong ownership and leadership over the process within decision makers. In order to do this the case for improvement of environment, while creating jobs and social cohesion, under the umbrella of the internationally recognized site of excellence need to be made! This could be supported by establishing multi-sectoral working groups in both countries of the same level, consisted of: different ministerial representatives, horizontal coordination bodies representatives (if any), vertical coordination bodies (if any), and operational MAB Comity/Focal point representative. Establishment of MAB National Committee or focal point in Montenegro is a requirement, too. Connect the influencing Physical Planning, Policies, and laws into the common vision of the future BR, aligning directions and pointing out issues could be part of the working group tasks! There is an evident demand to work closely on sectoral integration. Thus, there might be a necessity for this process to be facilitated by the relevant independent national/international consultant that can work on the technical but also on crosscutting issues of sectoral coordination. There is also need for looking ahead when planning the designation, ensuring the sustainability of the process, fulfillment of the long term sustainable development and integral management goals and utilization of the benefits that are given as enhanced opportunities, rather than an ex-ante of the designation.

Process of Shkodra/Skadar Lake TB BR designation future steps

Cross-border: Both countries high representatives emphasized appreciation to the MAB BR designation and common awaiting to work on the pollution and other issues in a coordinated way. The statements need to be expanded to the well formulated way forward, within the designation and coordination process, and reconfirmed in the formal and well prepared meetings and agreements. The complex situation advocates for establishment of mechanisms for well-built cooperation for exchange of the data and experience between decision makers and managers in order to come to common vision. Therefore, facilitating and ensuring open and trustful process of this key component, between the ministerial representatives of two countries but other SHs too, is the early stage requirement. Signing off the declaration or other kind of formal document, confirming the commitment, formulated trough aims and actions of two governments toward establishment of TB MAB BR need to be facilitated and ensured. International: Work closely with National Commission promoting the model on the international level and with UNESCO Venice and Paris offices, involving possibly UNESCO Ambassadors of two countries. Benefit from the catalytic involvement of the international community for the enhancement of cooperation on the management of the lakes and their basins, both at national and transboundary level. The process of designation is neither easy nor short coming. It usually takes lots of time from the idea to initiation of the process and building commitment, up to submitting the Nomination file and inscription in the WNBR list. For the success of the process of Nomination file preparation both approaches need to be applied, top down and bottom up.

Top down approach starting points

Different sectors and national policies need to be translated into mechanisms to ensure that access to the resources of the Lake and its basin is allocated fairly and efficiently between the competent uses and users. The very important and basic of these principles in the Lake region context need to involve 3 key issues: - Long term vision and strategic directions formulation under the umbrella of new TB MAB BR. - Proper, clear zoning and mechanisms for its enforcement aligned with physical plan. - Very concretely, work toward enforceable effluent discharge standards. First zoning proposal is already maid (figure 6 below) during the course of actions consisted of meetings and roundtable discussions. It raised a lot of debates and it certainly needs to be worked on more in terms of:

- Complying the proposed core zones with the already nationally designated protected zones, in order to ensure legally binding conservation function (weather with nature reserves or NP borders).

- Complying the buffer zone with the surface of the ecologically connected and correlated system. - Following trends/requirements of the ‘new age’ BR, where transition zone is a large area

suitable for promotion and work on sustainable development, but where influence and also pressures from human activities on the ecosystem are present.

- All together considering wider surface, as MAB BR do embrace complex and challenging socio-economic, political and environmental contexts of the ecological connected system.

- Comply with the vision and strategic direction, access and benefit sharing issues of the future TB BR.

Figure 6: Firs zoning proposal done based on the discussions and two baseline maps analyze. © Danilo Mrdak

Bottom up approach

Involvement of the local communities in the designation is critical for the success and management of the future TB MAB. There are several instruments to be discussed and promoted for the engagement of local stakeholders in the process of preparing nomination file and further. The efforts need to be directed toward inspiring and directing people and their actions in order to change undesirable behavior and to reinforce sustainable ones. This means discussions on access and benefit sharing between SHs and local management organizations. Some of the mechanisms and topics could be:

- Levies and subsidies for stimulating implementation of the joint strategic vision and sustainable use of natural resources.

- Building and marketing a unique brand. - Raise the proud in the place with locals.

- Empower locals by giving them knowledge and involving them.

- Support their better cohesion. - Celebrate champions of the sustainable

use. - Involve local youth in the activities.

Annex I: List of Meetings

1. Zoran Mrdak, Director; National Parks of Montenegro. January, 28th 2014 2. Bosiljka Vukovid, Head of the Division for the Support to the National Council for Sustainable

Development, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism, Montenegro. February, 4th 2014. 3. Lidija Šdepanovid, deputy director for environmental protection; Minena Batakovic, advisor in

monitoring department; Environmental Protection Agency of Montenegro- EPA. February, 4th 2014. 4. Ivana Vojinovid, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism, Montenegro.

February, 5th 2014. 5. Daliborka Pejovid, State Secretary, Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism, Montenegro

February, 7th 2014. 6. Djana Bejko, Deputy Minister at Ministry of Environment Albania; Maxhid Cungu, Head of Regional

Council of Shkodra; February, 9th 2014.

Annex II: Questioner form and list of SHs that filled in the questioner

Prepared by: Independent Consultant, Ana Katnic, MSc

Originator: NGO Green Home Project

Project: Towards the designation of Lake Shkodra/Skadar as Trans-boundary Biosphere Reserve

Project assignment:

Feasibility study for establishing Transboundary Man and Biosphere Reserve (TB MAB BR) Shkodra/Skadar Lake

Funding: UNESCO PARTICIPATION PROGRAMME 2012-2013

Description: Before the governments of two countries, Montenegro and Albania, face the process of finalization and submission of Nomination file, the activities are to be directed toward production of the “Feasibility study for establishing Transboundary Man and Biosphere Reserve Shkodra/Skadar Lake”. This is in order toanalyse

challenges and opportunities of transboundary protection and cooperation under MAB BR Programme, in a participative manner, involving wider group of relevant stakeholders.

Geographical area: Skadar Lake region and possibly Bojana/Buna River, no borders are defined jet.

This questioner is sent to public, civil and private sector SHs of both countries, to national, regional and local stakeholder groups. The analyze and conclusions of the answers will be presented and discussed at the workshop, to be held end of January, 2014. The venue details and invitations will be sent to you separately. Both will serve as inputs to the feasibility study report, especially to the chapters on: benefits and resources, necessary steps, support, management and political settings. The consultant is obliged to exerciseindependent and objective interest in having two-way, wider group SH’s communication. The consultant has a duty to reflect clearly and effectively the issues and possibilities with stakeholders and partners. For all your questions or doubts, do not hesitate to contact NGO Green Home Project Leader, JovanaJanjusevic:Phone/Fax: + 382 20609375, E-mail: jovana.janjusevic@greenhome.co.me, or independent consultant Ana Katnic: anakatnic@t-com.me. Thank you for finding the time and taking an interest in this process. Ana Katnic

Independent consultant

Biodiversity, Protected areas,Sustainable development,

Project management, Project monitoring and evaluation

Name of the questioned:

Title of position:

Institution/ Organization:

Place:

Date:

Questioner to determine feasibility for transboundary designation: Man and Biosphere Reserve Shkodra/Skadar Lake region Explanation on the questioner: Mark the right answer by circling it. You can circle more than one answer. When question is referring to you/your organization circle one or the other in the question and then give the answer.

1. Do you have any knowledge on the UNESCO MAB BR programe? Yes No Some

2. How did you obtain it? Literature Work Course/workshop Study-tour Other:

3. List protected areas present in this region in your country:

4. List transboundary protected areas in this region, if any:

5. List management authorities of protected areas in your country:

6. List transbounday management authorities:

7. List any authority that should/could have some management role in the current setting and it is not involved at the moment:

8. List any authority that should/could have some management role in trans-boundary PA coordination:

9. Is the conservation function of the protected areas in this region fulfilled at the moment? Yes To some extend No Explain:

10. Which alternative/additional structures need to be established to have efficient management of protected areas in this region in the current set up?

11. What is the level of managementauthorities cooperation between two countries at the moment? No cooperation Communication Consultations Collaboration Coordination of planning Full cooperation Explain:

12. What is the level of cooperation of you/your organization with the neighboring individuals/organisations? No cooperation Communication Consultations Collaboration Coordination of planning Full cooperation

Explain:

13. Would establishment of transboundarycooperation help to protect, restore, maintain or sustainably use any species and/or habitats and/or ecosystems? Yes, significantly To some extent Not at all Maybe Not applicable

14. Would establishment of UNESCO TB MAB BR help to protect, restore, maintain or sustainably use any species and/or habitats and/or ecosystems? Yes, significantly To some extent Maybe Not at all Not applicable

15. Would establishment of UNESCO TB MAB BR improve livelihoods of local people? Yes, significantly To some extent Not at all Maybe Not applicable Explain:

16. Would establishment of UNESCO TB MAB BR improve political, social and economic outlook of the region? Yes, significantly To some extent Not at all Maybe Not applicable Explain:

17. When the process of establishing UNESCO TB MAB BR should be taking place? Immediately Mid-term (in next 2-5 years) Long term (in the next 5-10years) Never

18. What are the problems/treats of this region?

19. Would it be possible to overcome them through establishment of UNESCO TB MAB BR? Yes, significantly To some extent Not at all Maybe Not applicable Explain:

20. Which activities would/could be performed better if UNESCO MAB BR is established? Conservation Sustainable use Tourism Intensive use of the resources

21. What are the downsides of TB MAB BR establishment in this region?

22. Is there any pressure (political, public, international, etc.) to establish UNESCO MAB BR in the region? Yes To some extent Not at all

23. Is there any planning or other documents promoting establishment UNESCO MAB BR in this region? Yes Not clearly None at all I don’t know Explain:

24. Would establishment of UNESCO MAB BR in this regionimprove/contribute to any of these? Knowledge Capacity building Financial resources Visibility Networking

25. Are the protection and development objectives of protected areas on each side similar? Yes, significantly To some extent Not at all I don’t know

26. List administrative units (municipalities/communes/ protected areas) that should be part of the UNESCO MAB BR area from your country?

27. Would you/your organization like to take part in the establishment of UNESCO MAB BR? Yes Maybe No

28. What are the main obstacles for establishment of UNESCO MAB BR in the region?

29. Are there any major political issues that might hold back the establishment of TB MAB BR? Yes To some extend Maybe None

30. Would key stakeholders benefit form establishment of UNESCO MAB BR? Yes, majority Only some None

31. Would any SH be in a disadvantage position if TB MAB BR is established? Yes, many Only some None Why:

32. Are people/SHs/ willing to share resources with neighboring counterparts? Yes majority Only some None

33. Is there a serious lack of human capacities/resources for management of MAB BR? Yes No

34. Who should lead the establishment process?

35. Is there any obstacle for communication between the countries SHs? Infrastructure Culture Language Knowledge Approach Other: No Explain:

36. Are there any preconditions/obstacles that need to be fulfilled/overcame, in order to have the process of TB MAB BR completed?

Some questions are guided by: IUCN, 2012.,Initiating effective trans boundary conservation

37. Additional remarks on the topic:

38. Comments on the method:

39. Comments on the questioner:

Questioners from Montenegro:

1. Radosav Nikčevid, Head of executive Board, NGO ‘Zeleni Crne Gore’

2. Nikoleta Nikčevid, Informator, TO Bar

3. Damir Mašovid, Advisor, Municipality Bar

4. Nikola Vukanovid, Expert advisor for Marketing, National Parks of Montenegro

5. Mirela Kalamperovid, Advisor and Secretary for International Affairs and Youth, Municipality Cetinje

6. Milica Krezovid – šestovid, employee on probation, NGO Young info-Montenegro

7. Miodrag Rašovid, deputy director paper ‘Monitor’

8. Emin Adžovid, Management Secretary, Municipal district Tuzi

9. Ivan Čađenovid, Journalist, Daly paper ‘Vijesti’

Questioners from Albania: 10. Idriz Kurtaj, Environmental expert, Protected Area, Koplik 11. Festim Broja, Biology expert, Directory of Forest Services in Shkodra

12. Edmond Terthorja, Chairman, Regional Environmental Agency, Shkoder

13. Dritan Dhora, Senior expert, Regional Environmental Agency, Shkoder

14. Simon Smalaj, Chief of Management office, Directory of Forestry Service Malesi e Madhe, Koplik,

Malesi e Madhe

15. Arben Brojai , Expert , Directory of Forestry Service, Koplik Malesi e Madhe

16. Qemal Zenelaj, Expert, Kastart Commune

17. Bruna Broqaj, Finance Director, Bashot Commune, Koplik

18. Besmir Hykaj, Support Services Director, “Malesi e Madhe” Forest Service Directorate

19. Enida Verça, “Journalism and Communication” student, Shkoder

20. Klevisa Çira, “Journalism and Communication” student

21. Elsiona Ymeri, Biologist, Civil society, Koplik

22. Ejëll Kalaj, Headmaster, “Dod Kaçaj” Highschool, Bajzë, Kastra commune inhabitant

23. Ramdar Mane, Bashkia Koplik

24. MirsadaHasaj, Teacher/Masters Student in Geography, Malesi e Madhe

25. Vlash Limadi, Director, Education Office, Malesi e Madhe

Annex III: Workshop agenda and list of participants of the workshop

Dan I: Četvrtak, Januar 30 10.00 Dolazak i registracija učesnika

30’

10.30 Uvodna obradanja: Green Home – gđica Jovana Janjuševid Institut za zaštitu prirode u Albaniji – gdin Zamir Dedej

15’

10.45 Predstavljanje inicijative, projekta i rezultata: Green Home: Jovana Janjuševid INCA: Zamir Dedej Diskusija i pitanja

15’

11.00 11.30

Predstavljanje TB MAB BR procesa proglašenja u regionu: Studija slučaja Mura-Drava–Dunav,gđa Duška Dimovid, WWF Dunavsko-Karpatski Program Kafe pauza

30’ 30’

12.00 Uvod u radionicu: Nezavisni konsultant: gđa Ana Katnid, Diskusija i pitanja

30’

12.30- 14.00 Ručak Radionica I dio Moderator - Ana Katnid, nezavisni konsultant 14.00 - Predstavljanje:

Zaštidena područja Trendovi i studije slučaja UNESCO proces proglašavanja Principi dobrog upravljanja

1h30’

15.30 16.30

Radne grupe kroz različite aspekte:

Kontekst životne sredine Politički kontekst Društveni kontekst Ekonomski kontekst

Izvještavanje u plenumu

1h00’

Zaključci 45’ Dan II: Petak, Januar 31 09.30 10.00

Predstavljanje procesa proglašenja MAB rezervata biosfere u Crnoj Gori i uopšteno Generalni sekretar Nacionalne komisije za saradnju sa UNESCO u Crnoj Gori: gđa Marija Raznatovid Predstavljanje procesa proglašenja MAB rezervata biosfere u Albaniji, inicijativa

30’ 20’

Prespa – Ohrid, KfW predstavnik 10.20 10.40

Predstavljanje procjena i rezultata projekta Albanija – Genti Kromidha: Rezultati 2 konsultativna sastanka u Skadru i Kopliku Crna Gora – Danilo Mrdak: Zonacija potencijalnog TB MAB BR Skadarsko jezero

20’ 20’

11.00 Kafe pauza Radionica, II dio 11.30 Rad u grupama povodom TB MAB BR Skadarsko jezero:

Zoniranje Posvedenost Struktura Finansiranje

1h30’

13.00 Ručak 14.30

Zajednički rad na mogudnostima i koristima

30’

15.00

Zajednički rad na ekonomičnosti

30’

15.30 Zajednički rad na bududim koracima i vremenskom okviru 30’ 16.00 Ispunjavanje upitnika 45’ 16.45 Zaključci 17.10 Završetak radionice

Feasibility of establishing Trans-boundary Man and Biosphere Reserve Shkodra/Skadar Lake Workshop, Bar 30-31 January 2014

Name Organisation/institution Contact

01. Ana Katnid Nezavisni konsultant anakatnic@t-com.me

02. Marija Ražnatovid Nacionalna komisija za UNESCO marija.raznatovic@mku.gov.me

03. Goran Škatarid NPSJ goranskataric@nparkovi.me

04. Nikola Vukanovid JP Nacionalni parkovi CG nikolavukanovic@nparkovi.me

05. Radosav Nikčevid Zeleni-Crne Gore

06. Mr Nikoleta Nikčevid

TO Bar Infobar@t-com.me

07. Damir Mašovid Opština Bar damir.masovic@bar.me

08. Mihailo Burid Zeleni-Crne Gore mihailo44@yahoo.com

09. Amra Strujid NVO Bonum bonum@t-com.me

10. Jelena Lakid NVO ’Mladiinfo’ milos.basket@t-com.me

11. Milica Krezovid- NVO ’Mladiinfo’ sestovicborko@gmail.com

Šestovid

12. Miodrag Rašovid Monitor mrasovic@t-com.me

13. Ivan Čađenovid ND ’Vijesti’ cadjenovic.ivan@gmail.me

14. Aida Ramovid Gradska opština Tuzi aidaramovic1@hotmail.com

15. Emin Adžovid Gradska opština Tuzi emin.tuzi@t-com.me

16. Amra Pepid Gradska opština Tuzi amra_pepic@hotmail.com

17. Mirela Kalamperovid

Prijestonica Cetinje mkalamperovic@hotmail.com

18. Momčilo Martinovid

Prijestonica Cetinje momcilo.martinovic@cetinje.me

19. Ruža Dirovid Agencija za zaštitu životne sredine CG

ruza.cirovic@epa.org.me

20. Biserka Stamatovid

Turistička organizacija glavnog grada Podgorice

Info@podgorica.travel

21. Duška Ljiljanid NVO Zeleni Crne Gore duska.ljiljanic@live.com

22. Anđela Vlahovid Zeleni Crne Gore andjela.vlahovic10@gmail.com

23. Sanaj Čabarkapa NVO Ekosfera cabarkapasanja@live.com

24. Emma Heywood Undiscovered Montenegro emma@undiscoveredmontenegro.com

25. Aleksandra Rolovid

NVO Green Home Aleksandra.rolovic@greenhome.co.me

26. Duška Dimovid WWF ddimovic@wwfdcp.org

27. Genti Kromidha INCA gkromidha@yahoo.it

28. Diana Muriqi Univ. ’L. Gurakuqi’ dmuriqi@yahoo.com

29. Donalda Lacej Univ. ’L. Gurakuqi’ donalacej@live.com

30. Suzana Golemi USH ’Luigj Gurakuqi’ zanakuci@yahoo.com

31. Lindita Bushati

32. Nadire Agaj

33. Tauland Bejko Forumi Shqiptar, Liqeri i Shkodres taulant.bejko@yahoo.com

34. Amela Zaganjori Forumi Shqiptar Lipeni Shkodres zaganjori_amela@yahoo.com

35. Mahir Hoti Forumi Shqiptar Lip. Shk. hotimahir@yahoo.com

36. Dajana Maraqeshi Forumi Shqiptar Liqeni Shk maraqeshidajana@yahoo.com

37. Aurela Rrukaj Forumi ShqiptarLipeni Shk aurela.rrukaj@gmail.com

38. Ramadan Mema Forumi ShqiptarLipeni Shk rsmajli@hotmail.com

39. Qemal Mehja Dshpyor Shkoder qmehja@hotmil.com

40. Zamir Dedej INCA zamirdedej@yahoo.com

41. Maja Kandid NVO ’Green Home’ maja.kandic@greenhome.co.me

42. Jovana Janjuševid Green Home jovana.janjusevic@greenhome.co.me

43. Katarina Ljubisavljevid

NVO Crnogorsko društvo ekologa ljubisavljevic@gmail.com

44. Marija Vugdelid UDG m.vugdelic@t-com.me

45. Jovana Drobnjak UDG jovana.drobnjak@udg.edu.me

46. Thiniaq(?) Lako TBR Prespa project thanlako@gmail.com (?)

47. Vasil Male P. K. Prespa Al. vasilmale@yahoo.com

48. Andon Mazenkofski

TBR. Pespa project donimazenkovski@gmail.com

49. Donaldo Lacej Univ. I Shkodres donalacej@live.com

References Coetzer,K. L., Witkowski,E. T. F. and Erasmus,B. F. N., 2013.Reviewing Biosphere Reserves globally: effective conservation action or bureaucratic label? Biol. Rev.

Erg, B., Vasilijevid, M., McKinney, M. (eds.), 2012. Initiating effective transboundary conservation: A practitioner’s guideline based on the experience from the Dinaric Arc. Gland, Switzerland and Belgrade, Serbia: IUCN Programme Office for South-Eastern Europe.

European Commission, 2011. Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, COM(2011) 244 final

Faloutsos, D., 2012. Drin Basin: A Situation Analysis. GWP-Med

Faloutsos, D., Constantianos, V., Scoullos, M., 2006. Assessment of the Management of Shared Lake Basins in Southeastern Europe. A report within GEF IW:LEARN Activity D2. GWP-Med, Athens

GEF, 2004. Lake Shkoder Integrated Ecosystem Management Project Preparation Mission. Unpublished

Getzner M., Jungmeier M. & Pfleger B., 2012.Evaluating Management Effectiveness of National Parks as a Contribution to Good Governance and Social Learning, In Tech

Hambrey, J., Evans, S., Price, M. and Moxey, A. 2008. The potential for Biosphere Reserves to achieve UK social, economic and environmental goals. Report by Hambrey Consulting For DEFRA Ref: CR 0393 ILEC, 2005. Managing Lakes and their Basins for Sustainable use: A Report for Lake Basin Managers and Stakeholders. International Lake Environment Committee Foundation: Kusatsu, Japan

Ishwaran,N., Persic,A. and Tri, N.H. 2008, Concept and practice: the case of UNESCO biosphere reserves.not published

Ministry of tourism and environment, 2008. Montenegro tourism development strategy to 2020.

Radujkovic, B. & Sundic, D. 2012. Pollution of the Skadar Lake. Unpublished

UNDP, 2007. Project document. GEF “Integrated Ecosystem Management in the Prespa Lakes Basin of Albania, FYR Macedonia and Greece”. UNECE, 2009. Assessment of transboundary rivers, lakes and groundwaters In South-Eastern Europe discharging in the Adriatic sea. ECE/MP.WAT/2009/10

UNESCO, 1987.Appendix A from Practical Guide from Man in the Biosphere

UNESCO, 2001.Seville + 5, International meeting of experts. MAB report series no. 69

Vugdelic, M. 2012. Analysis of synergies, gaps and complementarities on integrated environmental management at regional level Skadar Lake – Montenegro. Unpublished

Water Notes and Water Fact Sheets.The World Bank, Washington D.C.

World Bank, 2003b. Water Resources Management in South Eastern Europe, Volume II, Country

World Bank, 2008. PAD - Project Appraisal Document Lake Skadar-Shkoder integrated ecosystem management project. Washington dc, World Bank and global environment facility (GEF).

http://iwlearn.net/iw-projects/1665/experience-notes-and-lessons-learned

www.ramsar.org

www.unesco.org