Prespa National Park, Greece: discussing diverse perspectives.

Abstract

Prespa National Park, located in the northwest corner of Greece, is a unique environment with significant natural and cultural elements that are being seriously threatened. The past symbiotic relationship between the natural environment and the local communities located within the park boundaries has changed with the advent of agricultural intensification and the switch from mixed farming methods to a bean monoculture. Irrigation works have drained valuable wetland area and have favoured agricultural land use next to the wetland over previous use of upslope plots. The local communities face many remote rural area problems, such as depopulation; inadequate services; sense of social isolation; impoverishment of biodiversity; a low level of professional skills; and difficulty marketing products. Park infrastructure is non-existent and there is a lack of cooperation between the many agencies and levels of government that have jurisdiction over the park. This case study attempts to examine stakeholder perspectives and human ecological interactions in order to better understand the sources of conflict and environmental problems in the area.

Le parc national de Prespa, situe dans le coin nord-ouest de la Grece, est un environnement exceptionnel dont les importants aspects naturels et culturels sont serieusement menaces. L'ancienne relation symbiotique entre les collectivites locales situees a l'interieur des limites du parc et l'environnement naturel a change depuis l'avenement de l'intensification de l'agriculture et le passage de la polyculture a la monoculture de la feve. Des travaux d'irrigation ont draine de precieux milieux humides et favorise l'utilisation de terres agricoles pres des zones humides au detriment des lots en pente ascendante. Les collectivites locales font face a de nombreux problemes propres aux zones rurales eloignees, tels le depeuplement, les services inadequats, un sentiment d'isolement social, l'appauvrissement de la biodiversite, le faible niveau des habiletes professionnelles, et les difficultes de commercialisation des produits. Le parc n'a pas d'infrastructures, et il existe un manque de collaboration entre les nom breux organismes et niveaux de gouvernement qui y ont juridiction. Cette etude de cas tente d'examiner les perspectives des intervenants et les interactions biotiques humaines afin de mieux comprendre les sources des conflits et les problemes environnementaux de cette region.

Keywords

Prespa National Park, Greece, NGOs, stakeholder analysis, culture and conservation

Introduction

Environmental, resource, and protected area management are characterized by problem solving and decision-making in regard to natural resources, including the management of human interactions with these resources. The inextricable linkages between social and ecological systems have become increasingly recognized in the past decade. Slocombe (1993) asserts that understanding the state and dynamics of the ecological and institutional aspects of an ecosystem is essential for determining the obstacles against more sustainable management practices. According to McNeely (1994) detailed knowledge of the people whose lives are affected by the establishment and management of protected areas is as important to protected area management as information on the plant and animal species to be conserved. Lee (1995) suggests that the quest for sustainable development requires a better appreciation of humans' relationships with the environment and amongst each other.

Conflicts in resource and environmental management are usually over values, either ecological or human, rather than clashes over numbers (Sexton, 1998). Frequently, there is a serious incompatibility of views among regulatory agencies, affected communities, businesses and environmental groups (Grimble and Wellard, 1997). Local cultural contexts can play a significant role in shaping beliefs and perceptions concerning environmental values and conservation (Floyd et al., 1997). Investigations into the historical and contemporary land use patterns of an area, and the attitudes and aspirations of resident people can contribute to the understanding of people-park conflicts (Peters, 1999). Thus, the identification of key stakeholder attitudes, beliefs, and values could be an important first step in determining the future directions for specific protected area planning and management projects.

This paper attempts to identify the fundamental roles and perspectives of different stakeholder groups in Prespa National Park located in northern Greece in order to better understand the basis of environmental problems and conflicts in the area. Through an overview of the study area and a discussion of interactions between different groups and with their environment this paper provides a snapshot of the variety of factors that may influence future park management goals and initiatives.

This research is a part of a master's thesis study undertaken by the author. Fieldwork was conducted between June and August 2001 with the author living in local villages located both inside and outside the park boundaries. The author has ancestral connections to the area through her maternal grandparents and spent part of her stay with relatives in the village Andartiko, which is located in the Prespa municipality, but not within the park borders. The author perceived her acceptance by some of the local people in the area was aided by this heritage and her ability to communicate in Greek. Familial connections also afforded her the opportunity to be introduced to certain key individuals, such as the park warden. Efforts were made to use an interpretive approach, focusing on trying to learn the perspectives of local groups. The investigative process included a review of the reports, government documents, and literature concerning the national park and related issues; participant observation, particularly with respect to community dynamics; and 34 open ended, informal interviews, which included individuals from associated government bodies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and local communities.

Case Study Background

Prespa National Park is located in the northwest corner of Greece bordering the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Albania (Figure 1). The Greek government officially declared Lake Mikri Prespa and a peripheral zone as a National Park in 1974 (IUCN, 1987). Lake Mikri Prespa is one of eleven Greek wetland complexes designated as Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention (IUCN, 1987). Prespa National Park is also recognized as an Area of Exceptional Natural Beauty (Greek Ministerial Decision A/931/23211/1747/1975), a Special Protection Area under the 79/409 European Economic Community (EEC) Bird Directive, and a constituent of the Natura 2000 network under the 92/43 European Union (EU) Directive for the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and natural flora.

Greece has ten National Parks, designated between 1938 and 1974, which cover about 0.56 percent of the total land area of the country. The Greek statutory protection for National Parks (Law 998/1971) was passed in 1971 and remains largely unchanged and in use today (Papageorgiou and Brotherton, 1999). A special park authority to deal only with park issues does not exist in Greece. The main authority charged with nature conservation and administration of National Parks is the Forest Service through its district offices. The Forest Service has limited personnel and funds, with other forestry activities and responsibilities such as logging and forest road construction, being prioritized over park administration and conservation issues (Trakolis, 2001). The focus of park management in Greece has been on establishing prohibitive measures with little history of local community participation or of developing park strategies as part of regional planning (Papageorgiou, 2001).

On World Wetlands Day in February of 2000, a new transboundary Prespa Park was officially announced by Albania, Greece and FYROM. This 55,830 ha reserve, containing the two Prespa lakes, is the first transboundary protected area in the Balkans (WWF, 2000) and includes the Greek Prespa National Park, which is the focus of this study. At the present time, information concerning the transboundary park--especially the Albanian and FYROM portions--is limited and difficult to obtain.

Prespa National Park covers 256 [km.sup.2] of which approximately 43.5 [km.sup.2] and 37.64 [km.sup.2] are the Greek portions of Lake Mikri Prespa (shared with Albania) and Lake Megali Prespa (shared with Albania and FYROM), respectively (Pyrovetsi and Gerakis, 1987). The climate shows characteristics of a hot and dry Mediterranean type during the summer (July 23.6[degrees]C) and Mid-European type during the winter with long periods of high rainfall, snow, increased cloudiness and low temperatures (January 0.8[degrees]C) (Hollis and Stevenson, 1997). The park lies in a mountainous region where the altitude ranges from 853 m to 2177 m above sea level. Limestones and dolomites dominate the catchment geology on the western and southern sides of Mikri Prespa, while on the eastern side granites and gneisses predominate (Kosmas et al., 1997). The number and diversity of animal species in Prespa is commonly attributed to the high variety of habitats, the existence of relatively large areas with shallow water around the lake and the existence of mountainous habitats nearby (Catsadorakis, 1997a).

Prespa contains over 1300 species of plants (Pavlides, 1997) and more than 40 species of mammals, including brown bear (Ursus arctos), wolf (Canis lupus), chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra), wild boar (Sus scrofa) (Chaini, 1999). Extensive areas of common reed (Phragmites australis) and many shallow lagoons in Prespa create important marshlands for large colonies of breeding birds. Among the 261 bird species that have been observed in the Prespa area since the late 1960s, 164 breed in the park including the internationally important Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus), Great White Pelican (Pelecanus onocrotalus) and Pygmy Cormorant (Phalacrocorax pygmaeus) (Catsadorakis, 1997b).

Human activities, over many centuries, have played a key role in shaping the natural environment of Prespa National Park. Byzantine churches, monasteries, 15th century wall paintings, hermitages and traditional stone buildings survive as evidence of Prespa's long cultural history. Currently there are thirteen communities in the park with a resident population of approximately 1300 people (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997). Prespa National Park is located in a contentious border area and the twentieth century proved to be quite a difficult time for the people of the area with conflict and depopulation as a result of the Macedonian Struggle, the First and Second Balkan Wars, the two World Wars and then the Greek Civil War. Some abandoned villages were resettled at a later date while others were deserted for good. The Greek government attempted to repopulate the area by settling 4000 Pontios Black Sea refugees in the mid-1920s and then 1700 Vlach shepherds in the 1950s. The population has still decreased signific antly from the approximately 10,000 inhabitants present at the beginning of the twentieth century and the other 5700 people who were resettled in the area (Figure 2).

The Prespa region had a traditional subsistence economy, which combined crop farming with livestock breeding, fishing, and collecting from nature, well past the 1940S (Valaoras, 1998). This drastically changed in the early 1960s when a surface irrigation network was established to convert rain fed crops to irrigated ones in order to increase production and farmer's incomes (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997; Valaoras, 1998). About two-thirds of the network is served by water pumped from Lake Mikri Prespa, while the rest comes from the perennial stream of Agios Germanos (Pyrovetsi and Gerakis, 1987). The irrigation measures resulted in the disappearance of 35 ha of wetland area by drainage (Pyrovetsi and Gerakis, 1987).

The increasing intensification of agriculture gradually displaced the subsistence economy. By 1986, the monoculture cultivation of dry white haricot beans had begun to replace mixed farming methods and then dominated the agriculture in the park throughout the 1990s. Most of the cultivated area is now on the lowlands which are immediately adjacent to the lake's eastern shores and, therefore, to the park nucleus (Pyrovetsi and Gerakis, 1987). This has increased the non-point source agricultural pollution to the wetland and fake areas (Pyrovetsi and Gerakis, 1987). Currently, the Prespiot farmers cultivate a total land area of approximately 5 ha spread out on about six plots (Pyrovetsi and Dacutopoulos, 1999).

Land redistribution took place three times between 1959 and 1979 mainly to serve the irrigation system (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997). The designation of the area as a National Park did not affect land ownership status and most of this land is still privately owned (Pyrovetsi and Gerakis, 1987). However, since about forty percent of this land belongs to absentee landowners, a significant percentage of farmers' income is being transferred to other regions in the form of rents (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997).

There has also been considerable human modification to the hydrology of the region. Loffler et al. (1998) state the water level of Lake Megali Prespa has dropped 6m since the 1950s and attributes the drop to the steady expansion of irrigation networks. Lake Mikri Prespa is believed to have entered a critical stage of eutrophication due to agricultural runoff (IUCN, 1987; Loffler et al., 1998; Michaloudi et al. 1997; Tryfon and Moustaka-Gouni, 1997), however more research and better testing of the water quality of the lakes are required (Golterman, 2001).

Fisheries have long existed on the two Prespa lakes, but only the inhabitants of the village of Psarades on Megali Prespa were and still are full-time fishers (Crivelli et al., 1997). The others are mainly farmers who fish in their spare time. Since 1945, the number of active fishermen has constantly decreased and it is difficult to know how many currently continue fishing on the Prespa lakes (Crivelli et al., 1997). Some fish are sold by the fishers themselves but most are sold to merchants who drive around locally and sell their fish (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997). Fishermen sometimes supplement their income by taking visitors on their boats for trips on the lake and others keep fish taverns where they cook part of their catch.

The area remained secluded and unapproachable for decades and even after the Greek Civil war, access to visitors was kept under strict military control up to the late 1960s (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997). Prior to the War, Prespa attracted mainly day visitors from the nearby towns of Kastoria and Florina, who came principally to swim in Lake Megali Prespa, hike or picnic and visit the Byzantine monuments (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997). These recreation activities continued again in the 1960s (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997).

The scenic and natural values of the area eventually gained more public recognition, especially after the designation of the National Park in 1974, and attracted mainly foreign birdwatchers and naturalists who were accommodated in the old family-hospitality way (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997). Gradually, rooms, guesthouses and tavernas began to be established. In 1973, there were 27 beds in the area, distributed as 14 small rooms in family houses and two small hostels, dispersed among three villages (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997). By 1994, three guest houses and a hotel had been built, increasing the number of available rooms to 57 with the total number of beds reaching 124, which is still lower than the demand in peak season (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997). The National Park infrastructure for visitors is scarce, although the quality of services is improving.

In 1991, the Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP)--a federation of seven Greek environmental organizations and three from elsewhere in Europe--was founded. The SPP mission is to conserve Prespa's natural environment and cultural heritage, as well as to promote sustainable development (Chaini, 1999). In 1992, an Information/Vistior Centre was established in Prespa by the SPP, the first of its kind in a Greek National Park (Valaoras, 1998). The centre, which is visited annually by more than 6000 people, is run by five young local people who were trained as ecoguides and work in an environmental education programme which attracts more than 5000 students annually (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997). Other SPP activities have included the support of organic farming and the marketing of local products, such as woollen socks, herbs, dried beans and preserves, through information centres.

Perspectives of key Prespa stakeholders

The Prespa environment fulfills a variety of roles and functions depending on the observer's needs, wants, beliefs, and attitudes. As can be seen from the previous description of the area, its people and their activities, perspectives concerning the national park will vary. For example, Prespa may be seen as a protected area, a mountainous environment, an important wetland area, a biological and genetic reservoir, an agricultural and grazing area, a culturally and archaeologically significant region, a village locale, or a place for social interaction. This list is by no means inclusive or exclusionary, since there are numerous ways to perceive the area and for many individuals it will probably serve more than one purpose. However, it is the assumption of the author that appreciating some of the ways in which major stakeholder interests view the area could potentially assist in the development of future management directions and initiatives. Thus, the general viewpoints of four key stakeholder groups affectin g Prespa National Park are outlined in Table 1. The author acknowledges that this is a considerable simplification of the stakeholder complexity in the area, but hopes the four groupings can adequately demonstrate some of the major issues. The four stakeholder groups have different priorities, interests and objectives from which conflict may arise. Understanding these differences may help in balancing conflicting purposes and aims, determining tradeoffs and developing a common vision all of which could potentially improve Prespa's future environmental integrity.

The Local Communities

Inhabitants' attitudes toward the Prespa National Park designation have varied from indifference to hostility due to the fact that the decision was made without any previous discussion or consultation with the communities (Pyrovetsi and Gerakis, 1987). Local people related conservation not only with prohibitions and restrictions, but also with a loss of control in any decisions made for their future (Chaini, 1999). Various efforts to sustain the rural economy have not been successful and there is a general tendency to blame the mere existence of the park for social and economic problems which are actually common in most other isolated rural areas of Greece (Pyrovetsi and Gerakis, 1987). Remote rural area problems in Greece include depopulation; sense of social isolation; the low level of farmers' and cattle raisers' professional skills; difficulties in marketing local products; inadequate services; and impoverishment of biodiversity (Chaini, 1999). Generally, the thirteen communities are concerned with their survival and economic well being; believe the natural resources are theirs to use; and are ignorant of environmental impacts.

Although some of the local people are still hostile towards the park, the majority now seem more indifferent to its existence and see the park as a separate entity not involving them. Trakolis (2001) found that 15 percent of Prespiots interviewed did not know whether they lived in the National Park or beside it. The locals in the sample who answered that their village was inside the park, was less by 28 percent than those who actually lived in the park.

Local inhabitants expressed similar feelings towards the environmental NGO. Even though there are locals who are still hostile towards the environmental group, for the most part, the local people ignore them. The SPP has been working in the park for over ten years, so locals have become accustomed to their presence. However, they tend to disregard the SPP unless the NGO attempts to do something that the locals feel will affect them negatively, especially in economic terms. Some locals think the SPP does some 'good things' for the birds, while others blame the SPP for social and economic problems beyond the control of the SPP, such as the lack of visitors to their community.

The Environmental NGO

The Managing Director of the SPP states its priority objectives as follows: (1) maintaining the water level of Lake Mikri Prespa; (2) securing the implementation of appropriate legislation for the park; (3) establishing a park management authority; (4) assisting in the organization of the transboundary Prespa park (with Albania and FYROM); and (5) managing the wet meadows around the lakes (personal interview, 16 August 2001). The SPP Director asserts that these objectives should not be seen as separate from the local people and since primary sector activity is very important in the area, it is also a concern of the SPP (personal interview, 16 August 2001). The SPP is focused on protecting Prespa's natural environment and preserving its cultural heritage. However, there seems to be little evidence of the SPP trying to involve local people in decision-making. The intense hostility the NGO encountered from local inhabitants when it began may be a factor contributing to minimal local involvement. The SPP does hav e some young locals who have been trained as ecoguides for Prespa's Information Centre. They are very helpful and knowledgeable concerning the Prespa environment, however, some individuals exhibited limited awareness and understanding of broader environmental issues. The members of the SPP appear to be a tight knit group that tends to mostly socialize with each other.

The Greek Government

Although Greece's acceptance as a full member of the European Union in January 1981 set the environment high on the government's agenda (Kazakos, 1994; Lekakis, 1995), Greece's ultimate national policy objective is rapid economic growth, as a means of converging with the northern EU member states (Fousekis and Lekakis, 1997). The Greek state is supportive of the economic development of Prespa and does not tend to enforce or push forth conservation measures (Chaini, 1999). Papageorgiou and Brotherton (1999) state scarce funding, insufficient staff--who are inadequately trained in park management--and the lack of a special independent park administration as bottlenecks in effective environmental protection in Greece. Various aspects of the park fall under the jurisdiction of different authorities. The Prespa region has had at least eight different government authorities--at local, regional and national levels--prepare separate development plans, either for the National Park or for a larger area including the pa rk (Trakolis, 2001). For example, Ramsar wetlands fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environmental Planning and Public Works, while National Parks are the responsibility of the Forest Service under the Ministry of Agriculture.

Over the past couple of decades, the EU has provided funding to assist Prespa's development through initiatives such as the CADISPA (Conservation and Development in Sparsely Populated Areas) programme and the LEADER II initiative, which is intended for local entrepreneurs to develop ecotourism projects. A large traditional guesthouse was recently built on the island Agios Achillios with such EU funding. A few individuals from Prespa suggested to the author that these types of opportunities might be unknown or difficult to obtain for some of the local residents due to a lack of awareness, skills, and impetus required for such applications.

The Greek State has in the past been accused of using EU funding for illfated projects and inappropriate works, with a disastrous Integrated Mediterranean Programme (IMP) being one example. In 1984, the Prespa area was chosen for a pilot IMP action financed by the European Economic Community (EEC). IMPs were intended to assist the socio-economic development of certain poorly developed Mediterranean regions in a coordinated manner. A group of multidisciplinary scientists were brought together to assess the Prespa pilot action through an integrated analysis. This study team provided documentation suggesting that the operations of the pilot action plan in Prespa, such as the irrigation/drainage system and the fish breeding station (to be built in the most ecologically sensitive area of the park), would have severe environmental impacts (Pyrovetsi, 1989). All suggestions and recommendations of the study team were disregarded by the Greek national government, specifically the Ministry of the National Economy, whi ch coordinated and supervised the whole action. Secrecy prevailed and the IMP was launched with very little publicity.

Impacts of the IMP works included cutting the last remnant tract of old forest within the agricultural area, drainage of the last inland marshes, removal of 60,000 trees growing within streambeds and drainage ditches, and construction of a fish-breeding station with open ponds on five hectares of wet meadows and pastures (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997). The centralizing character of the Greek government became more apparent since all decisions were made in Athens and no cooperation existed between local authorities and the decision makers (Pyrovetsi, 1989). There was no consultation or participation of the local people who would be most affected by the IMP works.

Various government agencies, such as the Ministry of the Environment and the Forest Service of the Ministry of Agriculture, did not have an opportunity to exercise their jurisdiction over their interests in this project since they were not consulted or even informed about the details of the Programme (Pyrovetsi, 1989). It was the dissemination of facts to the media that actually led to the halting of the IMP works and the fish breeding station never operated due to serious environmental outcry and protest throughout Greece and the EU (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997). The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds of the United Kingdom (RSPB) and the Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS) sued Greece through the European Community for the irreversible damage the IMP had caused to the Prespa environment. This event not only resulted in Greece being condemned by European Parliament, but also allowed the wider public to hear about Prespa through widespread media coverage (Catsadorakis and Malakou, 1997).

The European Union

Although the EU has a number of directives and policies that are aimed at preserving the environment, others such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are a major driving force in the continuing technological revolution and intensification in Greek farming. The CAP is a pan-European agricultural policy that has been criticized for being mainly based on experiences and policies applying to northern EU countries, which do not correspond with the actual environmental problems caused by Greek agricultural activities (Beopoulos and Skuras, 1997).

Intensive production practices are aided by CAP price subsidies, which focus support on more productive farms, rather than those that contribute to more environmental and social goals (Caraveli, 2000). Hondraki-Birbili and Lucas (1997) conclude that the CAP fails to deal with the variable and local nature of agricultural systems and the environmental and social needs of rural Greece. The CAP has been blamed for leading to drastic changes in the natural environment of Greece and altering the socioeconomic dynamics of Greek rural society (Kasimis and Louloudis, 1997).

Conclusions

Conflicts are likely to arise when different stakeholder groups or individuals envision alternative uses and futures for the same area. For example, the local people appear mainly to view Prespa's natural environment as a means to realize their own (and their family's) survival and as a resource from which to ascertain economic benefits. The SPP, on the other hand, is more concerned with preserving the integrity and quality of specific environmental characteristics of the region. The Greek government is focused on protecting its national borders from outside threats in what has been a highly contentious area, while the EU hopes to protect internationally important aspects of Prespa, such as the Ramsar wetland, which fall under European policies and protocols.

Understanding differences such as these as well as community dynamics and the local cultural context may contribute to the construction of more acceptable initiatives and goals for future planning. In the case of Prespa National Park, the local communities are a large component of the system and should be involved in the planning process. Without cooperation from local people it is unlikely that conservation efforts in the park will be overly successful in the long term. The Greek government is very supportive of economic growth in Prespa, chiefly to keep people living in what is considered a contentious border area. Therefore, it is more likely that locally supported environmental projects will do well and meet conservation aims.

Although the SPP has a great environmental education program for those visiting the area, very little dialogue and communication seems to have been achieved with local inhabitants--possibly due to past hostility and fear of confrontation. The locals' mistrust of authority and fear of losing their autonomy are major obstacles to the promotion of environmental education in Prespa. Hence, just telling villagers about the natural assets of the park, such as a slide show the SPP held in a local village which the author observed while in the field, is not likely to be very successful on its own.

The local people seem to wish to have their voices and opinions heard. Any approach to participatory decision making will probably have to be dynamic and interactive, such as a series of public meetings in each of the villages where--at first--the environment may not be the major focus. To encourage participation from people in the area, such meetings would have to focus on themes that are socially relevant and that are seen as important to the local people. It would also be imperative to demonstrate how these meetings would benefit those involved by perhaps establishing short- and long-term goals for community projects. Environmental concerns, such as improper fertilizer and pesticide practices and disposal, could eventually be discussed in terms of their impact on water quality and human health.

While large-scale initiatives like the creation of the Balkan park are important for the entire region's future, smaller scale projects could also be implemented. Perhaps more of a grassroots approach towards environmental protection could be considered. For example, litter is a large problem in the park, so conceivably litter pick-ups could be organized through communities and schools. As well, coordination of local projects and plans by the municipal government, local communities, environmental NGO, and/or local forest service should be considered. However given that much of this problem arises at the national level with inter-ministerial competition and the top-down government structure, the potential for successfully implementing locally coordinated projects may be limited.

A potential step towards cooperation in Prespa--which may nonetheless involve conflict--is for the different groups of people to recognize one another, instead of ignoring each other's existence. A sense of community needs to be restored in the area, following the belief that if the local people care about where they live, they are more apt to want to protect it. The bitterness and self-interest that has developed is as destructive to the environment's health as it is to the area's social sustainability. A recently formed cultural NGO called The Cultural Triangle of Prespa" could potentially help foster community spirit through its local initiatives, which so far have included the establishment of a library and an arts festival, involving art workshops in each of the Prespa villages.

Prespa National Park is a unique environment with significant natural and cultural elements that are being seriously threatened. Although the environmental NGO has been successful in many of its initiatives, it has failed to attain support and cooperation from the majority of the local people. The centralizing character of the Greek government has led to funds being spent on inappropriate development in the region, which has often been economically and environmentally costly. A cohesive social identity and cooperative spirit in the local communities is integral to improving Prespa's social health, which fundamentally impacts the park's biophysical environment. Currently, specific park administration and planning in Prespa is virtually nonexistent and development in the area is carried out in an ad hoc fashion through various ministries and levels of government. Identifying and appreciating the different views and major driving forces in the community could be seen as a first step to developing more coordinat ed, appropriate and successful planning for the area.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED] Table 1 Current Perspectives and Roles of Prespa Stakeholders

European Union Greek

(EU) Government

Imperative Implementing Boosting

regional/transnational economic growth;

policies; forming trade implementing

partnerships; laws; concern for

strengthening global social welfare of

identity as a citizens (not

conglomerate equitable) Legitimization Accession of Legal authority

member states and power

Basis for Bureaucratic Legalities,

Decisions precedent; political political realities

wills and realities and bureaucratic

precedent

View of Use and protect Means to achieve

Natural within the confines an end; little

Resources of EU policy protection offered

by statutory

mandates

Approach to Agendas, policies Very weak Environmental and agreements; mandates;

Protection member state protection in

pressure tactics name only

Attitude Generally desirable Very important

Towards within the context of priority

Economic EU policy

Growth

European Union Prespa

(EU) Communities

Imperative Implementing Protecting

regional/transnational community

policies; forming trade and individual

partnerships; well-being;

strengthening global meeting basic

identity as a needs

conglomerate Legitimization Accession of Group identity

member states and social

justice

Basis for Bureaucratic Short- to

Decisions precedent; political medium- term

wills and realities preservation of

community

and economic

well-being

View of Use and protect Use to benefit

Natural within the confines community

Resources of EU policy

Approach to Agendas, policies Hostility to Environmental and agreements; indifference;

Protection member state ignorance of

pressure tactics environmental

issues/impacts

Attitude Generally desirable Desirable in

Towards within the context of the context of

Economic EU policy benefits to the

Growth community

SPP

European Union (Environmental

(EU) NGO)

Imperative Implementing Preserving

regional/transnational and

policies; forming trade protecting

partnerships; the natural

strengthening global environment

identity as a

conglomerate Legitimization Accession of Principles

member states and passions

Basis for Bureaucratic Long-term

Decisions precedent; political preservation

wills and realities of natural

systems

View of Use and protect Ends unto

Natural within the confines themselves;

Resources of EU policy use only

within

prescribed

limits

Approach to Agendas, policies Legislative Environmental and agreements; prescriptions,

Protection member state political will,

pressure tactics ethical

values

Attitude Generally desirable Only desirable

Towards within the context of if it balances

Economic EU policy environmental,

Growth economic and

social factors (Adapted from Sexton et al., 1999: 8)

References

Beopoulos, N. and D. Skuras. 1997. Agriculture and the Greek Rural Environment. Sociologia Ruralis 37(2): 255-269.

Caraveli, H. 2000. A comparative analysis on intensification and extensification in mediterranean agriculture: dilemmas for LFAs policy. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 231-242.

Catsadorakis, G. 1997a. Breeding birds from reedbeds to alpine meadows. Hydrobiologia 351: 143-155.

Catsadorakis, G. 1997b. The importance of Prespa National Park for breeding and wintering birds. Hydrobiologia 351:157-174.

Catsadorakis, G. and M. Malakou. 1997. Conservation and management issues of Prespa National Park. Hydrobiologia 351:175-196.

Chaini, A. 1999. The Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP), Greece--an interview. The Wetland Conservation Award, Ramsar. Available at [accessed on: February 26, 2001].

Crivelli, A.J., G. Catsadorakis, M. Malakou and E. Rosecchi. 1997. Fish and fisheries of the Prespa lakes. Hydrobiologia 351:107-125.

Daoutopoulos, G., L. Ananikas, and I. Balios. 1999. The Prespa Municipality Development Plan [in Greek]. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University.

Floyd, M.F., H. Jung and F.P. Noe. 1997. The Relationship Between Environmental Concern and Acceptability of Environmental Impacts among Visitors to Two U.S. National Park Settings. Journal of Environmental Management 51: 391-412.

Fousekis, P. and J.N. Lekakis. 1997. Greece's Institutional Response to Sustainable Development. In T. O'Riordan and H. Voisey Sustainable Development in Western Europe: Coming to Terms with Agenda 21. London: Frank Cass, 131-152.

Golterman, H.L. 2001. Editorial--a call for help: The Prespa Lakes--a call for help in a distressing situation. Hydrobiologia 450: 3-4.

Grimble, R. and K. Wellard. 1997. Stakeholder Methodologies in Natural Resource Management: a Review of Principles, Contexts, Experiences and Opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55(2): 173-193.

Hollis, G.E. and A.C. Stevenson. 1997. The physical basis of the Lake Mikri Prespa systems: geology, climate, hydrology and water quality. Hydrobiologia 351: 1-19.

Hondraki-Birbili, C. and N.J.D. Lucas. 1997. The Integration of Environment into Agricultural Policies for Rural Greece. Journal of Environmental Management 49: 337-353.

IUCN (The World Conservation Union). 1987. Directory of Wetlands of International Importance. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN, 148-162.

Kasimis, C. and L. Louloudis. 1997. Introduction. Sociologia Ruralis 37(2): 187-189.

Kazakos, R 1994. Introduction. In Greece and EC Membership Evaluated P. Kazakos and P.C. loakimidis (eds). London: Pinter Publishers, 13-23.

Kosmas, C.S., N.G. Danalatos and N.K. Moustakas. 1997. The soils. Hydrobiologia 351: 21-33.

Lee, K.N. 1995. Deliberately Seeking Sustainability in the Columbia River Basin. In Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions L.H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and S.S. Light (eds.), New York: Columbia University Press: 214-238.

Lekakis, J.N. 1995. Environmental management in Greece and the challenge of sustainable development. The Environmentalist 15: 16-26.

Loffler, H., E. Schiller, E. Kusel and H. Kraill. 1998. Lake Prespa, a European natural monument, endangered by irrigation and eutrophication? Hydrobiologia 384: 69-74.

McNeely, J.A. 1994. Protected areas for the 21st century: working to provide benefits to society. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 390-405.

Michaloudi, E., M. Zarfdjian and P.S. Economidis. 1997. The zooplankton of Lake Mikri Prespa. Hydrobiologia 351: 77-94.

NSSG (National Statistical Service of Greece). 2002. Statistical Yearbook of Greece Provisional Results for the 200l Population Census. Athens.

Papageorgiou, K. 2001. A Combined Park Management Framework Based on Regulatory and Behavioural Strategies: Use of Visitors' Knowledge to Assess Effectiveness. Environmental Management 28(1): 61-73.

Papageorgiou, K. and I. Brotherton. 1999. A management planning framework based on ecological, perceptual and economic carrying capacity: The case study of Vikos-Aoos National Park, Greece. Journal of Environmental Management 56: 271-284.

Pavlides, G. 1997. Aquatic and terrestrial vegetation of the Prespa area. Hydrobiolagia 351: 41-60.

Peters, J. 1999. Understanding conflicts between people and parks at Ranomafana, Madagascar. Agriculture and Human Values 16: 65-74.

Pyrovetsi, M. 1989. Integrated Mediterranean Programmes and the Natural Environment: A Case Study in Greece. The Environmentalist 9(3): 201-211.

Pyrovetsi, M. and G. Daoutopoulos. 1999. Farmers' needs for nature conservation education in Greece. Journal of Environmental Management 56: 147-157.

Pyrovetsi, M.D. and RA. Gerakis. 1987. Environmental problems for practicing agriculture in Prespa National Park, Greece. The Environmentallst 7(1):35-42.

Sexton, K., A.A. Marcus, K.W. Easter and T.D. Burkhardt. 1999. Introduction: Integrating Government, Business, and Community Perspectives. In Better Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governements, Businesses and Communities K. Sexton, A.A. Marcus, K.W. Easter and T.D. Burkhardt (eds), Washington D.C., Island Press: 1-14.

Sexton, W.T. 1998. Ecosystem Management: Expanding the Resource Management 'Tool Kit'. Landscape and Urban Planning 40: 185-194.

Trakolis, D. 2001. Local people's perceptions of planning and management issues in Prespes Lakes National Park, Greece. Journal of Environmental Management 61: 227-241.

Slocombe, D.S. 1993. Implementing Ecosystem-based Management: Development of theory, practice, and research for planning and managing a region. Bioscience 43(9): 612-621.

Tryfon, E. and M. Moustaka-Gouni. 1997. Species composition and seasonal cycles of phytoplankton with special reference to the nanoplankton of Lake Mikri Prespa. Hydrobiologia 351: 61-75.

Valaoras, G. 1998. Alternative development and biodiversity conservation: two case studies from Greece. Athens. Mountain Forum On-line Library Document. Available at [accessed on: February 26, 2001].

World Wide Fund of Nature (WWF). 2000. WWF welcomes the creation of the first transboundary park in the Balkans. WWF Newsroom. Available at [accessed on: February 26, 2001].

Author Biography

Stephanie Janetos is pursuing her Masters degree in Geography from the Faculty of Environmental Studies at the University of Waterloo. Her research interests include human ecological linkages, rural community development, and integrated approaches to environmental and natural resource management. She can be contacted at stephaniejanetos@hotmail.com.