1.1. The socio-ecological nexus in Prespa conservation

Socio-ecological production landscapes

All those areas in the Balkans (and elsewhere, for that matter) that are legally protected because of their natural heritage, and which are also inhabited and contain privately-owned lands, should be treated as what are known as ‘socio-ecological production landscapes’, or SEPLs. This term was coined within the Satoyama Initiative, under the Convention for Biological Diversity, and it refers to mosaic production landscapes that have been shaped through long-term, more or less harmonious interactions between people and nature, in a way that fosters human well-being while also maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services (Belair et al. 2010, Gu and Subramanian 2012). The transboundary Prespa basin, which includes the two lakes and the surrounding mountainous watershed, should clearly be understood and managed as such an area. The Society for the Protection of Prespa, an environmental NGO that has been active in the Greek part of Prespa since 1991, has based each of its 5-year conservation strategies on exactly this premise.

It is a central principle of conservation work that it cannot be carried out effectively and efficiently in similar areas, if it isn’t based right from the start on at least a fundamental understanding of the basic grid of interactions between the ecological, social, cultural and economic values and issues in those areas. In ecology, and in conservation too, we constantly have to deal with systems of interacting entities, a fact which should be fully understood and always kept in mind. In the majority of protected areas in the Balkans, the “system” is a social-ecological one. Particularly in closed and relatively isolated basins, like Prespa, the majority of conservation issues should definitely be tackled under an integrated ecosystem approach, but we also have to acknowledge that those ecosystems have been, or – in most cases – continue to be, affected by the presence of people and their activities. Man has been, and still is, very much a “member” of these ecosystems.  

On the other hand, there still exists an erroneous belief that conservation is an “objective” science, based on absolute truths and dictums, whereas it is in fact much more of an art, which of course relies as much as possible on science, but it also involves value systems, which have a more or less dynamic nature, continuously changing to a greater or lesser degree. 

It has become evident, in other words, that conservation management needs to be underpinned by both natural and social sciences approaches. It is also vitally important to acknowledge that conservation interventions rely on a triangle of decisions: 

1. Philosophical – ethical (e.g. Should we prevent the extinction of particular species?)

2. Science – knowledge (e.g. What are the available methods that we can use to achieve this?)

3. Politics (e.g. What can we actually accomplish under the practical, financial, legislative and social limitations within which we operate?)

Directly linked to the above is the little understood fact that the underlying theoretical framework for conservation is rather poorly defined. For example, exactly what constitutes a threat or a problem in conservation is not always very easy to define.  What, precisely, should be the goal we pursue each time, and what deviation from it is acceptable or possible? These are all difficult questions, and, furthermore, the role of spatial and temporal scale in confronting an issue can be absolutely crucial.

The complexity of socio-ecological issues in Prespa

To illustrate the kind of intricacy we are talking about, here are some examples of complex conservation issues in Prespa: 

• The Prespa bleak Alburnus belvica is legally considered a threatened species in Europe because it is endemic, but in Prespa it is the most abundant fish, and an economically valuable one in Albania and North Macedonia. How, then, do we handle its management locally? 
• The Prespa barbel Barbus prespensis is a threatened endemic fish species, but it is also an important food source for pelicans, which are also threatened species themselves. What does this mean for the conservation manager?
• Only a few years ago, the local communities in Greek Prespa considered the few dozens of pelicans that existed then to be pests and they persecuted them mercilessly. Today the same communities consider the few thousand pelicans that thrive here after conservation efforts to be an invaluable asset, and they now protect them. How are attitudes to biodiversity defined by current socio-economic decisions? How easy is it to see what is the correct attitude under the conditions of the time? 
• At present, the excrement of these thousands of successfully conserved breeding waterbirds are increasing the nutrient content of the lakes and amplifying the rate of eutrophication, with grave repercussions for many other organisms. What are the available solutions to such issues? Should we be thinking of trying to reverse their population growth?
• Intensive bean and apple cultivation bring socio-economic benefits to local communities in Greece and North Macedonia, but they both negatively affect the lacustrine ecosystem. Where should the ideal line of compromise between these two competing factors be drawn? 

Figure 1: A simplified schematic representation of the network of interactions that will form the basis of our discussions in the virtual summer school

It is hard to accept, but nature conservation and the question of “how much is enough” simply cannot have standard, one-size-fits-all answers. Laws regulate some parts of the equation but they almost never offer solutions to the complex problems of natural systems. In every case, what is and what isn’t important doesn’t come out of algorithms of “objective” analysis (indeed, no such thing exists!), they are rather defined by a delicate and intricate combination of science, numbers, societies, the prevailing philosophical and moral values, timeframes and spatial scales.

Concluding remarks

In conclusion, every time we deal with a biodiversity conservation issue we should examine all the dimensions of the real world that are linked to it. We should simultaneously take into consideration both the legal framework and the hierarchies and priorities prevailing in the separate parts of a functional socio-ecological system, paying special attention to:

• The temporal scale of reference on which we are called to decide (e.g. one year or 50 years)
• The spatial scale we have to work at
• The natural succession effects (if human impact is negligible or absent) 
• The precipitating effects of climate change 
• The ongoing changes in human activities
• The degree of sustainability pursued
• The prioritisation of values to be preserved
• The state-of-the-art technology and knowledge available
• The arrangement of transboundary issues (where applicable)
• The national and international legal frameworks
• The social and cultural values and trends

In this summer school, we shall be referring to several indicative case studies which have been taken from the Prespa experience, none of which can be described or elaborated separately from the rest, within the framework of an integrated ecosystem approach. Amongst these case studies are: water management; eutrophication and water quality; the challenges and opportunities presented by aquatic macrophytes; and, the effects of pastoralism on aquatic and terrestrial life.

LITERATURE CITED  

Bélair C., Ichikawa K., Wong B.Y. L., and Mulongoy K.J. (Editors) (2010). Sustainable use of biological diversity in socio-ecological production landscapes. Background to the ‘Satoyama Initiative for the benefit of biodiversity and human well-being.’ Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Technical Series no. 52, 184 pages

https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-52-en.pdf 

Gu, H. and Subramanian, S.M. 2012. Socio-ecological production landscapes: relevance to the green economy agenda. United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies Policy Report.

https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:5509/Socioecological_production_landscapes.pdf 

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING

Beresford, M. and A. Phillips. 2000. Protected Landscapes – A Conservation Model for the 21st Century. The George Wright Forum 17: 15-26.

Götmark, F. 1992. Naturalness as an Evaluation Criterion in Nature Conservation: A response to Anderson. Conservation Biology 6: 455-458.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283631530_Naturalness_as_an_evaluation_criterion_in_nature_conservation_A_response_to_Anderson/link/571f312a08aed056fa227d7d/download 

Hollis, G. E. 1990. Environmental impacts of development on wetlands in arid and semi-arid lands. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 35: 411-428.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626669009492443?needAccess=true 

Rackham, O. 1992. Conservation: Theory and Practice. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6(9):303-304.