Biodiversity conservation and management in protected areas are keys to enhancing Albania’s biodiversity. Protected areas are critical for the conservation of wild flora and fauna, in the long term, they might become a major repository of natural ecosystems. Although the protected areas network is not intended to protect and conserve specific forest tree species or their genetic variability, it is a first and important step towards a more sophisticated forest genetic resources in situ management programme.
Albania contains extensive areas covered by vegetation, but the number of undisturbed areas is relatively small. The six first National parks were established by decree in 1966.
Table 1. Nature National parks in Albania
Nr |
Name of nature National park |
Area/ha |
Region |
Year of establishment |
1 |
Mali I Dajtit |
3 300 |
Tirana |
1960,1966 |
2 |
Thethi |
2 630 |
Shkodra |
1966 |
3 |
Lura |
1 280 |
Diber |
1966 |
4 |
Pisha e Divjakes |
1 250 |
Lushnje |
1966 |
5 |
Llogara |
1 010 |
Vlore |
1966 |
6 |
Bredhi I Drenoves |
1 380 |
Korce |
1966 |
7 |
Lugina e Valbones |
8 000 |
Tropoje |
1996 |
8 |
Mali I Tomorrit |
4 000 |
Berat |
1996,1940 |
9 |
Bredhi I Hotoves |
1 200 |
Permet |
1996 |
10 |
Qafe Shtama |
2 000 |
Kruje |
1996 |
11 |
Zall Gjocaj |
2 000 |
Mat |
1996 |
12 |
Parku I Prespes |
4 000 |
Korce |
1999 |
13 |
Butrinti |
2 500 |
Sarande |
2000 |
As shown in Table 1, until the 1990s, protected areas in Albania were small in number and size. They were largely limited to three IUCN categories of forest ecosystems: forest National parks (category II), nature monuments (category III) and game/hunting reserves in categories A and B (category IV). Protected areas represent 10.37 percent of the total forest cover and 3.9 percent of the total area of Albania.
A number of initiatives have been launched since 1991 to upgrade the limited protected area system and help the country fulfil its international goals and commitments, especially towards a closer integration with the European Union and in the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. These initiatives include: a national ecological survey, a new classification system for protected areas, adopting the IUCN typology and a proposed representative network of protected areas (1996).
The national ecological survey completed in 1995 was aimed at identifying potential sites for designation of protected areas. Although only a small part of Albania’s Forest Fund
(9 percent), the forest units in the survey play an important role in enhancing forest biodiversity: some areas are national and/or regional biocentres (core areas), and others are part of national and or regional biocorridors. The recommendations on protected areas were prepared in the context of a larger set of recommendations on biodiversity protection and management throughout Albania, of which the ecological study area is but a part.
The survey proposed establishing or expanding protected areas using six IUCN (Ecological Survey in Albania, 1997) management categories, including strict nature reserves/scientific reserves (category I), national parks (category II), nature monuments (category III), species and habitat management area/managed nature reserve (category IV), landscape protected area (category V), and multiple-use management areas/resource reserve/interim conservation unit (category VI).
According to the ecological survey study the six IUCN management categories were adopted for the sites most important for, and representative of, the country’s natural and biodiversity heritage. The draft proposal took into account existing protected areas, as well as those proposed and approved under the ecological survey. It aimed to ensure adequate legal protection and, thereafter, appropriate management for the most valuable and representative natural and semi natural ecosystems, habitats, and landscapes in the country in order to guarantee Albania’s landscape and biodiversity heritage. The RNPA (Representative Network of Protected Areas) proposal was an important step towards building the country’s Econet. The area proposed for protection (some 10 percent of Albania’s territory) was considered the minimum necessary to preserve the country’s biodiversity. (see Table 2).
Table 2. Current and proposed protected areas in Albania
Management category |
Current protected areas |
Proposed protected areas | ||||
Number |
Name |
Number |
Surface area (ha) |
Number |
Surface area (ha) |
Reserve corridor (km) |
I |
Strict name reserve/scientific reserve |
4 |
14 500 |
12 |
16 040 |
2 |
II |
National park |
11 |
25 860 |
7 |
100 000 |
- |
III |
Nature monument |
1 |
4 360 |
358 |
- | |
IV |
Managed nature reserve species and habitat |
26 |
42 940 |
9 |
16.650 |
44 |
V |
Landscape/seascape protected area |
3 |
2 550 |
17 |
120 400 |
145 |
VI |
Protected area of multiple use/ resource reserve |
4 |
18 245 |
3 |
12 400 |
- |
- |
Protection status to be determined |
- |
- |
4 |
35 900 |
- |
All |
49 |
107 455 |
52 |
301 748 |
191 | |
The addition of the proposed new areas would increase the total protected area from 107 455 ha to 301 748 ha (Table 2). The area of National Parks would increase from 25 860 ha to 100 000 ha although the number would be reduced from 11 to 7. Under these conditions the area of protected forest could be 10.9 percent of the total area.
First steps are being taken through pilot projects in one or two key areas, such as Karavasta Lagoon (financed by EU Phare) and Dajti National park (financed under the Forestry Project of the World Bank).
Since 1991, parliament has approved several laws that directly or indirectly addressed environmental, conservation, and landscape protection issues, including laws on land distribution, compensation, environmental protection, physical planning, forest and forestry police, pasture land, wildlife and hunting, fisheries and aquaculture, protecting medicinal and aromatic plants, priority tourism development zones and protecting water resources.
According to activities organized during 1999-2000 and the achievements of a small project entitled “Existing Conditions in the protected areas proposed under the Albania’s Forestry Project”, (Albanian Society for the Protection of Birds and Mammals ASPBM, 1999) almost all of the areas assessed were maintaining their values and features relatively well, based upon which they had been designated protected areas.
This is mainly explained by the fact that the pressure of human activity on the forest in the south of Albania has been noticeably reduced owing to the emigration of the locals to Greece and other countries, and the abandonment of villages towards the main urban centres of Albania.
Some progress to enforce the protection law and the decision of the national government by local and district forest authorities is also to be mentioned. Generally there is a low level of public awareness on the environmental issues. The attitude of local communities is still not very supportive to nature conservation. This is partly because of the very difficult economic situation in the surrounding villages and the lack of assistance by the state to the villagers’ day-to-day life.
The difficult access to the protected areas, due to poorly maintained roads (except for Dhrovjan nature monument), is a limiting factor to better control and administration of the protected areas and sustainable use of their resources. There are very few visitors to these protected areas, and there are no direct incomes generated by tourism and recreational activities in the visited areas. There is a management plan for Dajti National park and last year a new one for Prespa park in Korca at the border of Albania, Greece and Macedonia.
