2. Background information on Tara river

Foreword 

This report prov ides an assessment of biodiv ersity and socio-economic features of the 

Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije landscape and its surrounding area, as a basis for dev elopment of 

the Conserv ation Action Plan (CAP) and for sustainable development. A joint project team 

from NGO Green Home, Podgorica, Montenegro, and World Wide Fund for Nature 

Mediterranean Programme (WWF MedPO) coordinated the dev elopment of this report. We 

w ould like to thank the project sponsor Margarethe und Rudolf Gsell Foundation. The 

project team hopes that this report w ill be a base for future cooperation with numerous 

stakeholders in the Northern Montenegro Green Belt area in achiev ing biodiversity 

conserv ation and sustainable development. 

Northern Montenegro Green Belt Team - 2006

Acknowledgements: 

This report is a result of cooperativ e w ork of project partners and consultants. We would 

like to thank the WWF MedPO staff for prov iding support through the w hole process of the 

report dev elopment, especially to Marco Pagliani, Cristoph Stein and Francesca Antonelli. 

Thanks to our consultants for CAP Pedro Regato and Serena Arduino, and to Mileta 

Bojovic, our GIS consultant. We also thank USAID/CHF Department for providing 

Biodiv ersity maps of Montenegro, Maja Zitkov ic for editing and rev ising the report, and 

Stev an Nelevic for the cov er page design. The last, but not the least, w e w ould like to 

thank all the consultants w ho were engaged in dev elopment of the report, and w ho are 

mentioned below . 

Project team: 

WWF MedPO: Marco Pagliani, Pedro Regato, Serena Arduino, Cristoph Stein, Francesca 

Antonelli 

NGO Green Home: Natasa Durakovic, Darko Pajov ic, Gorana Miskovic, Svjetlana Mujovic 

Consultants and Report Authors: 

Danilo Mrdak, Department of Biology , University of Podgorica – fish, high mountain lakes 

Danka Petrovic, Department of Biology , Univ ersity of Podgorica – v ascular plants 

Vladimir Pesic, Department of Biology , University of Podgorica – butterflies 

Biljana Gligorov ic, NGO Green Home – agriculture 

Dejan Iv anov ic, Organisation for protection, treating and hunting – big mammals 

Dragan Roganov ic, The Republic Institute for the Nature Protection, Podgorica –- forests 

Branislav Peric, Mycological Society of Montenegro, Podgorica – fungi 

Jelena Perunicic, Centre for Entrepreneurship and Economical Development, Podgorica – 

socio-economic analyses 

Jelena Martinov ic, NGO Green Home – stakeholder and development plans

CONTENT 

List of abbreviations and acronyms 

CAP Conserv ation Action Plan 

CEESP Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy 

CEL Commission on Environmental Law 

CHF Community , Habitat and Finance 

CITES Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species 

EAP Ecoregional Action Plan 

ERC Ecoregional Conserv ation 

EU European Union 

FLU Functional Landscape Unit 

GB Green Belt 

GEF Global Env ironmental Facility 

GIS Geographic Information Sy stem 

GTZ German Technical Cooperation 

IBA Important Bird Area 

IUCN The World Conserv ation Union 

NGO Non-gov ernmental organisation 

NMGB Northern Montenegro Green Belt 

NP National Park 

MAB Man and Biosphere Programme 

M&E Monitoring and ev aluation 

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Dev elopment 

PPNDP Programme for the Protection ad Dev elopment of National Parks 

PPNP Physical Plan for National Parks 

PSR Pressure-State-Response 

ROSTE Regional Bureau for Science and Technology in Europe 

SNV Netherlands Dev elopment Organisation 

UNDP United Nations Dev elopment Programme 

UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization 

USAID United States Agency for International Development 

WHS World Heritage Site 

WWF MedPO World Wide Fund for Nature Mediterranean Programme

1. Introduction 

<strong>2.</strong> Project background 

<strong>2.</strong>1. International background: The Global 200 

<strong>2.</strong>1.1. The Global 200 map 

<strong>2.</strong>1.<strong>2.</strong> WWF’s new strategic approach: Ecoregional Conserv ation 

<strong>2.</strong>1.3. Adapting the strategy to the Mediterranean: The Mediterranean Ecoregions 

<strong>2.</strong>1.4. Addressing the root causes of desertification: The Green Belt Programme 

<strong>2.</strong><strong>2.</strong> Regional background 

3. Green Belt objectives 

4. The Green Belt zone 

4.1. The ecoregional contex t 

4.<strong>2.</strong> Boundaries and natural units of the Green Belt zone 

5. Green Belt socio-economic analysis 

5.1. Introductory notes 

5.<strong>2.</strong> Macro-economical settings in Montenegro 

5.3. Dev elopment trends 

5.3.<strong>2.</strong> Socio-demographic profile 

5.3.3. Education level 

5.3.4. National structure 

5.4. Socio-economic profile 

5.4.1. Forest ex ploitation 

5.4.1.1. Timber production 

5.4.1.<strong>2.</strong> Aromatic and medicinal plants 

5.4.1.3. Bee-keeping 

5.4.1.4. Hunting 

5.4.1.5. Cattle breeding 

5.4.<strong>2.</strong> Agriculture 

5.4.3. Tourism 

5.4.4. Mining industry 

5.4.5. Handicrafts 

5.4.6. Traffic 

5.4.7. Water resource management 

5.4.7.1. Riv ers and lakes 

5.4.7.<strong>2.</strong> Water supply 

5.4.7.3. Sewage system and wastew ater treatment 

5.4.7.4. Hy dro energy 

5.4.7.5. Fishing 

5.4.7.6. Bottling plants for drinking water 

5.4.8. Waste disposal 

6. Green Belt biodiversity analysis 


6.<strong>2.</strong> Biodiversity assessment methodology and criteria 

6.<strong>2.</strong>1. Target species 

6.<strong>2.</strong><strong>2.</strong> Target habitats

6.<strong>2.</strong>3. Mapping and evaluation of biodiv ersity 

6.3. Priority conservation targets 

6.3.1. Target habitats 

6.3.<strong>2.</strong> Target species 

7. Priority Areas identification for Green Belt conservation 

7.1. Biodiversity assessment results 

7.<strong>2.</strong> Biodiversity scoring methodology 

7.3. Priority areas identification 

7.4. Priority areas and legal protection 

7.5. Core zones 

7.6. Ecological corridors 

7.7. Transboundary issues 

8. Green Belt threats assessment 

8.1. Unsustainable use of natural resources by local people 

8.<strong>2.</strong> Illegal hunting 

8.3. Tourism pressure 

8.4. Illegal construction 

8.5. Air pollution 

8.6. Threats emanating in the wider watershed of the Tara River basin 

8.7. Waste 

8.8. Soil 

8.9. Forest 

8.10. Species 

9. Root causes of biodiversity loss 

10. Strategic guidelines 

10.1. Introduction 

10.<strong>2.</strong> Strategic guidelines for the Green Belt Action Plan 

11. A conceptual model for monitoring and evaluation 


11.<strong>2.</strong> Monitoring and evaluation of the ecoregional conservation 

1<strong>2.</strong> Stakeholders and opportunities 

1<strong>2.</strong>1. National and local public institutions 

1<strong>2.</strong><strong>2.</strong> Legislation 

1<strong>2.</strong>3. Dev elopment plans by economic sectors 

1<strong>2.</strong>4. International organisations 

13. Green Belt partners’ vision 

13.1. Joint v ision 

13.<strong>2.</strong> Priority conserv ation landscapes in bio-geographical context 

ANNEXES



The Durmitor Massif/Tara River/Prokletije Mountains is one of the most important 

landscapes in Montenegro in terms of its biological div ersity. The significance of this area 

has been recognized globally, as w ell as at the national level by designation of protected 

area statuses. Durmitor National Park was declared as the UNESCO World Heritage Site 

(WHS) in 1980, w hile the larger area of Durmitor including the Tara Riv er Basin carries the 

designation of a Biosphere Reserv e under the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme 

(MAB). The whole area has also been identified by the WWF's Forest Hot Spot Initiative as 

one of the 10 most important forest areas in the Mediterranean region. 

The landscape of Durmitor Massif/Tara Riv er/Prokletije Mountains is part of the Dinaric 

Mountain range and spreads from western Montenegro to northern Albania. It is a land of 

mountains shaped by glaciers - the massif of Durmitor alone has 18 glacial lakes abov e 

1,500m, and karstic phenomena, cut by deep and narrow rivers, including Europe’s longest 

(82 km) and deepest canyon (1,300 m) formed by the Tara River. With more than a hundred 

w aterfalls, springs and deep caves, the Tara River represents a natural treasure on a global 

scale. 

The region includes some of the best-preserv ed forests in south-eastern Europe. The 

Durmitor massif hosts one of the last v irgin black pine forests in Europe - with trees 50m high 

and over 400 y ears old. Durmitor is also home to more than 1,500 plants - one third of the 

Montenegrin flora - many of w hich are rare and endemic. Further, the 255 endemic plant 

species of Prokletije Mountains makes this region outstanding at the European level. 

The w hole region is a haven for large carniv ores such as wolf, brown bear and 

lynx. Durmitor hosts 37 mammal and 163 bird species, w hile the presence of 

more than 200 bird species makes Prokletije one of the most significant 

ornithological areas in Europe. Moreov er, the Prokletije is recognized as an 

Important Bird Area (IBA) at the global lev el. 

At the national lev el, this unique landscape includes several protected areas: 

• Durmitor National Park (32,100 ha) established in 1952; and 

• Biogradska Gora National Park (5,650 ha) established in 195<strong>2.</strong> 

The Tara Riv er Basin in its entirety carries no designation as a protected area 

at the national lev el, except its outstanding cany on, the second largest cany on 

in the world after Colorado. The segment of the Tara cany on is included within the Durmitor 

National Park – meaning it is also part of the UNESCO WHS. The Biosphere Reserv e 

includes larger Tara River Basin area w ith a surface of 1,823,000 ha. 

These globally recognized biodiversity values are subject to many threats, such as forest 

fires, hydro-electric power plants, excessive road construction, unsustainable tourism and 

ov erexploitation of natural resources (i.e. logging). Massive abandonment of pastures, 

agricultural lands and small villages in the mountains is in high progress since no income 

generating activities are motiv ating y oung generations to stay in this region. The land 

abandonment is resulting w ith the disappearance of traditional liv estock grazing and 

cultiv ation of land. 

1 - 1


Local env ironmental and dev elopment organisations and WWF MedPO have joined forces 

and reacted to this critical situation, setting up the Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije Green Belt (GB). 

The project 

The project “Conserving the Biological Div ersity of South-w estern 

Balkans: Transboundary Nature Conservation in the Landscape of 

the Durmitor Massif/Tara Riv er/Prokletije Mountains (Montenegro 

and Albania)”, implemented by WWF MedPO and its local partner, 

Green Home NGO, is part of a larger Mediterranean ecoregional 

conserv ation initiativ e, called “Addressing the Root Causes of 

Desertification: The Green Belt Programme”. This broader 

framew ork aims to set up effectiv e netw orks of “functional 

conserv ation landscapes”, w here land planning can effectiv ely 

integrate ecological and socio-economic requirements to secure the 

long-term conserv ation of habitats, species, and ecological 

processes. 

As a first step tow ards the development of full Ecoregional Action 

Plans (EAPs) in the Mediterranean, WWF MedPO has identified and 

designed a number of Functional Landscape Units (FLUs), w here 

on-going WWF’s w ork w ill gradually lead to the formulation of 

conserv ation plans and strategies, w hich will ev entually merge into 

Mediterranean-w ide EAPs. The Green Belt Programme includes four 

functional landscape units located in the three Mediterranean ecoregions (the “Dinaric Alps 

and Dalmatian Coast”, the “Baltic-Atlas Mountains, Coast and Alboràn Sea”, and the “Southw 

estern Iberian and North-w estern Moroccan Low lands”). The Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije 

Green Belt (or the Northern Montenegro GB) has been established w ithin the “Dinaric Alps 

and Dalmatian Coast” ecoregion and ex tends ov er an area of about 5,024km², covering the 

Durmitor Massif, Tara River and Prokletije Mountains w ith their surroundings. 

The Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije Green Belt project follow s the Ecoregional Conservation (ERC) 

approach and methodologies, prov iding a number of biodiv ersity and socio-economic 

assessments, stakeholders and threat analy ses (based on the root-causes conceptual model 

dev eloped by WWF and The Nature Conservancy). The project defines strategic guidelines 

to address the root causes of biodiv ersity loss and natural resource degradation in the area, 

and proposes a set of short- medium- and long-term priority actions (conservation/research, 

sustainable dev elopment, landscape restoration) at local, national and international lev els. 

The project’s follow -up will require considerable effort to build partnerships and establish 

collaboration with relevant stakeholders, for the implementation and promotion of a number 

of policy , env ironmental education/aw areness raising, capacity building and 

conserv ation/development/restoration pilot demonstration initiativ es. This report prov ides the 

background to the project, outlines the work done so far to put conserv ation on the political 

and economic agendas, and offers suggestions as to how to prev ent further biodiversity 

losses. 

1 - 2

<strong>2.</strong> Project background 

<strong>2.</strong>1. International background: The Global 200 

The Global 200 is a collection of the Earth's most outstanding and div erse terrestrial, 

freshw ater, and marine habitats, areas where the Earth's biological w ealth is most distinctiv e 

and rich, w here its loss w ill be most sev erely felt, and w here w e must fight the hardest for 

conserv ation. Regardless of where they are located, Global 200 ecoregions are all unique 

ex pressions of biological div ersity, each with its ow n highly distinctiv e species, ecological 

processes, and evolutionary phenomena. The Global 200 ecoregion-based focus stems 

from recognition that biological diversity is not evenly distributed, nor is it defined by 

political boundaries. Some regions or sites are more distinctiv e or functionally more 

important than others. 

To better incorporate representation of the Earth's distinctiv e ecosystems in conservation 

strategies, WWF conducted in the late nineties an analysis of ecoregions representing the 

Earth's terrestrial, freshw ater, and marine major habitat ty pes. Based on a comparativ e 

global analysis and sy nthesis of fiv e ex tensiv e regional studies, WWF identified 238 

ecoregions as priority targets for conserv ation action because they harbour the most 

outstanding and representativ e ex amples of the w orld's diverse ecosystems. 

An ecoregion is a relativ ely large unit of land and/or w ater that contains a distinct 

assemblage of natural communities sharing a large majority of species, dynamics and 

env ironmental conditions, and which functions effectiv ely as a conservation unit. Ecoregions 

constitute relativ ely large geographic areas, characterized by their biological 

distinctiveness - species richness, high endemism, unusual ecological or ev olutionary 

phenomena, and global rarity of major habitat ty pes, and by their conservation status, 

defined as the ecoregion’s ability to maintain v iable species populations, to sustain 

ecological processes, and to response to natural env ironmental disturbances. 

The ex amples of identified ecoregions are the Alps, the Gulf of California, or the Congo 

Basin. 

As a result of this in-depth analysis, the Mediterranean basin was classified as one of 

the Global 200, the Earth's 200 most biologically diverse and critically endangered 

ecoregions, whose conservation is crucial to the survival of the natural heritage of the 

planet. The Mediterranean basin was also included among the 25 top biodiversity 

hotspots (Conservation International). 

⇒The Global 200 exercise provided the scientific basis, and paved the way for the next 

conceptual step towards the formulation of the new WWF global strategy: the Ecoregional 

Conservation (ERC) approach.

<strong>2.</strong> Project <strong>Background</strong> 

<strong>2.</strong>1.1. The Global 200 map 

<strong>2.</strong>1.<strong>2.</strong> WWF’s new strategic approach: Ecoregional Conservation 

Ecoregional conserv ation is an ambitious broad-scale, integrated approach that aims to 

create the foundation for achiev ing the long-term conserv ation of representativ e ex amples of 

the w orld’s ecosystems and its biological div ersity . By moving from sites to ecoregions w e 

can better assess w hat w ill be necessary - in terms of threats and opportunities to mitigate 

them - to maintain the full array of biodiv ersity - species, communities, and habitats - and to 

ensure that areas of particular importance and uniqueness are not ov erlooked. It also 

prov ides a meaningful and manageable scale for determining how both economic 

dev elopment and biodiv ersity conservation can, and should, proceed w ith mutual beneficial 

results. 

Ecoregional Conserv ation approach means: 

• Conducting long-term conserv ation efforts, at the spatial and the temporal scales in 

w hich ecological systems operate, that enable to analy se major threats and identify 

the opportunities to mitigate them; 

2 - 2 

• Clearly articulating a biodiv ersity v ision that can secure the full range of species, 

natural communities, habitats and ecological processes that characterize an 

ecoregion; 

• Prov iding a meaningful and manageable scale for determining how both economic 

dev elopment and biodiv ersity conserv ation can, and should, proceed w ith mutually 

beneficial results;


• Offering a useful framew ork for enabling gov ernments, 

businesses, and consumers to understand w hat they can do 

in their ow n communities to ensure that the fulfilment of their 

economic dev elopment and cultural needs goes hand-inhand 

w ith biodiv ersity conservation. 

This approach also identifies a whole suite of other concerns that need 

to be considered in dev eloping strategies for an ecoregion. For 

ex ample, particular attention needs to be giv en to the potential effects 

of international trade policies, regional agricultural policies, and other 

aspects of the ev olv ing global economy that affect biodiv ersity and 

sustainable dev elopment, or changes that may result from climate 

change. 

In practice, the different conditions and specificities of each ecoregion 

call for a tailor-made approach that - w hile keeping in mind and using 

the guiding ERC principles - can be dev eloped and arranged to best 

suite each specific ecoregion. 

Setting the ground - the Mediterranean forest gap analysis 

As part of its effort to help sav e the remaining forests in the Mediterranean basin, betw een 

1997 and 1999, the WWF MedPO carried out the Mediterranean Forests Gap Analysis, a 

comprehensive research study covering 23 countries of the region, aimed at identify ing and 

ev aluating the most important and representativ e forest areas, w hile assessing their 

protection status and needs. The outputs of this research include a database w ith detailed 

<strong>information</strong> about forest ty pes, forest 

uses, threats, protected areas, 

country/regional organisations dealing 

w ith forest conserv ation, a technical 

sheet of the 300 “Important Forest 

Areas” identified by the research, a set 

of maps, and a technical report. 

As the WWF research clearly 

demonstrated, what needs to be 

implemented most urgently is the 

establishment of a comprehensive 

network of adequately managed and 

properly designed protected areas in 

various countries around the 

Mediterranean basin. 

Ex periences hav e w idely demonstrated, 

how ever, that the mere establishment of 

protected areas is not a sufficient 

guarantee for the long-term surv iv al of forest ecosystems. Conservation must become 

relev ant and attractiv e to the communities liv ing inside and around protected areas, by 

seeking innovativ e solutions and approaches that build consensus among all concerned 

2 - 3


stakeholders, and increase local capacity to pursue dev elopment through the sustainable 

ex ploitation of the natural resources. 

The Mediterranean Forest Gap Analysis provided WWF with the scientific knowledge 

and basis to identify the Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Mediterranean, design their 

boundaries, and prioritise them based on their biodiversity importance and level of 

threat. 

2 - 4 

⇒ This Gap Analysis exercise set the ground for the following step of the process: the 

definition and mapping of the Mediterranean Ecoregions. 

<strong>2.</strong>1.3. Adapting the strategy to the Mediterranean: the Mediterranean Ecoregions 

The Mediterranean Global 200 is the aggregation of 22 ecoregions w ith ex tremely v aried 

ecological, socio-economic, and political conditions. In early 2001, WWF took the official 

decision to implement the Ecoregional Conserv ation approach in a selected number of 

priority ecoregions in the Mediterranean and discussed how to make it feasible.


The identification of the Mediterranean ecoregions was undertaken keeping in mind the 

follow ing criteria: 

• Consistency: by using the same ecoregions criteria in a hierarchical and coherent 

way, 

• Completion: by integrating terrestrial, freshwater and coastal/marine issues, and 

• Functionality: by identify ing large operational ecoregions to adequately implement 

ERC. 

As a result of this ex ercise, a map listing 22 ecoregions w as prepared as a w orking 

document for the w hole WWF Mediterranean netw ork. WWF MedPO has initiated w ork in the 

follow ing ecoregions: 

• South-w estern Iberian and North-w estern Moroccan Lowlands 

• Baltic Atlas Mountains, Coast, and Alboràn Sea 

• Dinaric Alps and Dalmatian Coast 

• Southern Anatolia and Middle East Mountains, Coast, and Sea. 

⇒ As parallel process to this effort, WWF conceived and developed the first operational 

steps of the process, which build on the research phase to move the first concrete steps in 

the field. This is how the concept “Green Belts against Desertification” was born. 

<strong>2.</strong>1.4. Addressing the root-causes of desertification: The Green Belt Programme 

WWF MedPO designed the new concept “Green Belts against Desertification” as a 

response to the strategic ev olution described in the above chapters. The Green Belt concept 

w ill inspire and steer WWF’s future w ork on terrestrial biodiv ersity conservation at an 

ecoregional lev el, prov iding a pow erful link betw een the env ironmental problems and the 

social and economic factors directly or indirectly related to them. Green Belt areas constitute 

Functional Landscape Units (FLU) that are perceiv ed as an intermediate step betw een the 

classical, relativ ely small project sites w here traditional conserv ation projects are 

implemented, and the large-scale ecoregions w here the full ERC approach takes place. 

Theoretical Level 

Traditional Project Sites Functional Landscape Units Ecoregions 

Practical Level 

Traditional Projects Green Belts Programmes Ecoregional Conservation 

Programmes 

WWF MedPO has selected sev eral Green Belt areas throughout the Mediterranean basin, 

w hich fall w ithin three of the priority selected ecoregions. The Green Belt areas include sites 

w here WWF has been activ e in the past or is currently implementing conservation activ ities, 

upon w hich this phase of our w ork can build upon. All Green Belts include priority biodiversity 

hotspots identified through the Gap Analy sis, and stand out for their global importance at the 

Mediterranean regional lev el. 

2 - 5


Desertification is the key ; common element, w hich summarizes the major, long-term threat to 

humans, connected to the loss of forest ecosystems in the Mediterranean basin, and has 

been chosen as the communication flagship for the w hole programme. 

Desertification is a major env ironmental and socio-economic issue in the w hole 

Mediterranean region. 

Almost 300,000 square kilometres of land in the European coastal zone of the 

Mediterranean has been classified as undergoing desertification, affecting the 

livelihoods of about 16.5 million people. 

The scenario is certainly much worse in the southern and eastern part of the basin. The 

chronic w ater deficit is becoming more and more a critical dev elopment, social and political 

constraint, not only because of the increasing w ater demand related to agriculture, tourism 

and urban dev elopment, but also due to the intense soil degradation and deforestation 

processes, which are especially serious in the southern and eastern part of the 

Mediterranean basin. 

Dow nw ard pressures on liv ing standards and in 

formalization of the economy hav e obliged many 

urban and rural poor to increase their reliance and 

pressures on natural resources and environmental 

serv ices just to surv ive. Poor and inadequate land 

management practices are leading to the 

degradation of the v egetation cov er, and to the 

reduction of the capacity of soil to store water. These 

are tw o major root causes of the intense erosion and 

desertification processes that are leading to an ev erincreasing 

depletion of rural economies in many, 

large marginal areas. This is a ty pical example of an 

env ironmental degradation process leading to, or 

ex asperating serious social problems, such as 

pov erty and widespread emigration, which are on the 

rise in the southern and eastern Mediterranean. 

While more and more forests are designated as 

protected areas by gov ernments and trans-national 

institutions, the lack of effectiv e conserv ation 

measures and management plans that create 

consensus and gain the collaboration of all 

concerned stakeholders (farmers, foresters, tourism 

sector, local authorities, hunters etc) is hampering 

the success of a w ell- intentioned, but often illimplemented 

conservation efforts. As a result of this, 

the process of forest fragmentation and human encroachment on forestland goes on in 

protected forests. It is clear that the strategy of creating parks and nature reserves is not only 

insufficient, but can sometimes be counter-productiv e, as it enhances the isolation of relic 

forest areas and cuts them off from their ecological contex t. 

Meanw hile, almost all the remaining old-grow th forests of the Mediterranean basin are 

critically endangered. Ironically, while considerable resources are devoted ev ery y ear to 

reforestation schemes, v ery little effort is dedicated to the maintenance and conserv ation of 

2 - 6


already existing forests, although this w ould prov e to be a cheaper and highly rew arding 

ex ercise. 

The Green Belt concept aims to set up an effectiv e netw ork of forest reserv es, connected 

through corridors to promote w ildlife flow and habitat connectiv ity , and surrounded by large 

buffer zones w here land-use planning takes into account the need to preserv e habitats and 

threatened w ildlife. Building on existing experience, WWF MedPO believes that innov ativ e 

sustainable use practices based on the traditional ex periences and knowledge of natural 

resources management can be compatible w ith the conserv ation of the last remaining 

natural forests, and w ith the maintenance and restoration of good quality , semi-natural 

patches and “green corridors” in the buffer zones. Each Green Belt w ould thus include core - 

protected areas w here forest protection is enforced, as w ell as larger portions of surrounding 

territory , where conserv ation and development needs are integrated, so that local people get 

a clear economic advantage from their natural heritage. 

⇒ Each Green Belt is a functional landscape unit, which works as a “building block” 

towards the development of a full ecoregional conservation process. At this scale, 

conservation planning can effectively address the ecological and socio-economic 

requirements to secure the long-term preservation of the viable species populations, 

functional habitats, and ecological processes. 

<strong>2.</strong><strong>2.</strong> Regional background 

The Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije landscape is one of the best know n regions in Montenegro 

regarding its flora and fauna div ersity and relativ ely unspoilt forests with high endemism (10- 

20%). This was an important driv er for sev eral environmental and dev elopment NGOs to 

become activ e in this geographical area, addressing the conserv ation and sustainable 

dev elopment issues. 

The public became sensitiv e about the protection 

of Durmitor Mountain and Tara Riv er cany on 

w hen the Gov ernment of the Republic Serbs with 

support of Montenegrin gov ernment planned to 

build tw o hy droelectric pow er plants “Buk Bijela”, 

w ith the capacity of 450 and 55,5 MW along the 

Drina Riv er. The plan to build the HE plants w as 

initiated in 1970s, but it w as brought to a 

standstill, due to w idespread national and 

international public protests, and the opposing 

opinion about the plants’ construction of ov er 500 

ex perts from all over the w orld. The World 

Geographical Congress in Edinburgh in 1984 

also raised the v oice against this project. In 2004 

72 local environmental groups from Bosnia, 

Serbia, and Montenegro established a Crisis 

Group for Defending the Tara Riv er, and 

launched the campaign "I don't want a swamp, I want Tara". The campaign team identified 

the need for design and set up of sustainable dev elopment and conserv ation initiativ es in the 

2 - 7


Tara Riv er Basin w ith the aim to offer alternativ e w ays of income generation and liv elihoods 

to the local communities. 

These initiativ es fitted w ell w ith the WWF’s Green Belt Programme, its functional 

conserv ation landscape goals and v ision. After a number of meetings betw een WWF MedPO 

and Green Home NGO, both organisations decided to commence the implementation of a 

small-grant initiativ e on the protection of freshw ater ecosystems in Montenegro. Because of 

this successful experience, the Green Home and WWF MedPO decided to establish a 

partnership in order to dev elop a common ecoregional conserv ation strategy in the 

l/Tara/Prokletije landscape, as part of the WWF pan-Mediterranean Green Belt Programme. 

In the first phase of the groundw ork, WWF prov ided necessary methodology , ex pertise and 

conceptual approach to build the capacity aimed at preparing a conserv ation and sustainable 

dev elopment action plan for the region. After a series of meetings and w orkshops among 

potential key regional partners, a multidisciplinary and multi-stakeholder The Northern 

Montenegro Green Belt coordination team w as formed in 2006 to implement the Northern 

Montenegro Green Belt ecoregional conserv ation initiativ e. 

The Northern Montenegro Green Belt coordination team includes the follow ing organisations: 

2 - 8 

NGO Green Home, Montenegro 

Green Home w as founded on 14 February 2000 as a nongov 

ernmental, not for profit and non-political organization. Its 

founders, former Biology students, established this NGO w ith a 

desire to activ ely participate in the conservation of nature and 

env ironment, and to enhance the dev elopment of civ il society through biodiv ersity protection 

and sustainable development in Montenegro. 

Green Home’s mission is to strengthen the protection of env ironment and sustainable use of 

natural resources in Montenegro. The NGO’s activ ities are focused on education/training, 

env ironmental politics, public advocacy and legal action, fieldw ork, preparation of 

publications, and contribution to creating local and international strategies for sustainable 

dev elopment. 

Green Home’s w ork is divided into four Programmes: Education, Public adv ocacy, 

Sustainable dev elopment and Scientific research. These Programmes comprise many 

thematic areas: Biodiv ersity , Freshwater and wetlands, Agriculture, Sustainable use of 

natural resources, Policy and adv ocacy, Industry, energy and green technologies, Recycling, 

Pollution and Waste Management, Ecotourism, and Sustainable development. 

Green Home considers cooperation w ith key stakeholders at different lev els is an essential 

tool for progress in the field of sustainable dev elopment and env ironmental protection. 

Therefore, the NGO maintains partnerships w ith local communities, national/regional/local 

authorities, local and international organizations, and indiv iduals. Since 2002, Green Home 

has been a member of the “National Council for Sustainable Dev elopment of Montenegro”. 

The NGO’s staffs are members of The World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) expert 

Commissions: Commission on Env ironmental Law (CEL) and Commission on 

Env ironmental, Economic and Social Policy (CEESP). Green Home forms part of the


netw ork for dev elopment and implementation of the Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable 

Dev elopment (MSSD/2005). 

Since 2003, Green Home acts as one of the local partners of WWF MedPO and cooperates 

w ith WWF in the implementation of their programmes in Montenegro. In 2004, Green Home 

and WWF hav e started the project Conserv ing the Biological Div ersity of South-w estern 

Balkans: Transboundary Nature Conserv ation in the Landscape of the Durmitor Massif/Tara 

Riv er/Prokletije Mountains (Montenegro and Albania), w hich represents a preparatory phase 

for the ecoregional conserv ation. 

WWF Mediterranean Programme Office (Med PO) 

WWF striv es tow ards a Mediterranean region w here 

nature is maintained and restored, where resources are 

used sustainably for the benefit of all life, and in w hich 

social and cultural characteristics are v alued. 

WWF has been activ e in the Mediterranean region for more than 30 y ears, hav ing 

established National Organisations in Italy, France, Spain, Greece and Turkey. To 

strengthen and ex pand its efforts for the conservation of the Mediterranean Region, WWF 

International established a Mediterranean Programme Office in 1996, w ith its headquarters 

based in Rome, later reinforced by co-ordination offices in Tunisia, Barcelona and Rabat. 

The geographical scope of the WWF Mediterranean PO includes all countries bordering the 

Mediterranean as well as Jordan, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Portugal. 

WWF Mediterranean Programme works in close collaboration with the WWF National 

Organisations in the Mediterranean, and runs several projects in Croatia, Lebanon, Morocco, 

Portugal, Algeria, Tunisia, Bosnia and Albania and now in Montenegro. In the absence of a 

WWF national organization, the projects are carried out in partnership with national and local 

NGOs. 

The Mediterranean PO focuses primarily on the conserv ation and sustainable management 

of forest, freshw ater and marine ecosystems. The Mediterranean PO also lobbies the 

European Union to ensure that its Mediterranean policy is ecologically sustainable and socially 

equitable. Importance is also given to communication initiativ es to inform people, to raise 

aw areness and to persuade decision makers to act. 

WWF is conscious that the long-term success of the activ ities it supports can only be reached 

through the activ e participation and the empowerment of local individuals, groups and 

organisations. The main tool to achieve this goal is Across the Waters, WWF’s capacity building 

programme led by the Barcelona-based team. 

2 - 9

3. Green Belt Objectives 

2 - 2 

Green Belt Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije Overall Goal 

To preserve the ecological integrity of one of the most important European biodiv ersity 

hotspots, through the establishment of a functional landscape conserv ation model in w hich 

integrated sustainable rural dev elopment and biodiv ersity conservation are supported. 

Green Belt Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije Objectives 

• To dev elop and implement a biodiv ersity v ision and a conserv ation action plan for 

the GB Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije Functional Conserv ation Landscape, to be 

designed and coordinated by a multidisciplinary body and adopted and made 

operational by all key stakeholders directly and indirectly concerned. 

• To dev elop and implement innovativ e sustainable rural development alternatives for 

the GB area that w ould improve people’s liv elihoods, enabling locals to stay in the 

area, generate the necessary income, and take an activ e part in the conserv ation 

and dev elopment of the functional landscape unit.

4. The Green Belt Zone 

4.1 The ecoregional context 

The Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije landscape - also called the Northern Montenegro Green Belt - 

is located in the Dinaric Alps and Dalmatian Coast ecoregion, also know n as Dinaric arc. 

This Green Belt zone is characterized by outstanding natural features: v ast and relatively 

unspoilt forests w ith high div ersity of floral endemism, karstic ecosystems including cav e 

habitats w ith inv ertebrate, fish, amphibian and reptile endemism, important nesting 

populations of endangered bird species, flourishing populations of large carniv ores, and 

intact freshw ater ecosystems. These natural features are described in more details below. 

The Dinaric Alps and Dalmatian Coast ecoregion 

The size of the Dinaric Alps and Dalmatian Coast ecoregion, also known as Dinaric arc is 

approximately 100,000 km 2 . This ecoregion encompasses portions of the follow ing countries: 

Italy , Slov enia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegov ina, Montenegro, and Albania. Relativ ely high 

Dinaric Alps run parallel to the Adriatic coast and are characterized by karstic geology.


Karstic fields (polje) for ex ample, are important features of this mountainous area, and they 

are mainly used as agricultural lands. Karstic Dinaric Alps also include deep cany ons and 

some of the wildest mountains in Europe, as w ell as giant underground drainage and cav e 

sy stems. Ov er more than 6,000 km of eastern Adriatic coastline is well indented and includes 

hundreds of islands. The wide altitudinal range of this ecoregion results in high biological 

diversity. 

Conifers, mainly holm oak (Quercus ilex), aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), and maquis 

shrubs (eg. Pistacia terebinthus, Rhamnus alaternus, Phillyrea latifolia, Arbutus unedo), are 

predominant on the islands. The most widespread v egetation along the coast is mix ed sub- 

Mediterranean deciduous forest (mainly Quercus pubescens, Quercus virgiliana, Carpinus 

orientalis, Fraxinus ornius), which is ty pical for low and medium elevations. Fagus sylvatica 

forests cov er humid slopes facing the sea at high elev ations and at mountain peaks. 

The dominant tree species of the mountain conifers (mainly along the inland slopes) are 

spruce (Picea abies), silver fir (Abies alba), and black pine (Pinus nigra). Tertiary relic and 

endemic spruce species Picea omorika occurs in certain mountain massifs of Bosnia and 

Herzegov ina (Veliki Stolac Mountain), while mixed fir, spruce and beech (Fagus sylvatica) 

forests frequently grow in the Dinaric mountains. Broadleaf beech and mixed oak forests 

dominate in the continental medium and low altitude v alleys and canyons. Cany ons also host 

important Tertiary relic species Forsythia europaea and Syringa vulgaris. An amazingly high 

div ersity of deciduous oak species - Quercus frainetto, Q. pubescens, Q. cerris, Q. robur, Q. 

petraea - and other deciduous broadleaf species - Carpinus betulus, Fraxinus excelsior, 

Ulmus minor, Tilia spp., Sorbus spp., Acer spp. – occur in these forests. 

The rate of endemism of the ecoregional mountain ranges is betw een 10 and 20%. Among 

numerous endemic and relic plant species there are Degenia velebitica, Primula kitaibeliana, 

Symphyandra hofmannii, Bupleurum karglii, Viola elegantula, Sibiraea croatica, some of 

w hich are characterized by a v ery restrict range of distribution. This ecoregion hosts some of 

the latest healthy large carniv ore populations (Ursus arctos, Lynx lynx, Canis lupus), some of 

the rarest inv ertebrate species (i.e. Croatobranchus mestrovi, Congeria kusceri), as well as 

high div ersity of bird species (i.e. Tatrao urogallus, Gyps fulvus, Falco peregrinus, Falco 

tinnunculus). 

4.<strong>2.</strong> Boundaries and natural units of the Green Belt zone 

The Northern Montenegro Green Belt represents a unique ecological unit w hich includes 

Durmitor Massif, Tara Riv er with its canyon and Prokletije Mountains. The size of the w hole 

area is approximately 5,024 km². The northw estern GB boundary corresponds to the political 

border w ith Bosnia and Herzegov ina and Serbia, w hile southern parts of the GB border 

Albania and UNMIK Kosov o. 

Below is the rev iew of the main ecosystems of the Northern Montenegro Green Belt. It 

clearly shows complexity, diversity, v ariety and dynamics of the liv ing w orld in this part of the 

country. Although it is placed w ell inland in Montenegro, in mountainous zone, the influence 

of the Mediterranean climate is quite evident. 

4 - 2

The high mountain zone 


The high mountain zone cov ers all mountain peaks of inner Montenegro, high mountain 

pastures and rocky landscapes. Isolated patches of this kind of biodiv ersity zone can also be 

found on high mountains in the south of the country (Lovcen, Orjen, Rumija). This zone is 

v ery dry in comparison to other natural units in the Green Belt. Summer seasons are cool 

and short, w hle w inters are dry an snowy. The soil and vegetation are scarce, thus the high 

mountain zone is mainly characterized by rocky landscapes. The fact that the lands are 

normally barren, implies stunning views, thus people can enjoy in exceptional scenic areas of 

Durmitor, Komovi, Prokletije, and Bjelasica. 

Although the climate is harsh, the high mountain zone has high biological div ersity . Species 

are relicts of the last glacial period as well as representativ es of Nordic, Boreal biota. Typical 

representativ es of flora are w ell know n edelw eiss Leontopodium nivale i L. Alpinum, and 

endemic species like Edraianthus montenegrinus, Wulfenia blecicii, Verbascum 

durmitoreum, Potentilla montenegrina, Moltkia petraea. The animal world is represented with 

Rupicapra rupicapra, Aquila chrysaetos, Gyps fulvus, Fringilla coelebs, Alauda sp, numerous 

Pyrrhocorax sp. Butterfly species, Parnasius Apollo dardanus, is also present in this zone. 

Glacial lakes, so called “mountain ey es” of Montenegro, bring special value to the high 

mountain zone. There are ov er 20 lakes, and all contain unique living w orld of endemic 

insects and amphibians. For example, triton (Triturus sp.) has been discovered in 

Montenegrin lakes just recently . 

Mountain forest zone 

This is the most w idespread ecosystem in Montenegro. It consists of a v ariety of ecosystems 

of low er order. Conifers dominate in higher mountains and they are consisted of fir and 

juniper-tree. Some parts of forests on Durmitor, Bjelasica, 

and Prokletije hav e primev al forest characteristics, and they 

are protected or under consideration to be protec ted. Mix ed 

primev al forest of the Biogradska gora is w ell know n for its 

wealth of plant communities, almost 100 ty pes of trees and 

bushes. Pinus heldreichii and Pinus peuce, endemic Balkan 

pines, cover mountain Stitovo, parts of Komov i, Prokletije 

and other Montenegrin mountains. Deciduous forests in 

higher areas are mostly beech forests (Fagus silvatica i F. 

moesiaca), while oak (Quercus) and mix ed forests dominate 

in low er areas. 

A rich and diverse animal species inhabit the Montenegrin 

coniferous forests. Large mammals such as w olf (Canis 

lupus), brown bear (Ursus arctos), deer (Cervus elaphus), 

wild boar (Sus scrofa), and small mammal species such as 

marten (fam. Mustelidae), squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris), 

dormouse (Glis glis), small rodents (fam.Muridae) all inhabit 

forests of the Montenegrin mountains. Bird species are by 

far the most div erse in the mountains and cov er all forest 

4 - 3


bird species typical for the w estern Palearctic. The forests are habitats for falcons (Acipiter 

sp., Falco sp.), including the rare gray hawk (Falco peregrinus), forest owls (Strix aluco), 

w oodpeckers (Dendrocops sp., pidgeons (Columba sp.). The most important role belong to 

songbirds that in addition to being ‘jewels of nature’, represent a primary element of 

preserv ing the natural balance in forests and w ider habitats. The world of insects is rich as 

w ell, but it has not yet been widely ex plored. 

The karstic zone 

Karstic zone brings the most specific assemblage of liv ing conditions and communities in the 

Green Belt. Thick karstic strata, in combination with the Mediterranean climate in southern 

maritime part of the country , prov ided good conditions for dev elopment of ty pical karstic 

forms, unique for this geographical area. Karst is abundant w ith water in rainy season. 

How ev er, when the w ater lev el drops in summer, karstic areas become dry. This is because 

of the geological features of karstic areas - the calcite rocks drain w ater easily , storing the 

w ater underground. 

The complete relief of this zone is highly complex because of fact 

that this is karstic mountain region. The great number cav es and 

cav erns are normally present in this area and some of theme 

(inv estigated ones) show s great importance by biodiv ersity aspects. 

Karstic zones are well known for their cav e systems and pits. For 

ex ample, Lipska and Djalov ica cav es have distinctiv e stalactites and 

stalagmites, while some pits are among the deepest in the Balkan 

(the pits on Vjetrena hills of Durmitor Mountain, Duboki do pit on 

Lovcen, etc). Some caves are important from a cultural point of v iew 

as archaeological and palaeontological sites. All of them are 

characterized by very complex and rich underground species 

div ersity (eg. cav e grasshoppers, spiders, leech). 

The soil on the surface of karstic mountains is thin, and mainly 

confined to sink-holes and karst fields (polje). Although the 

v egetation cover is scarce, karst is rich with div erse life forms that 

are often endemic. Large surfaces of karst areas are covered w ith 

medical and aromatic plants such as w ormw ood. 

Smaller mammal species characterize the animal w orld of karst - 

hare (Lepus europeus), and fox (Vulpes vulpes). Occasionally one 

can spot a wolf (Canis lupus) and w ild boar (Sus scrofa). There is 

large number of bird species and ty pical representativ es are partridge (Perdix perdix), 

Alectoris graeca, Turdus sp., Sitta neumayer, and among songbirds, the most ty pical 

representativ es are from the family of Sylviidae (i.e. Sylvia communis). Reptiles are v ery 

common in karstic ecosystems and often, they are endemic. For ex ample, seven types of 

lizard and six ty pes of snakes are endemic for the karsts of the w hole Mediterranean. 

Richness of insects is also high, but insects hav e not been ex plored y et in detail. The most 

comprehensive research w as carried out in Durmitor NP as part of the CANU project ‘The 

Fauna of Durmitor’. 

4 - 4

Durmitor and Sinjajevina Mountains 


This is one of the most typical, as w ell as the most complex parts of the Dinaric Mountains. 

Div erse relief forms, richness of v egetation cov er and numerous hy drological systems, 

prov ide ex tremely high div ersity of landscapes. The relief is very dynamic due to a complex 

geology and geomorphology, and it is characterized by Durmitor and Sinjajev ina massifs, 

Small Montenegrin plateau, Tara Riv er cany on, Komarnica, Draga, Susica, Lisac, Obzor, 

Lake’s surface, and Proscenske mountains. There are many remnants of glacial period in 

the geomorphology of this mountainous landscape. The mountain ranges of Durmitor and 

Sinjajevina are impressively high, w ith over 30 peaks being above 2,000 m and hav ing 

div erse shapes. The peaks can for example be needle- or plateau-like, or rounded. The most 

impressive is Bobotov Kuk, 2,523 m above sea lev el. 

The last remnant of the ice age on Durmitor is Debeli namet on Velika karlica. The glaciers 

contributed to formation of a large number of lakes, “mountain ey es”, which represent special 

landscape curiosity (Veliko i Malo Lake, Zminje, Barno, Jablan, Veliko i Malo Skrcko Lake, 

Susicko etc). 

On micro-landscape level, there are many div erse ty pes of relief such as blocks of rocks, 

screes snowy meadows. Of special interest are Sareni pasovi, Uvite grede and Prutas 

geomorphological features. 

Deeply cut canyon of Tara Riv er 

represents a unique geomorphological 

feature. The impressive vertical bluffs w ith 

an av erage depth of about 1,000 m, and 

with maximal depth of approx imately 

1,300 m, are in some places covered w ith 

black pine (Pinus nigra). Steep rocks of 

the cany on climb to a high plateau of 

about 1,450 m abov e the sea lev el. On 

some places, there are amphitheatric 

formations of w ide terraces covered by 

somew hat richer v egetation cov er. On the 

way from Tara and Bistrica to Šcepan 

Polje there is a large number of 

picturesque w atersheds. 

Div ersity of v egetation in a vertical profile 

of the area, abundance of floral species 

and numerous floral specific qualities, are 

all embedded in the landscape’s 

morphology . From the deepest parts of 

the canyon valleys to the highest 

mountain peaks, there are different forest 

belts – thermopile forest belt, sub-alpine beech forest belt and belt of mountain dw arf pine 

(Pinus Mugo). Within these forest belts, one can differentiate non-forest habitats such as 

meadows, pastures, lakes, etc. Traditional cattle breeders’ cottages complete the picture of 

this province. 

4 - 5


Pasture grounds cov er the largest part of high mountains. Dark juniper-tree and fir forests 

cov er areas betw een 1,400 and 1,700 m above sea level, w hile white pine (Pinus silvestris) 

forests are present on wide plateau of the Lake’s surface and on Sinjajevina. Wide meadows 

full of flow ers and pasture grounds are rich with Alpine elements of flora. Richly coloured 

flow ers are a decorative element in this area and contribute to the landscape’s v alorisation. 

Tara River valley 

The main structural elements of this zone are: Tara River valley, Tara canyon, Bjelasica 

massif, and Komovi. This system of various geomorphologic features is a harmonious 

combination of riv ers, forest, pastures and bare peaks. Springing in Podkomov lje, Tara Riv er 

runs through a narrow v alley along the western side of Bjelasica, and Bjelasica further links 

w ith high Komovi v ia Jelov ica and Tresnjevika in the south. The mountains of Bjelasica and 

Komov i are rich in pasture grounds, forests and freshw ater lakes (i.e. Pesicko, Veliko and 

Malo, Ursulovacko, Sisko, Biogradsko Lake). By the number of riv er springs, Komovi is one 

of densest areas in southeastern Europe. The mountain peaks normally rise to more than 

2,000 m above sea level (Kucki Kom 2,484 m, Vasojevicki Kom 2,460 m, Crna Glava 2,137 

m, Zekova Glava 2,116 m). 

Tara River v alley hosts many endemic and relict plant and animal species. It is necessary to 

protect the endemic pine Pinus heldreichii, because of its high significance in preservation 

and insurance of stability of mountainous ecosystems. 

The watershed of the Tara River is designated as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserv e, w hile the 

middle part of Bjelasica forms a National Park. 

Piva River area 

The main structural elements of the Piv a Riv er area are: Piva Mountain, Piv a and Komarnica 

riv ers, Piv a district, and the surrounding karstic mountains located in the w est and the south. 

This area has important natural v alues, while the Piv a district is a typical cultural landscape 

w ith rural character. The Piv a Mountain is high and includes canyons of Komarnica, Tara 

and Susica. Pastures on Piv a Moountain are of karstic origin w ith scarce water. There are 

lots of sink-holes, as well as plains and valley s. Crvnicno field is the largest field in the Piv a 

area. 

The canyons of Piv a and Komarnica are 800 to 1,000 m high. Mediterranean flora is very 

common in these cany ons. Beech forests are the most w idespread in the Piv a area. 

Fragments of black pine forests occur on cany ons’ slopes. Significant changes in the cany on 

landscape’s panorama came w ith the erection of “Mratinje” pow er plant and formation of an 

artificial lake nex t to it. Vrbnica, the left tributary of Piv a, has a w ide v alley with forests and 

meadow s, thus it reminds of Alpine v alleys. 

High rocky mountains Maglic (2,386 m), Bioc (2,396 m) and Volujak (2,294 m) make an 

integrated geographical unit. Erosion process has had significant impact on these 

mountains, thus they consist of a large number of ridges and, deep karstic v alleys. In the 

middle of the whole complex is a beautiful Trnov acko Lake surrounded by sub-alpine beech 

4 - 6


forest, mountain pine and high mountain turfs. Great and Small Stabansko Lakes are located 

on the southeastern slopes of Volujak, and they are surrounded by dense mountain beech 

forests. Ledenice (1,945 m) and Golija (1,942 m) spread on the west. The central part of 

Golija and the slopes tow ards Duga, are partly barren and grey ish, w ith coniferous and 

deciduous forests that are intensiv ely being used. Betw een Golija and Vojnik (1,997 m), 

there are many karstic vales. 

Meadows and pastures are w orthy element of the landscape, as w ell as numerous cattle 

breeders’ cottages. 

Canyon valleys in the Moraca watershed 

Mountain chains dissected by deep cany ons of Moraca, Mrtvica, and Mala 

Rijeka are the main structural elements of the canyon valleys of Moraca 

Riv er. Azure surfaces of clear rivers, sharp grey peaks (Lola 2,157 m, 

Kapa Moracka 2,227 m, Stozac 1,892 m, Maganik 2,139 m, Prijekornica 

1,926 m, Zijovo 2,182 m), and steep cany on sides, prov ide impressive 

v iews in this area. Moraca and its tributaries hav e created deep narrow 

w ater courses w ith steep canyon sides. Platije, dissected between 

Kamenik and Vjetrenik, represents the deepest and the most impressive 

part of the Moraca cany on. 

In relation to the v egetation cov er, it is possible to differentiate w illow s, 

barren lands w ith indiv idual trees of y ew (Taxus bacata), and pine (Pinus 

heldreichii) on Maganik and Prijekornica, high mountain pastures, junipertree 

and fir forests, abundant beech forests (Fagus sp.), Quercus ilex, 

bitter oak (Quercus cerris), Macedonian oak (Quercus Macedonia), and 

hornbeam (Carpinus orientalis). 

On the micro-landscape level, there are sev eral glacial lakes Zijova- 

Bukumirsko (1,440 m abov e sea lev el), Rikav acko Lake (1,311 m above 

sea level), and Kapetanovo Lake on Lukavica. 

Pljevlja basin 

Riv er valleys and fields div ide spacious basin of Pljev lja. Through the middle of the basin, 

spreads the v alley of Cehotina, which has a Dinaric chain direction The main units of this 

landscape are karstic surfaces and mountains. The most dominant mountain of this area is 

Ljubisnja (2,238 m), linked to mountain Lisac (1,828 m) in southeast. Further on, there is 

Kosanica area that is intersected by a w eb of creeks and rivers. Pljev lja basin ends with 

Stozer mountain (1,576 m). Mountain Kov ac (1,533 m) is located in the northw est. 

Podgora is rich with w ater, forest and agricultural land, thus it is inhabited. The middle part of 

it grav itates tow ards mining tow n of Gradac. 

Pobrdje is cov ered by deciduous thermopile v egetation (sessile oak Quercus petraea, bitter 

oak Quercus cerris, hornbeam Carpinus betulus, beech Fagus sylvatica and Fagus 

moesiaca). All of these forests are very much degraded. Poplar trees (Populus), willow 

4 - 7


(Salix), and alder (Alnus glutinosa) are w ell dev eloped along the riv ers. Patches of hornbeam 

cov er the v alley of Cehotina. Some time ago, there w ere thick forests of pedunculate oak 

(Quercus robur) along the Cehotina Riv er, proof of w hich are huge trees that can be found 

sporadically. 

High coniferous forests cov er higher mountainous areas (Norw egian spruce (Picaea abies), 

silver fir (Abies alba), black pine and Scots pine (Pinus nigra and Pinus silvestris). Black pine 

forests are the densest on Kosanica, Kozlenov ica, Borist, and Vezisnica. 

Polimlje 

This area encompasses the valley of Lim Riv er, spanning from the Plav Lake to the 

Komarnica Clough. The primary structural elements of this landscape are: Lim valley, and 

cloughs and enlargements of riv er streams. The valley of Lim includes sev eral basins 

(Plavska, Murinjska, Andrijevicka, Beranska, Zatonska, 

Bjelopoljska) and cloughs (Sutjeska, Tifran). 

Berane basin is the biggest basin in the whole valley of 

Lim. Dow nstream, Lim enters into Bjelopolje basin. 

Relativ ely low hills and plateaus rise by the edges of 

the basins. Numerous narrow, relativ ely deep river 

v alleys and streams cut the terrain. 

Polimlje hosts plants such as black and grey willow, 

and poplar-tree, w hich stretch in a narrow belt along 

the riv er. These inundated plants need protection from 

further degradation. 

Polimlje’s picturesque and dynamic landscape 

represents a cultural landscape w ith mainly rural 

character. 

Rožaje area 

The harmonious mountain landscape of the Rozaje area is characterized by mild w avy 

meadow terrains and complex es of coniferous forests. The area is v ertically w ell indented 

w ith peaks of 1,500 to abov e 2,000 m. The most impressive relief form: the v alley of Ibar, 

Žlijeb (2,365m) w ith Kula ridge (1,781m), Štedin, Almica (2,272m), Hajla (2,403m), 

Smiljev ica(1,963m) and Turjak(1,469m). 

Meadow s and pastures, forests of div erse structures and compositions, heaths, and thickets 

create a mosaic landscape. The special place belongs to forest ecosystems, w hich cov er 

around 47% of the territory . Dominating species are Norwegian spruce (Picaea abies), and 

spruce-fir complexes. 

4 - 8

Prokletije massif 


The primary structural element of this landscape unit is numerous mountain ridges, which 

rise like a stone-weall around 

Plavsko-Gusinjski basin. Plav ’s 

Prokletije cov er the area of high 

mountains from Bogoviceva in the 

east, through ridges along the 

Albanian border in the 

south/southeast, Visitor and Zeletina 

in the w est, and Starc in the north. 

Many peaks are higher than 2,000m: 

Bogicev ica (2,374m), Maja Horolac 

(2,199m), Maja Kolac (2,528m), Maja 

Rosit (2,524m), Maja Karanfil 

(2,119m), Popadija (2,057m), Trojan 

(2,120m), Visitor(2,211m), etc. 

The area distinguishes w ith diverse 

glacial shapes of relief (lakes, 

w aterfalls, ridges, etc), w hich giv e 

special aesthetic v alue to the massif. 

Many endemic and relict species 

inhabit this area. 

4.3. The ecoregional context 

The loss of biodiv ersity is ongoing in all countries within the scope of the Dinaric Arc. Unique 

biodiv ersity of this ecoregion is not only a treasure shared by the countries of the region but 

its protection is also a common responsibility. Geographical range of influence of most major 

env ironmental threats extends w ell bey ond the state borders of respectiv e countries and 

territories. Some of these threats can not be mitigated and controlled by respectiv e countries 

alone, and the need for joint actions to be undertaken at a regional scale is obv ious. 

Simultaneously all countries of the region face similar impediments for improv ing the current 

state of env ironment, nature and biodiv ersity w ithin the reasonable timeframe. 

The majority of protected areas ex isting today in the region are relativ ely small areas that 

may be suitable for protection of e.g. landscape phenomena or threatened plant species, but 

rather not for protection of representativ e larger fragments of v aluable mountain ecosystems 

and habitats, and definitely not for protecting populations of large mammals, especially 

carniv orous ones. 

Therefore, all current initiativ es aiming at the ex tension of already existing protected areas 

and establishing new large-scale protected areas are indispensable for protecting the best 

4 - 9


preserv ed natural areas of the Balkans - the 'crown jew els' of the Dinaric Mountains for the 

nex t generations. 

The ecoregion still has the high potential for protecting ev en more natural areas of high 

biodiversity values than those designated until today . How ev er, due to e.g. current budgetary 

constraints, designation of large new protected areas by one country alone does not seem to 

be feasible, while concerted efforts of e.g. tw o or more partners may result in such a 

spectacular success for biodiversity protection. 

In general, biodiv ersity and protected area issues are present w ithin the national legislation 

of all countries included in the Dinaric Arc, and a similar legal framew ork is currently either 

being already enforced or still dev eloped. How ever, in many countries biodiv ersity related 

issues are often fragmented among different legal acts. Furthermore, the legislation is often 

criticised for still existing gaps and overlapping competencies of various central lev el 

gov ernmental agencies in particular concerning protected area management issues. 

With the ex ception of Kosov o (UNMIK) all countries of the project area are Parties to 

numerous international conv entions related to biodiv ersity, especially the Conv ention on 

Biological Diversity (CBD). Future common actions aimed at protecting the overall biological 

div ersity of the project area perceiv ed as one coherent eco-region may require dev eloping a 

special regional agreement, e.g. “the Conv ention on the Protection and Sustainable 

Dev elopment of the Balkans”. 

Nev ertheless, one of the most important steps should be identify ing common strategic 

priorities and challenges that should be faced together by all countries of the ecoregion, 

actions w hich can not be accomplished by one country alone, w here regional or 

transboundary cooperation w ould be indispensable for the protection of nature and biological 

div ersity of the whole Dinaric Arc. 

4 - 10

5. Socio-economic Analysis 

5. Green Belt Socio-economic Analysis 


The socio-economic analysis of the area included w ithin the Northern Montenegro Green 

Belt (NMGB) comprises 11 northern municipalities of Montenegro and general 

introduction of Macro-economic settings in Montenegro. The sources used for this 

analysis are the last statistical surv eys done by MONSTAT in 2003, and socio-economic 

reports prepared for this region. 

The goal of this part of the Study is to identify the most important socio-economic 

activ ities and trends, as w ell as the main stakeholders in region. The first part of the 

Study contains description of basic trends in demography and socio-economic 

mov ement in all 11 municipalities. The second part describes the key stakeholders: 

indiv iduals, institutions, and social groups, w hich are inv olved or influenced in decision 

making of the region’s development planning. 

5.<strong>2.</strong> Macro-economic settings in Montenegro 

Montenegro is located in the south-eastern part of Europe and cov ers 13,812 km 2 . 

According to a surv ey from 2003, Montenegro has 620,254 inhabitants and the 

population density is 44,9 %. The rate of natural grow th in 2003 w as 4,3‰, and in 2004 - 

3,5‰. In 2004, the birth-rate w as 12,6‰ w hich means that there w as a decrease in 

comparison to 2003 - 13,5‰ 1 . 

Table 1 prov ides territorial categorization in terms of settlements and communities 

according to the last survey. 

Table 1: Number of municipalities and settlement in Montenegro 2 

Territorial categorization Number 

Municipality 21 

Settlement 1256 

Urban settlement 40 

Rural settlement 368 

Economy in Montenegro has suffered tremendous changes in recent transition y ears - 

the productiv ity rate has been decreasing and the import has been in rise. Because of 

the w eak economy, the unemployment rate has been increasing – the statistics notes 

50,000 unemploy ed people in 1990, the number that rose to 71,700 in 2003. The 

number of pensioners has increased dramatically (1990 - 74,200; 2003 – 89,000), 

resulting w ith quite similar number of unemploy ed people and pensioners. 

1 MONSTAT, Yearly statistic of Republic of Montenegro 2005 

2 MONSTAT, Overal data about Montenegro 

5 - 1


In the period of 1990-1995, the liv ing standards deteriorated considerably due to the 

ov erall political situation in former Yugoslav ia, w hich affected the economy. In 1995, 

BDP per capita in Montenegro w as 50% lower than the BDP from 1989. Since 1995, 

BDP started to increase and in 2003, it rose to 68% of 1989 BDP. 

2000 – 2004 w as the period of recov ery in economy w hen the BDP rate increased for 

23% and the number of unemployed decreased to 60,000. The inflation rate has also 

decreased and in 2004 it was 4%. One of the biggest problems in Montenegrin economy 

is deficit in international trade, which w as 480 million dollars3 . 

5.3. Development trends 

Montenegro is composed of three regions 4 , w hich are different according to its 

demographic structure and economy. These regions are: 

5 - 2 

• Northern part, 

• Central part, and 

• Southern part 

The most populated and the most developed is the Central region w ith 45% of total 

population. The Northern region5 is inhabited by 31% and the Southern by 23% of 

people. In terms of the regions’ sizes, the Northern is the biggest (53%), follow ed by the 

Central region (35%), and the Southern (12%) (see Table 2). 

Table 2: The size and population number of Montenegrin regions 

Regions Population number Size (km 2 ) 

Northern part 194,879 7,320 

Central part 279,419 4,903 

Southern part 145,847 1,588 

Total 620,145 13,812 

Source: MONSTAT, Yearly statistic 2005, Podgorica 

In the Northern part, there are 11 municipalities: Andrijev ica, Bijelo Polje, Zabljak, 

Berane, Kolasin, Mojkov ac, Plav, Pluzine, Pljevlja, Rozaje, and Šav nik. The main 

economic resources of this region are (in percentage of total): agricultural land – 67%, 

w ood – 71%, farming 70 %, reserv es of lead, zinc and coal, and resources for 

dev elopment of w inter tourism and ecotourism. 

Different natural predispositions cause the dev elopment of different economic activ ities. 

Forestry and w ood industry are the main dev elopmental directions for Northern region. 

From the BDP point of v iew, the Northern region has the low est dev elopment level in 

3 Sector study (ss-ac) 4.6- Privreda, April 2005. godina, Podgorica 

4 Republic Physical and Urban Plan of Montenegro categorization 

5 The NMGB is overlapping with Northern part of Montenegro in 95% of the territory, while 5% of 

the NMGB belongs to Central part of Montenegro


Montenegro. This region participates with 18% in total BDP of the country , while this 

percentage amounted to 25,5 % at the beginning of 1990s. 

In 2003, the Institute for Strategic Study and Prognosis (ISSP) prepared a Strategy for 

Pov erty Reduction in Montenegro. According to the data gathered, 12,5% of population 

is poor, the most endangered being the communities in the Northern region (19,3% of 

population is poor). 

5.3.<strong>2.</strong> Socio-demographic profile 

The socio-demographic situation is analy zed for the entire Northern Montenegro Green 

Belt region. Thus, the 11 municipalities that are analy zed are: Andrijev ica, Berane, 

Žabljak, Kolasin, Mojkovac, Plav, Pluzine, Pljev lja, Rozaje, Bijelo Polje and Šavnik. 

These 11 municipalities hav e population of 133,272 inhabitants w hich is 31% of the 

w hole Montenegrin population. 

Andrijevica 

The municipality of Andrijev ica is located in the south-eastern part of Northern 

Montenegro, surrounded by high mountains Komov i, Bjelasica, and Prokletije. It is a 

bordering municipality as 25 km of Andrijev ica territory borders Albania. 

The population number betw een tow surv eys decreased for 13%. According to the last 

surv ey, the population number is 5,788, w hich is 0,92 % of total Montenegrin population. 

Participation of urban population is 19%. The population density decreased in 

5 - 3


comparison to 1991 and according to 2003 analy sis; 20 inhabitants come per one 

square kilometre, while in 1991 it was 24. 

In Andrijev ica municipality , 40% of all population is regarded as activ e and 55% of this 

number is employ ed. In 2005 the rate of unemployment w as 15%, therefore, the number 

on unemploy ed people decreased for 46 in absolute number, and the number of 

employ ed also decreased for 22 in absolute number, in comparison to 2004. 

The natural grow th in 1991 – 2004 notes significant oscillations. In 1991 it w as 18‰, 

w hile in 2003 it w as negativ e -0.015‰, as well as in 2004 when it was negativ e - 

0.010‰. The total ratio among those born aliv e and dead w as -0.8‰ in 2004, w hile in 

1991 it w as 1.4‰. The natural grow th, birth-rate, and mortality rate are given in table 3. 

Table 3: Natural growth, birth-rate and mortality rate in Andrijevica municipality 

Year Natural growth (‰) Natality (‰) Mortality (‰) 

2000 - 14,0 14,0 

2001 0,004 14,2 13,5 

2002 -0,005 10,2 11,1 

2003 -0,015 11,1 13,7 

2004 -0,010 10,2 11,9 

5 - 4 

Source: MONSTAT, yearly statistic 2005 

As for gender s tructure, the ratio betw een male and female population is almost equal 

(table 4). 

Table 4: Relation between male and female population in Andrijevica municipality 

Gender Total % 

Male 2,941 51 

Female 2,844 49 

Total 5,785 100 


There are no big oscillations in the age structure in Andrijav ica municipality . The age 

group of 55–80 y ears old is the largest (23%), and the age group of 15-30 is close 

behind w ith 22% (table 5). The characteristic of Andrijev ica population is that the age 

group of 0-40 cov ers 53%, and the age group of 40-80 and more v ery close w ith 47% of 

the w hole population. From these data, it is possible to conclude that the Andrijev ica 

population is becoming older and according to the data related to birth-rate, the 

proportion of older population is higher than y ounger.

Table 5: The age structure of Andrijevica municipality 


Age group Absolute number % 

0 – 15 1,095 19 

15 – 30 1,254 22 

30 – 40 716 12 

40 – 55 1,143 20 

55 – 80 1,307 23 

over 80 159 3 


In 2002, the Andrijev ica municipality contributed in Montenegrin BDP w ith 0,28%: 

agriculture (30%), processing industry (28%), trade (21%), and traffic (13%). 

Berane 

Berane municipality is situated in the upper course of Lim Riv er v alley, which is the main 

source of drinking w ater for the entire municipality . The size of Berane municipality is 

717 km 2 and population number is 35,068 (5,6% of total population number in 

Montenegro). In relation to 1991, the number of inhabitants in Berane municipality 

decreased for 7%, so the number of inhabitants per sq. km decreased from prev ious 

surv ey from 52 to 48 (table 6). 

Table 6: Basic demographic data for Berane municipality 

Size in km 2 717 

Population number 35,068 

Population density (inhabitants/km 2 ) 48,9 

Number of settlements 66 

Number of households 10,706 

33% is regarded as urban population, w hile the rest (67%) is rural. This municipality 

participated w ith 2,3% in total BDP of Montenegro in 200<strong>2.</strong> The biggest parts are coming 

from processing industry (23%), trade (22,5%), electric energy production (21%), traffic 

and storing (15%), and agriculture (10 %). 

38% of inhabitants are activ e and more than half of them are employ ed (56%). 

According to the Agency for Placement, the number of unemployed people in 2005 w as 

3,239, w hile in 2004 this number w as about 20% higher. The employment rate 

decreased in 2005 for 3% in relation to 2004 (table 7). 

5 - 5


Table 7: Number of employed and unemployed persons 

5 - 6 

2004 2005 

Employed Unem ployed Employed Unem ployed 

5,255 3,645 5,101 3,239 

The birth-rate rate w as decreasing from 2000 – 2004, w hile the mortality rate v aried 

throughout this period (in 2001 – 2003 it had been decreasing in contrast to 2004). The 

natural grow th, birth-rate, and mortality rate are shown in table 8. 

Table 8: Natural growth, birth-rate, and mortality rate in Berane municipality 

Year Natural growth (‰) Birth-rate (‰) Mortality (‰) 

2000 0,342 19,2 9,6 

2001 0,246 17,0 10,1 

2002 0,304 18,3 9,7 

2003 0,219 15,4 9,2 

2004 0,154 15,0 10,7 

Table 9 provides <strong>information</strong> on the age groups. It can be seen that 59% of people are in 

the 0-40 age group, the highest percentage being in the age group of 15-30 (24%). This 

indicates positiv e demographic trends in Berane municipality. 

Table 9: The age structure of Berane municipality population 


0 – 15 7,750 22 

15 – 30 8,289 24 

30 – 40 4,714 13 

40 – 55 6,611 19 

55 – 80 6,904 20 

over 80 504 1 

70% (24,590) of the entire Berane municipality population has liv ed in the municipality ’s 

territory since their birth. This number increased significantly in relation to the past y ears 

w hen only some 30% stay ed in the municipality . Demographically, Berane is a stable 

municipality with potential for further dev elopment.

Zabljak 


Zabljak municipality is located in the north-w estern part of Jezerska highland and the 

south-eastern part of Durmitor massif. With altitude of 1,450 m abov e the sea lev el, it is 

the highest urban settlement on the Balkan Peninsula. It is surrounded by municipalities 

of Pljev lja, Mojkov ac, Šavnik, Pluzine, as w ell as Srbinje,in the Republic of Srpska 

(Bosnia and Herzegovina). This is the area w ith excellent predispositions for 

dev elopment of high-mountain tourism. Besides tourism, traditional activ ities regularly 

practiced in this area are agriculture, farming, and w ood processing. 

According to last the last survey, 4,204 (0,68% of total population) people inhabit Zabljak 

municipality , w hich encompasses 28 settlements organized in 12 local communities. 

Only one of these communities is urban and it gathers 46% of the municipality ’s 

population. The size of Zabljak is 445 km 2 . Betw een the last tw o surv eys, the population 

number decreased for 16%. The population density is 9,4 persons per km 2 . 

According to 2002 data, the Zabljak municipality contributed to Montenegrin BDP w ith 

0,48%. The biggest parts came from tourism (hotels and restaurants 24,5%), agriculture 

(15%), traffic (10,6%), and trade (9,7%). 

Table 10 shows that there is a negativ e demographic trend in Zabljak, with constant 

decrease of birth-rate and natural grow th rate. Dominant population group is the one 

w ith 55-80 y ears of age (27%). 

Table 10: Natural growth, birth-rate, and mortality rate in Zabljak municipality 


2000 -0,018 6,4 10,5 

2001 - 9,9 9,9 

2002 -0,026 7,0 13,1 

2003 -0,008 8,5 10,4 

2004 -0,006 9,2 10,6 

Table 11: The age structure in Zabljak municipality 


0 – 15 713 17 

15 – 30 892 21 

30 – 40 520 12 

40 – 55 822 20 

55 – 80 1,124 27 

over 80 105 2 

5 - 7


43% of the Zabljak population is activ e and 74% of them are employ ed (table 12). 


5 - 8 

2004 2005 


780 477 701 440 

Demographical data shows the migration process relates to mov ing from v illages to 

tow ns. Although the tourism sector is expanding and it could become a valuable source 

of income, y oung people are not stay ing in rural parts of this municipality. 

Kolasin 

The municipality of Kolasin is located centrally in the Northern part of Montenegro, 

around the upper and middle flow of Tara and Moraca Riv ers. The tow n of Kolasin is 

situated at 954 m of altitude. The municipality is surrounded by mountains of Sinjav ine, 

Jav orja, Semolja, Kape Moracke, Maganika, Stav nja, and Ostrv ice. The size of the 

municipality is 897 km 2 and the population makes 1,6% of the Montenegrin total 

population (since 1991, the population number decreased by 11%) (table 13). 31% of 

people inhabit urban settlements. 

Table 13: Basic demographic data for Kolasin municipality 


Population number in 2003 9,949 

Population number in 1991 11,046 

Population density (inhabitants/km 2 ) 11,1 

Number of settlement 70 


Kolasin municipality contributes w ith 0.9% in BDP of Montenegro. Trade holds the 

highest percentage – 30%, electrical energy production 20%, processing industry 16%, 

and agriculture 13%. 

The total population number of Kolasin municipality is 9,949 persons and population 

density is 11 persons per km 2 . 43% are activ e and 68% of them are employ ed. In 

comparison to 2004, the number of unemploy ed people lowered for 20% (table 14).


2004 2005 



1,361 1,063 1,345 878 

Regarding the age structure, 55-80 y ears old group is dominant (24% of population) 

(table 15). The majority of older population influences future dev elopment of Kolasin 

municipality . The natural grow th w as positiv e only in 2000, while it w as negativ e in 2001 

and 2004. The rate of mortality was also higher than the birth-rate (table 16). The gender 

structure is balanced. 

Table 15: Age structure in Kolasin municipality 


0 – 15 1,849 18 

15 – 30 2,147 21 

30 – 40 1,345 13 

40 – 55 1,950 19 

55 – 80 2,368 24 

over 80 208 2 

Table 16: Natural growth, birth-rate, and mortality rate in Kolasin municipality 


2000 0,014 10,4 9,0 

2001 -0,038 6,3 10,0 

2002 - 9,5 9,5 

2003 -0,030 9,7 12,7 

2004 -0,029 7,5 10,4 

Mojkovac 

Mojkov ac is located in the Tara Riv er valley under the mountain of Bjelasica and 

Sinjajev ina, and betw een the Biogradska Gora National Park and Durmitor National 

Park. The total surface of Mojkov ac municipality is 367 km 2 and 10,066 people inhabit 

this area (1,6 % of total Montenegrin population), w hich includes 15 settlements and 

5 - 9


2,917 households. The municipality recorded a decrease in population number, but this 

rate is low er than in Kolasin and Zabljak municipalities. According to the latest surv ey, 

the population density w as 27 persons per square km. 

41% of population (4,171 people) is activ e, but only 53% of them (2,207) is employed 

(table 17). 


5 - 10 

2004 2005 


1,273 1,639 1,325 1,269 

The Mojkovac municipality has a positiv e natural grow th rate. In 2000 – 2004, birth-rate 

w as higher than the mortality rate w hich shows positiv e demographic trends and the 

increase in the number of activ e population. 

The group age of 15 – 30 y ears old is dominant in this municipality (24%), follow ed by 

y oung 0 - 15 y ears of age (21%). The groups of 40 – 55 and 55 – 80 y ears of age are 

equal (20% each). The gender structure is balanced. The percentage of urban 

population is 41%. 

The Mojkov ac municipality contributes to the Montenegrin BDP with 0,6% (in 2002) while 

this percentage w as 1% in 199<strong>2.</strong> The highest contribution is from the production of 

electrical energy (32%), trade (23%), and agriculture (20%). In 2004, the number of 

unemploy ed was higher than the number of employ ed. In 2005 , the situation dramatically 

changed. 

Plav 

Plav municipality , with the total size of 486 km 2 (3,5% of the total size of Montenegro), is 

situated in the south-eastern part of Northern Montenegro, under the Prokletije 

Mountain. It has 13,805 inhabitants (2,2% of total country ’s population) and it notes 15% 

of decrease in population number in comparison to 1991 The municipality has 28 people 

per square km. The municipality is composed of 23 local communities and tw o of them 

hav e urban character (Plav and Gusinje) (38% of total municipality population). 

The population of Plav municipality is mainly y oung, more than 60% of population is in 

the age group of 0 - 40. These positiv e demographical trends are also confirmed by 

other parameters, such as the mortality and birth-rates. In 2000 – 2004, the birth-rate 

w as higher than the mortality rate, thus the natural grow th w as positiv e in this period 

(table 18). 

Table 18: Natural growth, birth-rate, and mortality rate in Plav municipality 


2000 0,098 16,1 9,2


2001 0,080 16,0 10,4 

2002 0,086 14,9 8,7 

2003 0,084 15,6 9,5 

2004 0,055 13,6 9,7 

Male and female population is balanced. In 2002, the Plav municipality contributed to 

Montenegrin BDP w ith 0,8%. The highest contribution w as from agriculture and forestry 

(32%), trade (25%), traffic (12%), and electric energy production (11,9%). The number of 

unemploy ed people in 2004 w as 871, while their number increased in 2005 to 953 (9%). 

Pluzine 

Plužine municipality (854 km 2 ) has 4,272 inhabitants, w hich is 0,77% of total 

Montenegrin population. According to data from 1991 the number of people in this 

municipality was 5,221 which is 22% higher than in 2003. The population density is 5 

people per sq. km and the population is organised in 6 local communities and 43 

settlements (table 19). 

Table 19: Basic demographic data for Pluzine municipality 


Population number 4,272 

Population density (inhabitants/km 2 ) 5 

Number of settlements 43 


This municipality can be divided into three zones: 

• Zone of relativ ely low er altitudes near the river Piv a, know n as Pivska Zupa, 

• High mountain zone know n as Pivska mountain, and 

• Western mountain zone. 

The majority of people lives in the zone of relativ ely low er altitudes (35% of them is in 

urban zone). 43% is activ e, w hile 78% of them are employed. The employment rate 

increased in 2005 for 3% in comparison to 2004. Further on, there was a significant 

decrease in the unemployment rate (18%) (table 20). 

5 - 11



5 - 12 

2004 2005 


958 478 995 405 

In Montenegrin BDP, the Pluzine municipality contributed w ith 1,2% and the highest 

contribution w as by the production of electrical energy – 72% (thanks to the HE “Piv a”) 

and processing industry - 13%. 

The age group of 0 – 40 totals to 50% of the municipality ’s population. In the period of 

2000 – 2004, the rate of mortality w as higher than the birth-rate, so the natural grow th 

w as negativ e (table 21). How ev er, it is important to notice that the mortality rate has 

been decreasing from 2000 to 2004 

Table 21: Natural growth, birth-rate, and mortality rate in Pluzine municipality 


2000 -0,014 9,1 12,2 

2001 -0,001 11,2 11,5 

2002 -0,017 7,8 11,7 

2003 -0,017 7,4 11,3 

2004 -0,002 9,5 10,0 

57% of the municipality ’s population has liv ed in this territory since birth. The highest 

migration rate w as in period 1981 – 1990 (506 people). In 1991 – 2003 this number w as 

low er (427 people). 

Pljevlja 

Pljev lja municipality is in the north-w estern part of Montenegro. After Podgorica and 

Niksic, this is the biggest municipality with the size of 10% of Montenegro or 1,346 km 2 . 

The total population number is 35,806 w hich is 6,6% of total Montenegrin population. 

Comparing w ith 1991, the number of people in Pljev lja municipality decreased for 10%. 

The population density is 26 people per km 2 . The Pljev lja municipality is composed of 

159 settlement and 11,405 households. 

46% of population is activ e, w hile the 68% of them is employ ed (table 22).


2004 2005 



7,892 4,983 7,457 4,190 

In 2002, the municipality of Pljev lja contributed to Montenegrin BDP w ith 6,5%. Mining 

industry participated w ith 32%, electric energy production w ith 31%, and trade w ith 9%.. 

Both the coal mine and the thermo-electric plant are located in Pljevlja. 

In 2002, the mortality rate w as lower than the birth-rate, w hile in 2004, the situation w as 

opposite. Generally , negativ e demographical trends hav e been occurring since 2000, 

w hich could cause the disturbances of age structure in the future. The present situation 

is that the age group of 40 and less participates w ith 50% of the w hole population. 

The gender structure is almost balanced (51% female - 49% male). 59% of people hav e 

liv ed in the municipality since birth. The highest percentage of migration w as in period 

1991 – 2003 - 23%. 

Rozaje 

Rozaje municipality (432 km 2 ) is situated in the north-eastern part of Montenegro and it 

is inhabited by 22,693 people (3,7% of the country ’s population). There are 52 persons 

per km 2 . This municipality is composed of 26 settlements and 5,624 households. In 

relation to 1991, this is the only municipality in northern Montenegro w here the 

population number grew, but only for 1%. 

According to data from 2002, the Rozaje municipality contributed to Montenegrin BDP 

w ith 1%. The dominant w ere the production of electrical energy (27%), agriculture and 

forestry (23%), and processing industry (13%). 

In Rozaje municipality , 36% of all population is activ e and 50% of these numbers are 

employ ed. According to the Agency for Placement, the number of unemployed people 

decreased by 39% in 2005 in relation to 2004, while the number of employed people 

rose for 2%. 

The positiv e demographic trend reflects on the age structure, so the population age 

group of 0 - 40 y ears is dominant w ith 68% (table 23). 

Table 23: Natural growth, birth-rate, and mortality rate in Rozaje municipality 


2000 0,327 20,0 5,5 

2001 0,364 22,0 5,9 

2002 0,298 18,6 5,4 

2003 0,353 20,1 4,5 

5 - 13


2004 0,294 18,0 5,3 

69% of the population has liv ed in Rozaje since birth and the largest migration 

mov ement was noted in period 1991 – 2003 (27% of inhabitants). 

Savnik 

The municipality of Šav nik is located in the Northern part of Montenegro in the high 

mountain zone of Dinarides. In the south, it borders Niksic municipality , in the east 

Kolasin and Mojkov ac, in the w est Pluzine, and in the north Zabljak municipality . The 

total size of this municipality is 553 km 2 and there are 2,947 inhabitants (0,47% of total 

Montenegrin population) (table 24). 47% is urban population. 

Table 24: Basic demographic data for Savnik municipality 

5 - 14 

Total surface km 2 553 

Population number in 2003 rd 2,947 

Population number in 1991 st 3,680 

Population density (inhabitants/km 2 ) 5.3 

Number of settlement 27 

Number of households 922 

34% is activ e and 69% of them are employ ed (table 25). The number of unemployed 

people w as for 27% lower in 2005 when comparing to 2004. 


2004 2005 


272 441 280 346 

This municipality participated w ith 0,3% in Montenegrin BDP, mainly w ith agriculture 

(27%), trade and traffic (24%), and processing industry (13%). 

This municipality is characterised by negativ e demographical trend. For period of 2000 – 

2004, the rate of mortality w as constantly higher than the birth-rate. A large misbalance 

betw een the birth-rate and mortality rate had caused negativ e natural grow th rate.


Table 26: Natural growth, birth-rate, and mortality rate in Savnik municipality 


2000 -0,026 5,7 14,0 

2001 -0,022 7,1 14,3 

2002 -0,013 6,9 11,2 

2003 -0,015 6,3 11,3 

2004 -0,005 7,4 9,1 

The age group of 40 and more y ears old is cov ered by 51% of population. The age 

group of 15-30 is dominant w ith 21%. If this trend continues, the aging of population w ill 

increase, and finally, some settlements might disappear. 

5.3.3. Education level 

For population older than 15 y ears, the highest education lev el is normally high school 

(33-50% of people). This is the main characteristic of all 10 Northern Montenegrin 

municipalities. Elementary education has relativ ely high percentage (eg. 21% in Zabljak, 

34% in Rozaje). Only 3-5% of population has higher or highest education level, w hile the 

percentage of people w ithout any education ranges betw een 4-8% and it is the highest 

in Plav (8%). 

5.3.4. National structure 

Dominant ethnical groups in the 10 analy zed municipalities are: Serbs, Montenegrins, 

Bosnians and Albanians. The numbers of nationality members are different in each 

municipality , but if w e summarize this, according to the last population survey , these are 

the results: Serbs (42%), Montenegrins (24%), Bosnians (23%), Muslims and Albanians 

(2,6%) (graph 1). The rest are minority groups: Italians, Macedonians, Egy ptians, 

Hungarians, Germans, Roma, and Russians. 

5 - 15


Graph 1: National structure in 11 municipalities (in %) 

5 - 16 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

69 

25 

Andrijevica 

42 

Graph 2 shows the national structure per each municipality . The highest percentage of 

Montenegrins is in municipalities of Kolasin, Mojkov ac, and Šav nik, while the highest 

percentage of Serbs is in municipalities of Andrijev ica, Pluzine, Pljev lja, and Žabljak. The 

Bosnians are dominant in Rozaje and Plav. 19% of Albanians are in Plav, w hile other 

nationalities are present in smaller percentages. 

Graph 2: National structure per municipality 

6 

16 

46 

25 

Berane 

50 

43 

Žabljak 

45 

51 

Kolašin 

41 

55 

Mojkovac 

Sjever Crne Gore 

24 23 

5 

49 

19 

19 

5 

Plav 

60 

33 

Plužine 

8 

5 

60 

22 

Pljevlja 

6 

82 

4 

2 

Rožaje 

47 

46 

Šavnik 

Muslimani 

Bošnjaci 

Albanci 

Srbi 

Crnogorci 

Conclusion: According to the demographical data, the Northern Montenegro region is 

the low est dev eloped region in Montenegro. The general demographical characteristics 

of this part of Montenegro are population reduction, decrease in birth-rate and natural 

grow th, aging, migration from v illages. Only the municipalities of Kolasin and Rozaje 

hav e positiv e population trends. 

5 

3 3 

Srbi Crnogorci Bošnjaci Muslimani Albanci Ostalo


Graph 3: Number of people in the period between two last surveys (1991 – 2003) 

The age structure is a very important element for the dev elopment of economy. The age 

structure is in most municipalities v ery unbalanced, with high percentages of old people 

(more than 40 y ears of age). Only in Rozaje and Plav y ounger population is dominant 

(60%). This kind of age structure is also ev ident in villages, which are being 

depopulated, especially by y oung people. People are mainly leav ing to urban 

settlements and to the southern Montenegro. This kind of migration causes huge social 

problems, as new working places need to be generated. In this regard, v illages that are 

closer to urban centres are in fav ourable position as the connection w ith tow ns is faster 

and easier, and the tow ns act as new markets for rural products. 

Notable changes are happening in the lev el of education of Northern Montenegrins. The 

illiteracy rate is completely absent among young population, but it is still present in 

population older than 65. 

The pov erty rate is high - 45% of the entire country . Low income and unemployment 

often cause illegal activ ities such as illegal logging, illegal construction of infrastructure, 

poaching. 

The number of activ e and employ ed people is the best ev aluator of economic 

dev elopment. The percentage of activ e population in all 10 municipalities is 40% and 

63% of the number of activ e people are employ ed. This indicates the high level of 

unemploy ed activ e people, as w ell as that agriculture is still the main source of income 

for many people. 

5.4. Socio-economic profile 

5.4.1. Forest exploitation 

5.4.1.1. Timber production 

5 - 17


In Montenegro the forest cov ers 720,000 ha or 54% of the w hole Republic. The biggest 

forest resources are in Northern part of Montenegro, 70% of all w ood resources. 

Because of this fact, forest ex ploitation is the main activ ity for most municipalities in that 

region. The state ow ns 67,25% of forests, w hile the rest is in priv ate ownership. 

The Directorate for Forests, together w ith the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water 

Resource Management, manages forests on the state’s property. The Directorate is 

organized through 15 forest management offices, 14 of w hich are in Northern, and one 

in Southern part of Montenegro. 

According to the Forest Directorate data, the total cut in 2005 w as 475,718 m3 net of 

w ood mass. 73,7% of that w as cut in forests ow ned by the state and 26,3% in priv ate 

forests. 

The most of logging in 2004 occurred in Pljev lja municipality (25,45% of total cut in 

Montenegro), then in Kolasin, Rozaje and Berane (table 27). 

Table 27: Logging in forests and out of forests in m 3 

5 - 18 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Andrijevica 22,860 20,922 21,373 21,753 23,893 

Berane 31,510 30,837 30,186 37,834 36,099 

Zabljak 22,744 21,656 26,338 24,941 19,580 

Kolasin 37,448 36,962 42,045 39,714 41,658 

Mojkovac 9,000 12,284 16,433 12,753 12,307 

Plav 30,962 21,097 26,942 24,139 21,134 

Pluzine 24,498 21,021 24,796 207,46 3,003 

Pljevlja 137,923 116,231 136,255 109,451 134,157 

Rozaje 49,910 51,888 48,269 42,092 38,691 

Savnik 8,961 10,957 8,686 8,633 6,077 

Source: MONSTAT, yearly statistic, 2005 

The company “Velimir Jakic” in Pljev lja municipality dev eloped departments for primary 

and final w ood processing. In this moment, the company is in problems because of overemploy 

ment and low technical equipment. In the meantime, some small and middle 

enterprises for w ood processing hav e been established. Those enterprises are mainly 

specialized for primary wood processing and only a few of them deal with final 

processing, production of furniture. There is no capacity for implementing final 

processing (furniture production) for massive production. 

Data presented in table 28 are related only to products that are manufactured out of 

w ood mass from forests in the state ow nership.

Table 28: Manufactured products in m 3 

Year 


Chuck for cutting chuck 

Cellulose wood 

Spruce 

and fir 

Rest 

of 

larch 

Beech 

for 

veneer 

and 

peal 

Technical 

wood Leaf 

trees 

Larch 

2001 148,145 16,973 19,804 2,543 17,745 8,924 16,942 

2002 148,832 6,421 21,418 722 11,013 12,408 10,256 

2003 125,720 16,425 25,549 4,577 13,419 6,507 13,550 

2004 145,984 5,235 32,849 132 9,950 5,094 14,302 


The production of w ood for heating has increased, except in 200<strong>2.</strong> In 2004, the total 

mass of w ood for heating w as 24,8% higher than in 2003 and 72,5% higher than in 2002 

(table 28). From 2000 – 20004, the total production of larch cut material decreased, 

except in 2004, w hen it w as higher for 42,1% compared to 2003 , but only 48,6% of total 

production in 2000. The total production of leaf tree cut material in the same period w as 

also decreasing, except in 2004 (table 29). In 2004 this production increased for 20,5% 

compared to 2003 but this was 89,8% of total production in 2000. 

Production of beech v eneer w as decreasing constantly, ex cept in 200<strong>2.</strong> In 2004 it w as 

only 19,2% of the total production in 2000. Production of plywood was completely absent 

in last tw o years. 

Table 29: Processing and manufacturing of wood and cork products in m 3 

Year 

larch cut 

material 

leaf tree cut 

material 

Beech frize 

Beech 

veneer 

2000 76,189 8,503 97 624 482 

2001 53,763 8,487 353 241 526 

2002 30,846 5,443 374 545 237 

2003 26,068 6,339 201 415 - 

2004 37,038 7,639 - 120 - 


Plywood 

According to MONSTAT data, logging happens in the follow ing municipalities in the 

Northern Montenegrin region: 

- Andrijev ica: Topla, Boj Komer 

- Berane: Polimlje, Mi-ma, Berkom, Laz promet 

- Zabljak: Pilana 

- Kolasin: Keker, Lancer, Inpregnacija 

5 - 19

Year 


- Mojkov ac: Trudbenik, Vojin, Elisa 

- Plav: Alpet 

- Pluzine: DIT Donja Brezna 

- Pljev lja: Pilana Velimir Jakic, S.R.B. 

- Rozaje: Gornji Ibar, Elprom, Rudnica, Subabe, Wood, Isam, Crni Bor, Bralic 

kompani, Zlatni krs, Sekom. 

Final processing 

Furniture production factories ex isted in Podgorica, Niksic and Mojkov ac in the past. 

Currently they are not operating and only a smaller number of private factories are 

dealing w ith production of furniture or furniture parts. The changes in furniture production 

are show n in table 30. 

Table 30: Production of furniture in 2000 – 2004 

5 - 20 

The furniture type in pieces 

Upholster furniture 

(armchair, couch) 

Tables, locker, showcase, 

beds 

2000 1,215 3,638 1,331 

2001 278 1,326 2,344 

2002 214 3,424 333 

2003 333 271 40 

2004 190 774 70 


Other house furniture 

Since 2000, the production of upholster furniture has been decreasing constantly. In 

2004, this production w as 15,6% of the production in 2000. The production of tables, 

lockers, showcases, and all ty pes of beds in 2003 w as low er for 92,6% compared to the 

production in 2000. 

The general conclusion is that final furniture production is under-dev eloped. According to 

MONSTAT data, the follow ing companies are now dealing w ith furniture production: 

- Berane: Dom 

- Mojkov ac: Spad 

- Podgorica: Planet, Skan Internsšnal 

- Pljev lja: Velimir Jakic. 

The income from the forest resources mainly goes to the state budget and leav ing the 

local communities w ith inconsiderable income.

5.4.1.<strong>2.</strong> Aromatic and medicinal plants 


Out of 3,200 plant species in Montenegro, it is estimated that 600 species hav e some 

medicinal effects. Montenegro is thus at the third place in Europe in the number of 

aromatic and medicinal plants in relation to the size of its territory .. 

In Northern Montenegro, there w ere 56 local organizations w hich w ere registered to 

collect these herbs, but majority of them is not w orking on this any more. The main 

reason is lack of funding. Betw een 1978 and 1992 1,000 tons of w ormwood (Artemisia 

absinthium) was collected w hich brought income of 3,000,000 German marks. Betw een 

1992 and 1997 1,900 tons of Artemisia absinthium, Salvia officinalis, Althaea officinalis, 

Mentha spicata, Gentiana lutea and Matricaria Chamomilla were ex ported, bringing 

income of 3,500,000 USD. Presently, there is no data recorded for collection or ex port. 

How ev er, some local organizations are still efficient in collection of aromatic and 

medicinal plants: Vrbica - Berane; Agrobisernica – Rozaje; Doganje – Pljev lja; Aljohot – 

Gusinje. Besides them, some public companies collect these plants: Agro-product and 

Eko Flora. 

In Pljev lja municipality , there is great potential for collecting forest fruit, fungi, forest 

straw berry, blueberry, and medicinal plants. 

5.4.1.3. Bee-keeping 

In Montenegro, there are about 45,000 bee communities and approx imately 3,500 

beekeepers. According to the estimation of the Beekeepers Union, there is a possibility 

for productiv e grow ing of 150,000 bee communities, which means the present number 

could rise three to four times. 

The distribution of bee communities in Montenegro is irregular. In southern part there are 

8,5 beehiv es per sq. km, in central part 3,3, and in the mountains 1,9 (table 31). Honey 

y ield per beehiv e v aries betw een 15 to 30 kg. The total y early production of honey in 

Montenegro v aries betw een 700 and 1,000 tons which is w orth 4 – 6 millions EUR. The 

estimation is that the market ex cesses in good y ears are around 30% (200 – 300 tons) 

of all honey production. The production of high quality honey has intensified in the last 

couple of y ears. 

Table 31: Number of beehives in northern municipalities in 2003 and 2004 

Municipality 2003 2004 

Andrijevica 1,096 842 

Berane 1,490 1,551 

Zabljak 54 257 

Kolasin 672 836 

Mojkovac 944 1,147 

5 - 21


5.4.1.4. Hunting 

5 - 22 

Plav 684 1,339 

Pluzine 360 362 

Pljevlja 2,976 2,340 

Rozaje 2,693 2,416 

Savnik 375 944 

Mountains, pastures and meadows in the Northern part of Montenegro, are the 

traditional hunting grounds in the landscape. The Gov ernment defined three hunting 

areas: 

• Northern hunting area, Pljev lja, Pluzine, Sav nik and Zabljak municipalities, 

including Durmitor National Park (NP), 

• Eastern hunting area, Bijelo Polje, Berane, Andrijev ica, Rozaje and Plav 

municipalities, and 

• Central hunting area, Kolasin, Mojkov ac and Niksic, including Biogradska Gora 

NP. 

Data related to number and classifications of hunted animals are missing. 

5.4.1.5. Cattle breeding 

In Montenegro, there are 0,2 cow s per citizen and according to this parameter, 

Montenegro is ahead of some EU countries (eg. Slov enian average is 0,1 cows per 

citizen). Although the number of cattle is high in Montenegro, available resources are not 

used in full of capacity . Before the World War II Montenegro had ov er 900,000 heads 

(mainly goats and sheep), w hich is three times more than today . The cows and heifers 

are mostly present in Northern region of Montenegro (table 32). How ev er, their number 

is decreasing y ear by year except in Pljevlja (4% increase), Rozaje (14%), Šav nik (23%) 

and Žabljak (4%). 

Table 32: The number of cow and heifer 


Andrijevica 2,703 2,657 

Berane 9,431 8,840 

Zabljak 2,338 2,416 

Kolasin 6,153 5,411 

Mojkovac 2,566 3,555


Plav 4,740 4,145 

Pluzine 5287 4,280 

Pljevlja 15,926 16,541 

Rozaje 5,097 5,845 

Savnik 3,056 3,762 

Vast agricultural lands in this area should be economically valorised trough dev elopment 

of cattle breeding. According to the ex perts’ analysis the Mountain Sinjajev ina is able to 

accept 7,000 head of cattle and 60,000 sheep6 , w ithout their y oung. Building of 

infrastructure (roads, w ater and electricity ) is the primary condition that should be met in 

order for areas on Sinjajev na to become one of the most valuable pastures. 

In the branch of pig farming, in last few y ears, the priv ate initiativ e w as strong and lot of 

priv ate pig farms w ere established. But, the present capacity is significantly smaller than 

in 1991, even 50% of the 1991 capacity. 

In Northern Montenegro, there are no companies for production and processing of 

chicken meat. This means that organized farming of chicken meat does not exist and all 

production that occurs, is for personal needs. 

Comparing to 1991, sheep farming decreased for more than 50% during the past ten 

y ears. How ev er, in the last few y ears sheep farming is stable and present in ev ery 

municipality . The present situation shows that there is good basis for dev elopment of 

meat industry as w ell as milk production and processing. Processing capacity of meat 

industry has grow n in the last few y ears in the w hole country . The estimation is that 

current production (17,500 tons) can ensure enough meat products ev en for ex port. For 

Northern region of Montenegro, the follow ing municipalities have meat industry: 

- Berane: Klanica 

- Pljev lja: Trojica. 

Taking into consideration the conditions and resources of Northern Montenegro, it is 

easy to conclude that there is plenty of space for the increase of the meat industry ’s 

capacities (only 50% is utilized). It is important to stress that there are numerous final 

products (some companies have over 100 products) oriented tow ards market. 

Milk production is present only in the municipalities of Berane (Zora) and Pljev lja 

(Mljekara). 

Traditional occupation of people in Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije (DTP) landscape is cattle 

breeding and agriculture. Cattle products are famous for high quality : lamb meat, 

smoked sheep meat, cheese. The most common agricultural products are barley, ry e, 

potato, and cabbage. It is probable that the traditional w ay of production w ill continue for 

a long period. 

4 Durmitor region-Integral development, 200<strong>2.</strong> 

5 All statistic data are taken from statistical Yearbook for 2005, Statistic office, Republic of 

Montenegro 

5 - 23


5.4.<strong>2.</strong> AGRICULTURE 

The number of people w hose main occupation is agriculture has decreased betw een the 

tw o last surveys (table 33). 

Table 33: Agricultural population (in %) 

5 - 24 


Andrijevica 13 8,4 

Berane 10 6,9 

Zabljak 20 16,2 

Kolasin 19 12,7 

Mojkovac 8 6,7 

Plav 15 15 

Pluzine 35 19,6 

Pljevlja 17 12,3 

Rozaje 9 9,3 

Savnik 38 32,5 

Montenegro has v ery small ratio of cultiv able soil intended for commercial agricultural 

production, w hich requires large plough-land, such as grain, sugar beet, and oil-seeds. 

The soil in the Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije landscape is the best suited for potato (table 35) 

and fruit grow ing. Agricultural practices are done in traditional w ay, and its 

characteristics are limited use of mineral fertilizers and plant protection, limited use of 

agricultural mechanizations and modern agro-technical measures. Considering these 

facts, it is ex pectable that the production results are low. Fruit production (apples, plums, 

and pears) and production of high quality honey are dev eloped in the lower mountain 

areas and riv er v alleys (table 36). Grow ing of fruit is traditionally present in the DTP 

area, and in spite of the fact that good quality of all kinds of fruits such are plums, 

apples, pears, straw berries, raspberries, is recognized, commercial production (ex cept 

for plums) has not been organized y et. The locals use these fruits for production of 

brandies: plum brandy, pear brandy, apple brandy. 

The ov erview of agricultural resources in ten municipalities is shown in table 34. 

Table 34: Agricultural resources (in ha) 

Description 2003 2004 

Agricultural land 272,963 272,816 

Arable land 101,016 100,502 

Plough soil and gardens 19,580 19,601


Fruit plantation 2,940 3,196 

Meadow 80,381 77,700 

Pasture 171,935 151,629 

Pastures cov er the biggest areas in DTP, but the surface under pasture grounds 

decreased from 2003 to 2004 for 13%. Meadows also decreased, especially in Pljevlja 

municipality . How ev er, the surface under fruit plantations increased, particularly due to 

the excellent climate conditions. The surface under plough soil and gardens also 

increased. 

Table 35: Production of potato (kg/ha) 


Andrijevica 3,85 2,30 

Berane 3,82 2,20 

Zabljak 8,00 9,00 

Kolasin 9,16 7,92 

Mojkovac 7,00 8,00 

Plav 10,00 15,00 

Pluzine 2,22 20,00 

Pljevlja 7,00 12,00 

Rozaje 3,80 4,80 

Savnik 1,40 1,10 

The population in these municipalities, especially in rural regions, is oriented to 

agriculture for their ow n needs. For most people, closing of companies meant loosing 

jobs, and many of them started agricultural practices as a basic source of income. 

On plough soils and gardens, cereals, v egetable and plants for cattle are dominant 

cultures. In addition to the traditional production of potato and cabbage, higher rate of 

production of different cultures has been noted in last y ears: carrot, onion, red beet, 

green salad. How ev er, this production is for indiv idual needs only. 

Table 36: Production (kg/tree) 

Municipality 

Apple Pear Plum 

2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 

Andrijevica 12 6 7 3 2 4 

Berane 13 4 6 3 2 3 

5 - 25


Zabljak - - - - - - 

Kolasin 12 11,6 3 7,8 10 2,4 

Mojkovac 70 10 50 10,2 5 8 

Plav 10 10 10 10 15 10 

Pluzine 15 10 20 10 14 40 

Pljevlja 5 10 4 10 3 4 

Rozaje 15 15 9 12 9 10 

Savnik 70 25 50 20 20 12 

The production of apples decreased in every municipality betw een 2003 and 2004. Only 

Plav notes equal production in both y ears. Almost the same situation occurs w ith plums 

and pears. Only in Pluzine the production of plums in 2004 w as three times bigger than 

in 2003. 

In the future dev elopment of this area, production of healthy food should grow. DTP area 

prov ides ideal conditions for organic production due to its clean w ater, soil and air. 

5.4.3. Tourism 

The Northern Montenegro is v aluable for dev elopment of sustainable tourism due to its 

mountainous landscapes w ith high peaks, long duration of snow cover, water, and 

forests. The most important areas are: Durmitor (surrounds Zabljak), Bjelasica (Kolasin, 

Mojkov ac and Berane), Prokletije (Plav and Rozaje), Smiljev ice, and Turjaka (Berane 

and Rozaje). 

Around 30 glacial lakes are located in this area - Crno Lake, Biogradsko Lake, and 

Plavsko Lake are some of them. Artificial accumulations also offer great possibilities for 

recreation (eg. Piva Lake). 

In Durmitor area, all accommodation capacities are located in the commune of Zabljak. 

The number of tourists w ho v isited this area in 2004, w as 12,364, w hich is only 1,8% of 

the w hole number of tourists in Montenegro that y ear. 92% of them found 

accommodation in Zabljak, and only 8% w ere in Šav nik and Pluzine. In the national 

structure of tourists, 24,2% are foreigners, and the others are domestic tourists. These 

are the hotels in Zabljak: 

- Hotel «Planinka», w hich has 324 beds 

- Hotel «Zabljak» w ith 64 beds 

- Hotel «Durmitor» with 160 beds 

- Hotel «MB», 44 beds 

- Hotel «Javor», 16 beds 

- Motel «Bjelobor», 62 beds. 

Hotel MB and Javor are 3 star hotels, and the others have 2 stars. 

5 - 26


The size of the National Park Durmitor is 31,200 ha. It hosts 18 glacial lakes (the biggest 

is the Black Lake) and has ov er 15 peaks abov e 2,000 metres (the highest is Bobotov 

Kuk - 2,523m). Black Lake is composed of Small and Great Lake and w ater from the 

Black Lake flows into rivers Piva and Tara. The NP is also recognised as a UNESCO 

World Heritage Site since 1980. Part of the Tara canyon, the most impressive canyon in 

Montenegro, is included in the WH Site. Larger area of the Tara Riv er basin is included 

in the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve since 1977. Tara is a fast riv er and it is valorised for 

rafting. 

Taking into consideration the number of tourists, the most v isited areas are Kolasin and 

Bijelo Polje, w hich attracted 75% of v isitors to this part of Montenegro in 2004. This is 

not surprising, considering that Kolasin has the biggest accommodation capacities in the 

w hole Northern Montenegro. The municipality Kolasin is the centre of Bjelasica National 

Park (5,650 ha), situated betw een rivers Tara and Lim. This area was protected in 1878. 

The biggest v alue in the National Park is the primev al forest of Biogradska Gora, w hich 

cov ers ov er 1,600 ha. This is one of the only three preserv ed primev al forests in Europe. 

Fav ourable traffic conditions w ith easy access to the highest mountain peaks provide 

good conditions for dev elopment of different kinds of tourism in this area. The ski centre 

is settled about 9 km aw ay from the centre of Kolasin. In Kolasin there are 4 hotels and 

one board: 

- Hotel «Bianca», 118 beds 

- Hotel «Cile», 23 beds 

- Hotel «Brile», 26 beds 

- Hotel «Garni», 20 beds 

- Board «Vila Jelka», 25 beds. 

Plav and Rozaje municipalities are not orientated tow ards tourism dev elopment y et, 

although potentials certainly exist. Plav municipality is one of the most beautiful 

mountain areas in Montenegro. The Plavsko Lake represents special attraction, w hile 

there are many small mountain lakes - “mountain ey es”, and among them, the most 

attractiv e are Hridsko and Visitorsko. Plav has the potential for building 38,92 km of ski 

paths. 

According to the Institute for Statistics’ data for 2004, Prokletije (Plav and Rozaje) w as 

v isited by only 0,5% of ov erall tourists that came to Montenegro. There w ere no 

registered tourists or any ov ernights in Plav, although 274 beds are offered for v isitors’ 

purposes. How ever, this infrastructure w as mainly used for placement of refugees in 

recent y ears and needs to be renov ated. Currently , there is more stress on tourism 

dev elopment in Rozaje. But, v isitors that come to Rozaje are mainly lead by business or 

are in transit. 

Municipality Pluzine has considerable capacities for dev elopment of tourism. Special 

v alue represents cany ons of Piv a, Tara, Komarnica, and Susica. All of these four 

cany ons were formed by fluv ial erosion. Canyon of Tara represents both natural and 

tourist attraction. This is the second largest canyon in the world, especially interesting for 

rafting. Riv er Piva also formed a deep cany on, but the largest part of it w as sinked due 

to the HE “Piv a” construction. The HE influenced disappearance of the Pivsko Lake with 

the largest accumulation of drinking w ater. Komarnica and Susica with their cany ons are 

attracting tourists as w ell. Special v alues of this area are the natural lakes Trnov acko, 

Stabanjaska and Skrcka. 

5 - 27


5.4.4. Mining industry 

24 ty pes of raw mineral ty pes w ere discov ered in Montenegro. Among them, there are 

energetic, metallic, non-metallic raw materials, construction material and subterranean 

mineral and potable water. 

Coal is the only energy raw source that is being ex ploited in Montenegro. Black lignite, 

w ith geological reserves of 256 million tons and balance reserv es of 225, and 

ex ploitation reserves of 200 million tons are concentrated in Pljev lja area. The 

ex ploitation occurs in Pljevlja and Borovica. Through the past, Pljev lja has been an 

important energy centre because of its coal mine and power plant “Pljevlja”. The coal 

mine is the biggest employment facility in Pljev lja, w hich has been a booster for 

dev elopment in this area. The biggest production w as registered in 1985 w hen 

2,700,000 tons of lignite w as ex tracted. Pow er plant “Pljevlja” operates since 1985, and 

now adays produces 40% of electric energy in Montenegro. 

Deposits of black coal are concentrated in Berane, with geological reserv es of 156 

million tons. Black coal is being ex ploited in Petnjik area, w here 31,6 million tons of 

reserv es hav e been recorded (exploitativ e reserv es of 23,5 million tons). Infrastructure of 

this mine provides opportunity for long term production. 

Mercury was discovered on some locations and the most important sites are near 

Mojkov ac and Sav nik. 

Barite is raw source of strategic importance, and has the biggest application in rocket 

and chemical industries. The deposits Potkov ac (near Pljev lja) are estimated to 762,000 

tons. 

Travertine stone is a good noise and thermal-insulator which is why it is used for 

cov ering interiors of buildings. The most known deposit is in Šavnik, w hich is only partly 

ex ploited. Geological reserv es of 506,000 m² make good prospects for possible long 

term production. 

Non-combustible clays are located in Pljev lja’s coal basin, as the coal mine’s waste 

material, and in the deposits of w hite baux ite. Geological reserves are estimated at 

about 18,7 million USD, w hile the balance reserv es are about 12 million USD. 

Brick clays are attached to coal basins of Pljev lja and Berane, and near Kolasin. 

5.4.5. Handicrafts 

Traditional, handmade products made of natural materials - w ood, wool, honey comb, fur 

and clay - used to be a necessary part of every household. Today these products are 

v ery rare, and cannot be easily found in souv enir shops. The production of souv enirs 

has difficulties ty pical for the w hole industry in Montenegro (lack of markets and suitable 

credits, high tax es etc.). 

The most v aluable traditional handicrafts w ithin the Northern Montenegro Green Belt are 

those made of w ood. Despite all the difficulties, w ood crafting has surviv ed in this region 

and needs further support in order not to disappear. 

The Green Belt, in w hich liv estock industry, especially sheep breeding, is one of the 

most important industrial occupations, faces a v ery specific problem: w ool from a large 

number of bred sheep is being throw n as w aste material or burned. That has negativ e 

effects on the env ironment (air pollution for eg.). Wool collecting and reprocessing for 

5 - 28


souv enir production w ould therefore be v aluable. Sheep farmers and w ool artisans are 

few numbering this area, and there is no organization, which would gather or support 

them. 

Traditional exploitation of natural resources 

Traditional economic activ ities are determined by natural conditions: 

- av ailable natural resources (wood, farmland, pastures, w ater, forest) 

- geomorphologic conditions (mountains) 

- climatic conditions (fresh mountain climate, long snowy winters with snow drifts). 

Below are listed only those traditional products w hich hav e not y et disappeared, 

although there w as, until recently , a big threat that they w ould die out throughout the 

processes of industrialisation and abandonment of rural areas: 

- cattle breeding linked to mountain pastures (sheep and cattle - goat breeding w as 

forbidden for a long time in order to preserv e woods); 

- milk and dairy products: kajmak or stari skorup (the milk cream prepared in 

traditional w ay ), cheese (prljo or tv rdi), fat cheese, div erse milk cheeses, sour milk, 

sour w hey, w hey, curdled milk, butter, many products with local names - zetica, urda, 

buca, jomuza, kacamak; 

- cereal products: barley bread, ry e bread, wheat bread, sukaca (guzv ara), pita 

izljev usa (brkanica), zeljanica, heljdija, etc.; 

- w ool spinning and knitting (socks), w eaving on w eaving looms (hats, heavy 

blankets), and sarenice (colourful rugs); 

- production of jams and fruit juices from forest fruits (raspberries and w ild 

straw berries); 

- production of sljiv ovica (plum brandy ) using old sorts of blue plums; 

- riv er mills w here w heat and corn used to be ground (today there are just a few 

preserv ed and renew ed mills); 

- logging; 

- saw-mills; 

- w ood handicrafts (barrels, chairs, and other useful objects); 

- ex ploitation of building stone, gravel and clay; 

- collecting of medicinal and aromatic herbs; 

- honey production; 

- hiking, rock-climbing, hunting, and recreational fishing on rivers in the country side. 

Cultural heritage is rich in the Green Belt Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije landscape but it is not 

used as a base for sustainable dev elopment or tourism. There are a great number of 

cultural monuments, w hich have not been adequately valued, and their research, 

maintenance, and renov ation hav e been neglected. These are archaeological sites, 

numerous churches, mosques, and chapels, Turkish forts, old schools, old pasture 

cottages, mills on riv ers, and other. 

5 - 29


5.4.6. Traffic 

The traffic infrastructure can be div ided into three areas: 

- Area of Bjelasica, 

- Area of Durmitor, and 

- Area of Prokletije. 

The area of Bjelasica (Kolasin, Mojkovac, and Berane) has fav ourable geographical 

conditions. The main regional and local roads cross this particular area: 

1) Adriatic road (Main road M2-E65/E80), w hich connects Kolasin, Mojkov ac, and 

Berane w ith central (Podgorica), southern (Petrov ac, Herceg-Nov i) and eastern (Rozaje) 

parts of Montenegro, and Kosovo (Kosovska Mitrovica); 

2) Main road (E760) Ribarev ine-Bijelo Polje-Prijepolje-Beograd; 

3) Main road Kolasin-Matesevo–Andrijev ica–Pec, which connects Montenegro and 

Kosov o. Andrijev ica to Peć section is not in function at the moment; 

4) Regional roads: Berane–Andrijev ica and Bioce–Lijev a Rijeka–Matesevo. 

Besides the road traffic, this touristic destination is crossed by railw ay Beograd-Bar. The 

railw ay is in bad condition, with slow speed, badly equipped and not maintained. 

The nearest airport is in Podgorica, 75 kilometers from the Bjelasica area. 

The area of Durmitor (Žabljak, Šavnik, Pluzine) 

The road passing Drina–Scepan Polje–Pluzine–Niksic–Podgorica–Bozaj-Albanian 

border, does not include Zabljak, primary tourist spot in this area. 

Regional traffic ways that cross Durmitor area are: 

1) Pljev lja-The bridge on riv er Tara-Mojkovac, which connects w ith the Adriatic road; 

2) Regional road that connects Zabljak, Sav nik, and Niksic; 

3) Regional road Zabljak–Trsa-Pluzine. 

Besides generally bad traffic structure, the big problem w ith these roads (as in all other 

areas) represents their w inter maintenance. Snow cov er in Durmitor area is usually v ery 

high and it is often that Žabljak and nearby municipalities get isolated from the rest of the 

country. 

Area of Prokletije (Plav and Rozaje) 

The road netw ork in this area consists of: 

1) Adriatic road Croatia–Herceg Nov i–Kotor–Tiv at–Petrov ac–Podgorica Mojkov ac– 

Ribarev ine–Berane–Rozaje–Kosovska Mitrov ica; 

2) Main road Kolasin–Andrijev ica–Murino–Pec (the way from Murina is not currently 

opened); 

5 - 30


3) Regional roads: Berane–Andrijev ica, Rozaje–Kula (border of UNMIK Kosovo), and 

Murino–Plav –Gusinje. 

All the abov e mentioned roads are, with rare ex ceptions, in very bad condition. Regional 

roads actually do not hav e necessary features of the usual regional road. There is no 

railw ay in Prokletije area and the nearest railw ay stations are Kolasin and Bijelo Polje. 

The nearest airport is in Podgorica. Berane has the airport, but it is not in function. 

5.4.7. Water resource management 

5.4.7.1. Rivers and lakes 

Montenegro is one of the richer countries in the w orld in terms of w ater resource. The 

riv ers of Montenegro belong to tw o watersheds: the Adriatic Sea (the southern part or 

47,5% of the territory ), and the Black Sea (the Northern part or 52,5% of the territory ). 

The rivers Lim, Piva, Tara, Ćehotina, and Ibar belong to the Black Sea watershed. Main 

feature of these riv ers is that they have fast flow s, creating a big potential for 

construction of small hydroelectric power plants. Besides riv ers, Northern Montenegro is 

cov ered by many lakes, natural as well as some artificial. Artifical lakes are made due to 

generation of energy (pow er plants). 

5.4.7.<strong>2.</strong> Water supply 

The capacities of the ex isting w ater pipelines of Andrijev ica, Berane, Bijelo Polje, 

Kolasin, and Pluzine, are enough for long-term w ater supply of population and 

industries. The conditions in Šav nik and Zabljak are satisfactory, and currently , there is 

no need to connect Zabljak pipeline to additional settlements. Plav , Gusinje, and Rozaje 

pipelines are fulfilling all water demands. The situation is dissatisfy ing in Pljev lja because 

of insufficient quantities of w ater, as w ell as problematic water quality . 

The problem of w ater supply is present in rural settlements and nomadic mountain hut 

settlements on karstic terrains. 

5.4.7.3. Sewage system and wastewater treatment 

Some urban settlements in Northern Montenegro, which hav e sewage systems, often let 

their w astew aters directly into rivers. In this regard, the rivers Cehotina and Lim are 

especially affected by pollution from Pljev lja, Plav, Andrijevica, Berane, and Bijelo Polje. 

The same refers to riv er Ibar, polluted by sew age of Rozaje. Important steps hav e been 

taken in order to protect Tara from pollution coming from Mojkovac sewage system, and 

similar actions have been undertaken in Kolasin. Further on, there is constant leak of 

untreated w aters from Pluzine sewage into Lake Piv a accumulation. The sewage of 

Žabljak is also problematic, w ith leaks into cliffs that drain through Bijela sources on the 

right banks of river Tara. 

Elimination of industrial w astew aters has been solv ed in different w ays, and it varies 

from factory to factory . Purification of tox ic w aters, w hich are coming from galv anization 

5 - 31


and metal processing factory is provided in Mojkovac, Kotor, Bijelo Polje, Cetinje, Niksic, 

and Pljev lja. How ev er, large number of industrial sewages is harming their surroundings. 

5.4.7.4. Hydro energy 

Montenegro has electric pow er plants in sev eral locations. In the north, they are in Lijeva 

Rijeka (Kolasin), HE “Piv a”, “Perucica”, and HE in Šav nik. Installed pow er at HE brings 

out 8.92 MW w ith av erage y ear’s production of 21,2GWh. Tw ice thirds of the ov erall 

electrical energy supply are produced in big electric pow er stations Perucica and Piv a, 

and one third in thermal plant Pljev lja. 

So, far, the ex perts have identified 70 potential locations for building mini electric pow er 

plants, w ith the ov erall power of 231,72W, and expected y early production of 643Wh. 

This would decrease the import of energy from abroad, which is currently necessary. 

5.4.7.5. Fishing 

Freshw ater fishing in Montenegro covers: 

- Fishing at Skadar Lake 

- Sport - recreation fishing 

- Fishing in fishponds. 

Montenegro has 21 fishing organizations that prov ide fishing licenses. Fishing is v ery 

common and widespread, w ith special emphasis on sport fishing in the Northern areas. 

Fishing in fishponds has developed in the last y ears. In northern Montenegro, fishponds 

are located in these municipalities: 

- ''Aqua d' Or'' – Pluzine 

- ''Fishing pond'' – Savnik 

- ''Fishing pond Buce'' – Berane 

- ''Trebaljevo'' – Kolasin 

The majority of fishponds are inhabited by trout and breed warm w ater ty pes of fish. 

5.4.7.6. Bottling plants for drinking water 

Montenegro has many sources of healthy drinking w ater, most of w hich are located in 

the Northern part. There are many possibilities for production of bottled drinking w ater in 

this area. Two factories for w ater production ex ist in the w hole Montenegro. “Gorska” 

w as opened in 2001 and it is the first such industry. It takes water from the source “Veliki 

Maljen” in the v illage Gornja Bukov ica Šav nik. The source is located in southern ranges 

of Durmitor NP at 1,295 metres abov e sea lev el. It is entirely phy sically protected from 

possible negativ e influences of ex terior area. In one y ear, “Gorska” capacities rose from 

2,5 to 3,5 millions of litres. The second “Gorska” factory for the production and bottling of 

w ater is in the process of opening. The source is called Ropusica and it is located in 

v illage Plana near Kolasin. 

5 - 32

5.4.8. Waste disposal 


Communal waste disposal is generally treated inappropriately . Instead of disposing 

w aste on sanitary land fields, w aste is piling up often near highw ays and water streams, 

or adjacent to settlements. In this w ay, the w aste influences underground w ater systems. 

The w aste disposal of TE “Pljevlja” – ash and cinder has already polluted air and w ater. 

A w aste disposal in Gradac near Pljevlja w as formed on the banks of Cehotina, w ithout 

any precaution measures against w aste influencing the underground w ater system. 

Brskov o in Mojkovac endangers Tara River in a similar way. 

5 - 33


6.1. Introductory Notes 

The region of Green Belt in Montenegro is mainly high mountain region intercepted w ith 

numerous riv er cany ons and v alleys. The peaks of Durmitor and Prokletije reach more 

than 2,000 metres abov e sea level. There are many low er mountains betw een Durmitor 

and Prokletije: Sinjajev ina, Bjelasica, Komovi, Maglic, Moracke, and Pivske mountains. 

This complex relief structure prov ides plenty of w ater flow s, streams and riv ers, such as 

Tara, Lim, Piv a, Komarnica, Moraca, and Cehotina. 

Thanks to its geographical position and relief 

structure, this region prov ides w ide range of 

ecological conditions. The climate v aries from 

w arm Mediterranean to cold high mountain 

climate. Thus, almost all ty pes of climate that are 

ty pical for Europe, occur in this region. High 

amount of w ater and presence of almost all ty pes 

of soils prov ide ex tremely good basis for div ersity 

of flora. The precise number of plant tax a is not 

know n but some presumptions are that about 

2,500 tax a occur in this region. On 600 km 2 of 

Durmitor massif, the number of plant tax a is 1,500. 

The presence of almost all-possible combinations 

of ecological factors prov ides high plant endemism in this region. There are about 250 

endemic tax a, some of w hich are endemic Balkan-wide, and the others in Montenegro. 

Geological history of this region also play s an important role for plant richness. During 

the sev eral last ice ages, the w hole Europe w as under ice caps several times. The only 

places where the soil was not frozen for the majority of time were the southernmost parts 

of Iberian, Apennine and Balkan Peninsula. The deep cany ons of Montenegrin Green 

Belt w ere important refuge places for most of the European plant species, especially for 

those that inhabit the northern part of the continent. When the climate w as restored, 

those plants migrated to northern part of the continent but some of them ascended to the 

surrounding mountains w here they found appropriate liv ing conditions. Those are the 

glacial relict species and some of them hav e further ev olved in this area. 

Normally, plant richness leads to animal species 

richness. Low population density prov ides relativ ely 

safe and peaceful liv ing env ironment to those 

animals. The absence of heavy pollution (w ater, soil 

or air pollution) and highly structured and 

inaccessible terrain giv es to animals almost perfect 

liv ing conditions. 

Those facts w ere w ell recognized at national lev el 

and in the area of Montenegrin Green Belt there are 

tw o National Parks. Durmitor and Biogradska Gora 

are both mountainous National Parks. In the last 10 y ears, tw o other regions have been 

suggested for National Park designation, mountains of Komov i and mountains of


Prokletije. Although Komov i and Prokletije are not NPs, certain lev els of protection ex ist 

in some areas - natural monuments, protected areas of biological importance, natural 

reserv es, or other. The total surface of the Northern Montenegro Green Belt area is 

5,024 km 2 . 

6.2 Biodiversity assessment methodology and criteria 

To assess biological diversity in the GB area w e have organized sev eral meetings 

inv olving the most recognized Montenegrin scientists. Each ex pert w as responsible for 

one group of organisms (eg. plants, forests, fish, birds, butterflies etc.) or habitat. The 

selection of target species in each group of organisms w as based on agreed criteria. 

The follow ing tax a or habitat ty pes w ere considered in this Study : 

1. Forests 

<strong>2.</strong> High mountain lakes 

3. Vascular plants 

4. Macromycetes 

5. Large mammals 

6. Birds 

7. Fishes 

8. Inv ertebrates (butterflies) 

These eight categories w ere selected because they w ere deemed representativ e of the 

biodiv ersity of the Northern Montenegro Green Belt and because overall knowledge 

about them ex isted among the contacted ex perts. Other tax a w ere considered important 

and representativ e for the study area, but they could not be included because of data 

lack. 

For each of the eight categories (groups of organisms), focal species of habitat ty pes 

w ere selected based on agreed criteria, as explained below. 

6.<strong>2.</strong>1. Target species 

Each of the eight category was described through the selection of target (or focal) 

species or communities. In this Study , the target species for v ascular plants, 

macromicetes, large mammals, birds, fishes and inv ertebrates w ere selected if those 

species met some or more of the follow ing criteria: 

1. Endemism: species which are endemic for this area (at least Balkan endemics); 

<strong>2.</strong> Border population: if species population is also the border population for w hole 

species liv ing area; 

3. Conserv ation status: if species is recognized for their rarity at national lev el 

(protected by national legislation) or if species is internationally designated as 

endangered (IUCN conserv ation status); 

4. Position in food chain: if species is on top of the food chain (final predator species);


5. Indicator species: if species indicates the quality of environment, quality of soil, 

w ater or air; 

6. Migratory species: species which migrate from one habitat to another in GB zone or 

if GB zone is on migratory trajectory of some species; 

7. Informatory : if species is not widespread in the w hole region, if species occurs in 

some parts of the region and if there is some isolated population w ith potentially 

different population parameters (different morphology , different population DNA 

structure etc.). 

For determination of presence and locality of species (poly gons of presence) in GB area, 

w e used literature data and personal ex perience. To do this, we had to adapt the 

av ailable methodologies for biodiv ersity ev aluation, considering the shortage of 

published <strong>information</strong> for the study area, the spatial coarseness of the av ailable data, 

and the need to prov ide the most realistic data and results. The reason for choosing this 

approach, selecting a relativ ely high number of species, is that it increases the 

probability of representing a bigger range of complementary ecological requirements, 

thus encompassing a variety of valuable habitat ty pes. 

6.<strong>2.</strong><strong>2.</strong> Target habitats 

Most of the habitats in need of conserv ation hav e been chosen through the use or 

through the presence of target species. Two habitat ty pes were selected as separate 

categories because they were considered ex tremely important for the study area: forests 

and high mountain lakes. The habitat ty pe of forests w as chosen because of their 

complex ity and their important for this part of Montenegro. The habitat of high mountain 

lakes was chosen because of its ex treme vulnerability and importance for the 

surrounding ecosystem. 

6.<strong>2.</strong>3. Mapping and evaluation of biodiversity 

For biodiv ersity assessment, data on the occurrence of each species was mapped by 

using the basic map resolution of 1:300000 (Descriptiv e-topographic map, Military 

Geographic Institute, 1998) and stored in a Geographic Information Sy stem (ArcGis). 

The ex perts were responsible for mapping their agreed group of organisms or habitat 

ty pes. 

To identify biodiv ersity hotspots and corridors in the Montenegrin Green Belt, the 

indiv idual distribution maps of target species and habitats w ere combined to depict 

spatial trends in biodiv ersity . We have chosen to map in slightly w ider poly gons because 

of population dy namics and dy namics of the ecosy stems and their interactions. 

How ev er, this was rather difficult, as mentioned earlier, due to v ery sporadic research in 

the past, and therefore the maps are partly based on ex perts’ ex perience and 

know ledge. 

For each of the eight categories of organisms, one map was produced. For ex ample, the 

areas important for all the focal fish species w ere marked on the same map. Each map 

represented one lay er in the biodiv ersity assessment (see Chapter 7). We have chose to 

map in slightly w ider poly gons because of population dy namic and dy namic of 

ecosystems and their interactions among theme. How ever, this w as rather difficult, as


mentioned earlier, due to v ery sporadic research in the past and those maps partly were 

based on our ex perience and knowledge. 

Furthermore, giv en the relativ ely coarse scale at w hich the areas important for each 

tax on or habitat ty pe were selected (1:300.000), the boundaries of the poly gons 

identified by the experts were approximate and not finely draw n 

Basic distribution maps include: 

• Distribution of target forests ty pes (Map 6.7.) 

• Distribution of high mountain lakes (Map 6.4.) 

• Distribution of v ascular plants target species (Map 6.1.) 

• Distribution of Macromycetes (fungi) target species (Map 6.<strong>2.</strong>) 

• Distribution of mammal target species (Map 6.6.) 

• Distribution of Birds (IBAs, Important Bird Areas) (Map 6.5) 

• Distribution of fish target species (Map 6.4.) 

• Distribution of butterfly target species (Map 6.3) 

6.3. Priority conservation targets 

If data related to target species are old, rare, unequal, and if no data ex ist on their 

populations, it is difficult to produce detailed analy sis. For ex ample, the mammal target 

species Lynx sp. has never been detected in Montenegro by professionals (scientific 

papers), but there were some individuals caught by hunters (photographs, prepared 

animals, prepared fur). Ev en more, the Lynx sp. distribution is totally unknow n, and w e 

w ere forced to respect the fact that hunters hav e occasionally been seeing Lynx sp.. We 

attempted, using our ex perience and knowledge, to filtrate and to correlate data w ith the 

purpose of being as close as possible to the field situation. It is clear that some ex tra 

efforts should be made to fund, moderate and implement further research and 

monitoring. 

6.3.1 Target habitats 

Considering the fact that there is still no standard catalogue of 

all habitats in Montenegro, and that present habitat records are 

not in concordant w ith international standards (the first phase 

of Emerald project in Montenegro is currently being 

implemented), we tried to select several habitats by their 

importance. We agreed that for this Study our target habitats 

should be forests (especially forests that consist of endemic 

and important tree species) and high mountain lakes (because 

of their v ulnerability and importance for increasing of 

biodiv ersity ). Both ty pes of habitats hav e been relativ ely well 

researched in the past and data for them are relativ ely 

accurate, especially the spatial boundaries.


Forest habitats 

In forest ecosy stems of GB in Montenegro w e decided to select communities (habitats) 

in w hich at least one of the constituent species are: 

Acer heldreichii 

Pinus heldreichii 

Pinus mugo 

Pinus peuce. 

Those species are endemic for Balkan Peninsula or are relict species (tertiary ) for this 

region. 

Map 6.7. Distribution of target forest ty pes 

High mountain lakes habitats 

In high mountain lakes zone of the Montenegrin GB, w e hav e selected only the glacial 

lakes. Those lakes are mainly located in altitudes of more than 1,000 m abov e the sea 

lev el and they are different in size. On Durmitor massif there are more than 15 glacial 

lakes, but the biggest and the most important lakes in GB zone are Plavsko Lake, 

Biogradsko Lake, Crno Lake, and Kapetanov o Lake. All of them, including more than 20 

smaller lakes, represent important resource for surrounding forest and meadow 

ecosystems and contribute in increasing of local biodiv ersity . For details see Map 6.4.

6.3.2 Target species 

Flora 


In addition to the four tree species that w ere chosen for the forest habitat selection, the 

follow ing vascular plants are marked as target species: 

Campanula secundiflora Vis. Et Panč. 

The habitat of this paleo–endemic species is restricted to w estern Serbia and southeastern 

Montenegro. This rear plant that liv es in rock rifts of limestone cany ons, is 

recorded in riv er Lim canyon on the border w ith Serbia, w hich is its southernmost 

habitat. According to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants, this species is marked as 

category EN (endangered) 1 . Its population is small but stable. Now adays, the factor that 

endangers this species is unknown. The plant is not listed in the national list of protected 

plants, although the ex perts believ e it should find its place in it. 

Daphne malyana Blečić 

This species is south-eastern Dinaric endemic plant species (Montenegro and Bosnia 

and Herzegov ina) w hose locus classicus is in Piv a canyon. Daphne malyana is also 

present in Komarnica, Susica and Tara canyons. The species is protected by national 

legislation, while in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants, carries category VU 

(v ulnerable). Because of Piv a dam construction the hy dro-accumulation submerged 

most of the canyon and destroy ed noticeable part of this plants’ population. The 

populations in other cany ons are still stable. Except submerging of cany ons, the 

negativ e factors influencing this species are unknown. 

Androsace mathildae Levier 

This species is recorded only at one locality (Kucki Kom). Before this finding, the ex perts 

believ ed this species is endemic for the National Park Abruzzo in Italy. The species is in 

Annex IIb of the Habitat Directiv e and in the Annex of Bern Conv ention, so this species 

is regionally endangered and important. The finding locality in Montenegro is the only 

one on Balkan peninsula. Population is small but stable. This is high – mountain species 

w hich grows on inaccessible terrains, so there are no factors that affect it negativ ely . Our 

opinion is that in the follow ing rev ision of the list of protected plant species in 

Montenegro, this species should be listed. 

Cypripedium calceolus L. 

This species is recorded only in Durmitor NP, in the Nature Reserv e Crna Poda w hich 

has the best preserved forest of black pine. The finding area in Montenegro is one of the 

smaller localities of this species’ habitat. The species is in Annex IIb of the Habitat 

1 For the full explanation of IUCN Red List Categories, please visit www.iucn.org/themes/ssc.


Directiv e, in Annex I of the Bern Convention, 

and it is protected by CITES, so it has a 

regional character (Europe). The IUCN 

category is VU. The population is v ery small, 

so collecting of plants could pose a threat to it. 

This species has been recorded in 

Montenegro after the formation of the national 

list of protected plant species. That is why this species is not included in this document. 

Protoedraianthus tarae (Lakušič) Lakušić 

This species, as the w hole genus Protoedraianthus, is endemic for Montenegro. The 

only finding place of this plant is the Tara cany on and the national conserv ation status is 

R (rare). It has stable but small numbered population and considering that it is local 

Montenegrin endemic species with narrow (small) habitat, it is necessary to place this 

species in the national list of protected plants. 

Silene m acrantha (Pančić) Neumayer 

The liv ing area of this species is related to the 

south-eastern Dinaric Mountains, w ith locus 

classicus in Montenegrin Komovi. It is ty pical 

species of endemic association Valeriano- 

Silenetum macranthae Lakušić, and its habitat 

is rifts in limestone bluffs of the sub-alpine and 

alpine regions. The species is protected by 

law and carries the national category R. The 

population size is stable. 

Selected species for monitoring 

These are flora and fauna species w hich should be used as objects for monitoring of the 

certain identified core biodiv ersity areas. This means that those species should be 

researched on population lev el. The quality of their population should be the informativ e 

for the quality status of those ecosystems. 

The species Daphne malyana and Protoedraianthus tarae are specified for monitoring.


Map 6. 1. Distribution of v ascular plants target species 

Fungi 

The follow ing species were selected as target species for macromycetes. 

Gomphus clavatus (Pers.) Gray 

This species is of international importance, by our opinion and by the 

fact that this species is on ECCF list of the Bern Conv ention. This 

species is also on ING EU Red List in category A, w ith highest 

protection needs, on LIZON EU Red List as w ell as in the Preliminary 

Red List of macromy ceta of Montenegro. It is on the list of species for 

mapping and monitoring in the EU, suggested by ECCF- European 

Council for Conserv ation of Fungi, and on the list of fungi species for 

mapping by OPTIMA project – fungi section. For now, this species is 

found only in Durmitor NP in Žabljak surroundings. We believ e that this species possibly 

inhabits the area of Zabojsko Lake and Tepca. 

Hygrophorus marzuolus (Fr.) Bres. 

This species is on ING EU Red List categorized in group D, species that 

is locally decreasing, somewhere ex tinct w ith low er protection needs. It 

is on the list of species for mapping and monitoring in EU, suggested by 

ECCF and on the list of fungi species for mapping by OPTIMA project –


fungi section. This species is in the Preliminary Red List of macromyceta of Montenegro. 

For now, this species has been found tw o times in the Green Belt zone, and possible 

new localities for this species are surroundings of Zminje Lake, Bistrica, and Biogradsko 

Lake. Our opinion is that this species is of international and local (Montenegro) 

importance. 

Strobilomyces strobilaceus (Scop.) Berk. (= Strobilomyces floccopus (Vahl) P. Karst.) 

This species is on ING EU Red List, categorized in group C. It is 

w idely spread but has diffuse and disconnected populations w ith less 

ex tinction and w ith low er protection needs. It is on the list of species 

for mapping and monitoring in EU, suggested by ECCF and on the 

list of fungi species for mapping by OPTIMA project – fungi section. 

This species is in the Preliminary Red List of macromyceta of 

Montenegro. For now, this species has been found tw ice in the 

Green Belt zone, and possible new localities are surroundings of 

Zabojsko Lake and Trasnjev ik. It is considered as internationally 

important species. 

Selected species for monitoring: Based on regional and local important as w ell as on 

habitat and ecosystem preferential, the species Gomphus clavatus is selected for 

monitoring. 

Map 6.<strong>2.</strong> Distribution of fungi target species

Fauna 

Butterflies 


The follow ing species were selected as target species for butterflies. 

Parnasius apollo dardanus Rebel 

This is an endemic species recorded in Prokletije Mountains (Visitor and Gusinje areas), 

and know n also in the Serbian part of Prokletije (Metohijske Prokletije). The species 

Parnasius apollo is under international protection (European Red List of Globally 

Threatened Animals and Plants, Geneva 1991). 

Erebia manto osmanica Schawerda 

It is an endemic species, know n from Cakor (including Serbian part) and nearby Gusinje 

(Karanfili). Another record is on Trebevic (Sarajev o). 

Erebia cassioides Hoch 

This species is ty pical glacial relict; in Green Belt area it is represented w ith subspecies 

Ilirica Lorkov ic, 1953. 

Boloria pales contempta Rubel und Zerny 

This species occurs in Durmitor mountains and it is ty pical glacial relict species. 

Adscita statices statices L 

This is an ex pansiv e species w ith Ponto- Mediterranean ty pe of ex pansion. 


Erebia cassioides Hoch, from family of Saturydae, is the most suitable species for longterm 

monitoring. This is ty pical glacial relict species which inhabits the highest mountain 

zone - for ex ample on Prokletije Mountain it liv es in the zone of 2,000m – 2,656m of 

altitude. This zone corresponds to the 1,800m – 2,523m of altitude on Durmitor 

Mountain.


Map 6.3. Distribution of butterfly target species 

Fish 

Salmo marmoratus (marble trout) 

This species is endemic for eastern and northern parts of Adriatic region, from river Po in 

Italy to the Albanian riv er Drim. This species is on the top of the food chain, as final 

predator in Adriatic system’s rivers. The IUCN conserv ation status is LC (least concern), 

but this species is highly endangered in Montenegro and national conserv ation status for 

this fish is EN (endangered). Marble trout is a good indicator for clean, oxygen rich fresh 

w aters, and also for healthy Adriatic (karst) river ecosystem. In the Adriatic riv ers (Po, 

Soca, Neretv a, Moraca, and Drim), this species is represented w ith populations that are 

genetically separated and slightly morphologically 

different (unpublished data). During the last 15–20 

y ears, the populations of marble trout had 

ex tremely decreasing trend in Montenegro. The 

species is under threat due to ov er-fishing, fishing 

w ith forbidden tools (underw ater fishing, electrofishing, 

fishing w ith nets, fishing in spaw ning 

period, and fishing of small indiv iduals), and 

absence of good riv er management.

Leuciscus montenegrinus (varione) 


This species is endemic for the riv er Moraca drainage sy stem, the steno-endemic 

species ty pical only for this part of the Balkan peninsula. The species is feeding on 

inv ertebrates and it is positioned as primary predator, but it presents food for big trout. In 

the summer months, this species can represent 20-25% of biomass in the upper part of 

Moraca river. In spring it migrates upstream from low er course (w intering habitats) to the 

upper course (summering habitats), and in late autumn it migrates dow nstream. The 

population number of this species is going up, due to low fishery v alue and interest, and 

due to decrease of trout population number, their natural predators. 

Hucho hucho (river huchen) 

This species is endemic for Danube drainage system and Balkan peninsula. Riv er Sava 

drainage is one of the most important habitats of this fish species. The species is 

endangered and according to IUCN, the conservation status is EN A2bcde, B1+2bce, 

w hat is in concordance w ith suggested national conserv ation status. In the area of 

Montenegrin Green Belt, the Black Sea drainage rivers are one of the most important 

spaw ning areas for this species. The upper stream of riv er Tara and Plavsko Lake are 

the southernmost natural (nativ e) populations’ position for this species worldw ide. This is 

the terminal predator species and their presence indicates the health of the riv er 

ecosystem. Like most of trout, it is also indicator of pure and oxy gen rich w ater. The 

population trend of this fish species w as decreasing in the last 15–20 y ears. Like for the 

marble trout, the ov er–fishing, fishing with forbidden tools (electro gear fishing, dynamite 

fishing, underw ater fishing, using of nets in riv ers and lakes, etc), and non-adequate 

management are the main reasons for the low population number of this species. 

Thymallus thymallus (grayling) 

This species is widely distributed in Europe. It is one of the best indicators for ex tremely 

clean and oxygen rich fresh w ater (almost drinkable water). The species is ty pical for the 

w hole Black Sea riv er system but the populations from upper stream of Tara Riv er and 

Ljuca Riv er (tributary to Plav sko Lake) are the w orld’s southernmost natural distribution. 

Those populations are border populations and isolated. Those border populations are 

important because they have different DNA structure from the “core” populations, 

important for the species v ariety, w hich is the most important factor for the species 

surv iv al. Although this fish is present in almost w hole courses of riv ers Tara, Lim, and 

Cehotina, the focus is in southern courses (upper course of Tara Riv er and river Ljuca). 

The population trend is stable and on relativ ely high level. This fish species is ex tremely 

sensible to w ater pollution, but in the region of the southernmost areas (upper course of 

Tara Riv er and riv er Ljuca), water is clear and drinkable, so the pollution is not a threat 

for those populations. Like for other trout species, inadequate management and overfishing 

are the main threats to these populations. Fishing in spaw ning season, fishing 

w ith forbidden tools, and no implementation of allow ed measures for fishing ex emplars, 

are the main reasons for low population numbers of this fish.



The target fish species for monitoring in the Montenegrin Green Belt is huchen Hucho 

hucho. This species is present in the Black Sea drainage system, which covers more 

than 90 % of the w hole Montenegrin Green Belt territory . 

Structure could indicate on some ecological problems such are pollution or habitat 

dev astation. This species is also one of the top fishing trophy in Europe and it is under 

the high fishing pressure (both, sport fisherman and poachers) and beside monitoring 

this species require specific and sustainable species management. 

Map 6.4. Distribution of fish target species and high mountain lakes 

Birds 

In these tax a, because of their div ersity 

richness and mobility, it w as hard to 

identify target species as well as to map 

their distribution. Bird communities are 

mainly restricted to specific ecosystems 

and the richness of their communities 

v aries in different y ear periods. The 

presence of w ater ecosystems (natural 

or artificial lakes, big riv ers) generally 

increases the richness of bird 

communities. During the migratory 

period, the div ersity of birds in some


ecosystems also increases. In order to av oid all these obstacles, and to hav e as much 

as is possible realistic data that w ould cov er the general bird div ersity – area 

characteristics, w e have chosen the ecosystem approach. For bird tax a, w e selected 

IBAs as places where ornithological div ersity is special comparing to other Montenegrin 

GB zones. There are three IBAs in the GB, the Prokletije, Bjelasica, and Durmitor 

mountains, with Tara canyon. 

Map 6.5. Distribution of Birds (IBAs, Important Bird Areas) 

Mammals 

Ursus arctos Brown bear 

Brow n bear is selected as indicator of forest 

ecosystem quality. This species indicates 

healthy forests of all ty pes, but mainly it is 

related to all ty pes of beech and oak forests. 

Bear is omniv orous and the biggest species 

w hich inhabits Montenegrin Green Belt forests 

and it is an umbrella species. Bears live in huge 

areas and because of their food needs, the 

number of bears in this zone should not be ov er 

150. Although brow n bear is w ell distributed in 

the Green Belt of Montenegro, the ex act 

number is completely unknown due to the 

absence of fieldw ork data. Therefore, the


species management is also absent. The species is not under legal protection, but 

hunting legislativ e forbids hunting of brow n bear. This species is distributed in mountains 

of Komov i (Kucki Kom, Vasojevicki Kom, Žijevo, Kariman, V. Šilo, and Vila), Prokletije 

(Suv i vrh, V. Mojan, Ilina Glav a, Zeltin na Golesu, Visitor, Lipov ica, Trojan, Karanfili, 

Bogicev ica, Starac, Djev ojacki krs), Lisac, Ljubisnja, Sinjajev ina, Bjelasica, Moracke 

planine (Zav odiste, Lastv a, Stozac, Bodiguz, Lijevno, Štit, and Piv ske planine (Maglic, 

Volujak, Lebrsnik, Bioc, Vojnik, Stozac). The population trend of this mammal is 

relativ ely stable. The threats to this species are illegal hunting and destruction of natural 

forest habitats by illegal logging. The absence of good and contemporary management 

policies in hunting sector, as w ell as the species management, also poses threat to this 

species. 

Lynx spp, Lynx 

This is the rarest mammal species in the Montenegrin Green Belt and in the w hole 

country. This population is isolated border population and this animal is ty pical for the 

central European part of EU. This species indicates completely intact nature w ith no 

human impact and intact forests (mainly beech and oak forests). Lynx inhabits the 

w ildest parts of roughest mountains of the GB. The data of the Ly nx distribution come 

from sev eral hunters w ho hunted these animals and from some who saw lynx on terrain. 

The species is very discreet and is almost impossible to find. The number of population 

is completely unknow n and there is no way to giv e any estimation about it. The species 

is not under any kind of protection. It inhabits mountains of Prokletije, Komov i, Zijevo in 

Mala Rijeka canyon, and Moraca. Nobody in Montenegro has any data related to the 

population number of this species. Some hunters suppose that this number is not ov er 

20 indiv iduals, and besides the discreet nature of this animal’s behav iour, this is the 

main reason why so little people ev er saw ly nx. There are some trophy examples or fur, 

or some pictures, and those are the ev idence of lynx ’ presence in this zone. The threats 

are destruction of its habitat and human disturbance. Illegal hunting also represents a 

threat, but thanks to the fact that this species is ex tremely discreet, it is difficult to hunt it. 

Lutra lutra, Otter 

Otter is protected under national legislativ e. This is the only mammal in Montenegro 

w hich adapted to liv ing and feeding in water. The species 

indicates good conditions of riv ers and their surroundings 

(forests). This species is carniv ore and bonded to riv ers, 

w here they hunt fish for food. The otter is w ell distributed in 

the w hole region of Green Belt, in ev ery riv er v alley and 

cany on. How ev er, the ex act population number is unknown, 

but according to frequent otter marks on riverbanks, the 

populations seem to be in good shape. According to 

hunters, fishermen, and our ex perience otter population 

number has been increasing in the last 3-5 years. The main 

threats to this species are human disturbance, hunting 

because of robbing of the trout farms, and habitat 

destruction.

Rupicapra rupicapra, Chamois 


Chamois inhabits inaccessible regions of mountain cliffs, cany ons, peaks, and pastures. 

This species is an indicator of god conditions of arduous high mountain pastures, and of 

all ty pes of cany on habitats. The species is protected by national legislativ e. It inhabits 

mountains of Prokletije, Moraca, Piv a, Durmitor, the core region of Montenegrin Green 

Belt. It liv es in herds of 15–30 indiv iduals. In some parts of the Green Belt the 

populations are relativ ely stable (eg. Tara cany on, the part w hich is bordering Durmitor 

NP) but in majority of other chamois habitats, the populations are decreasing. 

Considering the fact w here this species liv es, the only threat to chamois in Montenegro 

is illegal hunting and ov er-hunting. Chamois represents one of the most attractiv e 

hunting trophies. These are the main reason w hy the number of chamois is decreasing 

in Montenegro. 

Cervus alaphus, Deer 

This is the only mammal which is reintroduced in Montenegro in 1953 in the Biogradska 

Gora NP, after the species had been hunted to ex tinction in Montenegro and w hich is its 

only habitat. The population is stable and under the NP protection. There are no threats 

to this species in the Montenegrin GB, thanks to the fact that deer liv es only in the NP 

w here all kinds of hunting activ ities and habitat destruction are forbidden. 


We suggest chamois species Rupicapra rupicapra for constant monitoring because this 

species is present in almost the w hole GB region and inhabits high mountain and 

cany on habitats w hich are one the most fragile ecosystems in Montenegro GB. This 

species, during the past 25 y ears, w as under the great hunting pressure and the ex act 

number is unknown. There is also need for further sustainable management of this 

species and long-term monitoring.


Map 6.6. Distribution of mammal target species

7. Priority Areas identification for Green Belt 

Conservation 

7.1. Biodiversity assessment results 

The w hole biodiversity assessment of the Northern Montenegro Green Belt relied on 

qualitativ e data, because of limitations in quantitativ e data av ailability and appropriate 

methodology. We have tried to deriv e consistent patterns from different maps and to 

combine these w ith field ex perience of the researchers (professional judgment) to highligh t 

the main biodiv ersity hotspots and corridors. Some more detailed analysis of biodiv ersity 

components of this region (more objective quantitativ e mapping of biodiv ersity and creating 

of more precise conservation management plans) needs to be the goal for future research. 

Criteria that are used in the biodiv ersity assessment of the Green Belt zone converged on 

fairly consistent spatial pa tterns, allowing biodiversity core areas and associated main 

corridors to be highlighted. How ever, the mapping exercise also rev ealed some data 

limitations and potential shortcomings, which should be duly considered when interpreting 

the results. Furthermore, the spatial scale and data at w hich the biodiversity assessment was 

carried out does not allow for a precise definition of geographical boundaries for the different 

areas highlighted. Thus, only general spatial trends in biodiv ersity are presented and there is 

a strong need for refining in studies that are more detailed. 

Despite all limita tions, the ne twork of core areas and corridors defined in this S tudy should 

largely reflect the real distribution of biodiversity in the Montenegrin Green Belt. 

Nev ertheless, more accurate <strong>information</strong> is needed to be more precise about area 

boundaries, and to identify the processes and activ ities w hich are critical for biodiv ersity 

conserv ation. The future dev elopment in GB zone, particularly sustainable development, 

depends on more detailed analysis and precise management planning. Those should be the 

outcomes of future studies for this region. 

7.<strong>2.</strong> Biodiversity scoring methodology 

To identify biodiv ersity hotspots and corridors in the Northern Montenegro Green Belt, the 

eight indiv idual distribution maps of target species and habita ts were combined to depict 

spatial trends in biodiversity. 

To identify biodiv ersity hotspots (or Important Biodiv ersity Areas) a set of distribu tion maps 

w as used as a base for further analysis that giv es weight to the spatial distribution of relev ant 

phenomena such as habitats, landscape features, etc. 

There are numerous mathematical methods for identification of hotspots, based on modelling 

and application of mathematical formulas, but in this Study we decided to use the 

Ov erlapping method. We used each distribution map as one lay er and by overlapping them



w e selected biodiv ersity core zones. For doing this, we used GIS (ArcGis) softw are. Each 

lay er has the same “weight” no matter w hat it represents. The selection criteria for de fining 

the core zones were the ov erlaps of at least 6 different tax a lay ers (layer of group of species, 

eg. the lay er which represents target species of v ascular plants). Those layers and the core 

zones on them were also combined w ith data related to pro tected areas, for the correlation 

purpose. The prev ious biodiv ersity and habitat maps and analy ses (EMERALD project – 

preliminary phase, Montenegrin biodiv ersity maps – USAID/CHF) w ere also consulted for 

further determination o f important parts of GB in Montenegro. The corridor zones were 

defined on functional basis. The presence of some kind of geographical or ecological 

continuum (eg. riv er v alley or canyon) was of crucial importance for corridor selection. 

7.3. Priority areas identification 

By overlapping all tax a and habitat lay ers, w e identified spaces w ith max imum ov erlapping 

as future core (priority ) areas. The preliminary ov erlapping results are shown on map 7.1. 

7 - 3



Map 7.1: Preliminary overlapping results 

As map 7.1. includes all target species from all tax a, it was not easy to analy ze it, so w e 

decided to simplify and rearrange the data v isualization. For all species within indiv idual tax a 

w e used the same colour, so for ex ample, all types of forests are show n in green. This 

produced more effectiv e and more simplified map, w hich w as more suitable for further 

analysis and core area determination (Map 7.<strong>2.</strong>). 

Map 7.2: Overlapping of tax a and habitat lay ers 

7 - 4



The definition of core areas, the areas important by biodiv ersity aspects, w as based on one 

criteria: the core zone has to hav e at least 6 tax a layers overlapping (of all 8 tax a lay ers, 80 

%) to be selected as biodiversity core zone. Map 7.3. shows the preliminary core zones (red 

line) and corridors (blue line), based on layers’ ov erlapping. 

Another w ay to show the ov erlay is to use the same colour for all lay ers and see where the 

colour becomes darker: those are the areas with higher ov erlap, M ap 7.3. 

Map 7.3: Overlapping of tax a and habitat layers w ith same color 

7 - 5



The definition of core areas and areas important by biodiversity aspects were based on one 

following criteria: the core zone has to hav e at least 6 tax on lay ers ov erlapping (of all 8 

tax on) to be selected as biodiv ersity core zone. Map 7.4. shows the preliminary core zones 

(red line) and preliminary corridors (blue line), based on layers’ ov erlapping. In addition, four 

core zones and three corridors were identified. 

Map 7.4: Preliminary core zones and corridors 

In order to define the boundaries of core zones and corridors more realistically, we did some 

further correlation of data. 

7 - 6



7.4. Priority areas and legal protection 

By ov erlapping preliminary core areas w ith the layer of ex isting protected areas (National 

Parks or Nature Parks), we have defined the preliminary GB boundaries. The overlapping is 

show n on map 7.5. It is clear that major parts of our preliminary core areas w ere under some 

kind of legal protection at the national level, the general location o f the preliminary core 

areas and corridors did not change, but their boundaries were better defined through the 

ov erlay with protected areas. 

Map 7.5: Overlapping of protected areas and core zones 

7 - 7



Correlation with previous m aps and analysis of biodiversity in Montenegrin GB zone 

With the same purpose of defining the GB boundaries, w e ov erlapped preliminary core areas 

and corridors w ith EMERALD sites (Map 7.6.), and with biodiv ersity hotspots defined in 

USAID/CHF project - Montenegro biodiv ersity hotspots (Map 7.7.). There is high 

concordance betw een the preliminary core zones and Emerald and USAID data sets. 

Map 7.6: Core zones and Emerald sites 

7 - 8



The USAID/CHF set of maps and report has been developed in the project frame 

“Biodiversity maps of Montenegro” as a follow up of Biodiversity Analysis for Serbia and 

Montenegro 2 and reflects current state of know ledge and av ailable <strong>information</strong> about key 

biodiv ersity assets and its critical habitats in Montenegro. 

The USAID/CHF comprehensiv e map of proposed and protected areas is compared with the 

results of the biodiv ersity vision for the Northern Montenegro Green Belt. 

Map 7.7: USAID biodiv ersity map and core zones (red -National Parks, blue -areas planned 

to be protected, violet-regional parks) 

2 Biodiversity Analysis for Serbia and Montenegro prepared for USAID Mission to the FRYU, 

submitted by Loren L. Schulze and the Environment Information Systems and Networking projects 

DevTech Systems, Inc, May 200<strong>2.</strong> 

7 - 9



7.5. Core zones 

Based on previous correlations, w e finally defined the boundaries of Montenegrin GB core 

zones and corridors (map 7.8.). We made boundaries more precise, defined the fifth core 

zone (mark with number 5 on nex t map) and decided to joint preliminary corridors A and B 

(see the Map 7.4.) in one corridor A. Following maps shows the final result of our analysis. 

Map 7.8: Corridors, core zones and GB boundaries 

Fiv e core zones w ere detected in the Montenegrin GB. These are zones with the highest 

biodiversity values and protection needs. Those zones should be under specific 

management and future dev elopment in them should be planned on sustainable basis. 

Areas at the border with Bosnia and Herzegov ina (North) and Albania (South) are drawn with 

graphics that indicates ecological continuity beyond borders. This will leav e the door open to 

future translational cooperation and sy nergies. The core zones are described below. 

1. Durmitor core zone 

This zone is famous for abundance of biological div ersity in the mountainous part o f 

Montenegro. It is completely w ithin the boundaries of ex isting Durmitor NP. All 8 tax a layers 

ov erlapped, and most of the targe t species could be found in it (birds, mammals, butterflies, 

fungi, plants). The plant div ersity (over 1,500 plant species) additionally affirms the 

importance of this region. 

7 - 10



<strong>2.</strong> Crna Poda core zone This zone is situated in the Tara canyon and it is already 

recognized for its v alues. Ancient forest of black pine found in Crna Poda, has the tallest 

trees in the w hole Balkan region. This forest is protected as Nature Reserve, w here all 

activ ities except scientific research are forbidden. Crna Poda is one of the finding places of 

Cypripedium calceolus (target v ascular plant species) and three of fiv e trees target species. 

We selected this core zone because of its enormous plan t richness and rarity (plant genefond). 

The Tara Riv er, as one of the ecosystems in this zone, contributes to this zone’s 

complex ity and richness. 

3. Biogradska gora and Bjelasica core zone 

Biogradska Gora NP is concentrated around the Biogradsko Lake. Bjelasica Mountain is 

composed of silicate and it is like an island in surrounding calciferous mountain massifs in 

Montenegro. Bjelasica core zone is w here all main tax a lay ers overlap and it is recognized 

as one of the main zones for development of sustainable tourism. The presence of high 

mountain lakes, rivers (Tara, Jezerstica, Biogradska), almost all ty pes of forests (one of the 

last remaining ancient forests in Europe), high mountain meadows, pastures, and plenty of 

specific mountain habitats (rocky slopes, palisades, moving rock substrates, etc), are one of 

the main reasons for this zone’s biodiversity richness and determination of the core zone. 

4. Prokletije core zone 

The Prokletije mountain massif is the southernmost Dinaric mountain in Montenegro. It 

ex tends to neighbouring Albania and UNMIK Kosov o, and prov ides peaceful and safe habitat 

for all kinds of species. The w hole massif is intercepted w ith numerous cany ons, rivers and 

streams, and in the middle of this zone there is Plavsko Lake, one of the biggest glacial 

lakes in Montenegro. In Prokletije core zone all main tax a layers, with almost all target 

species, are overlapping. Parts of Prokletije are already protected and the mountain, 

together w ith Komov i mountains, is planned for NP protection at the national level. This zone 

is a habitat for one of the rarest mammals, ly nx, and riv ers of this area are the w orld’s 

southernmost natural places for two salmonid species (Thymallus thymallus, Hucho hucho 

and Black Sea Brow n Trout locally called blatnjača). The plant richness (tree species as w ell 

as v ascular ones) of this region is remarkable thanks to the v ariety of habitats and their 

southern position (numerous glacial relicts and endemic species). Prokletije, together w ith 

Durmitor massif, represents the place of intact and wild nature in its original shape. 

5. Komovi core zone 

Although this zone was not recognized as a core zone in the preliminary phase of this 

analysis we decided to promote this area as the fifth core area o f Montenegrin Green Belt. 

Sev eral reasons are important for this decision: a) This zone is planned for NP designation 

together w ith Prokletije massif; b) Six tax a lay ers overlap in this area; c) This mountains are 

ly nx’ habitat; d) Tara River (spine of the Green Belt of Montenegro) springs are in this area; 

e) Through MAB programme of UNESCO, the w hole drainage area of Tara River is included 

in the conservation programme, and Komov i as the area where Tara springs, plays an 

important role; f) This is a w atershed place w here one part of w ater belongs to Danube 

drainage sy stem and the other to the Adriatic; g) This zone is recognised as the EMERALD 

sight and as one of the local biodiversity centres in the Study of biodiversity in Montenegro. 

7 - 11



7.6. Ecological corridors 

The primary role of ecological corridors is to ensure conserv ation of biodiv ersity in cases of 

isolated core areas that cannot fulfil all requiremen ts for biodiv ersity conservation. Some 

functions of ecological corridors are: (1) to prov ide paths for migratory species from one core 

(protected) area to another; (2) to connect dispersed individuals and enhance mating 

opportunities; (3) to ensure minimal areas of self-sufficient ecosy stems and habitats; (4) to 

prov ide undisturbed gene flow from one population to another. 

Corridors 

By looking at the map of preliminary core zones (map 7.3.), it is quite ev ident that there are 

three main ecological corridors in the Montenegrin Green Belt. These corridors are: Tara 

corridor (corridor A), Ćehotina corridor (corridor B), and Moraca corridor (Corridor C). In 

further geographical analy sis of this area and by overlapping this map w ith protected areas, 

EMERALD sights, and biodiv ersity map of Montenegro, w e decided to define only tw o main 

corridors in the Montenegrin Green Belt (map 7.7.): Corridor A – Tara corridor, and Corridor 

B – Moraca corridor. 

We decided to leav e the boundaries of corridors much wider than w hat the geographical 

features allow in terms of connection between core zones. The prev ious corridor B (Ćehotina 

corridor) is joined w ith the central corridor A (Tara corridor). On the far north-w estern end of 

corridor A, we marked possible ex tension area of the Montenegrin Green Belt (map 7.7.). 

The same was done for the south-eastern end of NMGB. 

On the north-w estern end of NMGB, in neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegov ina there is 

Sutjeska NP as one of the biodiv ersity centres of this country . The geography and the 

biological component of Sutjeska is quite similar to the north-w estern part of Montenegrin 

Green Belt and ex cept the administrativ e border, there is no other reason w hy w e should not 

consider them as one ecoregion. That is w hy we marked Sutjeska as possible ex tension 

area of the Green Belt. On the far south-eastern end of NMGB, the Prokletije massif is the 

central geographical feature. The administrativ e border with Albania is passing the highest 

peaks of this massif but generally , this border does not represent a barrier for migration o f 

species. 

Corridor A 

Corridor A (map 7.7.) passes through Durmitor and Biogradska gora NPs. The central part or 

the spine of this corridor is Tara River with its v alley and the canyon. Tara directly connects 

four core zones - Durmitor, Crna Poda, Biogradska gora, and Komovi. This corridor includes 

the valley of riv er Lim and Ćehotina, and the Prokletije core zone. The whole corridor is 

located in the Montenegrin continen tal part o f administrative territory , w ith similar biological 

7 - 12



features (maps 7.8. and 7.9.). This corridor is spreading in southeast – northw estern 

direction. 

Corridor B 

This corridor is situated in the central southern part o f the Montenegrin Green Belt. The 

Moraca Riv er is the central natural feature in this corridor. This part of the GB belongs to the 

Adriatic drainage riv er system and it has climatic influences from the Mediterranean. This 

area is important for migration of thermophile biological species into the central part of 

NMGB. Thanks to this corridor, the Komov i core zone is famous for a mix ture of 

Mediterranean and continental biological components. Some species migrate across the 

w hole NMGB, through this zone, betw een Durmitor core zone in the northw est and Komov i 

and Prokletije core zones in the southeast. This corridor is open in its southern end (green 

arrow on map 7.7.). 

In nex t four figures w e show the ov erlapping of some tax a or species with final core zones 

and corridors. Those pictures show the ecological continuum of w hole MN Green Belt as w ell 

as the justification of such corridor shape and number. 

Map 7.8: Final corridors and core zones in the NMGB ov erlapped with target forest types 

and their centres of diversity 

7 - 13



Map 7.9: Core zones and distribution of Rupicapra rupicapra 

7 - 14



Map 7.10: Core zones and distribution of Hucho Hucho 

7 - 15



Map 7.11: Core zones and IBA (Important Bird Area) 

7 - 16



7.7. Transboundary issues 

As it is show n in map 7.7, the Northern Montenegro Green Belt is open on both ends, on the 

northw est administrativ e boundary with Bosnia & Herzegov ina and on the southeast 

administrativ e boundary with Albania. 

In previous chapter it w as pointed up that the same ecological features ex ist on the both 

sides of administrativ e boundaries (Albania and Bosnia & Herzegov ina) and that the 

Northern Montenegro Green Belt boundaries, in those parts, are just the reflection of political 

reality of Balkan Peninsula. These parts in fu ture should be the bases for cooperation and 

joint conserv ation actions betw een the Montenegro, Bosnia & Herzegov ina and Albania. 

As those parts of the Northern Montenegro Green Belt and border areas of the Albania and 

Bosnia & Herzegov ina are mostly poorly researched, thus one of the priority activ ities in 

further should be joint scientific researching and monitoring of biodiv ersity. Those areas 

should hav e the connectiv e purpose for the natural scientists and researchers from all three 

countries. Nev ertheless, in IUCN study “Parks for Peace” the Durmitor/Sutjeska National 

parks (Montenegro and Bosnia & Herzegov ina) w as stressed as one of the future 

Transnational Park or, as one of the future Park for Peace. 

Like in Montenegro, those neighbored areas in Albania and Bosnia & Herzegov ina are the 

most rural and with lowest developmental accomplishments, so the further dev elopment of 

this parts (as well as dev elopment of whole NMGB) should be based on sustainable 

principles w hich should be together defined, on trilateral lev el (Montenegro, Bosnia & 

Herzegov ina and Albania). 

7 - 17

8. Green Belt Threat Assessment 

In the Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije landscape, tw o National Parks and one Nature Park prov ide 

fav ourable conditions for protection of biological div ersity. These are NP Biogradska gora, 

NP Durmitor, and Nature Park Prokletije (see Annex 1 for details on NPs). Durmitor NP is a 

World Heritage Site, and forms part of the Tara Riv er Basin Biosphere Reserv e. Despite all 

the national and international protection statuses, biodiv ersity continues to be under threat. 

Based on consultations w ith key stakeholders, identified main causes of biodiv ersity loss are 

uncontrolled hunting, wood collection and ex traction of other natural resources by locals, 

tourism pressures, and illegal construction. These threats, together w ith some other threats, 

are elaborated below . 

8.1. Unsustainable use of natural resources by local people 

The pov erty rate in the NMGB is more than two times higher than that of central and 

southern Montenegro. Ov erall, more than 54% of the poor reside in the North. This region is 

also ex periencing depopulation trends with ev ident migration to the central and coastal 

areas. The local population is heav ily relying on the use of natural resources. While 

traditional agriculture has no adv erse impacts on biodiversity, there hav e been reduced 

grazing activ ities on mountain pastures. The latter situation caused spreading of undesirable 

plant species such as white hellebore. Illegal logging and cutting of w ood for fuel, including 

the areas w ithin protected sites, is w idespread. In the NMGB, illegal logging is estimated to 

amount to approx imately 5,000 m 3 per year. The harvest of other forest products, such as 

mushrooms, wild fruit, medicinal or culinary herbs, and essential oils is taking place without 

any attention to long-term ecological and economic sustainability . The unsustainable harv est 

of natural resources is leading to significant deterioration of forest biodiv ersity and changes 

of plant associations on alpine pastures. For instance, local people often burn forested areas 

in order to improve the future harv est of mushrooms. 

8.<strong>2.</strong> Illegal hunting 

Uncontrolled hunting of boars, wolv es, chamois, fox es, hares, and bears, primarily for sport, 

is threatening populations of 

these species (some of w hich 

are rare and threatened). Often, 

hunting takes place right outside 

of administrativ e boundaries of 

the NPs, where the parks 

administrations do not hav e any 

legal jurisdiction. Sometimes, it 

occurs within the NP 

boundaries. Hunting is 

performed in traditional w ays


w ith dogs and forbidden arms and motor v ehicles. Legal enforcement is v ery low and there is 

a lack of capacity in ranger serv ices and monitoring of protected areas. 

8.3. Tourism pressure 

In recent y ears, nature-related tourism has become more and more important source of local 

economic activ ity. While current tourism activ ities hav e insignificant impact on biodiv ersity , 

there is a concern that if tourism is left unmanaged and w ithout taking into account measures 

to ensure sustainability, tourism development could hav e an adverse impact on biodiv ersity . 

The concern is not so much related to sustainable tourism, but rather to the development of 

w inter mountain tourism, primary focus of which is dow nhill skiing (Draft Programme for the 

Dev elopment of Mountain Tourism in Montenegro, March 2005). This Draft Programme 

proposes further dev elopment of ski centres in areas that are w ithin or v ery close to the 

National Parks and to the proposed Regional Parks. The document has undergone public 

discussion, and the public has raised concerns about the potential negative impact on 

biodiv ersity . The Ministry of Tourism has indicated that the Programme w ill be adopted only 

if it is fully in line w ith Republic of Montenegro’s National Sustainable Dev elopment Strategy 

(NSDS) that is currently being formulated and is ex pected to be ready by end 2006. 

How ever, a detailed technical assessment of the impact of winter tourism development on 

biodiv ersity in the NMGB, is still a critical gap that needs to be addressed so as to determine 

the limits of acceptable change. 

8.4. Illegal construction 

Illegal construction of infrastructure w ithin the boundaries of NP 

Durmitor has become particularly problematic in recent years w hen ski 

lifts w ere made operational in the third/liberal zone 1 of the Park. Most 

of the construction is driv en by the need to service tourists, as well as 

the demand for w eekend houses. Illegal construction has become an 

issue in other parts of the Green Belt too (Komov i, Prokletije, etc.). 

Urban plans for the Green Belt area do not ex ist, and there is a lack of 

legal enforcement from responsible institutions to stop illegal 

construction Local people have replaced traditional building materials 

w ith cheaper and unsightly materials, not follow ing the traditional ways 

of construction of houses. 

1 The two NPs consist of three zones: the first or the core zone where land is owned by the state is 

under strict protection regime; in the second zone, where land is both privately and state owned, some 

activities are allowed (such as sanitary cutting, hiking trails, and construction); and in the third or 

liberal zone, where land is both privately and state owned, all activities are allowed. There is also a 

transition zone that extends beyond the administrative boundaries of the national parks. 

8 - 3


8.5. Air pollution 

Air pollution and related spreading of diseases are affecting some parts of the NP Durmitor 

forests (dry ing of trees). Heavy pollution is coming from the municipality Pljev lja (thermo 

plant) but there are no data av ailable about how heavy these influences are. Majority of the 

airborne pollution, however, is coming from abroad. 

8.6. Threats emanating in the wider watershed of the Tara River basin 

In addition to the above threats, there are those emanating in the wider Tara River basin, 

such as deforestation, soil erosion, increased intensity and impact of flooding, w ater 

pollution, unregulated housing and tourism dev elopment, mines, and other sources of landbased 

pollutants brought into the riv ers in the course of flooding. The Ministry of Forestry , 

Agriculture, and Water Management is primarily responsible for flood management and for 

maintaining watersheds (including protection and management of forests). The Ministry and 

the World Bank/GEF are dev eloping a programme for integrated w atershed management to 

address these issues in the Tara and Lim Riv er basins. Further, there are sev eral 

programmes planned to address sustainable management of commercial forests and issues 

such as reform and restructuring of the forest sector policies and institutions 2 that w ould 

hav e a beneficial impact on forest management in the Tara Riv er basin and other areas of 

the national territory . 

8.7. Waste 

Drainage systems 

In the Green Belt area, only a small proportion of the population has access to sew age 

sy stems and currently, there is no single functional w astewater treatment plant. This means 

that all w astewaters are going underground and auto-purification is practically non-ex istent in 

the karstic system (underground w ater flow s are fast and do not pass through several layers 

of soil and sand). Monitoring is also v ery difficult, so w e do not know the state of pollution of 

underground waters for most of them. There is no research w hatsoev er on the effect of 

pollution on underground animal populations. Nev ertheless, some underground aquifers in 

2 Ongoing or planned activities include: development of the National Forest Policy and improved 

legislation; institutional restructuring and capacity building of the State forestry sector (including GIS 

capacity and management of logging concessions); support for privatization of the wood industry; 

strengthening viable elements of state logging and forest industries (including improvement of logging 

techniques and provision of logging equipment); forest management planning (including national 

forest inventory); establishing nurseries to enhance reforestation activities, and improved marketing of 

wood and wood products, including developing a national system for (FSC) sustainable forest 

certification. Donors active in this sector include the Organization for Cooperation and Security in 

Europe, the European Agency for Reconstruction, the Governments of Luxemburg, Norway, and 

Finland, and UNDP. 

8 - 4


the GB area serv e as indicators of pollution, as these species inhabit drinkable w ater and 

they exist in the GB underground system. Therefore, the waters in NMGB are currently not 

suffering by negativ e impacts because of lack of pollution prev ention, and this is only 

because GB has low population density. How ev er, the situation might change as more and 

more tourists are coming to the area. 

Solid waste 

Solid waste is a common and widespread problem in the Green Belt, as there are many 

illegal waste dumps (every village has at least one) in cav es and pits nex t to the houses. 

This problem is generally know n, but difficult to solv e, as most municipalities lack financial 

resources for w aste collection, not to mention w aste treatment and disposing. There is no 

single landfill site that is managed according to 

modern standards (insulation lay ers, gas v entilation 

sy stems, etc.). Even when the authorities put forward 

ambitious action plans, these plans lack a timeframe, 

implementation methods, monitoring, and most 

importantly , finances. This is a general problem in the 

w hole Montenegro. The Green Belt is probably one of 

the areas in the country w here this issue would be 

most difficult to solve, as GB is characterized by 

obv ious lack of human resources and finances. 

Water management: 

There is a lot of controv ersy about w ater management related to HE pow er plants 

construction and use. Riv ers Tara, Piv a, Moraca, Zeta, Lim, and Cehotina are the most 

v aluable sources of power supplies, estimated to approx imately 7,000 GWh, out of which 

25% has been used. There are 11,000 GWh of water flowing from Tara into Moraca on 

annual basis. Priority in dev elopment w as giv en to the HE “Kostanica” and HE on Moraca, 

that are integral use of Tara and Moraca basins, with 22,2 m³/sec of water flow from Tara 

into Moraca. 

In addition, there are four HE plants foreseen to be built in the basin of the Moraca River: 

“Andrijev o”, as the leading accumulation and hy droelectric station, “Raslovici”, “Milunovici”, 

and “Zlatica”, w ith the overall power of 357MW and annual production of 694 GWh (w ithout 

w ater flow in). This system w ould increase its production on 1,054 GWh w ith 22, 2 m³/sec 

water flow from Tara into Moraca. 

There is no monitoring of impacts of such systems on biodiversity. 

Local people mainly oppose to HE construction as HE plants damage 

the environment and bring little income and social benefits back to the 

community. 

8 - 5


8.8. Soil erosion 

The NMGB records the highest soil erosion in Montenegro. The soil lay er is shallow on the 

limestone and dolomite bedrock and once the forest cover disappears, mountain torrents 

w ash aw ay the soil rapidly. Humans have used the land for sev eral millennia and today , the 

landscape is very much the result of this influence. Geological configuration and strong 

w inds makes reforestation difficult. The problem of erosion is particularly ev ident on the 

scarps of high mountains. Howev er, due to reduced human pressure in the last decades 

(grazing in particular), it has been noticed that forest cover is slow ly recov ering in some 

places (mostly small bushes) and spreading to agricultural lands, meadows, and mountain 

pastures. In semi-natural landscapes reforestation may even destroy the habitats of many 

species (rocky areas, mountain meadows, etc.) leading to decrease in biological diversity . 

Management of the area should therefore be carefully planned, based on scientific data and 

constant biodiv ersity monitoring to prov ide the best outcome in the land-use versus 

biodiversity preserv ation. 

8.9. Forests 

Forests are now adays 

highly threatened by 

industry, urban 

dev elopment, 

transportation, and 

agriculture. With 

intensiv e tourism 

dev elopment, there are 

some damages: 

destruction of small 

communities, destruction 

of tree barks etc. The 

damage caused by fire 

can be v ery high. Among 

the non-biotic factors, the 

most important and the most destructiv e are air pollution, acid rains, and 

unfavourable climate and soil factors. Among the biotic factors, the most 

negativ e influences come from pathogenic fungi and some insects. 

The data related to negativ e influence of pollutants to forest ecosystems are insufficient to be 

able to ex plain the forest desiccation phenomenon. Therefore, desiccation should be 

connected to other negativ e factors such as climate change, ineffectiv e management, 

presence of diseases and insects or other organisms. 

The most threatened type of forests in this country is Pinetum nigrae (Black Pine forest). The 

black pine is a pioneer species, but in current circumstances, the species demands more 

rigid protection. The same is needed for Aceri-fagetum community (mountain maple - Acer 

heldreichii Orph. and sub-alpine beech - Fagetum subalpinum), forest Picetum excelsae 

8 - 6


subalpinum and communities of Piceto Pinetum silvestris, Pinetum mughi community, and 

Pinus heldreichi. 

Because of the forest ecosy stem’s importance, it is necessary to start w ith further research 

and to prepare a detailed study of negativ e influences caused by different factors, biotic as 

w ell as non-biotic. This kind of research w ould help mainstream future activ ities in the field of 

protection, recovery, and further improvement of forest ecosystems. 

8.10. Species 

Habitat loss is certainly the main threat to the majority of plant, fungi and animal tax a. 

Various human activ ities bring the transformation of one habitat into another or to changes of 

ecological conditions within certain habitat. Today not a single part of Europe, including 

Montenegro, is completely free from human influence. Therefore, ex pressions such as 

“natural ecological system”, “untouched nature”, or “virgin forest” bear little practical 

meaning. 

The fragmentation of natural habitats is in particular adversely affecting species in the Green 

Belt area. It is a result of road construction, settlement and utility infrastructure, and the 

ex tension of intensiv ely managed agricultural lands. Natural and semi-natural ecosystems 

remain isolated, w hich leads to rapid reduction of biological div ersity . 

Excessiv e ex ploitation is threatening certain economically important species, through 

hunting, fishing, gathering medicinal herbs, fungi, snails and frogs for commercial purposes, 

trading with animal pets, etc. The introduction of alien species has almost regularly harmful 

effects on indigenous species and subspecies in Montenegro. (see more about threats 

assessment on focal target species in Annex 4). 

8 - 7

9. Root Causes of Biodiversity loss 

WWF MedPO dev eloped a practical 

method for analy zing and understanding 

the multiple complex es of root causes of 

biodiv ersity loss (Assessing Root 

Causes - A Users Guide, 2001). This 

method serv es to better target 

conserv ation actions and allocate 

necessary resources. Traditional 

conserv ation approaches focusing 

primarily on local level are necessary but 

insufficient to address the magnitude of 

causes of biodiv ersity loss. Addressing 

biodiv ersity loss implies understanding a 

v ariety of social, economical, political, and biological factors that operate at local, 

national, regional, and international scales. It is challenging to identify these factors, as 

they can affect biodiv ersity loss in indirect w ays. 

The framew ork for analyzing socioeconomic 

root causes of biodiv ersity 

loss has been designed by an 

interdisciplinary approach. Socioeconomic 

forces and circumstances 

create incentiv es for activ ities that put 

pressure on biodiversity and initiate 

unsustainable behav iours. Only by 

ex ploring and understanding the socioeconomic 

factors at v arious lev els, we 

might be able to change this behav iour. 

The root-causes analysis methodology 

by WWF is a tentativ e schematic 

approach to the identification of major 

aspects of biodiversity loss w ithin the 

Green Belt area, their prox imate 

causes and their roots at local, national, regional, and international lev el. Starting w ith a 

list of biodiv ersity target species and habitats, the analy sis w orks backwards through a 

causal chain of threats, identify ing immediate causes and the underly ing causes that 

lead to those threats. This analysis w ill help identify actions to be undertaken for further 

conserv ation of the Green Belt area. It w ould be useful to identify the links betw een this 

analysis and the responsibilities of stakeholders potentially inv olved in the identified 

chain. In fact, the key stakeholders can be relev ant actors in the process of monitoring 

and implementing future conserv ation action plans. In conclusion, this analysis must be 

considered as a preliminary approach representing the interpretation of the Green Belt 

team. The analysis should be review ed in the light of outside contributions w ithin a 

process of open public participation.

9 - 3 


The table below shows the identification of target species, their threats menacing them 

and the driv ers of threats at local, national, regional, and international lev el.


Fishes 

Target 

species/habitats 

Salmo marmoratus 

Leuciscus 

montenegrinus 

9 - 4 

Hucho hucho 

Thymallus thymallus 

(the world 

southernmost natural 

population) 

TABLE OF ROOT CAUSES 

Threats Local level National level Regional level International level 

- Ov er-fishing 

- Fishing with forbidden 

tools 

- Fishing in spawning 

season 

- Absence of good 

management 

- Stocking w ith nonautochthones 

fish 

species 

- Water pollution 

- Gravel extraction 


tools 



- Illegal gravel 

ex traction 




- Absence of good and 

sustainable 

management 


fish 

species 

- Legal gravel ex traction 

- Water pollution 


fish 

species 

- No threats on 

international level 

- No threats - No threats - No threats - No threats - No threats 



tools 




management 

- Stocking w ith non - 

autochthones fish 

species 

- Industrial pollution 


- Potential dam building 



tools 






tools 








tools 








management 


- Illegal and legal gravel 




management 

- Illegal and legal gravel 


- Water pollution by 



management 


- Potential dam building 

- Ov er fishing by 

tourism sport fishing 


- No threats - No threats


Big mammals 

Target 


Ursus arctos 

9 - 5 

management 



intensive agriculture 


intensive farming 


intensive agriculture 


intensive farming 


- Non controlled hunting 

- Unsustainable 

dev elopment of 

hunting tourism 

- Habitat destruction 

(destruction of forests 

by non-controlled 

cutting) 

- Disturbance by man 

- Insufficiency of good 

management strategy 

- Forest fires 

- Intensive and 

unsustainable highmountain 

tourism 

dev elopment 

- Potential building of 

high-way and new 

roads 


new ski-lifts and new 

winter ski centers 




cutting) 










cutting) 







tourism 

dev elopment 








winter ski centers 





cutting) 




cutting) 






tourism 

dev elopment 



roads


9 - 6 

Lynx spp. - Non controlled hunting 




cutting) 







tourism 

dev elopment 



roads 



Lutra lutra 


- Disturbance by men 

- Hunting because of 

robbing of the trout 

farms 

- Destructing of habitats 

Rupicapra rupicapra - Non controlled 

hunting, over – hunting 





high mountain ski 

centers 

Cervus alaphus - Disturbance by man 

by intensive and 

unsustainable tourism 

dev elopment in 

protected area 




cutting) 






farms 

- Non controlled 



by intensive and 


dev elopment in 

protected area 





cutting) 







tourism 

dev elopment 




farms 

- Destructing of habitats 

- Non controlled 



management 





cutting) 






tourism 

dev elopment 



roads 



tourism 

dev elopment 




- No threats - No threats 




centers 




centers 

- No threats - No threats - No threats


High Mountain Lakes 

Target 


High -Mountain Glacial 

Lakes 

Butterflies 

Target 

9 - 7 


Parnasius apollo 

dardanus Rubel 


- Eutrofication by 

intensive farming and 

intensive agriculture in 

their surrounding 

- Stocking w ith different 

”alien” fish species 

- Illegal house building 



dev elopment 

- Lack of appropriate 

and target 

management 





- Illegal house building 





- Stocking w ith different 

“alien” fish species 

- -Intensive and 


dev elopment 

- lack of appropriate 

and target 

management 







dev elopment 



dev elopment 


- Habitat destruction - Because of ex tremely 

small distribution this 

subspecies is very 

threatened by 

forestation of mountain 

grasslands 

- Traditional way of life 

has vanished, people 

hav e moved to towns 

- Liv ing in the 

countryside requires 

hard work; 

- Urban way of living is 

easier, economically 

and socially more 

rew arding; 

- Emigration caused by 

war has accelerated 

the process 

- Collected for 

collections - scale 

unknown 

- Worldw ide process of 

urbanization 

accelerated by 

globalization of the 

economy 

- Collected for 

collections - scale 

unknown


Erebia manto 

osmanica Schawerda 

Erebia cassioides 

Hoch 

Boloria pales 

contempta Rubel und 

Zerny 

Adscita statices 

statices L 

9 - 8 

- Habitat destruction - Main threat is habitat 

loss due to over 

pasture or forestation 

of mountain 

grasslands 

- Habitat destruction - Succession and/or 

ov er cutting of 

grasslands or 

forestation of mountain 

grasslands 


loss due to over - 


of mountain 

grasslands 


loss due to over - 


of mountain 

grasslands 















hard work; 




rew arding; 



the process 



hard work; 




rew arding; 



the process 



hard work; 




rew arding; 



the process 



hard work; 




rew arding; 



the process 




















economy


Forests 

Target 


Pinus heldreichii 

Christ 

Pinus mugo Turra 

Pinus peuce Griseb. 

Acer heldreichii Orph. 

9 - 9 


- Fires, 

- Forest cutting, 

- Illegal cutting 

- Building of 

infrastructure objects 

(ski-lifts, highline) 

- - Tourist objects 

- 

- Fires 

- Agriculture 

- Farming 

- Fires , 

- Forest cutting, 


- Building of 

infrastructure objects 

(ski-lifts, highline) 

- Tourist objects 


- Ov er-cutting 

- Fires 

- Fires and forest cutting 

with purpose of getting 

the agricultural soil 

- -Illegal cutting 

- Forest cutting and 

firing because of 

getting land for 

pasture 

- Firing and forest 

cutting with purpose of 

getting land for 

agriculture and lend 

for tourist object 

building 

- Because of 

remarkable wood 

quality, this species is 

illegally cut and in 

some cases legally 

ov er-cut. 

- Absence of adequate 

strategy for forest 

management on 

national level 

- Un-adequate 

protection and 

absence of institutional 

protection 

- Un-adequate 


absence of institutional 

protection for this 

endemic species 

- Un-adequate 

implementation of low 

and bad legislative for 

protection of this 

endemic species 

which is attractive by 

financial aspect 


inv entory book of this 

species liv ing area. 

- Building of 

infrastructural objects 

(ski-lifts, highline, 

roads) because of 

tourism and w ithout of 

adequate respect of 

ex isting legislative 

- Building of tourist 

objects which could 

endanger the renewal 

of species in places 

where those tendency 

is noticeable. 

- Building of access 

roads for tourism 

needs 


strategy for protection 

and improvement of 

this species 

populations 

- Possible aero – 

pollution, Transport 

and Tourism 

- Aero-pollution and 

Tourism 

- Aero-pollution Tourism 

and Transport with 

purpose of rising of the 

tourism offer on 

attractiv e localities 

- Aero-pollutions 

- Export of wood 

- Tourism and Transport


Vascular plants 

Target 

9 - 10 


Cypripedium calceolus 

L 

Daphne malyana 

Blečić 

Protoedraianthus tarae 

(Lakušič) Lakušić 

Androsace mathildae 

Levier 

Silene m acrantha 

(Pančić) Neumayer 

- habitat loss 

- collection 


- Habitat loss; 

- (potential treat is 

collecting ) 

- Habitat loss; 

- (potential treat is 

collecting ) 

- Collection because of 

esthetical value 

- reconstruction of roads 

should lead in habitat 

destruction; collecting 

- Dam building in some 

canyons where the 

species is present; 

collecting – low threat 

- collecting - collecting is for now 

low level threat; In the 

last few years the 

high-mountain tourism 

is more intensive so it 

represent the potential 

threat 

- Forest cutting, building 

of roads and railways 

and other 

infrastructure, because 

of decorative flowers 

tourist and collectors 

are collecting it 

- collection – low threat


Fungi 

Target 


Gomphus clavatus 

Hygrophorus 

marzuolus 

Strobilomyces 

strobilaceus 

9 - 11 



and fragmentation 

- Water and soil 

pollution 

- Roads and power lines 

construction causing 

fragmentation and loss 

of forested areas 

- Forest management 

causes direct soil 

destruction by heavy 

vehicles, tractors and 

new roads 

construction 

- Fires 

- Increasing the number 

of tourists 

- Pollution w ith 

communal and 

industry waste 

- Ov erex ploatation of 

wood by enterprises 

and local citizens 

without adequate 

control 

- High pressure of poor 

citizens on timber in 

order to have added 

benefits 

- Lack of education and 

aw areness among 

forest managers and 

collectors 

- Fires made by humans 

for cleaning pastures 

for increasing the 

production of certain 

mushroom species 

- National strategy for 

tourism development 

- Lack of money for 

sewage system 

- Illegal construction 

- Tourism development 

increasing the risks 

from devastation 

- Degradation of 

industry and 

agriculture in last 

decenies increase the 

pressure on forestry 

- Weak legislative 

enforcement and 

punishing the crimes 

- Reducing the tensions 

after w ar conflicts lead 

on increasing the 

tourists traffic 

- Lack of strategy, lack 

of funding, no 

enforcement of 

env ironmental and 

physical planning laws 

- World wide process of 





- Great market for wood 

products industry 

- Climate changing 

- Great market for 

certain species of 

mushrooms 

- Lack of finance 

support in provision of 

equipment for fire 

estiguishing 

- Increased interest for 

Montenegro as a 

tourist destination 

- Lack of supplement in 

solving the problems 

on waste disposing


9 - 12 

- Air pollution 

- Excessive exploitation 

- Thermo-plant Pljevlja. 

- Traffic 

- Traffic and road 

construction increase 

air pollution and soil 

erosion 

- Fungi collection for 

commercial use, 

regulated, but difficult 

to control 

- Collecting the 

commercial 

mushrooms indirectly 

endangered other 

species and whole 

habitats 

- Lack of awareness of 

possible 

danger/impact. 

- Economical 

dev elopment of these 

areas is not possible 

without traffic 

connections building 

(roads) 

- Low standard of liv ing 

of citizens, losing 

employ ees trigger 

collecting for surviving 

- Lack of education of 

visitors/hikers/locals 

- Industry. No 

monitoring and control 

of pollutants 

- Building high ways 

and reconstruction the 

old one are one of the 

main goals of further 

economical and tourist 

dev elopment 

- No market measures 

to control collection 

- Poor monitoring of 

quantity and impact of 

collection. 

- Trans-boundary air 


- Increase demand for 

the road traffic 

(transportation and 

tourism) 

- Increased demand 

from European organic 

market 

- Increased interest for 

rare mushroom 

species


Agriculture 

Target 


Medical herbs 

Rare and threatened 

species, mushrooms 

Meadows 

9 - 13 


- Collection - Herb and mushroom 

collection for 

commercial use, (on 

low level at the 

moment, but in future 

it could be a problem). 

Difficult to control in 

spite of the Law 

- Habitat destruction - Lack of grazing 

prov okes meadows 

vanishing (seminatural 

habitats) 

- Traditional income, 

less present than in 

the past (decreased 

population) 

- High quality of plant 

species 

- Intensive processes of 

regressing agriculture 

and decreasing 

population density 

prov oked decrease of 

the cultiv ated land 

resource and turning 

cultivated land into the 

meadows, and 

meadows into the 

pastures 

- Poor monitoring of 

quantity and impact of 

collection. 

- There are no 

measures to control 

collection 

- Difficult liv ing 

conditions in the 

countryside provoked 

decreasing of 

population density. 

That is the reason for 

people migration from 

countryside to the 

tow ns


Socio economy 

9 - 14 

Threats 

Poverty 

Forestry 

Water and soil 


Local level National level Regional level International level 

- Ex ploitation forestry fond and 

mushrooms 

- Pollution of flowing waters by 

municipal and industrial waste 

waters and their discharge 

into the underground without 

treatment 

- Use of caves, pits and vales 

as waste disposal sites 

- Pollution caused by 

transportation (rail and roads 

(present), highway (present 

and future) 

- Pollution by solid waste 

- Three hazardous waste sites 

hav e been identified in GB 

area – 

- Thermo plant Pljev lja and coal 

mine, 

- barren site in Mojkovac 

- Lack of action plan for 

sustainable use forestry 

and afforestation 

- Lack of action plan for 

sewage system 


- Lack of money for 

sewage system 

- Illegal construction 

- Lack of education of 

locals 

- No possibility of 

separate waste 

collection and even of 

waste collection 

- Oil and toxic 

substances - spills and 

traffic accidents 

- No 

education/<strong>information</strong> 

and awareness of the 

danger/problems 

- Lack of money to deal 

with the problem 

- barriers of implementation Strategy 

of Poverty decrease which 

decrease unemployment in the 

region 

- Lack of strategy and action plan for 

sewage system construction, lack of 

funding, no enforcement of 

env ironmental and physical planning 

laws 

- No strategy and action plan for 

waste management, laws are not 

enforced (waste treatment law) 

- Frequent traffic accidents and spills 

- poor monitoring and punishments 

for polluters, old trucks, poor 

prev ention, bad coordination in case 

of accidents 

- Responsibility of MEPP. Lack of 

finances and expertise to clean up 

sites 

- Lack of: national action plan, and 

political will to deal with hazardous 

waste 

- No existing sanitation for main 

wastewater disposal Šuplja stijena 

- Credits and donations of 

- dubious projects 

- Funding of dubious projects - credits 

are given to the wastewater treatment 

plant projects and not to sewage 

system construction resulting in not 

working wastew ater plants 

- EU legislation is not applicable 

- Increasing international transport 

- Higher environmental standards and 

costs of toxic waste disposal cause 

smuggling of tox ic waste in 


- Import of old/polluting technologies


Air pollution 

9 - 15 

- TE Pljevlja i Rudnik Uglja - Emissions of pollutants 

in the air are not 

accessible. Not existed 

emission cadastre and 

data are scarce 

- Lack of awareness of 

- Traffic and road construction 

increase air pollution and soil 

erosion 

possible danger/impact 

- Public and political 

support for the highway 


- Roads are considered 

as a priority by 

politicians as a base for 

any development 

(including tourism) 

- Industry. Lack of monitoring and 

control of pollutants, when they exist 

are not public (inaccessibility to 

data). 

- Major transportation route in the 


- Highw ay construction is a national 

priority (political and economical)

10. Strategic Guidelines 

10.1 Introduction 

The Montenegrin NGOs Most, Natura, and 

Green Home, w ith the support of their 

international partner WWF, hav e prepared 

the set of recommendations listed below. As 

already noted in prev ious chapters, these 

recommendations were not formulated 

through a public participatory process, but 

originated from the scientific studies carried 

out for this report. They aim to contribute to 

the tw o main goals of the Northern 

Montenegro Green Belt project: to protect 

and conserv e biodiv ersity, and to promote 

and ensure sustainable dev elopment and 

income generating activ ities for this area. 

The following strategic guidelines w ere 

dev eloped to address the root causes of biodiv ersity loss and natural resources degradation 

in the NMGB, and to ensure the long-term conservation of biodiv ersity and natural resources 

w ithin this functional landscape unit, keeping in mind the need to support the improv ement of 

the living conditions and the w elfare of the local population. These guidelines form the basis 

for the dev elopment of a preliminary Action Plan. According to the w ish of the project 

partners, these strategic guidelines w ill hav e to be shared, rev ised, agreed upon, and 

actively supported ov er the nex t months by all the relev ant stakeholder groups and potential 

partners in this area. This collaborativ e process implies that representativ es of the central 

and regional administrations, as w ell as municipalities, local 

communities, professional and interest groups and NGOs will be 

inv olved in the debate and preparation of a new , final, and 

consensual Conserv ation Action Plan for the Northern 

Montenegro Green Belt. A special attention w ill be giv en to the 

inv olvement of those actors w ho directly or indirectly implement 

actions that hav e a major impact on the conservation of the 

Green Belt target species and habitats, and the sustainable use 

of the natural resources w ithin the functional conservation 

landscape. 

A special effort w ill be dev oted to clarify ing the links betw een biodiversity conservation and 

sustainable dev elopment, and on how conserv ation actions and community -based resource 

use can jointly contribute to halting env ironmental desertification and human depopulation, 

rev ersing the current ex odus and improving the quality of life in rural areas. Abov e all, the 

co-operativ e commitment of all sectors of the public administration and NGOs is deemed 

crucial for a successful definition and implementation of the Conservation Action Plan.

10.<strong>2.</strong> Strategic guidelines for the Green Belt Action Plan 

GREEN BELT ACTION PLAN 

STRATEGIC GUIDELINES 

THEMES OBJECTIVES 

1. Nature Conservation 

and Landscape 

Restoration 

<strong>2.</strong> Sustainable Use of 

Resources 

3. Strengthening Legal 

and Managerial 

Capacity 

4. Raising Awareness 


Stop the destruction and degradation of priority habitats 

Ensure the conserv ation of priority species 

Improve the area’s conserv ation status and management 

Design and manage ecological corridors in a sustainable way, so as to 

connect core areas 

Improve trans-boundary cooperation on the area’s conservation status 

and management 

Improve the sustainable use of wildlife (hunting, plant harvesting, forest 

management) 

Improve the management of surface and underground waters 

Promote innov ativ e income-generating alternativ es, based on sustainable 

resource use to help reduce rural emigration, population ageing and 

pov erty 

Improve national legislation framew ork affecting nature protection and 

sustainable rural development 

Enhance co-operativ e gov ernance 

Promote participatory approach and transparency for community 

inv olvement in natural resources management 

Raise awareness about the importance, advantages and benefits of 

conserv ation 

Promote a feeling of ownership among the population in relation to the 

cultural, social and natural v alues of the area 

The Northern Montenegro Green Belt Conservation Action Plan w ill define short, medium- 

and long-term priorities, which w ill be put in practice through a w ide array of actions/projects 

focusing on policy , education and aw areness raising, stakeholders participation, field 

conservation work, support to sustainable dev elopment , and ecological restoration. 

1. Stop the destruction and degradation of priority habitats 

FORESTS 

• Create GB forest database including biological research on negative impact of biotic and 

non-biotic factors; 

10 - 3


• Protect, recov er, conserv e and further improve forest ecosystems based on the results 

of biological research; 

• Improv e forest management and revitalisation of forests including solid waste cleaning; 

• FSC certification of all GB forests; 

• Dev elop national forest certification standards through a participatory process and 

compatibly w ith the specificities of Montenegrin forests; 

• Implement fire fighting policy , including landscape-level planning and enhancement of 

multi-stakeholder co-operation and prev entiv e measures; 

• Control and monitor operation of limestone extraction in the core areas; 

• Protect permanent communities of black pine forests – Pinus nigra, Pinus Mugo, Pinus 

Peuce and Pinus heldreichi; 

• Establish certain regimes of protection (I level of protection) in critical zones for these 

tax a (Pinus nigra, Pinus Mugo and Pinus heldreichi). 

HIGH-MOUNTAIN LAKES AND RIVER HABITATS 

• Carefully plan aquaculture nex t to lakeshores and river basins; 

• Monitor aquaculture areas approv ed by the relev ant body through env ironmental impact 

assessment; 

• Ensure secondary and tertiary w astew ater treatment be fore discharging into lakes and 

riv ers ; 

• Change water management used for HE plants to provide enough w ater for the river and 

underground fauna; 

• Stop any new HE construction and monitor closely the impact on riv er and lake habitats 

of the ex isting HE pow er plants; 

• Dev elop and implement better policy for riv er management; 

• Diminish wastew ater release in the karstic rivers by using w astew ater treatment plants 

and repairing sewage system; 

• Implement env ironmental impact assessments regarding the use of underground 

aquifers for capturing drinking w ater and/or water bottling factories. 

<strong>2.</strong> Ensure the conservation of priority species 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

• Ex tend the national list of protected plants; 

• Determine the IUCN conservation category at national lev el; 

• Collect precise <strong>information</strong> about species population numbers; 

10 - 4


• Implement penalty policy for breaking the Nature Protection Law ; 

• Monitor target specie Daphne malyana Blečić, an endemic and relict species with locus 

classicus in Montenegro. 

FUNGI 

• Rationalize ex ploitation of the commercial fungi species as w ell as of wood deriv ed by 

cutting of autochthonous forest culture; 

• Reforest degraded/destroy ed forests; 

• Improv e legislation for controlling the collection and trading of fungi; 

• Start and improv e awareness of all participators in commercial fungi ex ploitation process; 

• Introduce habitat monitoring w ith the aim to manage the collection practice; 

• Inv olv e local municipalities, management, and v olunteers in fungi protection process; 

• Intensify fundamental mycological research w ith the purpose to find out: 

o Whole div ersity of fungi in Montenegro, 

o Species distribution and populations’ numbers, 

o Ecological characters and habitat preference of different species, 

o Start the mapping and creation of the national data base, 

o Initia te the first ex perimental and laboratorial research, 

o Get involved in ECCF projects and start research on permanent plots in different 

forest types w ith the monitoring purpose; 

• Establish ecological tax for exported quantity, part of which should be channelled to 

development of mycology in Montenegro and protection of fungi; 

• Establish sanctions for the destruction or ex tinction of fungi habitats. 

LARGE CARNIVORES AND FAUNA 

• Undertake a reliable census of large carniv ores species in GB; 

• Dev elop and implement new management plans based on data acquired, and the 

number of large carnivores; 

• Dev elop and implement regular monitoring of the populations of large carniv ores; 

• Establish protected core zones; 

• Organize sustainable hunting activ ities based on prev ious research and data; 

• Set up a modern legislativ e framew ork and effectiv e enforcement measures to fight 

poaching; 

10 - 5


• Improv e solid w aste disposal practices, by providing bear proof (animal proof) w aste 

containers, by cleaning up the illegal w aste disposal sites, and fencing official garbage 

dum ps ; 

• Minimise construction and pollution in the GB area, especially concerning highways and 

roads, and dev elop monitoring systems to protect biodiversity (game bridges, 

wastew ater treatment, etc.); the construction of “green bridges” is particularly important 

for high-speed highw ays known to be crossed by bears or other large carniv ores; 

• Conduct env ironmental impact assessment and socio-economic impact assessment 

(SEIA) for the new forest roads construction; 

• Dev elop and apply bear management plans; 

• Dev elop and apply w olf protection action plans; 

• Dev elop and apply otter management plans. 

FISH 

• Improv e the management of the marble trout (Salmo marmoratus); 

• Set up hatcheries for target fish species as part of the repopulation programme and 

improv e the sustainable use of fish resources; 

• Promote fly -fishing tourism which is effectiv ely managed; 

• Dec lare Hucho hucho an endangered species at the national level; 

• Protect the population of Thymallus thymallus as gene resource through its habitat 

protection (eg. one part of riv er Ljuca should be proclaimed as natural monument or 

area of special importance). 

BUTTERFLIES 

• Monitor Erebia cassioides Hoch from family of Saturydae based on the population 

ecology and their relationships with the plants they feed upon, with the purpose of better 

protecting the most important habitats; 

• Include butterfly target species - especially those that are of national importance - in the 

National List of Protected Species; 

• Protect certain habitats of endangered butterfly species; 

• Establish butterflies-w atching activ ities and include it in the Montenegrin tourist offer. 

3. Improve the area’s conservation status and management 

• Ensure a stricter lev el of protection for all core areas of the GB (IUCN protected area 

management categories I or II); 

• Include proposed sites in the Action Plan of the Emerald Netw ork; 

• Dev elop a monitoring system for conservation in protected areas and other parts of GB; 

10 - 6


• Prov ide guidelines for conservation and management of forest areas; 

• Support inventory and monitoring of target species and habitats in order to produce 

detailed distribution maps; 

• Carry out inv entory and mapping of the core areas and gap areas (those which lack 

biodiv ersity data but w ith features that show their possible biodiv ersity v alue) in order to 

update and redefine borders, core areas and corridors of the GB; 

• Update the GIS aspect of the project with new biodiversity and socio-economic data, in 

cooperation w ith partners. 

4. Improve trans-boundary cooperation on the area’s conservation status and 

management 

• Initiate a process of regional consultations between all countries of the region in order to 

identify and agree upon common priorities for action, w hich could further lead to signing 

bilateral, multilateral and regional agreements o f cooperation on nature protection, 

fostering conserv ation of biodiv ersity at the eco-regional scale; 

• Sign bilateral or multila teral cooperation agreements betw een two or more central or 

regional governments, nature conservation authorities or agencies, administrations of 

neighboring protected areas, scientific institutions involv ed in trans-boundary field 

research or neighboring local communities from different countries; 

• Increase institutional and scientific cooperation betw een countries of the region in the 

field of biodiv ersity protection, leading to the adoption and implementation of common 

policies, action plans, programs and strategies, in particular for trans-boundary 

protected areas; 

• Support the ex isting trans-boundary cooperation arrangements in mountain regions; 

• Foster w orking relationships betw een protected area managers, local authorities and 

local inhabitants on either side of the state borders; 

• Involv e local municipalities, authorities and NGOs in project dev elopment and 

cooperation w ith neighboring municipalities and NGOs across the borders; 

• Facilitate consultations between scientists, NGOs and local communities in special 

“focal areas”; 

• Raise the institutional and personnel capacity for international cooperation, e.g. through 

training and exchange programs for the employees of park authorities, nature protection 

institutions and NGO leaders w orking on trans-boundary protected areas and protected 

area netw orking; 

• Launch public media campaigns in order to raise awareness of the citizens of border 

areas on the purposes and potential benefits of trans-boundary cooperation; 

• Foster the dev elopment of integrated management plans for trans-boundary protected 

areas; 

• Dev elop common projects and work out joint approached to potential donors; 

10 - 7


• Co-operate tow ards the dev elopment of a Balkan ecoregional netw ork of protected 

areas 1 . 

5. Design and manage ecological corridors in a sustainable way, so as to connect 

core areas 

• Implement legal requirements and monitor all polluting activ ities in the area; 

• Clean up and ban all tox ic waste disposals in the GB area. 

6. Improve the sustainable use of wildlife (hunting, plant harvesting, forest 

management) 

• Prepare a reintroduction action plan and ev entually reintroduce nativ e fish species into 

the riv ers; 

• Undertake a precise zoning of forest and agriculture land in order to av oid conflict 

between planting forests and grazing; 

• Organise plant collection and make sure enforcement of the rules is feasible and 

realistic; 

• Establish a clear legal framew ork, including forms and terms of collection of medicinal 

herbs, mushrooms (protected, endangered, or threatened species); 

• Monitor the collection of medicinal herbs; 

• Define areas w here medicinal herbs occur; 

• Define areas appropriate for upscaling the production of medical herbs; 

• Preserv e and improve existing agricultural land; 

• Prev ent decrease of the population density by improv ing liv ing conditions in the country ; 

• Increase organic food production. 

• Implement FSC and include management and requirements of other species apart from 

trees in the forest practice; 

• Support traditio nal activ ities of the local communities in terms of subsidies (mowing of 

meadow s, traditional agriculture and cattle keeping); 

• Support small scale tourism (angling, rural and adv enture tourism, etc.) in the area; 

• Implement prohibition o f open fires in summertime and monitor field burning in early 

spring (as a part of meadow management); 

• Introduce mosaic landscape (natural fire barriers) and improv e fire management 

prev ention; 

1 Enhancing Trans-boundary Biodiversity Management in South Eastern Europe, prepared under the 

Environment and Security Initiative (OSCE, UNEP, UNDP and NATO) 

10 - 8


• Identify and promote sustainable economic activities for local communities; 

• Return natural resources use value to the GB area (tax es, subsidies, etc.); 

• Use the v alue of compensation for priv ate lands for concessions of state hunting 

grounds; 

• Remov e pasture tax and prov ide zoning for land use (forestry, pastures) to av oid 

conflicts among different stakeholders; 

• Set up adequate legislativ e framew ork promote new models of tourism (ethno tourism, 

rural, ecological); 

• Organize and promote w ool collection/manufacture to av oid dumping of wool in the 

environment and to promote an income generating activ ity (wool-based manufactures); 

• Construct plant w astew ater treatment systems; 

• Preserv e traditional water tanks to save w ater from water supply systems - preservation 

of priv ate tanks needs to executed by providing education and advice to people; 

• Purchase a sufficient number of containers for communal waste and include all places in 

the collection netw ork to reduce the amount of w aste on illegal dumps and illegal 

burning of waste; 

• Clean illegal dumps and renovate ex isting legal w aste dumps. 

7. Improve the management of surface and underground waters 

• Improv e w ater resources management by taking into account the impact on/needs of 

other components of the ecosystem; 

• Implement the Water Framework Directiv e in Montenegro; 

• Prev ent organic pollution discharge in the river basins. 

8. Promote innovative income-generating alternatives, based on sustainable resource 

use to help reduce rural emigration, population ageing and poverty 

• Support small-scale income-generating activ ities based on traditional land 

use/crafts/trades but by applying modern technologies; 

• Empow er local communities, NGOs and cooperativ es by prov iding know -how and skillsharing; 

• Prov ide maps, leaflets and guides for tourists and support alternativ e, small-scale 

tourism development; 

• Plan and construct eco-paths and visitor points for tourists; 

• Dev elop innov ativ e and environmentally friendly tourism activ ities, for instance photosafari 

of bears instead of bear hunting; 

• Promote organic production and FSC standards for local products and dev elop a 

marketing plan for these projects; 

10 - 9


• Constantly build the sense of v alue of the area (both at national and international lev els) 

among local communities to increase their pride and interest in the conservation of 

biodiv ersity and cultural diversity. 

9. Improve national legislation framework affecting nature protection and sustainable 

rural 

• Lobby for the new nature protection law to be decentralised and enforceable; 

• Lobby for the implementation of new set of law s including Environmental Impact 

Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessment and Integrated Pollution Prevented 

and Control; 

• Protect core areas through a stricter level of protection (IUCN protected area 

management categories I or II); 

• Integrate nature protection elements into phy sical plans at all levels; 

• Incorporate the Water Framew ork Directiv e into the water protection and management 

policies; 

• Ratify and implement the Aarhus Convention; 

• Implement the Conv ention on Biodiversity (CBD) and Programme of Work on Protected 

Areas (PoW PA); 

10. Enhance co-operative governance 

• Inform and inv olv e all stakeholders on the GB methodology and preliminary results; 

• Build trust and communication flow betw een local authorities, regional and national 

gov ernment, the wider public, and the civ il society/NGOs in the GB area; 

• Dev elop a decision-making process for the implementation of the GB project, and 

identify in a participatory w ay the core team members/responsibilities in order to ensure 

equal representation of all stakeholders; 

• Build capacity of local NGOs so as to enable them to lead biodiv ersity conservation 

projects and effectiv ely support the dev elopment of income-generating activ ities and 

sustainable dev elopment. 

11. Promote a participatory approach for community involvement in natural resources 

management 

• Build capacity of local authorities to support and adv ocate conservation and sustainable 

dev elopment; 

• Adv ocate and support public participation in decision making process; 

• Dev elop mechanism of informing and inv olvement of local population in conservation 

effor ts; 

10 - 10


• Create a netw ork of “Green Belt Ambassadors”, a group of open-minded, nature-lov ing 

people in the GB area that w ould promote the Action Plan and the common v ision. 

1<strong>2.</strong> Raise awareness of the importance, advantages and benefits of conservation 

• Dev elop an aw areness-raising plan tailored to different target groups in order to inform, promote and educate these groups about conservation and sustainable development. 

13. Promote a feeling of ownership among the population in relation to the cultural, 

social and natural values of the area 

• Improv e the self-esteem of the local communities in relation to their tradition and value 

of nature in GB, in order to provide added value to living in the Green Belt area. 

10 - 11

11. A conceptual model for monitoring and 

evaluation 


The monitoring system dev eloped for the 

Green Belt area is based on socioeconomic, 

and biodiv ersity assessment 

results, and the conceptual model for 

identify ing root-causes of biodiv ersity loss. 

This system prov ides a set of 

env ironmental, social and sustainability 

indicators for further monitoring of negativ e 

impacts on the env ironment and use of 

natural resources in the area. It also 

monitors the performance success and 

adaptation needs of different initiativ es 

launched for the implementation of the 

Green Belt Action Plan. It is important to 

note that usage of this monitoring model 

requires detail researching of the status and 

trends of populations target species and biodiv ersity processes. 

Monitoring indicators have been selected according to certain criteria listed below: 

• Data av ailability ; 

• Efficiency: As far as possible, indicator data should be easy to obtain, costeffectiv 

e, and measurable; 

• Relev ance: Indicators should be relevant to w hat one needs to know; 

• Accuracy: The <strong>information</strong> needs to be accurate and from reliable sources; 

• Sensitiv ity: Indicators should be sufficiently sensitiv e to prov ide an early 

detection of positiv e or negativ e change ov er a w ide range of values; 

• Simplicity : In addition to often being more cost effectiv e, simple, easy -tounderstand 

indicators are crucial for communicating <strong>information</strong> to the public 

and policy makers. 

Nev ertheless, in line w ith the preliminary nature of this approach, the indicators 

presented below , are neither the only ones available nor necessarily the best. The 

proposed monitoring sy stem w ill be rev iewed, ex panded, or reduced in the follow ing 

phase of the Green Belt Action Plan implementation. It is suggested that the nex t steps 

tow ards dev eloping a monitoring system inv olv e: 

Discussion of indicator and monitoring system betw een stakeholders, including: 

• definition of the system and allocation of responsibilities; 

• benchmarking ecosystem health and the socio-economic conditions; 

• initial dev elopment of a series of process indicators in order to monitor the 

uptake of conservation and sustainability actions; and



• draw ing up a second stage of performance indicators to v erify the effectiv eness 

of the processes that hav e been established by stakeholders. 

11.<strong>2.</strong> Monitoring and evaluation of the ecoregional conservation 

Monitoring and ev aluation (M&E) are crucial components of large 

scale and long-term conserv ation, such as the conserv ation 

strategies for dev eloping functional conserv ation landscapes 

w ithin the WWF Ecoregion Conservation framew ork. WWF and its 

partners should track progress tow ard the biodiv ersity vision, 

demonstrate and communicate the effects of ecoregion 

conserv ation on biodiversity, and constantly improv e ecoregional 

conserv ation plans and actions. 

Among the objectiv es for setting up an M&E framew ork are: 

• Assess progress in meeting biodiversity goals/targets of 

the conserv ation strategy (short- to mid-term) and 

biodiv ersity v ision (long-term) of each ecoregion and of 

all ecoregions collectiv ely w here WWF w orks; 

• Prov ide an early warning of emerging biodiv ersity problems; 

• Understand how biodiversity factors, including socio-economic factors that 

depend on biodiv ersity, influence social responses affecting biodiv ersity 

conserv ation; 

• Improv e performance by WWF and its partners in ecoregion conserv ation 

through an adaptiv e management approach that striv es to constantly improve 

the application of personnel and financial resources; 

• Enhance communication w ith the public, donors and other stakeholders 

regarding ecoregional conservation. 

The Pressure-State-Response model dev elops the material 

from biodiv ersity and socio-economic assessments and the 

common framew ork for M&E is the “Pressure-State- 

Response” (PSR) model and v arious versions of it. The basic 

concept is that a set of carefully selected indicators allow s one 

to track changes in (1) human activ ities that affect the 

env ironment (the “pressure” or “driv ing force”), (2) the 

condition of the env ironment (the “state”), and (3) how society 

or some segment of society is responding in a w ay that 

changes the pressure or driv ing force (“response”). Periodic 

monitoring then allow s one to see w hether and how the state 

of the env ironment is affected by the societal response. 

The PSR model dev elops the data from biodiv ersity and socio-economic assessments 

and the root causes analysis into a systematic picture of: 

• the state of the env ironment, 

• the pressures that affect this state, and 

11 - 3



11 - 4 

• the responses to those pressures. 

In this w ay, the model links problems with their solutions, providing an ov erv iew of 

dy namic processes that can be monitored in a v ariety of w ays. Hence, the PSR model 

prov ides the foundation for the dev elopment of sustainability indicators that are designed 

to monitor positiv e or negativ e changes in the model. The PSR model is not only 

interested in the nature and ty pe of socio-economic and ecological considerations, but is 

also interested in the interaction betw een the different socio-economic and 

env ironmental issues. Pressures on the state of the env ironment need a human 

response, and the model shows the interaction betw een these three phases of the 

dev elopment process. Moreover, when associated w ith GIS technology , it prov ides a 

functional methodology for displaying socio-economic and env ironmental interaction and 

change ov er a spatial area. In this respect, the PSR model is ideally suited for 

conserv ation-led territorial planning, for an ecoregion approach, and for landscape

modelling. 



Pressure–State-Response model 

The Pressure-State-Response model w as dev eloped in the 1970s by the Canadian 

statistician Anthony Friend, and later adopted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation 

and Dev elopment (OECD) in 1994. It has subsequently been adopted by 

organisations such as UNEP and the EC as the basic methodology for env ironmental 

impact assessments and strategic env ironmental assessments. Driv ing forces and 

impacts hav e recently been added to this ty pe of analysis. The PSR model is the tool to 

derriv e a common set of different ty pes of indicators. Using this framew ork, societal, 

economic, and env ironmental activ ities can be analysed by sustainability criteria, and 

stakeholders can v iew a dynamic picture of how sustainable their activ ities are, both in 

relation to themselv es and in relation to w ider society. 

The model proposed here calls for tracking of four sets of indicators in the different 

functional conserv ation landscapes and, globally speaking, ov er the w hole ecoregion: 

1. Pressure or driv ers of biodiversity change; 

<strong>2.</strong> State of biodiv ersity and the environment; 

3. Socio-economic value of biodiversity; 

4. Societal response to the state and socio-economic v alue of biodiv ersity . 

These four blocks of indicators can be defined as follows: 

1. Driv ers (pressure or driving forces) create or act on stresses that directly affect 

biodiv ersity . Driv ers can either increase or decrease certain stress. The job here is to 

monitor and ev aluate changes in human activ ities - the driv ers and resulting stresses 

that are ex pected to greatly affect progress tow ard meeting the goals of the biodiv ersity 

v ision. Ex amples of driv ers creating stress are industrial activ ities that lead to 

env ironmental pollution, increased rates of road building, and human immigration into 

intact habitats. Ex amples of driv ers that decrease stress are improv ed technologies that 

reduce industrial wastes and human emigration from an area of important habitat. 

<strong>2.</strong> Biodiv ersity state refers to those features of biodiv ersity identified as important in the 

biodiv ersity v ision. Monitoring the state enables us to assess progress tow ards meeting 

the biodiv ersity v ision and the shorter-term (5-10-y ear) biodiversity conservation goals 

for the ecoregion. A key task is to determine if and to w hat ex tent changes in biodiv ersity 

are a consequence of changes in the driv ers and resulting stresses w e hav e identified 

as important. 

3. Socio-economic value is a measure of how biodiv ersity (the “state”) affects the w elfare 

of society both w ithin and bey ond the ecoregion in both monetary and non-monetary 

terms. Values may be positiv e (eg. rev enues from fisheries) or negativ e (eg. illness from 

pollution). Monitoring here w ill track the natural capital of, and the products and services 

that flow from, biodiv ersity and ecological processes. 

4. Societal response refers to how key segments of society (eg. gov ernment agencies, 

citizens and citizen groups and other nonprofits), because of concerns about the 

biodiv ersity state and resulting socio-economic impacts, are acting to change the drivers. 

As may be apparent, there is often no distinct difference betw een driv ers and societal 

response. To judge if and to w hat ex tent ecoregion conserv ation efforts are making a 

difference, M&E must be able to differentiate betw een changes in driv ers induced by 

ecoregion conserv ation and changes brought about by other factors. WWF’s action in an 

11 - 5



ecoregion, for ex ample, can be considered one of several societal responses, and WWF 

needs to be able to determine if its interv entions are in fact changing drivers in w ays that 

benefit biodiv ersity. 

11 - 6


11 - 7

Addressing the root-causes of biodiversity loss 

7 - 8 


INDICATOR TYPE AIM JUSTIFICATION METHOD 


damaged trees 

Distribution and 

genetic div ersity 

State To monitor state and 

health of forest 

habitats; 

State Asses the population 

v iability and map the 

distribution; 

Lutra lutra tracks State To acquire 

know ledge of 

population status 

and trends; 

Bear mortality in traffic 

accidents 

Bat species 

roosting/breeding 

cav es and feeding 

bats at karstic riv ers 

Number of bear 

passes, bridges and 

corridors constructed 

Bear mortality in traffic 

accidents 

Number of bears and 

population trend 

Pressure/ 

State 

Response/ 

Pressure 

State/ 

Pressure 


To reduce bear 

mortality in traffic; 

To acquire 

know ledge on bat 

populations status 

and trends; 

To reduce accidents 

and bear mortality in 

traffic; 

To reduce bear 

mortality in traffic; 

To ev aluate state of 

population in the GB 

area; 

Fir serves as indicator 

species for the mountain 

forests and is a good 

sign of the forest health 

and habitat quality ; 

Isolated species, shows 

the lev el of mountain 

grasslands/ screes 

destruction; 

The population status 

and trends in the GB 

area are unknown, but 

generally decreasing in 

Montenegro; 

Increased number of 

bear bridges will reduce 

traffic accidents. This 

umbrella and indicator 

tax on (Chiroptera) show 

the health of the karstic 

riv ers ecosystem being 

their feeding ground; 



traffic accidents; 

Healthy bear population 

implies healthy habitats; 


Monitor the state and 

health of fir trees on 

selected pilot plots 

under different level of 

forest management; 

Mapping of the 

distribution, surv ey of 

the population genome 

and inbreeding; 

Surv ey of river bank 

sides searching for 

tracks; 

Data collection on bear 

mortality and place; 

Surv eying, mapping 

and monitoring; 

Mapping of bear 

passes and corridors 

constructed; 

Data collection on bear 

mortality and place; 

DNA sampling and 

analysis; 

Surv ey on bear 

UNIT OF 

MEASUREMENT 

% of damaged fir tree 

crow ns, level of 

damage; 

Area of distribution in 

ha; 

Genetic div ersity 

among populations; 

Number of indirect 

tracks (footprints, 

spraints); 

Number of bears 

killed; 

Number of 

roosting/breeding 

cav es; 

Number of bridges; 

Number of corridors; 

Number of bears 

killed; 

Number of healthy 

bears population; 

Number of bridges; 

PERIOD 

Each 5 

years; 

Each 10 

years; 

Each 5 years; 

Each y ear; 

Each 5 years; 

Every 5 y ears; 

Each y ear; 

Every 10 

years; 

Every 2 y ears;



Number of bear 

passes, bridges and 

corridors constructed 

Index measuring 

people aw areness of 

w aste problem 



Number of bear proof 

containers, number of 

fenced waste sites 

Bear quota / killed 

bears. 







Response 


State/ 

Pressure/ 



Pressure/ 


State 

Increase aw areness 

of the problem in the 

GB areas; 

To reduce accidents 

and bear mortality in 

traffic; 

Increase public 

aw areness and 

reduce number of 

people illegally 

disposing waste; 

Increase in recycling 

and composting; 



area; 

To reduce number of 

bears feeding on 

w aste sites and 

increase awareness 

of the problem in the 

GB areas; 

To determine trend 

in quotas and 

number of killed 

bears; 









traffic accidents; 

Public awareness will 

decrease number of 

waste disposal (illegal) 

and bears feeding on 

them Healthy bear 

population implies 

healthy habitats; 

Bear proof containers 

and fenced w aste 

disposals w ill prev ent 

bears feeding on waste; 

Stable population means 

stable quota; 

Public awareness will 

decrease number of 

waste disposal (illegal) 

and bears feeding on 

them; 

Healthy bear population 

implies healthy habitats; 

feeding habits; 

Collecting data from 

municipalities; 

Mapping of bear 

passes and corridors 

constructed; 

Questionnaires DNA 

sampling and analysis; 

Surv ey on bear 

feeding habits; 

Collecting data from 

municipalities; 

Statistics of Ministry of 

agriculture and 

forestry ; 

Questionnaires DNA 

sampling and analysis; 

UNIT OF 

MEASUREMENT 

Number of corridors; 

Number of people 

stating/recognizing 

problem; 


disposing waste in 

managed places, 

number of households 

recy cling; 

Number of bear proof 

containers, number of 

fenced w aste sites; 

Number of killed bears 

Bear quota; 



problem; 





recy cling; 

A bear 

PERIOD 




Annually/ 

Every 3 y ears/ 

Every 10 

years; 

11 - 9

7 - 10 



Water quality 

Bear quota / killed 

bears 




Length of new forest 

roads 

Water quality /Bear 

quota/killed bears 

Limestone quarry ing 


roads 

State/ 


Pressure/ 


Pressure/ 

State/ 


Pressure 

Pressure/ 

Pressure/ 

State 



area; 

To ev aluate water 

quality ; 


in quotas and 


bears; 








To reduce new road 

construction; 


quality ; 


in quotas and 


bears; 

Identify the surface 

under quarries, their 

impact and trend; 

Propose 

conservation/sanitati 

Water quality is important 

for the Karst ecosystems 

as there is no or little 

auto purification, and 

there is no or little 

wastew ater treatment; 


stable quota Public 

aw areness w ill decrease 

number of w aste disposal 

(illegal) and bears 

feeding on them; 

Less forest roads means 

less disturbance and 

habitat loss; 

Water quality is important 

for the Karst ecosystems 

as there is no or little 

auto purification, and 

there is no or little 

wastew ater treatment; 


stable quota; 

Limestone quarry ing is 

causing habitat 

fragmentation and 

disturbance; 

Number of quarrying and 

Field survey and 

monitoring; 



forestry ; 

Questionnaires; 

Obtaining data on new 

roads construction 

form foresters; 





forestry ; 

Identify area under 

quarries and the 

number of demands 

for the new quarrying 

areas; 

UNIT OF 

MEASUREMENT 

BOD Measurement for 

organic pollution and 

quantity of heavy 

metals; 

Number of killed bears 

Bear quota; 



problem; 





recy cling; 

Km/BOD; 

Measurement for 



metals; 

Number of killed 

bears; 

Bear quota; 

Number of quarries; 

Surface under 

quarries/km/BOD; 

Measurement for 


PERIOD 


Annually/ 


Annually/ 


Annually; 

Each 3 years/ 

Annually/ 

Every 2 y ears;



Water quality on measures to 

decrease/eliminate 

impact to habitats 

and biodiv ersity; 




quality ; 

Number of 

stakeholders 

supporting project 

goals; 

Limestone quarry ing; 


roads; 

Number of NGOs 


active in NGOs 

Number of 


Pressure/ 

Pressure 



Pressure 

To asses number of 

stakeholders 

supporting GB; 

Propose 


on measures to 






To develop civil 

society structures in 

the GB area and 

enable them to 

conduct biodiv ersity 

conservation, 

their surface are likely to 

increase over the nex t 

ten y ears; 



habitat loss; 

Water quality is 

important for the Karst 

ecosystems as there is 

no or little auto 

purification, and there is 

no or little w astew ater 

treatment; 

Co-operation among 

stakeholders on all level 

is important for the 

implementation of action 

plan, biodiv ersity 

conserv ation and 

sustainable dev elopment; 

Limestone quarrying is 



disturbance; 



habitat loss; 

Strong NGOs are needed 

for implementing action 

plan and to ensure 

biodiv ersity conservation; 








Communication events 

and w orkshops to 

prov ide buy -in of 

different stakeholder 

group; 





areas; 




Grants for NGOs, 

partnership projects, 

educational w orkshops 

and seminars; 



UNIT OF 

MEASUREMENT 


metals; 

No. of partnerships, 

memos of 

understanding, 

number of ev ents 

organized; 


Surface under 

quarries/km; 


activ e in the GB area, 

number of members; 


memos of 


PERIOD 

Annually/ 

Each 3 years/ 

Annually; 

Annually/ 

Annually/ 

Each 3 years; 

11 - 11

7 - 12 



stakeholders 


goals 

Limestone quarry ing 

Budget allocated for 

env ironment by state, 

county, municipalities 




Number of 

stakeholders 


goals 




monitoring and 

pollution prev ention 

projects and 

activ ities; 


stakeholders 

supporting GB 

project and action 

plan implementation; 

Identify the surface 

under quarries, their 

impact and trend; 

Propose 


on measures to 




To increase 

resources inv ested 

in the env ironmental 


biodiv ersity 

conservation; 













sustainable dev elopment; 

Limestone quarrying is 



disturbance; 

Number of quarrying and 

their surface are likely to 

increase over the nex t 

ten y ears; 

Increase in investment is 

needed for the action 












sustainable dev elopment 



group; 





areas; 

To change political will 

and importance given 

to biodiversity 


To prov ide 

international funding 

allocated to the 

env ironment. Grants 

for NGOs, partnership 

projects, educational 

workshops and 

seminars; 



UNIT OF 

MEASUREMENT 


organized; 


Surface under 

quarries; 

Number of staff in 


Income; 

% of state, counties 

and municipalities 

budget allocated; 





memos of 



organized; 

PERIOD 

Annually/ 

Annually/ 

Annually;



Enlisting of the core 

areas in the Emerald 

network 







New protected areas, 

% of increased surface 

under protection 







projects and 

activ ities; 


stakeholders 

supporting NMGB 

project and action 


To put the core 

areas netw ork under 

a legislation 

framework (Emerald 

netw ork); 

To increase 




biodiv ersity 










projects and 

activ ities; 

To increase 

category and 

surface of protected 

Implementation of Bern 

Conv ention; 








Core areas identified 

should be protected and 

for the most outstanding 



group; 



to biodiv ersity 


To prov ide 



env ironment; 

Grants for NGOs, 

partnership projects, 

educational w orkshops 

and seminars; 

Propose the protection 

to the relev ant 

authorities; 

UNIT OF 

MEASUREMENT 

No of areas included in 

the Emerald; 

Number of staff in 


Income; 







Ha of new protected 

areas; 

Category of protection; 

PERIOD 

Every 2years/ 

Annually/ 

Annually; 



Annually; 

11 - 13

7 - 14 



Number of PAs with 

increased protection 

category 



network 




Inclusion of flora and 

fauna requirements in 

the forest practices 

New protected areas, 

% of increased surface 

under protection 

Number of PAs with 

increased protection 

category 



network 




areas in order to 

cov er all core areas; 





netw ork); 

To increase 




biodiv ersity 


To change forest 

management in 

Montenegro (FSC 

standards 

implemented) and to 

take into account 

non-timber v alue of 

forest; 

To increase 

category and 

surface of protected 

areas in order to 

cov er all core areas; 





netw ork); 

areas, the level of 

protection should be 

increased to implement 

CAP; 






FSC will enable social, 

env ironmental and 

economic sustainable 

forest management; 

Core areas identified 

should be protected and 

for the most outstanding 

areas the lev el of 

protection should be 

increased to implement 

CAP; 





to biodiversity 


To prov ide 



env ironment; 

Prov ide FSC certificate 

for the GB forests and 

monitor the 

implementation of 

these standards 

monitoring FSC 

requirements 

implementations; 

Propose the protection 

to the relev ant 

authorities; 

Montenegrin 

gov ernment proposes 

the sites to the 

Conv ention 

Commission; 

UNIT OF 

MEASUREMENT 

Staff/management 

bodies taking care of 

the protected areas. 


the Emerald. Number 

of staff in protected 

areas; 

Income; 




Area of forest certified 

(ha); 

Dead trees per surface 

left; 

Number of FSC 

requirements 

implemented; 

Ha of new protected 

areas; 

Category of protection; 

Staff/management 

bodies taking care of 

the protected areas; 


the Emerald; 

PERIOD 



Every 2 y ears;



This chapter of the Study describes the main characteristics of Durmitor/Tara/Prokletije 

landscape and indicates the main problems for dev eloping the Strategic aims. 

Future economic dev elopment of Montenegro has to be 

founded on the principles of sustainability , which implies 

wise use of natural goods in relation to the rigid 

env ironmental protection demands. 

Resources that hav e been used for this S tudy are mainly 

Sector studies and Master plans of relev ant Ministries of 

the Montenegrin Gov ernment. 

Comprehensive stakeholder identification w as undertaken 

during the field missions. A first round of consultations w ith 

stakeholders included discussions about their v iews on 

challenges and approaches for securing better 

conserv ation of the Green Belt’s unique biological div ersity 

and natural resources. Public Enterprise for National 

Parks, Directors of NP Durmitor and NP Biogradska Gora, 

Muncipality of Kolasin, Zabljak, Plav and other 

stakeholders, including donors, NGOs, private sector representativ es, scientific and research 

institutes, all met to discuss the development of this Study . 

1<strong>2.</strong>1. National and public institutions 

The first Spatial Plan of the Republic of Montenegro w as prepared in 1986, and then in 1991 

and 1997 this Plan was modified by inclusion of amendments. A clear need for the 

dev elopment of the new Spatial Plan is evident, since after two decades of the first Plan, not 

much has been done in proclamation of new protected areas. Currently , the Gov ernment is 

preparing the new Spatial Plan, w hich will include dev elopment activ ities up to the year 

2020. 

Although the Northern region forms the biggest part of Montenegro, it is characterized by the 

low est dev elopment, with low industrialization and urbanization lev els. The main economical 

branch in this part is agriculture, but it still has not developed sufficiently. 

Since 1986 until today , only a small number of development goals proposed in the Spatial 

Plan hav e been ex ecuted. In the group of goals which have not been achieved are: BDP 

grow th, agricultural development (slight recov ery of agriculture is noticeable in the few last 

y ears, but in 2004 agriculture formed 72% of the prev ious BDP from 1989); the priv atization 

process (this process has not finished y et and there is no constant rise of economy). The 

main goals from “Montenegro – Ecological State” concept are being implemented very slowly 

(the natural and env ironmental protection goals, the spatial planning goals). 

12 - 1


1<strong>2.</strong><strong>2.</strong> Legislation 

Protected areas cov er 7,2% of the territory of Republic of Montenegro. The 

current protected area sy stem consists of the follow ing categories: National 

Parks, Special Nature Reserv es (w hich are within the territory of national 

parks), Natural Monuments, Protected Landscapes/Seascapes, City Parks, 

,and Protected Areas of International Importance. These categories do not 

correspond strictly to the IUCN’s protected area management category 

sy stem. Of the four ex isting National Parks, tw o are located in the northern 

mountain ecoregion – Biogradska Gora and Durmitor. 

The Physical Plan of Montenegro has identified additional areas to be protected under the 

categories of National Parks, Regional Parks, Natural Monuments, and Protected 

Landscapes, w hich will ex tend the protected area cov erage for 18,9%. Four proposed 

Regional Parks are in the northern ecoregion. 

The ov erall responsibility for management of National Parks is v ested w ith the Ministry of 

Env ironmental Protection and Phy sical Planning (MOEPPP). Legal prov isions in the Nature 

Protection Law (“Official Register of the Republic of Montenegro”, no. 36/77 and 2/82), and 

the Law on National Parks (“Official Register of the Republic of Montenegro”, no. 47/91) 

define the conditions for protected areas management as follows: 

a) National Parks: Existing NPs in Montenegro are managed by the Public Enterprise 

of National Parks of Montenegro (further re ferred to as the Public Enterprise), 

according to the Physical Plans for National Parks (PPNP) and the Programmes for 

the Protection and Development of National Parks (PPDNP) for each of the four 

NPs. 

b) Nature Reserves: All Nature Reserv es are located in NPs and their management is 

in compliance w ith PPNPs and PPDNPs, as w ell as w ith the zones established in 

PPNPs. 

c) Regional Parks: This category of protected areas has been proposed sev eral times 

by the Phy sical Plan of the Republic of Montenegro (1986, 1997), but it has nev er 

been established in practice. According to the Nature Protection Law, the 

responsibility for ensuring appropriate management regime in Regional Parks is 

v ested w ith municipalities. 

d) Natural Monuments and other categories of protected areas: These are also under 

the jurisdiction of municipalities. 

In 2005, the Gov ernment of Montenegro adopted a set of env ironmental laws: Law on 

Env ironmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Strategic Impact Assessment (SEA) and 

Integrated Pollution Prev ention and Control (IPPC). Implementation of these law s w ill begin 

in 2008 after building required institutional capacities. 

Many of the problems related to uncontrolled activ ities in and around National Park 

boundaries are the result of w eaknesses in the Law on Nature Protection and the Law on 

National Parks. For instance, under current laws, NP rangers are allow ed to monitor the 

catch, but not to iden tify indiv iduals engaged in illegal activity . Further, rangers do not hav e 

the righ t to initiate prosecution and hav e to rely on the local p olice force. Since by law the 

12 - 2


jurisdiction of the parks administration is strictly restricted to park boundaries, the rangers 

hav e no authority to check harmful activities (such as hunting) in the parks’ v icinity. In 

relation to Regional Parks, no management plans are required for its functioning. 

1<strong>2.</strong>3. Development plans by econom ic sectors 

Agriculture 

Intensive development of farming will be the main developmental goal in agriculture in the 

northern region. Already well developed farming on Pivska area should be improved and 

development should be initiated in Jezerska area, Sinjajevina 

mountain, and in Pester area. In other areas w ith smaller 

pasture complexes, development of small farms should 

grow. 

The riv er Lim v alley w ill be a zone of intensive agricultural 

development. The soil in this area is ideal for grow ing cereals 

and pasturage, w hile steep slopes are ex cellent ground for 

grow ing continental fruit. 

Heterogeneous agricultural activ ities will be developed in the 

w ider region of Pljevlja municipality , especially in the Pljev lja 

basin. This is the area w here the conflict between mineral 

exploitation and agriculture needs to be solv ed. 

Forestry 

Northern Montenegro has the b iggest forest resources in the w hole country with 70% of all 

w ood resource. Because of this, forest ex ploitation is the basic activ ity for most of 

municipalities in this region. The state ow ns 67,25% of forests, w hile the rest is under private 

ow nership. Both state and priv ate forest ow ners are not w ell organised and often do not 

comply with strategy documents in forests management. For ex ample, these strategies 

highlight actions such as the improvement and rev italization of forest resources, 

harmonization of ratio betw een wood production and forest cutting, as well as definition of 

priorities in the forestry work w ith the purpose of forest preserv ation. Forest certification 

process (FSC) 1 has started in 2004. 

Hunting 

Hunting is an important economic activ ity in the area although it is unknow n ex actly how 

much income local communities generate through it. The main market for hunting is covered 

by local people and in less number w ith Italians. Local hunting associations manage smaller 

hunting grounds, while the bigger are under unknow n concessionaires. Data on dev elopment 

plans is missing. 

1 Forest Stewardship Council A.C. FSC-STD-01-001 (April 2004) 

12 - 3


Industry and mining 

This region is suitable for dev elopment of food industry, exploitation of drinkable w ater, 

processing of the non-metal minerals, w ood processing, leather processing, and production 

of fur and foo tw ear. It is also suitable for expansion and intensification of structural 

(engineering) materials production. The most important issue in further dev elopment of 

mining and other industrial capacities is to comply to with the ecological principles and 

criteria. 

Tourism 

According to the Master Plan for tourism dev elopment, the strategic aim is to increase 

accommodation capacity to 50,000 hotel beds until 2010 and double this number until 2020. 

The northern Montenegrin region is characterized by insufficient offer of accommodation not 

related to hotel facilities. Technical infrastructures are generally poorly developed (w ater, 

traffic, w aste treatment). 

Tourism dev elopment plan defines sev eral tourist zones: high 

mountains (Durmitor, Bjelasica, Komovi, Prokletije); Kapetanov o 

Lake; Ćehotina, Ljubovidja rivers with Tara and Draga canyons. The 

priority in high-mountain zone tourism dev elopment is to encourage 

sustainable rural tourism – agro-tourism. This refers to renew al of life 

in villages and cottages, and provision of autochthonous 

gastronomic offer. Several v illages and cottages w ill be connected 

as one market through sev eral summer tours (collecting of medicinal 

plants, surv ey of flora and fauna, w alking, riding, etc.). The season 

of this kind of tourism w ill be an ex tended summer season (May – 

October). 

Among ex isting ski infrastructure, some former popular skiing places 

need rev iv al. Sport/recreation, hunting and sport fishing, sightseeing, 

“w ellness” programmes could all make a tourist offer in northern 

area of the country . 

Waste management 

Disposal sites are planned on the bases of potential users number, 

inner transport connection, and as short as possible transportation 

distances. The priority for w aste management in NMGB is to recover 

ex isting, mainly inadequate disposals (“illegal disposals”) which represent the biggest danger 

as potential sources of pollution. 

The netw ork of inter-municipality disposals for selectiv e collection of w aste and w aste 

treatment are planned to be built in Mojkovac, Niksic, Pljev lja and Berane. 

12 - 4

Traffic 


Traffic sy stems are planned to contribute to dev elopment of urban settlements. This system 

w ill improv e the connectiv ity of regional, national, and local networks with European 

netw orks. The future highw ay corridors are: 

• Highw ay section Beograd–South Adriatic: Boljare–Andrijev ica–Matesev o- 

• 

Bratonozici-w estern bypass of Podgorica-Tanki rt–Bar; 

Highw ay section connecting w ith highw ay Beograd–Bar to the border of UNMIK 

Kosov o: Andrijevica–Murino–Cakor–Bjeluha; 

• Highw ay section of the Adriatic–Ionic route: border w ith the Republic of Srpska 

(Trebinje region, BiH)–Cev o–Podgorica (southern or northern by pass) – Bozaj 

(border w ith Albania). 

Development of aviation infrastructure 

Airports of Berane, Zabljak and Niksic (the low est category of airport 3C) barely find their 

place in the av iation transport. The fu ture o f these airports lies in dev elopment of aerial 

transport for special needs, such as recreational and sport fly ing, seasonal, and regional 

traffic. 

Waters 

Spatial dev elopment concept of hydro-technical infrastructure comprises: w ater usage, water 

protection, basin protection, and water purification. 

In the field of w ater supply, the main aim is to be able to 

constantly prov ide w ater of good quality to both urban and 

rural population. This w ill be achiev ed through: reduction of 

losses, rationalization of w ater usage, usage of local springs 

(both underground and surface springs), prov ision of a 

missing w ater volume, and bottling of high quality w ater w ith 

the purpose of reaching positive economical effect. 

Surface w aters w ill be sufficient to satisfy the needs of 

industrial users. It is recommended to use recirculation model 

and make some correction in technological processes in order 

to reduce water consumption. For good quality agricultural 

soil, it is necessary to enable irrigation on 80% o f surfaces 

and drainage from at least 50% of surfaces. 

The future strategy for energy development in Montenegro w ill 

determine the future objectiv es in domain of renew able and 

non-renew able energy sources. It is suggested that hydroenergy 

potential gets special attention and that any 

development of this energy sector is in compliance w ith the 

National strategy of sustainable dev elopment. 

12 - 5


The main aim related to the field of w ater protection, is to maintain the quality of surface and 

underground waters. It is obligating to respect the criteria of effluent w ater quality depending 

on the source (communal wastew aters, industrial waste w aters, etc) and recipient (riv er size, 

lake size, artificial lake size, etc.). All urban settlements hav e to ow n equipment for 

w astew ater treatment. It is necessary to establish a zone of sanitary protection in each water 

source, no matter if the source is in use or if it is of potential ex ploitation. 

1<strong>2.</strong>4. International organizations 

UNDP Office in Montenegro 

UNDP w ill implement a republic w ide sustainable dev elopment programme in northern 

Montenegro with its GEF portfolio. This programme w ill emphasize links to Global Public 

Goods and Concerns in relation to dev elopment and sustainability . Their specific objectiv es 

are focused on enhancing appropriate legal and regulatory framework for the network of 

National and Regional Parks to effectiv ely function as protected areas, for good 

management of ex isting National Parks and proposed Regional Parks and on forming an 

effectiv e biological corridor in the northern mountain ecoregion. In terms of the non-GEF 

portfolio, UNDP LO Podgorica is working on sev eral other initiativ es: 

1. Env ironmental Geographic Information Sy stem (GIS) for Montenegro (UNDP GIS LO) in 

order to create conditions for informed decision-making, better monitoring, management and 

protection of forests in Montenegro. By August 2006 (end of Phase I) a central pilot geodatabase 

w ith focus on forestry and biodiv ersity data w ill be created and relevant 

stakeholders trained in using it; 

<strong>2.</strong> Strategic Framew ork for Development of Sustainable Tourism in Northern and Central 

Montenegro dev eloped in cooperation with Ministry of Tourism, with support of Rockefeller 

Brothers Fund and adopted by the Gov ernment of Montenegro in September 2004; 

3. Small hy dro pow er plant dev elopment strategy is developed with clear env ironmental 

guidelines that w ill prev ent unwanted env ironmental consequences; contributing to raising 

aw areness of the importance of renewable energy; laying foundations for a complete 

strategy for renewables (to be completed by December 2006); 

Montenegrin-Austrian partnership for Bjelasica and Komovi 

The Montenegrin-Austrian partnership is w orking on dev elopment of ecotourism in the area 

of Bjelasica and Komovi mountains from 2004 to 2006. This cov ers fiv e municipalities in the 

northern region o f the Republic of Montene gro to establish a regional tourism organization; 

undertake market research and dev elop an ecotourism strategy ; provide know -how transfer 

and coaching; and financial support for ecotourism pilot projects. 

USAID/CHF 

Since May 2002, CHF Montenegro has been responsible for the implementation of the 

Community Rev italization through Democratic Action (CRDA) programme w ith funding from 

USAID. In the last 3 years, USAID/CHF has invested more than 8,410,000 EUR in the 13 

12 - 6


municipalities (Municipalities of Sav nik, Zabljak, Niksic, Danilov grad, Pluzine, Andrijevica, 

Kolasin, Mojkovac, Plav, Rozaje, Berane, Pljev lja, and Bijelo Polje), cov ering four primary 

project pillars (infrastructure, environment, economic dev elopment and civ ic participation). 

USAID has now announced a two-year ex tension of the CRDA Programme but with a 

modified focus on stimulating the grow th of municipal and regional economies and job 

generation. It will w ork through local economic development planning councils w ith citizen, 

business and municipal gov ernment membership, and w ith business, trade and producer 

associations to identify and undertake project activ ities that represent the best opportunities 

to improv e local economies and generate jobs. 

UNESCO-BRESCE 

UNESCO’s action frame for the cultural and natural assets of local territorial dev elopment in 

south-eastern European countries is to w ork on sites included in MAB and WH netw orks as 

‘model regions’ for testing the innov ativ e approaches and dissemination. The core of 

UNESCO’s action is field-based ex perimental and capacity building activ ities in symbolic 

territorial sy stems, including in particular UNESCO designated sites (MAB Biosphere 

Reserves and World Heritage Sites). Together with IUCN, UNDP, WWF and Council of 

Europe striv es to support the Dinaric Arc initiativ e (DAI) 2 . 

IUCN 

IUCN-The World Conservation Union (Headquarters in Gland, Sw itzerland) comprises 1.063 

members w orldwide, consisting of States, Gov ernment agencies, international and national 

NGOs. Based on the Regional Office for Europe (ROfE) in Brussels has dev eloped the 

IUCN-European Programme with the goal to Halt the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 mainly 

focusing on the objectiv es of Understanding the main driv ers of biodiv ersity change and 

Managing our natural heritage. 

Together w ith 10 members in the region (2 from Serbia and Montenegro) IUCN-SEE striv es 

to support the Green Belt Initia tiv e w hich intends to conv ert the former “Iron Curtain” 

betw een Western and Eastern European Blocks into a linear corridor for linking ex isting and 

potential new protected areas throughout Europe. 

The implementation of the strategy of IUCN w ill achieve an extended netw ork of protected 

areas and ensure conservation of natural and cultural heritage based on trans-boundary cooperation 

of IUCN-members and – partners tow ards a more sustainable development of the 

region and a joint commitment towards international env ironmental standards. 

The ongoing project „Countdow n 2010: Development of Eco Villages Netw ork in Bosnia and 

Herzegov ina, Serbia and Montenegro“ is focusing on the principles of integrated 

2 The Dinaric Arc Initiative(DAI) is a broad framework of collaboration which aims to add value to the 

on-going programmes of all its partners, and put in place new specific actions aiming at: the 

preservation of the wealth and integrity of the Dinaric Arc trough establishment of networks of 

protected areas; the preservation and valorization of cultural diversity and cultural heritage; the 

promotion of intercultural dialogue; the empowerment of local societies; the integration of 

environmental policies; 

12 - 7


conserv ation of biodiversity and its natural resources in order to achiev e sustainable 

economic development of v illage communities. 

GTZ 

GTZ provides v iable, forw ard-looking solutions for political, economic, ecological and social 

dev elopment Technical Cooperation concentrates on the follow ing priority areas: promoting 

the economy and employment with special focus on structural reforms and reorganising the 

financial sector. GTZ runs a Programme to strengthen State of Montenegro’s capacity to 

introduce sustainable agricultural certification. 

SNV 

SNV prov ides support to strengthening intermediate lev el governance capacity (for example 

through prov ision of its technical ex pertise in the areas of participatory management, 

ecotourism, and sustainable harvest of natural resources). 

12 - 8

13. Green Belt partner's vision 

13.1. Joint vision 

The Montenegrin NGOs Green Home, Most, and Natura, and their international partner 

WWF, are concerned about the future of the Northern Montenegro Green Belt, and they are 

committed to w ork for the preserv ation of the natural v alues in this part of the country . This 

concern and commitment hav e materialised through the partnership forged w ithin the 

Northern Montenegro Green Belt project. 

Based on: 

• The Biodiv ersity Assessment Study carried out through the “Northern Montenegro 

Green Belt” project ov er the past two y ears, 

• The processes of consultation with a w ide array of stakeholders, and the many 

meetings, w orkshops, events that the NGOs organised or attended in the same 

period, and 

• On the track record of work of each NGO in their specific thematic and geographical 

areas of interest 

The four organisations decided to dev elop a joint v ision for the long-term conserv ation of the 

biological div ersity , and the sustainable use of natural resources in the Northern Montenegro 

Green Belt region. 

This vision is the baseline that the env ironmental NGOs wish to use as a starting point, in the 

effort to trigger a w ide debate among all concerned stakeholders, through w hich the v iews of 

the largest possible number of local, national, and international actors should be integrated. 

The final aim is, to reach and create a common, agreed vision w hich will be shared by as 

many people and institutions as possible. 

Therefore, the vision and the assessment contained in this document should not be seen as 

the end, but as the v ery beginning of a process which should lead to the forging of alliances 

among v arious stakeholders and the dev elopment of a long-term programme and action plan 

for the landscape, w hich will be implemented through projects, joint w ork, and other actions. 

This initial v ision focuses on the dev elopment of a representativ e system of conservation 

areas (core-protected areas, buffer zones, and corridors) throughout the Northern 

Montenegro Green Belt, w here the natural heritage is preserved and - w herever needed - 

restored, and where the natural resources are used in a sustainable and equitable w ay, so 

as to support the livelihoods and welfare of the people liv ing in the region. 

In order to reach this goal, partners hav e identified priority areas w ithin the landscape, and 

hav e dev eloped a first strategic action plan, w hich is summarized as follow s:

13. Green Belt Partner's vision 

1. further dev elop the ex isting netw ork of protected areas in Northern Montenegro, by 

creating new protected areas (PAs) and/or enlarging the existing ones; 

<strong>2.</strong> Initiate a range of new conserv ation projects in priority areas of high ecological v alue 

within the netw ork of PAs or in the corridors connecting them, focused on biodiversity 

conserv ation and sustainable management of natural resources; 

3. Forge new partnerships and strengthen ex isting ones, inv olv ing as many key 

stakeholders as possible; and 

4. Implement actions, w hich should lead to the implementation of the recommendations 

included in the Biodiversity Assessment Study and Action Plan. 

13.<strong>2.</strong> The Northern Montenegro Green Belt region – priority conservation landscapes 

in bio geographical context 

The map showed below is a geographic visualisation of the partners’ v ision that the NGO are 

ready and pleased to share w ith all concerned stakeholders and interest groups, in order to 

achiev e the agreement and joint v ision mentioned abov e. The map only shows part of the 

partners’ v ision - which also includes strategic recommendations for the Green Belt Action 

Plan and the dev elopment of the long-term programme for the landscape, to be put in 

practice implemented through projects, joint w ork, and other actions. 

8 - 2 

GREEN BELT BORDERS 

VISION BORDERS

13. Green Belt Partner's vision 

A. Durmitor National Park 

• Enlarge the boundaries of Durmitor National Park (NP) to the border w ith Bosnia and 

Herzegov ina and connecting Durmitor with the Sutjeska NP, including Ljubisnja Mountain; 

• Protect the Tara River flow between the borders of Durmitor NP and Biogradska Gora NP; 

• Enlarge the Durmitor NP to Pivsko Lake, Piva River and the cany on of Komarnica Riv er 

w ith Nev idio canyon. 

B. Sinjajevina Mountain 

• Establish new protected areas in the whole mountain chain: 

• Canyon of Mrtv ica River from Medjurijecje to Velje Duboko to Kapetanov o Lake; 

• Canyon of River Moraca with special focus on river spring Vragodo near Lola Mt; 

• Kapetanov o Lake with small lakes near Stozac and part of Maganik Mt; 

• Canyon of Plasnica River with confluent springs. 

C. Biogradska Gora NP 

• Protect the Cany on of Riv er Sjevernica, a left tributary of the Moraca River; 

• Protect Bjelasica and Kljuc Mountain together w ith Vranjestica Riv er; 

• Protect the NP border area and establish the Regional Nature Parks, including the 

municipalities of Vranjak, Mojkovac, Bijelo Polje, and Berane. 

D. Prokletije and Komovi Mt. area 

• Establish a new National Park in Prokletije and Komovi: 

• Protect the Montenegrin part of Prokletije Mt. and possibly establish a transboundary 

protected area, including Ropojana v alley, Vusanje with Hrid’s and Plav’s Lakes and rivers 

Lim, Tamnjacka, Trokuska, Ljuca, Vrulja, Grncar, and Zlorecica with confluent springs; 

• Protect the Komov i Mt. and the valley of Sutjeska River from Stav na (Komovi Mt. peak) to 

the Andrijev ica municipality, w here it is important to protect forests as a genetic reserve for 

seeds; 

• Protect the Tara cany on from the border of Biogradska Gora NP to Opasnica Riv er spring 

nearby Bijela Voda by Komovi Mt. and spring of the River Verusa by Maglic, and link 

further w ith parts nearby Han Garandzic. 

13 - 3

ANNEX 1, CHAPTER 4 & 8, 

INFORMATION ON NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PROTECTED 

AREAS

Annex 1 – Information on National System of 

Protected Areas 

A. Ex isting protected areas 

Table 1 

NAME AREA IN HECTARES 

National Parks 83,100 

Skadar Lake 40,000 

Lovcen 6,400 

Biogradska gora 5,400 

Durmitor 31,200 

Nature Reserves 500 

Manastirska tapija (NP Skadar lake) 53.1 

Pancev a oka and Crni zar (NP Skadar lake) 31<strong>2.</strong>5 

Grmozur (NP Skadar lake) 5.3 

Omerov a Gorica (NP Skadar lake) 9.1 

Crna poda (NP Durmitor) 80 

Botanical reserv e for Laurel-Oleander association 40 

abov e Sopot 

Natural Monuments 650 

Velika ulcinjska beach 600 

Mala ulcinjska beach 1.5 

Beach Valdanos 3 

Velji pijesak beach 0.5 

Beach Topolica 2 

Beach in Sutomore 4 

Lucice Beach 0.9 

Beach Canj 3.5 

Beach Pecin 1.5 

Beach Buljarica 4 

Beach in Petrov ac 1.5 

Drobni pijesak beach 1 

Sv eti Stefan beach 4 

Milocer beach 1 

Becici beach 5 

Slov enska plaza beach 4 

Mogren beach 2 

Beach Jaz 4 

Przno beach 2 

Sav inska dubrav a hill in Herceg Nov i 5 

Protected Landscapes / Seascapes 163.5 

Spas hill near Budv a 131 

Ratac Cape including Zukotrljica 30 

Stari Ulcinj island <strong>2.</strong>5 

City Parks 14.03 

Park "13 jul" (3,63) and Njegošev park (4,20) on 

Cetinje 

7.83 

Park near hotel "Boka" in Herceg Novi 1.2 

City park in Tiv at 3 

Park of the Castle on Topolica, Bar 2 

Other Sites 150.7 

Botanical garden of Mountain Flora Dulov ine in Kolasin 0.4 

Trebjesa hill in Niksic 126 

Botanical Garden in Grahovo 9.3 

3




Kotor Risan Bay (Municipality Kotor) 15,000 

Protected Areas of International Importance 237,899 

Tara Riv er Basin UNESCO MAB (includes NP and NP 182,899-31,200- 

Biogradska gora) 

5,400=153,299 

Kotor Risan Bay - UNESCO (includes town Kotor) 15,000 

Skadar lake – Ramsar site (National Park) 40,000 

Total (National protection) 99,513.23 

Percentage of State territory (13.812 km 2 ) 7.2% 

B. Proposed protected areas 

Table 2 


National Parks 14,000 

Prokletije 14,000 

Regional Parks 124,200 

Orjen mt. 19,000 

Rumija mt. 12,200 

Komovi mt. 21,000 

Sinjajev ina mt with Šaranci 42,400 

Maglic, Bioc & Volujak mts 7,200 

Ljubišnja mt. 7,800 

Turjak mt and Hajla mt 14,600 

Natural monuments >2,000 (~5,800) 

Platije – middle part of Cany on Moraca Riv er Not defined y et 

Cijev na river Cany on up to village Dinosa 2,000 

Mala Rijeka Riv er Canyon Not defined y et 1 

Protected Landscapes 117,300 

Visitor & Zeletin mts 31,000 

Beech forests on Obzovica mt. 300 

Catchment Area of Moraca River 86,000 

Total 257,500 (~261,300) 

Percentage of State territory (13.812 km 2 ) 18.9% 

1 There is a provisional assessment for area of both canyons of Mala Rijeka and Platije around 

3,800 hectares. 

4



C. National Definitions of Protected Areas 

Definitions of PAs in national legislation are provided in the Nature Protection law . These 

definitions partly correspond to certain IUCN definitions of PA management categories 

as described in the table below. 

Table 3 

IUCN definitions of PAs management categories2 National definitions of PAs3 CATEGORY la Strict Nature Reserve - Protected area Strict Nature Reserve 

managed mainly for science 

Defini tion: Strict Nature 

Definition: Area of land and/or sea possessing some Reserv es are areas of authentic 

outstanding or representativ e ecosystems, geological or or insignificantly changed 

physiological features and/or species, available primarily nature w ith outstanding 

for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring. scientific function. Strict Nature 

Reserv es are intended for 

maintaining of genetical 

CATEGORY Ib Wilderness Area: Protected area 

resources and ecosystems in 

dy namic and evolutionary state. 

Strict Nature Reserv es could be 

established according to the 

regulation of Institute for the 

Protection of Nature 

Special Nature Reserve 

managed mainly for wilderness protection 

Definition: Special Nature 

Definition: Large area of unmodified or slightly modified Reserv es are areas of the 

land, and/or sea, retaining its natural character and nature w ith at lest one or few 

influence, w ithout permanent or significant habitation, outstanding natural v alues 

w hich is protected and managed so as to preserv e its (plant and animal species, 

natural condition. 

relief, w ater) or processes of 

outstanding 

function. 

educational 

CATEGORY II National Park: Protected area managed 

Special Nature Reserv es could 

be established according to the 



National park 

mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation 

Definition: National Parks are 

Definition: Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to areas of ex ceptional and 

(a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more multiple natural v alues which 

ecosystems for present and future generations, (b) are secure for scientific, 

exclude ex ploitation or occupation inimical to the educational cultural, economical 

purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a and recreational function. Area 

foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational designated for a National Park 

and v isitor opportunities, all of w hich must be cannot be smaller than 3.000 

env ironmentally and culturally compatible. 

hectares, w hich has to prov ide 

1.000 hectares of authentically 

natural area at lest. 

National Parks could be 


2 According to “Parks for Life” and “Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories” 

3 According to the articles 18, 19, 20, 21 and 27 of Nature protection law (1997, 1982) 

5



IUCN definitions of PAs management categories 2 National definitions of PAs 3 

Law adopted by Parliament of 

CATEGORY III Natural Monument: Protected area 

managed mainly for conservation of specific natural 

features 

Definition: Area containing one, or more, specific natural 

or natural/cultural feature w hich is of outstanding or 

unique v alue because of its inherent rarity, representativ e 

or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance. 

CATEGORY IV Habitat/Species Management Area - 

Protected area managed mainly for conservation through 

management intervention 

Definition: Area of land and/or sea subject to activ e 

interv ention for management purposes so as to ensure 

the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the 

requirements of specific species. 

CATEGORY V Protected Landscape/Seascape - 

Protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape 

conservation and recreation 

Definition: Area of land, with coast and sea as 

appropriate, w here the interaction of people and nature 

ov er time has produced an area of distinct character w ith 

6 

the Republic. 

Corresponding ty pes of this 

ty pe of PA in national legislature 

are: a) Natural Monuments and 

b) Regional Parks. 

a) Natural Monuments 

Definition: Natural Monuments 

are indiv idual natural assets or 

parts of the nature 

(geomorphologic, geologicalpaleonthological 

or hy drological 

characteristics, plant 

specimens, small areas of 

botanical or zoological localities 

and other objects), w hich hav e 

particular scientific, educational, 

cultural and aesthetic v alues, 

due to their specific, 

endangered or rare features, 

appearances or location. 

Natural Monuments could be 




b) Regional Parks 

Definition: Regional Parks are 

larger areas of natural or 

created v alues with outstanding 

biological and ecological 

importance and secure 

recreational, protectiv e and 

educational function. 

Regional Parks could be 


regulation adopted by 

Parliament of the Municipality. 

Corresponding ty pe to this 

management category of PA is 

missing in national legislature 

Areas of ex ceptional natural 

values 

Definition: Areas of exceptional 

natural v alues are natural or 

cultiv ated areas of greater 

esthetical, landscape or



IUCN definitions of PAs management categories 2 National definitions of PAs 3 

significant aesthetic, ecological and/or cultural v alue, and 

often w ith high biological div ersity . Safeguarding the 

integrity of this traditional interaction is v ital to the 

protection, maintenance and ev olution of such an area. 

CATEGORY VI Managed Resource Protected Area - 

Protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of 

natural ecosystems 

Definition: Area containing predominantly unmodified 

natural systems, managed to ensure long term protection 

and maintenance of biological div ersity , while prov iding at 

the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and 

serv ices to meet community needs. 

cultural-historical v alues with 

dominant recreational function. 

Areas of ex ceptional natural 

v alues could be established 

according to the regulation of 

Institute for the Protection of 

Nature 

Note: Due to differen t 

management practice, Natural 

monuments could be 

considered as appropriate 

corresponding ty pe of PA to this 

IUCN management category . 

Corresponding ty pe to this 

management category of PA is 

missing in national legislature 

7



D. National Parks Biogradska Gora and Durmitor 

8 

NP Biogradska Gora 

Status: - National park since 1952 4 (IUCN management category II) 

Grid references – Geographic coordinates: 19 degrees 30 minutes – 19 

degrees 48 minutes, East; 42 degrees 52 minutes - 42 degrees 58 minutes, 

North. 

Area: 5.400 hectares 

Altitudes: 832-2116m above the sea; 

Commune: Kolasin, Mojkovac 

Climate: Continental alpine climate on high mountains and mid continental climate in downhill near to 

Tara River; average annual temperature is between 2 and 4°C, average temperature (for January) on 

lower altitudes in downhill is -2°, but gradually decreasing on higher altitudes up to -6°C, summer 

temperature lies between 12-16°C up to 18°C in Tara river valley; average rainfalls are 1.700-2000 

liters/m 2 annually; snow cover (>50cm) annually appears between 70-100 days; air humidity lies 

between 75-80%; dominate N (24%), SW (12%), E (12%) winds with period without winds of 44%. 

Habitats: following habitats are presented: 1) Deciduous relic forests on middle altitudes (downhill and 

river valleys); 2) Primeval forest in the core area of the NP; 3) Water habitats presented by Biogradsko 

Lake (average depth 4,5m, on altitude of 1094) and Tara river with their tributaries; 4) High mountain 

ecosystem on higher altitudes over the upper edge of high mountain forests. Forest ecosystems 

dominate making different horizontal and vertical zones. 

Biodiversity Site Description: Primeval forest in the catchment area of Biogradska river and river 

Jezerstica is most important ecosystem in the area. Among ~ 90 tree species, dominate beech and fir in 

following associations: Fageto-Aceretum visianii, Asyneuma-Fagetum moesiacae, Abieto-Fagetum 

moesiacae, Elymo Fagetum moesiacae, Seslerio fagetum moesiacae and Acery Fraxinetum 

montenegrinum. Other forests within the Park are presented in following association: Luzulo – Picetum 

montanum, Blechno-Picetum abietis, Oxali – Alnetum incanae, Pinetum mughi etc. Non-fores t 

ecosystems are developed on open spaces that has been occurred by following associations: - 

Seslerietalia comosae with Balkan endemic species developing high mountain meadows, including 

endemic Crepidetalia dinaricae on carbonate substrate; -Polygonietalia alpine and Arabidetalia 

flavescensis on screes, -Asplenietalia serpentrionalis in rock rifts, -Salicetalia herbaceae (on silicates) 

and Salicetalia retusae (on limestone) around snow drifts, -Vaccinietalia and Daphno-Rodoretalia hirsute 

on highest peaks and other plant associations contribute to the mountain meadows mentioned before. 

In water plant associations dominate submerse (reed) and floating associations (water lilies and 

Potamogeton). 

Geology: Eruptive and Sediment rocks formed in Mid Triassic era dominate on the Area. These rocks 

composed eruptive i.e. volcanic, mixed sediment - volcanic and carbonate layer. 

Pedology: Different types of soils are developed on the basic geological substrate such as: Alluvium and 

Diluvium on smaller areas near to river valleys, Umber eutric soil on gravel and limestone base tha t 

dominate on downhill slopes, Rendsine soil on limestone and humus presented on higher altitudes over 

the upper edge of high mountain forests, and silicate soil / Ranker. All these types of soil are young and 

shallow 

Cultural and Historical Monuments: Area is poor in Cultural and Historical Monuments, but traditional 

type of mountain houses called “katun” appears on the area. 

Ownership: Both of types of ownership – private and state owned are presented on the site, bu t 

accurate data could not bee provided. 

4 First protection of the site has been established in 1878 when King Nicolas I promoted Hunting 

ban – preservation over the area.



NP Durmitor 

Status: - National park since 1952 (IUCN management category II), 

UNESCO World Heritage site since 1980. NP Durmitor contributes to 

Tara river Basin (UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme) since 

1977). 

Grid references – Geographic coordinates: 19 degrees 07 minutes – 19 

degrees 38 minutes, East; 42 degrees 57 minutes - 43 degrees 17 

minutes, North. 

Area: 31.200 hectares 

Altitudes: 538-2523m above the sea, 

Commune: Žabljak, Mojkovac, Pljevlja, Plužine and Šavnik 

Climate: Subalpine climate lies up to 1200m above the sea and Alpine climate over it. Both of types are 

with cold long winters and fresh short summers; average temperature varies in the range of 0°C (on 

mountain peaks) over 2-4°C (in mountains) up to 6-8-10°C (Tara river Canyon); average rainfalls are 

1.250-2000 liters/m 2 annually; snow cover (>50cm) depends on altitudes but annually occurred in 

average 40-200 days; air humidity lies between 75-80%; dominate S (15%), N (12%), NE (8%) winds 

with period without winds of 37%. 

Habitats: Forests are presented by: high forests (8%), young forests (2%) and scrub-shrubs (13%). 

Relatively small forest cover is formed by different tree species but fir, pines, beech and oak dominates 

in many associations. Pastures and grasslands are developed as well as rocks and open slopes. 

Biodiversity Site Description: Eight tree associations compose Forest vegetation but following dominates 

Abieto Picetum montenegrinum, Abieto Pinetum silvestris and Abieto fagetum montengrinae. On 

pastures are registered few plant associations such as Bromo Plantaginetum, Festuco-Agrostidetum, 

Festucetum pseudoxanthynae, Genisto-Festucetum spadicae, Oxytropidion dinaricae. Vegetation on 

screes, rock rifts also contribute to the biodiversity of the area. Endemic plant species are presented on 

the site in significant number. 

Geology: Dominate karstic rocks developed in Mesozoic and Cainozoic. Original Durmitor's Flysch has 

been developed in local «Kučka kraljušt5 » that formed different forms of visible geological layers such 

as: Prutaš and Šareni pasovi. 

Hydrology: Hydrological values of the area are remarkable. In numerous water bodies forms dominate 

rivers and lakes. Lakes are permanent (Crno lake, Skrcko, Susicko, Zminicko etc.) or periodical (Zeleni 

vir). Tara river is most important surface water in the area that makes attractive hydrological and 

hydrogeological forms such as: karstic springs, «siga» forms on mouths of some tributary creeks and 

rapids along the river (locally called «buk»). 

Pedology: Soils are presented by following two groups: a) rendsine group of soils developed on slightly 

eroded limestone that dominate in the area and rare b) Umber group of soils on developed on siliceous 

and mixed siliceous-limestone substrate. Both of makes subtypes6 developed on particular locations. 

Cultural and Historical Monuments: Area is not rich Cultural and Historical Monuments, but traditional 

type of mountain houses called “katun” are presented in certain areas. 

Ow nership: Both of ty pes of ow nership – priv ate and state ow ned are presented on the 

site, but accurate data could not bee provide 

5 Locally developed type of Karst 

6 17 subtypes in total 

9

ANNEX 2, CHAPTERS 2, 5 & 13, 

ECONOMIC VALUATION OF TARA RIVER

Economic valuation of Tara river 

(Montenegro) 

Conducted by M.Sc. Danilo Mrdak 

for the WWF Mediterranean Programm e 

© WWF-Canon / M. GUNTHER - Tara River Durmitor National Park Montenegro 

Podgorica, December 2005

CONTENTS 

1. Executive summary ..........................................................................................................................1 

<strong>2.</strong> <strong>Background</strong> <strong>information</strong> on Tara river.................................................................................................2 

<strong>2.</strong>1 Water flow................................................................................................................................3 

<strong>2.</strong>2 Water temperature....................................................................................................................4 

<strong>2.</strong>3 Water quality............................................................................................................................4 

<strong>2.</strong>4 National and International lev els of protec tion .............................................................................4 

<strong>2.</strong>5 Natural (biological and geological) resources ..............................................................................4 

<strong>2.</strong>6 Cultural and historical monuments .............................................................................................5 

3. Economic potential of The Tara Riv er.................................................................................................6 

3.1 Tourism on the Tara River.........................................................................................................6 

4. Economic ev aluation.........................................................................................................................8 

4.1 Fly-fishing................................................................................................................................8 

4.1.1 Direct financial impact of fly-fishing-related tourism..............................................................8 

4.1.2 Indirect financial impact of fishing..................................................................................... 10 

4.1.3 Total financial impact of fishing on the Tara River (direct and indirect) ................................. 10 

4.2 Rafting................................................................................................................................... 11 

4.<strong>2.</strong>1 Data collecting ............................................................................................................... 11 

4.<strong>2.</strong>2 Direct financial impact of rafting on The Tara River............................................................ 12 

4.<strong>2.</strong>3 Indirect financial impact of rafting on river Tara.................................................................. 14 

4.<strong>2.</strong>4 C omplete financial impac t of rafting on the Tara Riv er (direc t and indirect) in 2005 ............... 15 

4.3 Complete Economic evaluation of The Tara River ..................................................................... 15 

5. Economic relev anc e of rafting and fly -fishing ac tivities ....................................................................... 16 

6. Concluding remarks by WWF .......................................................................................................... 17 

LIST OF T ABLES 

Table 1. The financial w orth of fis hing in the area under m anagement of A. A. Kolašin for 2004 (acc ording to 

data from A. A. Kolašin) ....................................................................................................................8 

Table <strong>2.</strong> The financial w orth of fis hing in the area under m anagement of N . P. Biogradska gora in 2004 

(according to data from N. P. Biogradska Gora) ..................................................................................9 

Table 3. The financial w orth of fis hing in the area under m anagement of N . P. Durmitor in 2004 (according to 

data from N. P. Durmitor) ..................................................................................................................9 

Table 4. Overall view of direct economic impact of fishing tourism.................................................................9 

Table 5. Overall view of indirect economic impact of fishing tourism ............................................................ 10 

Table 6. Complete financial value of fishing on the Tara River .................................................................... 10 

Table 7. Estimation of number and type of tourists which came to Tara for one day rafting in 2005 ............... 12 

Table 8. The direc t financial impac t of one day rafting tour on The Tara Riv er in 2005. ................................. 13 

Table 9. The direc t financial impac t of tw o and three day s rafting tour on The Tara Riv er in 2005 .................. 13 

Table 10. Overall v iew of direct ec onomic im pac t of rafting on Tara in 2005 ................................................. 13 

Table 11. The indirect financial im pac t of one day rafting tours on the Tara Riv er in 2005, by price differenc e. 14 

Table 1<strong>2.</strong> The indirect financial impact of one day rafting tour on the Tara River in 2005, by refreshments...... 14 

Table 13. Total indirect financial im pact of tw o and three day s rafting tours on the Tara Riv er in 2005 (price 

difference and refreshment)............................................................................................................. 14 

Table 14. Overall view of indirect economic impact of rafting on Tara in 2005 .............................................. 15 

Table 15. Complete financial evaluation of rafting on The Tara River in 2005 ............................................... 15 

Table 16. Economic evaluation of The Tara River...................................................................................... 16

Table 17. Total number of tourists (anglers + rafters) on the Tara River....................................................... 16 

Table 18. Statistical data of municipalities where rafting and fly-fishing is organized ..................................... 17 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Map of Montenegro and Tara river highlighted...............................................................................3 

For more <strong>information</strong> contact: 

Francesca Antonelli 

H ead of Freshw ater Unit, WWF M editerranean Programme 

Via Po 25C , 00195 Rom e, Italy 

Tel: +39 06 84497339 

Fax : +39 06 8413866 

E-mail: fantonelli@w wfmedpo.org 

DISCLAIMER: The author of the report is not responsible for the concluding remarks which are the view of 

WWF Mediterranean Programme.

1. Executive summary 

The Tara is the longes t riv er of M ontenegro flow ing for 141 km through the mountains. This report aimed at 

estimating how much are freshwater resources of this pristine river worth for local economies. 

Part of the Tara River flows through the Durmitor National Park w hich is the biggest national park in Serbia & Montenegro 

and the entire w atershed is listed since 1977 in UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Program, while in 1980, the Durmitor 

National Park and the Tara canyon became part of the UNESCO world natural and cultural heritage. 

The eco tourism activities currently pursued in this area are rafting, fly fishing, bird-watching, horse riding, hiking, 

mountain biking, canyoing and canoeing. Nevertheless tw o of those are currently only practiced with any regularity on the 

Tara: rafting and sport fishing. 

Rafting is the mos t im portant touris t ac tiv ity currently on offer on the Tara Riv er. This kind of adv enture on 

Tara has been attracting touris ts since 1964 and became one of the m ost popular and the mos t elite tourist 

activiti es in Montenegro during the 1980s. During the Balkan conflict (decay of SFRJ) in the 1990s, those activ ities 

w ere stopped but in the past few years rafting on the Tara Riv er has been reviv ed. Most recently rafting on the Tara River 

has been organized by the private tourist agencies and associations (most of them are registered as non-gov ernmental 

organizations). Rafting is organized only along 60 km of the Tara cany on. The rest of the river is used only for fishing 

although there is possibility for rafting on at least 30 additional km (upstream of the rafting starting point). 

Sport Fishing on Tara has been practiced for the last 20 years. The main fishing region for tourists is in Durmitor. In the 

last few y ears, the anglers’ association Kolasin has organized fly -fishing restricted to the region on the Tara River near 

the city of Kolasin. This part is equipped for foreign anglers w ho come to the Tara River for fly-fishing. Such “high level” 

tourism is unique not only for the Tara Riv er but for the w hole of Montenegro. In NP Biogradska gora there is Biogradsko 

lake, with an outlet riv er w hich is one of Tar a’s tributaries. This region is near the Tara Riv er (3 Km from Tara) betw een 

the tow ns Kolasin and Mojkovac , so this region can be considered as a complementary part of tourism on the Tara 

River. 

Once identified the activ ities rely ing on the freshwater resources of Tara the financial bene fit from the Tara River as a 

tourist destination hav e been estimated, taking into account fishing and rafting w hich cover over 99% of the w hole profit. 

While the income derived from fly fishing w as easier to estimate thanks to the permits sold to fishermen which are 

sy stematically registered, the income deriv ed from rafting was harder to be estimated due to non systematic registering 

by the rafting companies of tourists buy ing their serv ices. The income derived by rafting w as hence valuated on the basis 

of estimations and as such must be considered as a figure that approx imates the real one. 

The main results w ere: 

• Fly fishing seems to be still a small scale ac tiv ity , w hile rafting is highly dev eloped. 

• The total number of touris ts es timated to v isit Tara river in 2005 for rafting or fly fishing res ulted to be 

1<strong>2.</strong>663. 

• The total incom e derived from fly fishing in 2005 w as estim ated to be 29.530 €, w here the share due to 

direct inc om e w as 19.220 € and the s hare due to indirect income w as 103.310 €. 

• The total income deriv ed from rafting in 2005 w as a muc h more im portant figure reaching a total of 

1.056.364 €, w here the share due to direc t incom e w as 740.200 € and the share due to indirec t inc ome 

w as 316.164 €. 

1

• C ombining indirec t and direct sourc es of inc ome of both fly fishing and rafting the overall incom e in 

2005 w as estim ated to be 1. 085.894 €. 

• This amount of money can cov er the liv ing of about 22% of the population of the three municipalities 

hence these activ ities, w hich rely completely on the natural asset of the riv er, are excellent inc ome 

generating activ ities. 

As a final r emark it is highly recommended that this income generating activiti es, that carry a high 

economic potenti al, are developed with speci al attention to their potenti al impact on the environment. 

Their unregulated development would spoil those same resour ces upon which the activities are 

completely dependent. 

<strong>2.</strong> <strong>Background</strong> <strong>information</strong> on Tara river 

The Tara Riv er is one of the major mountain rivers in Serbia and Montenegro and the longest riv er in Montenegro. From 

its source in the Dinaric Alps of Montenegro, where it emerges from the confluence of the tw o rivers Opasanica and 

Verušica, it flows 141 km through the mountain region of Montenegro - Bjelasica, Ljubišnja, Sinjajev ina, Durmitor, Piv a – 

and ends its journey by joining with the Piv a Riv er near the Border with Bosnia to form the Drina Riv er in Šćepan polje. 

The Tara River is a unique tourist destination in Montenegro. All the resources on offer to tourists are natural resources 

w hich must be used sustainably. Ecotourism is the only tourism currently developed on the Tara. 

2

Figure 1. Map of Montenegro and Tara river highlighted 

The Tara River begins at an altitude of 1.089 m and ends at 433m. In the first part of its flow , the Tara forms a valley that 

becomes a canyon, 80 km long w ith an av erage depth of 1.000m. This cany on is the deepest riv er erosion in Europe, 

and the second deepest cany on in the world after the Great Cany on of the Colorado riv er. The deepest part is betw een 

Veliki Štouc (at an altitude of <strong>2.</strong>104 m) on the left and Obzir (at an altitude of 1.886m) on the right side and in this place 

the depth is 1.343 m. The surface of the whole The Tara River basin is about 1.900 km 2 

<strong>2.</strong>1 Water flow 

• Yearly av erage w ater flow in firth 82 m 3 /sec 

• Max imum monthly av erage w ater flow 275 m 3 /sec 

• Minimum monthly Av erage w ater flow 29 m 3 /sec 

• Max imum detected water flow 969 m 3 /sec 

• Minimum detected w ater flow 6 m 3 /s ec 

3

<strong>2.</strong>2 Water temperature 

• Av erage temperature per month 

January 4,1 C 0 

February 4,3 C 0 

March 5,3 C 0 

April 6,0 C 0 

May 8,0 C 0 

June 10,8 C 0 

July 12,6 C 0 

August 12,3 C 0 

September 10,7 C 0 

October 9,1 C 0 

Nov ember 6,3 C 0 

December 4,7 C 0 

• Av erage y early temperature 7,8 C 0 

• Max imum detected temperature 15 C 0 

• Minimum detected temperature 0,6 C 0 

<strong>2.</strong>3 Water quality 

The Tara River has very pure w ater (first class quality ), with a low level of organic compounds and high oxygen 

saturation. The water is drinkable throughout and is clear, without color or odour. 

<strong>2.</strong>4 National and International levels of protection 

Part of the Tara Riv er flows through the Durmitor Na tional Park. This is the biggest and most important national park in 

Serbia & Montenegro and is under international protection. In 1977 the whole Tara w atershed was included in UNESCO’s 

Biological Reservation of Planet Earth becoming part of the Man and Biosphere Program, and in 1980, the Durmitor 

National Park and the Tara canyon became part of the UNESCO world natural and cultural heritage. Thus the Tara River 

is under three-fold protection as a unique riv er in Europe. 

<strong>2.</strong>5 Natural (biological and geological) resources 

The Tara River, valley and cany on, is one of the most important areas for biodiv ersity on the Balkan Peninsula. Tara 

canyon w as one of th e most important refuges for European flora and fauna, during sev eral glacial periods. More than 

1000 plant species have been counted by scientists 1 , among them are about 25 endemic, relict and rare species. The 

1 Михаило Бебо Брајовић-Дурмитор и Тара, 1986. Stevanovc v. 2004. The endemism of the vascular flora 

of Montenegro under the scope of the latest investigation of the endemic flora of the Balkan peninsula. 

First symposium of ecologists of Montenegro, T ivat 14-18 October, 2004. 

4

area is also rich in fauna w ith animals characteristic of the Dinaric region. Large mammals including the bear, w olf, 

chamois, fox, and otter hav e been documented 2 along with150 bird species and numerous insects 3 as w ell. The T ara 

Riv er is home to the gray ling, brown trout and the biggest European trout – river char – which grows up to 1.5 m long and 

ov er 25 kg. In Tara canyon there are more than 80 w ell know n caves. In this stretch of the riv er six rivers flow in to Tara 

and four of them hav e their ow n canyons with depths of betw een 600 and 800 m. There are more than 15 brooks, over 

20 springs and over 20, more or less constant, w aterfalls on both sides of the cany on. 

<strong>2.</strong>6 Cultural and historical monuments 

In Tara cany on and v alley there are many archaeological sites including Celtic necropoli, roman roads (Via Anagnasti) 

w ith the remains of an ancient bridge, roman chancel “Mitreum” and roman tow n “Municipium”. In this region there are 

also the remains of five mediaev al tow ns (13 th – 15 th centuries), six monasteries (15 th and 16 th centuries) and ov er 10 

churches. 

2 Same as above. 

3 Same as above. 

5

3. Economic potential of The Tara River 

The Tara River is a unique tourist destination in Montenegro. All the resources on offer to tourists are natural resources 

w hich must be used sustainably. Ecotourism is the only tourism currently developed on the Tara, and the opportunity for 

direct contact betw een people and nature is the most attractiv e adventure for potential v isitors. In addition to the riv er 

there are the moun tains through w hich it makes its path, which we can observe as a additional resource for developing 

ecotourism. 

3.1 Tourism on the Tara River 

Below is a list of the activ ities w hich could be pursued in this area and on w hat aspects of Tara watershed natural asset 

they rely on: 

• Rafting – the remarkable nature o f The Tara River, her v alleys, cany on and mountains along riv er flow. Slow 

parts of flow and rapid (adrenalin) parts. 

• Sport fishing (fly fishing) – crystal and drinkable w ater, 3 species of trout (grayling Thymallus thymallus; 

huchen Hucho hucho; brow n trout Salmo trutta ) which are some of the most attractiv e species for fishing. 

• Bird – watching – remarkable nature of The Tara Riv er, and 172 bird species so far detected in cany on of The 

Tara River 

• Horse riding – remarkable nature, v alleys and canyon of The Tara Riv er. Forests, meadows, v illages and 

cultural heritage. 

• Hiking – remarkable nature, forests, meadow s, villages, cultural heritage. 

• Mountain biking - remarkable nature, forests, meadows, villages, cultural heritage. 

• Canyoning – cany on of the Tara River and four cany ons of Tara’s tributaries. 

• Canoeing – remarkable nature of the Tara Riv er. 

Currently only tw o of these are practiced with any regularity on the Tara. Those are rafting and sport fishing. 

Rafting is the most important tourist activity currently on offer on the Tara River. This kind of adv enture on Tara has been 

attracting tourists since 1964 and became one of the most popular and the most elite tourist activ ities in Montenegro 

during the 1980s. At that time it w as reserved for foreign tourists (from outside of SFRJ), who w ere able to pay the 

relatively high prices. The government of FR Montenegro organized rafting through the gov ernment company National 

Park Durmitorand “Unistours” form Foča, FR Bosna and Hercegov ina. At that time, for rafting, a w ooden raft called Trift 

w as used, w hich was the means of also transporting timbers dow nstream (from Montenegro) to the w ood factory at Foča. 

During the Balkan conflict (decay of SFRJ) in the 1990s, those activ ities were stopped. In the past few y ears rafting on 

the Tara Riv er has been rev ived thanks to the people w ho were rafters in the past. In this latest period of ra fting rubber 

rafts hav e started to be used. 

Most recently rafting on the Tara Riv er has been organized by the priv ate tourist agencies and associations (most of 

them are registered as non-gov ernmental organizations) formed by former Triftars (Rafters) and Tara enthusiasts. 

Rafting is organized only along 60 km of the Tara canyon. The rest of the river is used only for fishing although there is 

possibility for rafting on at least 30 additional km (upstream of the rafting starting point). Rafting on the Tara Riv er is 

organized as one, tw o or three day ev ents. There are four starting points, three are in NP Durmitor ( Šljiv ansko, Lev er 

Tara and Radov an Luka) and the last one and the most popular is Brštanov ica which is outside NP Durmitor. 

Sport Fishing on Tara has been practiced for the last 20 years. The main fishing region for tourists is in Durmitor. In this 

part fishing is restricted to artificial bites and to afternoon hours, and there is a limit of 3 trout to each participant. 

6

In the last few years, the anglers’ association Kolasin has organized fly -fishing restricted to the region on the Tara Riv er 

near the city of Kolasin. This part is equipped for foreign anglers who come to the Tara Riv er for fly -fishing. Such “high 

lev el” tourism is unique not only for the Tara River but for the whole of Montenegro. 

In NP Biogradska gora there is Biogradsko lake, with an outlet riv er w hich is one of Tara’s tributaries. This region is near 

the Tara Riv er (3 Km from Tara) betw een the tow ns Kolasin and Mojkov ac , so this region can be considered as a 

complementary part of tourism on the Tara River. On this lake, fishing is allow ed only in summer months, ev ery 

Thursday. 

7

4. Economic evaluation 

The follow ing section considers the direct and indirect financial benefit from the Tara Riv er as a tourist destination, taking 

into account fishing and rafting which cover ov er 99% of the whole profit of these kind of activ ities. 

4.1 Fly-fishing 

Fly -fishing activ ities are organized in the municipality of Kolasin and Zabljak. 

4.1.1 Direct financial impact of fly-fishing-related tourism 

Data for the analy sis of the financial impact of this activity on the Tara Riv er are based on data from th e Anglers’ 

Association Kolašin, NP Biogradska Gora and NP Durmitor. These three organizations are responsible for river 

management - N.P. Durmitor manages 60 km (the main part of the cany on) of the Tara River and A. A. Kolasin manages 

40 km. 

Fishing in the area under management of A. A. Kolašin 

There are tw o options for fishing in the region under the management of A. A. Kolašin. First, as a member of this 

Association, it is necessary to have a yearly fishing permission. The cost of an annual license is 20 €. The second option 

– a daily permit for fishing in the restricted part of the riv er (only for fly-fishing, catch and release) is 30 €. 

Option 1 

(annual) 

Option 2 

(daily) 

No. of permits sold Cost of permit subtotal TOTAL 

250 

20 € 

5.000 € 

143 30 € 

4.290 € 

9.290 € 

Table 1. The financial worth of fishing in the area under management of A. A. Kolašin for 2004 (according to data from A. A. 

Kolašin) 

Here it is important to underline the ty pe of anglers (tourists) fishing on Tara in A. A. Kolašin’s area. In the fly fishing area, 

foreign tourists play ed the main role, contributing about 60 % (by finance), and staying tw o or three day s. This means 

that in the fly fishing restricted area there w ere about 100 anglers last y ear (60 domestic + 40 foreign). Yearly permits are 

for domestic anglers, mainly local people from the Kolašin municipality . 

Fishing in National Park Biogradska Gora 

8

The fishing season on Biogradsko lake is v ery short, only three months in summer. This season is additionally restricted 

because fishing day is Thursday. The only fishing permission is the daily permit which costs 15 € (in 2004). The anglers 

fishing in N. P. BIogradska Gora in 2004 were mainly from Montenegro. 

No. of permits sold Cost of permit TOTA L 

N. P. “Biogradsko jezero” 338 15 € 5.070 € 

Table <strong>2.</strong> The financial worth of fishing in the area under management of N. P. Biogradska gora in 2004 (according to data 

from N. P. Biogradska Gora) 

Fishing in National Park Durmitor 

Fishing on the Tara River under the protection of N. P. Durmitor is allow ed all y ear round, except in the spaw ning period. 

In that time, thanks to the different spawning period of gray ling on the one side and brow n trout on the other, fishing is 

alw ays allow ed for one or tw o species of trout. The daily permit costs 15 €. 

The Tara River in N. P, 

Durmitor 

No. of permits sold Cost of permit TOTA L 

324 15 € 4.860 € 

Table 3. The financial worth of fishing in the area under management of N. P. Durmitor in 2004 (according to data from N. P. 

Durmitor) 

The anglers fishing on the Tara in N. P. Durmitor w ere mainly from Montenegro. N. P. Durmitor management estimate 

that they had no more that 30 foreign anglers in 2004, each stay ing for an average of two days. 

Overall economic evaluation of direct financial impact of fishing on the Tara River in 

2004 

The combination of the figures presented abov e provides the ov erall ev aluation of direct financial impact as follows. 

Total permits sold 

Number of 

foreign anglers 

Financial impact of foreign anglers, two 

days fishing (permits) 

A. A. Kolašin 9.290 € 40 <strong>2.</strong>400 € 

N. P. B. Gora 5.070 € - - 

N. P. Durmitor 4.860 € 30 900 € 

TOTAL 19.220 € 70 3.300 € 

Table 4. Overall view of direct economic impact of fishing tourism 

9

4.1.2 Indirect financial impact of fishing 

This is an estimation of the amount of money spent by tourists on accommodation, meals and ex tra ex penses. 

Foreign Anglers – These tourists usually spend two days on average. They typically come to Tara with their ow n vehicles 

and in groups of three to four anglers. For tw o days of fishing they w ould spend, at least three day s on the Tara Riv er 

and their ex penses per angler can be estimated thus: 

1. Meals, approx imately 20 € per day 

<strong>2.</strong> Accommodation, approximately 10 € per night 

3. Refreshment approx imately 5 € per day 

4. Souv enirs approximately 5 € per trip 

Domestic anglers – Domestic anglers are mainly from Serbia & Montenegro or from the Bosnia & Herzegovina. They 

come to Tara for one day fishing by their ow n vehicle in groups of three or four. They buy only refreshments, spending on 

av erage 5 € per day/angler. 

N o . of ang ler s 

Foreign 

anglers 

Domestic 

anglers 

70 

Accomm odation 

10 € 

1.400 € 

(per two nights) 

Meals 

20 € 

4.200 € 

(per three 

days) 

662 ~ ~ 

Table 5. Overall view of indirect economic impact of fishing tourism 

10 

Refreshments 

5 € 

1.050 € 

(per three day s) 

3.310 € 

(per one day ) 

Souvenirs 

5 € 

350 € 

(per trip) 

4.1.3 Total financial impact of fishing on the Tara River (direct and indirect) 

TOTAL 

7.000 € 

~ 3.310 € 

10.310 € 

The combination of the figures presented abov e provides the ov erall ev aluation of total financial impact of fishing as 

follows. 

Type of anglers Direct/indirect impact Amount subtotal total 

Domestic anglers 

Foreign anglers 

Direct impact 

indirect impact 

Direct impact 

Indirec t im pac t 

15.920 € 

3.310 € 

3.300 € 

7.000 € 

19.230 € 

10.300 € 

29.530 € 

Table 6. Complete financial value of fishing on the Tara River 

Av erage amount of money spent on fishing on the Tara River per angler in 2004: 

Dom estic angler – 29,05 €

4.2 Rafting 

Foreign angler – 147,20 € 

Again w e can separate the direct economic impact and the indirect economic impact of tourism related to ra fting on the 

Tara River. There is a lack of concrete data on numbers of tourists for this ty pe of activity . NP Durmitor has data related to 

the two and three day ev ents, which are reserved only for the financially adv antaged tourists (which cost up to 300 €, 

depending on the tourist agency). These kind of tourists are a small part of the total number of tourists that come to Tara 

for rafting. 

Rating is organized in the municipality of Zabljak and Pluzine. 

4.<strong>2.</strong>1 Data collecting 

One day rafting 

We were most interested in the number of tourists w hich come to Tara for one day rafting (from Brstanov ica to Šćepan 

polje and from Splav ište to Lever Tara) because this <strong>information</strong> is av ailable and could help us in ex trapolating the 

<strong>information</strong> on 2 and 3 day s rafting. the main rafter clubs and agencies w hich organize rafting on Tara responded to a 

questionnaire. We encountered difficulties initially w hen agencies (mainly NGOs) v astly underestimated tourist numbers 

for fear of raising the tax es paid by their businesses. 

We asked them to giv e us their estimation of the to tal number o f tourists which came to Tara for one day rafting (from 

Brstanov ica to Šćepan polje) in 2005. We asked them to prov ide these numbers in the form of Not less than – Not more 

than, in thousands. We also asked them to giv e an estimation of the ty pe of tourists (domestic\foreign) in percent. 

Ev eryone stated that this y ear (2005) had seen double the tourists of 2004. We asked the main rafters of eight clubs and 

agencies (the main organizers of rafting on Tara); the results are as follows: 

Number of tourists: 

• Four of them gave as their estimation in the range of 120 – 150 tourists 

• Tw o of them gav e as their estimation in range of 100 – 120 tourists 

• One of them gav e as his estimation in range of 80 – 100 tourists 

• One of them gav e as his estimation in range of 50 – 80 of tourists 

• 

Type of tourists: 

• Three of them gave 40% dom estic / 60 % foreign as their estimation of ty pe of tourists 

• Three of them gave 50% dom estic / 50% foreign as their estimation of ty pe of tourists 

• Tw o of them gav e 60 % dom estic / 40 % foreign as their estimation of ty pe of tourists 

Range 

(X min , X max) 

Mean value 

X mean 

(X mi n + X max / 2) 

11 

Estim ated no. of 

tourists 

X est. (Σ X mean /8) 

11 437,5 

% of Foreign 

tourists 

Rafter 1 1<strong>2.</strong>000 – 15.000 13.500 40 % 

Rafter 2 1<strong>2.</strong>000 – 15.000 13 .000 

50 % 

A ver ag e % o f 

Foreign 

tourists 

51,25 %

Foreign 



Rafter 5 10.000 – 1<strong>2.</strong>000 11.000 60 % 

Rafter 6 10.000 – 1<strong>2.</strong>000 11.000 60 % 

Rafter 7 8.000 – 10.000 9.000 40 % 

Rafter 8 5.000 – 8.000 6.500 

60 % 

Table 7. Estimation of number and type of tourists which came to Tara for one day rafting in 2005 

75% of the total number of tourists (11,437) came to Tara for one day rafting in the part Brstanov ica – Šćepan polje, 

because it is out of N. P. Durmitor and there is no tax . The remaining 25% w ere on one day rafting through N. P. 

Durmitor. All the interviewed rafters were in agreement about these percentages. 

Two and three day rafting 

In two and three day rafting, tourists and rafters hav e to go downstream Tara, through the N. P. Durmitor, which collects a 

special tax for rafting through the region under their pro tection. The tax is collected “per capita” and therefore prov ides a 

precise number of tourists w hich come for rafting on Tara. So far in 2005 in N. P. Durmitor tax has been collected from 

3,354 people. 

If w e assume that 25 % of the estimated total number of tourists (11.437) go for one day rafting in N. P. Durmitor (as 

estimated in the prev ious paragraph), it implies that 2,860 tourists went for one day rafting in N. P. Durmitor. In this case, 

the number of tourists who went for tw o and three day s rafting on Tara can be estimated as 494 tourists (3.354 – <strong>2.</strong>860 = 

494) a number made up of 80 % foreign and 20 % domestic tourists. 

4.<strong>2.</strong>2 Direct financial impact of rafting on The Tara River 

Here w e consider the income of the people guiding tourists along the river hence directly inv olved in organizing the rafting 

tours. 

One day rafting on Tara 

The price of one day rafting on Tara v aries from region to region (depending whether it is inside or outside N. P. Durmitor) 

and depends on the rafting club and agency that organizes the adventure. It is in the range of 40 – 60€, w ithout tax (this 

price includes breakfast at the starting point and lunch at some of the camps along the Tara). The breakfast is prepared 

by rafters and it is consists of natural and domestic specialties. The lunch is always roast lamb or calf or trout w ith 

v egetables, milk, yogurt, cream, cheese, all locally produced by the farmers. The rafting price also includes transport back 

to the starting point of rafting. 

For this ev aluation, we calculate the average price of 50 € per one day rafting trip. The foreign tourists are the main 

customers for one day rafting tours in N. P. Durmitor 

Tourist type 

No. of 

tourists 

Rafting 

Price 

In N. P. <strong>2.</strong>860 50 € 20 € 200.200 € 

Tax Sub total TOTAL 

12 

350.300 € 629.050 €

Durmitor 

tourists Out of N.P, 

Durmitor 

Domestic tourists 

Out of N.P. Durmitor4 3.002 50 € ~ 150.100 € 

5.575 50 € ~ 278.750 € 

Table 8. The direct financial impact of one day rafting tour on The Tara River in 2005. 

Two and three day rafting trip on Tara 

These trips are in the range of 160€ – 290 € depending on rafter club or agency. It is unclear how many people go for tw o 

days and how many go for a three day adv enture. We count the average price of 225 € for all 494 tourists. This price 

cov ers the 60 € tax for tw o or three days rafting in the National Park, meals (in some of the rafters camp) two nights 

sleeping in wooden houses on the riverbank of Tara (rafters camp) and return to the starting point. 

Tourist type No. of tourists Rafting price Sub total TOTAL 

Foreign tourists 

Domestic tourists 

396 

98 

225 € 

225 € 

89.100 € 

2<strong>2.</strong>050 € 

111.150 € 

Table 9. The direct financial impact of two and three days rafting tour on The Tara River in 2005 

Overall view of direct econ o mic impact of rafting on The Tara River in 2005 

The combination of the figures presented abov e provides the ov erall ev aluation of direct economic impact of rafting as 

follows. 

Tourist type 

No. of 

tourists 


Two and three 

days rafting 

Sub total TOTAL 

Foreign tourist 6.258 350.300 € 89.100 € 439.400 € 

Dom estic 

tourist 

5.673 278.750 € 2<strong>2.</strong>050 € 300.800 € 

740.200 € 

Table 10. Overall view of direct economic impact of rafting on Tara in 2005 

4 According to the rafters domestic tourists do not go inside the NP due to the tax due which they cannot 

afford. 

13

4.<strong>2.</strong>3 Indirect financial impact of rafting on river Tara 

Indirect financial impact includes money which does not go directly to the people who organize rafting. 

The customers of the Tara rafters are mainly people w ho come for summer v acations in Montenegro. According to the 

rafter guides sev enty percent of the total number of tourists w ho come for one day rafting on Tara are brought to Tara by 

seaside tourist agencies. Those agencies organize transport from the seaside to Tara and back, and they w ork in 

cooperation with the rafters clubs and agencies from the Tara Riv er. The price of one day rafting, w hen it is organized 

from the coast is 80 € per tourist, w ithout any tax. This mean that there is additional 30 € of indirect financial impact per 

capita (50 € is the average price paid to the rafters clubs and agencies from Tara). 

For the tw o and three day adventures it costs about 60 € more expensive if the trip is arranged at the seaside. About 40 

% of the tourists on tw o or three days rafting trips came to Tara on trips organized by agencies from the coast. 

Tourist type 

70 % of total no. 

(tourists from coast) 

Rafting price 

difference 

Sub Total Total 

Foreign tourist 

Domestic tourist 

4.103 

3.902 

30 € 

30 € 

123.090 € 

117.075 € 

240.165 € 

Table 11. The indirect financial impact of one day rafting tours on the Tara River in 2005, by price difference 

In indirect financial impact w e have to count refreshments. In ev ery rafters camp, where tourist are hav ing lunch, they 

spend some amount of money for refreshments. We calculate that ev ery tourist spends an av erage of 5 € ex tra for 

refreshments. 

Tourist type Total No. Daily refreshment Sub total Total 



5.862 

5.575 

5 € 

5 € 

29.310 € 

27.875 € 

57.185 € 

Table 1<strong>2.</strong> The indirect financial impact of one day rafting tour on the Tara River in 2005, by refreshments 

Tourist type 

Rafting price 

difference 

Refreshm ent (two days 

15 €) 

Sub total total 



9.054 € 

<strong>2.</strong>350 € 

5.940 € 

1.470 € 

14 .94 € 

3.820 € 

18.814 € 

Table 13. Total indirect financial impact of two and three days rafting tours on the Tara River in 2005 (price difference and 

refreshment) 

Combining the figures of the three tables w e obtain the total indirect economic impact of rafting on the Tara River in 2005: 

316.164 €. 

14

Tourist type 

Rafting price 

difference 

Refreshm ent Sub total Total 

Foreign 

tourist 

Domestic 


2 or 3 days 

rafting 


123.090 € 

9.054 € 

117.075 € 

29.310 € 

5.940 € 

27.875 € 

167.394 € 

316.164 € 

tourist 2 or 3 days 

rafting 

<strong>2.</strong>350 € 1.470 € 

148.770 € 

Table 14. Overall view of indirect economic impact of rafting on Tara in 2005 

4.<strong>2.</strong>4 Complete financial impact of rafting on the Tara River (direct and indirect) in 2005 

Tourist type Direct/indirect impact Amount Sub total TOTAL 


Dom estic 

tourist 

direct impact 

indirect impact 

Direct impact 

Indirect impact 

439 400 € 

167 394 € 

300 800 € 

148 770 € 

606.794 € 

449.570 € 

1.056.364 € 

Table 15. Complete financial evaluation of rafting on The Tara River in 2005 

Av erage amount of money spent by one tourist w ho comes for rafting on the Tara Riv er in 2005: 

Foreign tourist – 96,96 € 

Dom estic tourist – 79,24 € 

4.3 Complete Economic evaluation of The Tara River 

This section provides an analysis of the complete financial benefit of ecotourism on the Tara River. 

Tourist 

type 

fishing 

Direct impact Indirect impact 

rafting 

Direct impact Indirect impact 

TOTAL 

Foreign 

tourist 

3.300 € 7.000 € 439.400 € 167.394 € 617.094 € 

Domestic 

tourist 

15.920 € 3.310 € 300.800 € 148.770 € 468.800 € 

Σ 1.085.894 € 

15

Table 16. Economic evaluation of The Tara River 

Tourist type Fishing rafting Sub total TOTAL 

Foreign tourist 70 6.258 6.328 

Domestic tourist 662 5.673 6.335 

Table 17. Total number of tourists (anglers + rafters) on the Tara River 

Summary of <strong>information</strong> contained in the tables: 

16 

1<strong>2.</strong>663 

• An almost equal number of domestic and foreign tourists come to the Tara River 

This is a unique situation for Montenegro. The number of foreign tourists would be much higher if we counted the 

tourists from Bosnia & Herzegovina and Serbia as foreign, but it was impossible to detect their number. The 

reason is that they speak the same language as domestic tourists and rafters do not distinguish betw een them. 

In this analysis, foreign tourists are considered as those from European countries. The main foreign tourists this 

y ear (2005) were Slovenian, Czech, Italian, French and Russian. 

• The total financial impact of tourism on the Tara River is 1.085.894 € 

The real profit (if w e consider Montenegro as one financial system) could be much greater. We consider the 

profit to Montenegro for tourist activ ities on the Tara Riv er to be about €8000.00. This amount w ould be much 

higher if fishing tourism w ere better organized. It is necessary to do better marketing (directed at European 

countries) and better management of bio-resources (trout populations) in the Tara River. This should guarantee 

a much higher financial impact from fishing. If we calculate that the av erage amount that one foreign angler 

spends on Tara for an av erage of tw o day s fishing is €147.00, organizers of fishing tours should w ork on 

prolonging (more than tw o days) fishing trips, which should increase the overall financial impact of fishing. 

As a concluding observation regarding the economic impact of tourism on the Tara riv er, we hav e to stress that there is 

one more component of indirect economic impact w hich is not easy to demonstrate. It is the positiv e impressions that 

tourists take aw ay w ith them, the guarantee that those people w ill return to Tara in the future, and that they will share with 

their friends so that it becomes the best marketing for tourism in Tara and for rafting and fishing activ ities. From a financial 

point of v iew, 2005 has so far been the best y ear for the last 20 y ears. 

5. Economic relevance of rafting and fly-fishing activities 

The report has highlighted s o far that a total of 1.085.894 € w ere generated in 2005 by rafting and fly fishing in 

the Tara riv er. Keeping in mind that this is almos t certainly an underestim ation, how important is this figure for 

the local economy ? 

U nfortunately it w as impossible to know how many operators benefited from the income es timated for rafting 

and fly fishing by this report hence w e hav e used som e prox ies to w eight the economic im portance for the local 

communities interested (m unicipalities of Zabljak, Pluzine and Kolasin).

The S tatis tical Offic e of the Republic of M ontenegro (M onstat) published the following data on its website 

(13/01/2006): 

Municipalities Gross salary Employed 2004 Population 2003 Unemployed 

Zabljak 219,74 780 4.204 3.424 

Pluzine 251,30 958 4.272 3.314 

Kolasin 243,37 1.361 9.949 8.588 

Average 238,14 1.033 6.142 5.109 

National level 271 143.485 620.145 476.660 

Source: see note 5 

Table 18. Statistical data of municipalities where rafting and fly-fishing is organized 

If w e div ide the total incom e es timated by the av erage gross salary estim ate by M onstat (w hich ev en higher 

than the gross salary estimated for the three interested municipalities as show n in Table 18) w e obtain that 

these ac tiv ities could potentially provide an av erage national salary to 4007 people. The three municipalities 

inv olv ed by these activ ities are Zabljiak, Pluzinie and Kolasin (only for fly fishing). The population in those 3 

municipalities has been es timate in 2003 to be18.425. H ence on the basis of these figures rafting and fly 

fishing c ould prov ide a liv ing to 22% of the population of the three municipalities. 

According to the H uman Dev elopm ent Report of U N DP 6 the o ficial unem ploy ment rate of M ontenegro in 2004 

calculated by M onstat 7 w as 31 % . Furthermore the data prov ided by M onstat (note 5) at a municipal lev el 

(Table 18) denounc e a critical situation of the labor sector in Montenegro. 

In this soc io ec onomic pic ture it is ev ident that ac tiv ities inv estigated in this report w hich rely completely on the 

natural ass et of Tara riv er, can play a crucial role in the local econom ies and could contribute to im prov e the 

liv elihoods of loc al communities. 

6. Concluding remarks by WWF 

This report w as committed w ith the aim of making an estimation of how much the natural asset of Tara riv er is worth for 

local economies hence the most dev eloped income generating activ ities on going in the Tara river and relying on 

unspoiled freshw ater resources hav e been identified and estiamted. Without the outstanding natural asset of Tara and 

Durmitor national park those activ ities would not exist. 

5 

Republic of Montenegro, Statistical Office. Official Release N. 25. Podgorica, 25 May 2005. 

http://www.monstat.cg.yu/EngMeniGodisnjiPodaci.htm 

6 

Institute for Strategic Studies and Prognoses, 2005. “Diversities – Potential for Development, Human 

Development Report for Montenegro”. UNDP Podgorica. 

7 

Labour Force Survey - Federal Statistical Office, Employment Office of Montenegro, Monthly Statistical 

Review – Monstat. 

17

The economic v aluation of natural resources is an increasing branch of environmental economics which aims at prov iding 

natural resources w ith an economic v alue to prov e that their depletion and destruction is an economic loss. 

This study w as done without apply ing the most adv anced techniques of economic valuation of natural resources (like 

w illingness to pay or contingency v aluation) but a simple (and economic) approach: interv iews to all of those running 

rafting or fishing activ ities in the Tara riv er to estimate their annual income. The official registration of economic activ ities 

of this kind is still not adv anced in Montenegro and this made collection of data quite difficult. This report hence should not 

be taken for an ex haustiv e and comprehensive v aluation but rather as a partial rough estimation o f how much the most 

dev eloped activ ities relying on the beauty of the natural asset of Tara generate in one year. A more comprehensiv e study 

for the ev aluation of all the natural resources of Tara riv er w ould most probably prov ide a more precise figure but surely 

not a smaller one. 

With this premise the results are quite clearly stating that if the attraction vanishes (namely the wild nature that 

characterizes Tara river) the economic loss will be important. It is hence of pivotal importance that these 

activities are developed with the maximum care devoted to not over exploit the natural resources to secure their 

contribution to local economies for the future generations. 

Acknowledgements 

DANILO MRDAK wishes to thank all rafters from the all clubs and agencies that helped collect data. Thanks also to the people from 

the Anglers Association Kolašin for data related to the region of Tara under their management, and to Darko Brajušković, director of 

N. P. Biogradska Gora, who provided data related to fishing on Biolgradsko lake, and to Mr Pajović, director of N. P. Durmitor, for 

giving of help and data related to rafting and fishing in N. P. Durmitor. 

18

ANNEX 3, CHAPTER 5 

THE LAND STRUCTURE

The land structure 

Annex 3 – Land structure 

The land structure is composed of agricultural land which encompasses 56,73% (293 924 ha) of the total 

agricultural land in Montenegro. The cultiv able agricultural soil encompasses 115472 ha or 61,17% of the 

total cultiv able agricultural soil in Montenegro: gardens and the plough-land encompass 27 166 ha 

(57,93%), the fruit gardens 4431 ha (45,69%), meadows 83 870 ha (65,39%), and non cultiv able areas such 

are pastures 178437 ha (54,63%), ponds and fish ponds 15 ha (0,56%). 

In order to hav e a clearer picture of agriculture state, the Northern Montenegro Green Belt is divided, based 

on economic, social, demographic, and ecological conditions, in three parts: Durmitor area (w hich 

encompasses territory of municipalities Zabljak, Sav nik, Pluzine and Pljev lja), Tara area (w hich 

encompasses territory of municipalities Mojkov ac, Bijelo Polje, and Kolasin) and Prokletije area (w hich 

encompasses territory of municipalities Andrijev ica, Berane and Plav ). All statistic data are taken for these 

10 municipalities, which encompasses smaller surface than the Northern Montenegro Green Belt, w hat is 

the reason of small deviation in final results. 

Agricultural land by categories of use.2004. 

Note: 

Statistic data related to w hole Durmitor Tara Prokletije region are attached in Annex I. 

1. Durmitor 

Total (ha) 

Cultiv able 

area-all (ha) 

Arable fields 

and gardens Orchards Viney ards Meadow s Pastures 

Drumitor area encompasses territory of municipalities Zabljak, Savnik, Pluzine and Pljev lja. 

Ponds, 

fishponds 

Andrijevica 15873 5538 768 629 0 4141 10335 0 

Berane 27562 14711 3949 990 0 9772 12843 8 

Bijelo Polje 41377 24436 8170 1252 0 15014 16941 0 

Kolasin 27686 8907 997 380 5 7525 18774 5 

Mojkov ac 13689 4700 621 138 0 3941 8989 0 

Plav 24716 8129 1975 624 0 5530 16587 0 

Pljev lja 69042 28237 9412 341 0 18484 40804 1 

Pluzine 19749 7316 754 27 0 6535 12433 0 

Sav nik 32164 7092 323 50 0 6719 25071 1 

Zabljak 22066 6406 197 0 0 6209 15660 0 

293924 115472 27166 4431 5 83870 178437 15 

Montenegro, 

2004. 518047 188766 46888 9696 3921 128261 326620 2661 


2000. 517830 185822 49688 10761 3888 121485 327664 4344 

2


In the land fund structure, agricultural land encompasses 27.60% (143 021 ha) of total agricultural land in 

Montenegro. Cultivable agricultural land encompass 49051 ha or 25,98% of total cultiv able agricultural soil 

in Montenegro: gardens and plough-land 10686 ha (22,79%), fruit garden 418 ha (4,31%), meadows 37947 

ha (29,58%), and non cultivable: pasture 93 968 ha (28,76%), ponds and fish ponds 2 ha (0,07%). 

Table 1. Agricultural land by categories of use. Durmitor area.2004. 

total 

(ha) 

total 

cultiv able 

area (ha) 

gardens 

and 

arable 

fields Orchards 

Viney ards 

Meadow s Pasture 

ponds, 

fish 

ponds 

Pljev lja 69042 28237 9412 341 0 18484 40804 1 

Pluzine 19749 7316 754 27 0 6535 12433 0 

Sav nik 32164 7092 323 50 0 6719 25071 1 

Zabljak 22066 6406 197 0 0 6209 15660 0 

total 143021 49051 10686 418 0 37947 93968 2 


2004. 518047 188766 46888 9696 3921 128261 326620 2661 


2000. 517830 185822 49688 10761 3888 121485 327664 4344 

Traditional occupation of the people in Durmitor area is cattle breeding and agriculture, but only in the frame 

of the household. Cattle products are famous after high quality: lamb meat, smoked sheep meat, cheese... 

Durmitor area participate in total cattle number w ith 22,7% (38441), 1,98% (541) pigs, 26,62% (67728) 

sheep, 14,2% (1058) horses, 10, 29% (76005) chickens and 10,91 % (3903) beehiv es. 

Table <strong>2.</strong> Cattle, chickens, beehives; Durmitor area. 2005. 

Cattle Pigs Sheep Horses Chickens Beehives 

Pljev lja 23395 397 31680 377 50424 2340 

Pluzine 5241 101 15931 285 17001 362 

Sav nik 6268 28 13884 281 4520 944 

Zabljak 3537 15 6233 115 4060 257 

Total 38441 541 67728 1058 76005 3903 


2005. 169340 27241 254406 7447 738330 35772 


2001. 179071 19266 293197 10703 790577 42175 

Durmitor area participate w ith 26,59% of barley , 34,82% of ry e, in republic production and share in wheat 

(1,03%) and corn (0,10%) is very small. 

Table 3. Arable land by way of use (ha). Durmitor area. 2004. 

Arable Total Cerea Industria Vegeta Fodder Flow Nursery uncultiv ated 

3

fields 

and 

gardens 

(ha) 

sown 

area 

(ha) 


ls l plants bles ers plants arable fields 

Pljev lja 9412 1975 260 0 1425 290 0 0 7437 

Pluzine 754 341 16 0 273 52 0 0 413 

Savnik 323 323 34 0 280 9 0 0 0 

Zabljak 197 197 101 0 96 0 0 0 0 

10686 2836 411 0 2074 351 0 0 7850 

Montenegr 

o, 2004. 


46888 31902 5937 196 18181 7588 6 16 14964 

o, 2000. 49688 35729 9662 213 18347 7507 28 35 13896 

harv est 

ed area 

(ha) 

Table 4. Production of cereals. Durmitor area. 2004. 

Maize Wheat Rye 

total 

y ield(t) 

yield 

per ha 

harv ested 

area (ha) 

total 

y ield(t) 

yield 

per ha 

harv ested 

area (ha) 

total 

y ield(t) 

yield 

per ha 

Pljev lja 8 10 1.25 9 32 3.50 37 122 3 

Pluzine 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 4 1.20 2 2 1 

Savnik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Zabljak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Monten 

8 10 0,31 12 36 1,17 39 124 1 

egro, 3217 9641 <strong>2.</strong>99 1123 3473 3.09 112 256 <strong>2.</strong>14 

2004. 


egro, 

2000. 

3932 6765 1,72 1478 2888 1,95 66 80 1,21 

1.1 Fruit production and processing 

Fruit growing traditionally ex ists in Durmitor area, but there is no mass production (ex cept plums) or 

processing in final products of any fruit. The most common fruits are: plums, apples and pears. In the frame 

of forest fruits significant place have bilberries and straw berries. There is also tradition of people in this area 

to collect forest fruits, but only for the needs of house hold. 

Four municipality in this area, participated with 6,2% (24150) in total number of productiv e apple trees, 

13,36% (24450) with pear trees, 9,37% (112570) plum trees. 

Table 5. Fruit trees and fruit production. Durmitor area. 2004. 

Apples Pears Plums 

Number of Total Yield Number of Total Yield Number Total Yield 

4

productiv e 

trees 


yields 

(t) 

per 

tree 

(kg) 

productiv e 

trees 

y ields 

(t) 

per 

tree 

(kg) 

of 

productiv e 

trees 

yields 

(t) 

Pljev lja 20000 200 10 21000 210 10 100000 400 4 

Pluzine 3100 31 10 2900 29 10 6070 240 40 

Sav nik 1050 26 25 550 11 20 6500 78 12 

Zabljak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

total 

24150 257 11,25 24450 250 10 112570 718 14 


2004. 385244 3980 10.4 183005 1647 9 1200835 6155 5.1 

1.2 Honey production 

Production of high quality honey is intensified in the last couple y ears, and this area participated w ith 

10,91% in total number of beehiv es. With appropriate measures in increasing of honey production and 

organization of beekeepers in his area is possible in short term to organize production and placement of the 

honey on different markets in a short term. 

1.3 Vegetable production 

In addition to traditional production of potato and cabbage, lately there is higher production (for individual 

needs) of different and v ery quality v egetable, as carrot, onion, red beet, and green salad. Grow ing of 

potatoes is increasing, and there are good conditions for grow ing of seed potatoes. 

The most common agricultural products are: barley, rye, potato, cabbage. 

This area participated in Republic potato production w ith 13,59%, beans-12,16%, barley -24,08% and 

34,82% of ry e. 

harv est 

ed 

area 

(ha) 

Table 1.6. Production of cereals and vegetables. Durmitor area. 2004. 

barley potato beans 

total 

y ield(t) 

y ield per 

ha (t) 

harv ested 

area (ha) 

total 

y ield(t) 

y ield per 

ha (t) 

harv este 

d area 

(ha) 

total 

y ield(t 

) 

per 

tree 

(kg) 

yield 

per 

ha (t) 

Pljev lja 165 330 2 803 9645 12 140 140 1 

Pluzine 8 12 1.5 254 5064 20 2 16 8 

Sav nik 17 20 1.2 257 283 1.1 3 5 1.6 

Zabljak 100 110 1.1 82 925 9 0 0 0 

290 472 1,45 1396 15917 10,52 145 161 2,56 

5



egro, 

2004. 1026 1960 1.92 10350 117039 11.21 768 1324 1.72 

<strong>2.</strong> Tara area 

Tara area encompasses territory of Mojkovac, Kolasin and Bijelo Polje Municipalities. 

In the land structure, agricultural land encompasses 15,9% (82752 ha) of total agricultural land in 

Montenegro. Cultivable agricultural soil encompass 38043 ha or 20,15% of total cultiv able agricultural soil in 

Montenegro: gardens and plough-land 9788 ha (20,87%), fruit garden 1770 ha (18.25%), meadows 26480 

ha (20,64%), and non cultivable: pasture 44704 ha (13,68%), ponds and fish ponds 5 ha (0,18%). 

Table <strong>2.</strong>1. Agricultural land by categories of use. Tara area, 2004. 

Total 

cultiv able 

6 

ponds, 

fis h 

ponds 

Gardens and 

Viney ards 

Total (ha) area (ha) arable fields Orchards 

Meadow s Pasture 

Bijelo Polje 41377 24436 8170 1252 0 15014 16941 0 

Kolasin 27686 8907 997 380 5 7525 18774 5 

Mojkov ac 13689 4700 621 138 0 3941 8989 0 

82752 38043 9788 1770 5 26480 

44704 5 


2004. 518047 188766 46888 9696 3921 128261 326620 2661 

A cattle breeding is primary agricultural activity for the most of the active citizens. On the second place is 

production of v egetable (firstly potato), cereal growing is v ery low (but in last couple y ears production of 

buckw heat is increasing), and fruit grow ing has good preconditions, especially in Moraca Riv er area. 

These three municipalities participate in total Republic livestock number: with 37170 (21,94%) of cattle, pigs 

3562 (13,07%), sheep 56606 (22,25%), horses 2072 (27,82%), chickens 120700 (16,34%), beehives 4207 

(11,76%). 

Table <strong>2.</strong><strong>2.</strong> Cattle, chickens, beehives; Tara area 2005. 

cattle pigs sheep horses chickens beehives 

Bijelo Polje 24259 3202 33941 1168 62337 2224 

Kolasin 6724 223 10318 273 32924 836 

Mojkov ac 6187 137 12347 631 25439 1147 

37170 3562 56606 2072 120700 4207



2005. 169340 27241 254406 7447 738330 35772 

Tara area participate with 37,10% (95t) of ray and 64% of barley in republic production and share in wheat 

is 56,06% and in maize is 33,85%. 

Arable 

fields 

and 

garden 

Table <strong>2.</strong>3. Arable land by way of use (ha). Tara area, 2004. 

Total 

sown 

area 

Industr 

ial 

Nurser 

y 

uncultiv ate 

d arable 

fields 

Cerea 

Vegetable Fodde Flow er 

s (ha) (ha) ls plants s r s plants 

BijeloPolje 8170 6210 2061 0 2779 1370 0 0 1960 

Kolasin 997 957 141 0 767 49 0 15 25 

Mojkov ac 621 621 195 0 285 141 0 0 0 


9788 7788 2397 0 3831 1560 0 15 1985 

o, 2004. 46888 31902 5937 196 18181 7588 6 16 14964 

harvested 

area (ha) 

Table <strong>2.</strong>4. Cereal production. Tara area, 2004. 

Maize Wheat Rye 

total 

y ield(t) 

yield 

per 

ha 

harv ested 

area (ha) 

total 

yield(t) 

yield 

per 

ha 

harv ested 

area (ha) 

total 

y ield(t) 

yield 

per 

ha 

Bijelo Polje 651.00 2930.00 4.50 550.00 1925.00 3.50 40.00 84.00 <strong>2.</strong>10 

Kolasin 124.00 241.00 1.94 3.00 8.00 <strong>2.</strong>55 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mojkov ac 133.00 93.00 0.70 6.00 14.00 <strong>2.</strong>30 5.00 11.00 <strong>2.</strong>20 

908 3264 2,38 559 1947 2,78 45 95 2,15 


2004. 3217 9641 <strong>2.</strong>99 1123 3473 3.09 112 256 <strong>2.</strong>14 

<strong>2.</strong>1 Fruit production and processing 

Tara area is well known after traditional fruit grow ing, but fruit crop is relativ ely small w hich consequence of 

low fruit care is. Characteristic fruits for this area are: plums, pears and apples. 

Three municipality in this area, participated with 35,26% (135860) in total number of productiv e apple trees, 

25,84% (47290) with pear trees, 38,93 % (467539) plum trees. 

In the River Tara area producing of raspberry is dev eloped. There are small plantations, which are rentable, 

and their producing is additional income. 

7


Riv er Lim area has v ery good conditions for fruit grow ing, especially for growing of apple, pears and plums. 

Table <strong>2.</strong>5. Fruit trees and fruit production. Tara area 2004. 

Apples Pears Plums 

Number 

of 

productiv e 

trees 

Total 

yields 

(t) 

Yield 

per 

tree 

(kg) 

Number 

of 

productiv e 

trees 

Total 

y ields 

(t) 

Yield 

per 

tree 

(kg) 

Number 

of 

productiv e 

trees 

Total 

yields 

(t) 

Yield 

per 

tree 

(kg) 

BijeloPolje 90000 712 8 35570 141 4 353800 1396 4 

Kolasin 40250 466 11.6 10160 79 7.8 112850 267 <strong>2.</strong>4 

Mojkov ac 5610 56 10 1560 16 10.2 889 7 8 

135860 1234 9,8 47290 236 7,3 467539 1670 4,8 


2004. 385244 3980 10.4 183005 1647 9 1200835 6155 5.1 

<strong>2.</strong>2 Vegetable production 

Tara area has very good conditions for v egetable growing, especially potato. Kolasin is know n after seed 

potato production. There are good conditions for grow ing other v egetable: carrot, onion, cabbage, and 

poded v egetables. All v egetable production, except seed potato production, is for individual needs, but there 

are initiativ es for mass production of this v egetable for market. 

This area participated in Republic potato production w ith 36,87%, beans-26,81%, barley -64,64%. 

harv est 

ed area 

(ha) 

Table <strong>2.</strong>6. Production of cereals and vegetables. Tara area 2004. 

barley potato beans 

total 

y ield(t) 

yield 

per ha 

(t) 

harveste 

d area 

(ha) 

total 

yield(t) 

yield 

per ha 

(t) 

harv ested 

area (ha) 

total 

y ield(t) 

yield 

per ha 

(t) 

Bijelo Polje 540 1188 <strong>2.</strong>2 2022 35440 17.5 90 270 3 

Kolasin 11 19 1.71 662 5764 7.92 30 10 0.33 

Mojkov ac 26 60 <strong>2.</strong>3 217 1952 8 15 75 5 

577 1267 2,07 2901 43156 11,14 135 355 2,77 


2004. 1026 1960 1.92 10350 117039 11.21 768 1324 1.72 

8

3. Prokletije area 


Prokletije area encompasses territory of Andrijev ica, Berane and Plav municipalities. 

In the land fond structure, agricultural land encompasses 13.15% (68151 ha) of total agricultural land in 

Montenegro. Cultivable agricultural soil encompass 28378 ha or 15,03% of total cultiv able agricultural soil in 

Montenegro: gardens and plough-land 6692 ha (14.27%), fruit garden 2243 ha (23.13%), meadows 19443 

ha (15.15%), and non cultivable: pasture 39 765 ha (1<strong>2.</strong>17%), pools and fish pond 8 ha (0.30%). 

Table 3.1. Agricultural land by categories of use, (ha), Prokletije area. 2004. 

Cultiv able 

area-all 

(ha) 

Arable 

fields 

and 


2004. 518047 188766 46888 9696 3921 128261 326620 2661 

Agricultural production is traditional occupation of the people in this area, especially cattle breeding. 

Agricultural production is still ex tensive and with insufficient of effectiv e production. Use of agricultural 

mechanizations is low, as well use of modern agro technical measures. There is unfav orably breed of cattle. 

Prokletije area participate in total cattle number w ith: 15.28 % (25890), 9.17% (2500) pigs, 17.20% (43783) 

sheep, 3<strong>2.</strong>34% (2409) horses, 11.12 % (82132) chickens. 

Table 3.<strong>2.</strong> Cattle, chickens, beehives. Prokletije area.2005. 

Ponds, 

fishponds 

Total 

(ha) 

gardens Orchards Viney ards Meadow s Pastures 

Andrijev ica 15873 5538 768 629 0 4141 10335 0 

Berane 27562 14711 3949 990 0 9772 12843 8 

Plav 24716 8129 1975 624 0 5530 16587 0 

68151 28378 6692 2243 0 19443 39765 8 

Cattle Pigs Sheep Horses Chickens Beehives 

Andrijev ica 4363 721 5359 604 10203 842 

Berane 15717 1383 20808 1278 53766 1551 

Plav 5810 396 17616 527 18163 1339 

25890 2500 43783 2409 82132 3732 


2005. 169340 27241 254406 7447 738330 35772 

9

Arable 

fields 

and 

gardens 

(ha) 


Table 3.3. Arable land by way of use (ha). Prokletije area, 2004. 

Prokletije area participate with 9,37% of ray and 2,72% of barley in Republic production and share in w heat 

is 8,66% and in maize is 16,05%. 

3.1. Fruit production 

Table 3.4. Cereals production. Prokletije area.2004. 

This area has good preconditions for fruit grow ing: pears, plums and apples. Plum grow ing is characteristic 

for Prokletije region. This area participate in total republic number of productive plum tree w ith 37,31% 

(448050), pears 19,12% (35000) and in apple 19,02% (73280). This area is also well known after forest 

fruits, especially after bilberry (Plav ), and there are good preconditions for straw berry -like fruit. 

3.3. Vegetable production 

Total 

sown 

area (ha) Cereals 

Industrial 

plants Vegetables Fodder Flow ers 

Nursery 

plants 

There is no mass production of any kind of v egetable. But for any kind of mass production is needed to 

improv e producing technology. There are conditions for potato production. 

uncultiv ated 

arable 

fields 

Andrijevica 768 762 341 0 346 75 0 0 6 

Berane 3949 3018 500 0 1590 928 0 0 931 

Plav 1975 1975 407 0 558 1010 0 0 0 

6692 5755 1248 0 2494 2013 0 0 937 


2004. 46888 31902 5937 196 18181 7588 6 16 14964 

Maize Wheat Ray 

harv ested total yield per harv ested total yield harv ested total yield 

area (ha) y ield(t) ha area (ha) yield(t) per ha area (ha) y ield(t) per ha 

Andrijev ica 320.00 608.00 1.90 3.00 7.00 <strong>2.</strong>30 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Berane 300.00 540.00 1.80 140.00 294.00 <strong>2.</strong>10 15.00 20.00 1.30 

Plav 400.00 400.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 1.20 

1020.00 1548.00 1.56 143.00 301.00 1.46 18.00 24.00 0,83 



10

3.4. Honey 


Table 3.6. Production of cereals and vegetables. Prokletije area 2004. 

Prokletije area has a great surface of meadows and pastures and those are preconditions for honey 

production. 

4. Negative conditions which effected agricultural development 

Decade of lapsing, instigated negative effects on the whole economic situation which inevitably reflected on 

agriculture and small households, and caused comparativ ely quite low lev el of know ledge of producers, 

insufficient v illage infrastructure, insufficient use of modern technologies in the production process, imposed 

limits to processing capacities and prov oked low lev el on market sale. 

Necessities: 

• foreign direct inv estments in development of agriculture; 

• appliance of modern technologies; 

• sharing experiences of dev eloped countries; 

• education and training of agricultural producers; 

• education of ex perts in the donor countries; 

• establishment of rev olving funds for further investments in agriculture. 

5. Threats 

harv ested 

area (ha) 

barley 

total 

yield(t) 

yield 

per 

ha (t) 

harv ested 

area (ha) 

potato 

total 

yield(t) 

yield 

per ha 

(t) 

During upcoming economic valorization of the land it is necessary to pay attention to: 

beans 

harv ested area 

(ha) 

total 

y ield(t) 

Andrijev ica 8 13 1.6 250 575 <strong>2.</strong>3 10 8 0.8 

Berane 18 27 1.5 1200 2640 <strong>2.</strong>2 65 42 0.65 

Plav 2 2 1.2 428 6460 15 40 24 0.6 

28 42 1,4 1878 9675 6,5 115 74 0,68 


2004. 1026 1960 1.92 10350 117039 11.21 768 1324 1.72 

Intensiv e processes of regressing agriculture and decreasing population density prov oked 

decrease of the cultiv ated land resource and turning cultiv ated land into the meadow s, and 

11 

yield 

per 

ha 

(t)


meadow s into the pastures. This processes lead to degradation of the productiv e soil w hich 

alw ays hav e limited capacities, therefore is necessary to design, support and w ith adequate 

dev elopment impulses bring this processes to an end. 

6. Development of agriculture and village revitalization 1 

a) Pljevlja area 

This area encompasses Municipality Pljevlja along with several villages. 

The national project called: “International eco centre-ecological oasis Vrulja” (w hich refers to village near the 

tow n Pljevlja), includes 40 small development programs, and offers almost 5000 working positions, w hich 

would include the whole territory of the Municipality Pljev lja. 

Key dev elopment points in this area are: 

a) Crop planting and processing (production of seed, viruses less pot material, potato, v egetable, 

mushrooms, forest products, medical plants) 

b) Breeding of animals, (cattle breeding, sheep breeding, goat breeding, trout breeding, quarry ) 

c) Establishment of Ecological Centers (sanitary, hunting, ethno, production of healthy food) 

b) Durmitor area 

This area encompasses Municipalities Zabljak, Sav nik and Pluzine. 

According to the results of researches undertaken in the Durmitor area, dev elopment of the w hole region is 

based on support of agriculture and tourism. 

Project includes two phases. The first phase of the project includes: 

• Projects in the area of agriculture: cattle breeding, sheep breeding, trout breeding; 

• Establishment of distributiv e centers for the healthy food in Zabljak. 

The second phase of the project includes: 

• Building up to 92 farms on indiv idual households, reconstruction and revitalization of fish ponds, 

production of potato seed. 

c) Tara area 

This area encompasses Municipalities Kolasin, Mojkovac, Bijelo Polje, Berane. 

Considering the fact that this area is undev eloped and that the agricultural production is traditional 

occupation of the people in this area, the dev elopment of the region should be pointed to: 

1 Regional Development Strategy of Montenegro/Government of Montenegro, Secretariat or development 

12


• Rev italization of rural households, and maintain its characteristics of small units w ith traditional 

contents. 

• Rev italization of shepherd’s cottages w hich might be added conditions for production and places 

for tourists. 

• Valorization of small w ater flows which are feasible for fish raising 

• Use of clear springs of w ater for bottling. 

d) Prokletije 

This area encompasses Municipalities Plav and Andrijevica. 

Dev elopment of this quite undev eloped area is based on strengthening agriculture and forestry, also is 

depending on v illage and household revitalization. 

Conclusions 

Considering the extensive manner of performing agriculture and low use of pesticides, agriculture in this 

area is not a threat to biodiv ersity . All branches of agriculture are performed traditionally , therefore w ith its 

correct dev elopment and proper guiding agriculture should be the main dev elopment route of this region. 

This area is w ell preserv ed (good quality of air, w ater and soil) great area is in pastures and meadows, 

consequently development of agriculture in this area should be directed to production of healthy food, 

medical plants and development of livestock, and especially the cattle breeding and the sheep breeding. 

Fruit growing-Durmitor-Tara-Prokletije landscape has good conditions for fruit grow ing, especially for 

apple, pears and plum grow ing. It is necessary to consider the fact that significant surface of this area 

belongs to high mountain area, w ith unfav ourable climate conditions, w hich unable fruit grow ing. 

Relativ ely low crop is a result of low use of agro technical measures, in spite of traditional fruit grow ing. In 

addition, not a single fruit type has commercial production. Reason for that is probably lack of ransom and 

processing centres. Pljev lja and Bijelo Polje area is characteristic by plums growing and processing. Fruit 

grow ing dev elopment could be guided to production different kind of attractiv e fruit products: dry plums, dry 

apples... 

Lately , competent Ministry was acting on popularization of plantation raspberry production. Raspberry 

production w as v ery successful in this area. Bilberry harv esting is v ery popular and traditional in Prokletije 

and Durmitor area. DTP has great conditions for straw berry -like fruit production. 

Vegetable production-there is no commercial production of any kind of v egetable. Conditions for seed 

potato production are fav ourable. Good ecological conditions for organic food production are present, but it 

still needs education of farmers. 

Medical herbs and m ushroom s production-One feature of Durmitor-Tara-Prokletije landscape is rich 

plant div ersity. This includes great number of medical herbs (ov er 150 species, Radovic). Medical herb 

gathering is common in this area, and that could be a threat to this natural resource in future. Therefore 

analysis of possibilities for growing and processing of medical herbs is needed. 

13


Honey production- rich plant div ersity , huge meadows and pastures are basis for high-quality honey. With 

appropriate measures in producing honey and in organizing bee keepers Durmitor-Tara-Prokletije landscape 

could become, large producer of high-quality honey, in a short time. 

14


ANNEX I 

(Statistical data on agricultural land, domestic animals, fruits, vegetables, cereals for DTP area) 

Agricultural land by categories of use.2004. 

Arable fields 

Ponds, fish- 

Total (ha) Cultiv able area-all (ha) and gardens Orchards Viney ards Meadow s Pastures ponds 

Andrijevica 15873 5538 768 629 0 4141 10335 0 

Berane 27562 14711 3949 990 0 9772 12843 8 

Bijelo Polje 41377 24436 8170 1252 0 15014 16941 0 

Kolasin 27686 8907 997 380 5 7525 18774 5 

Mojkov ac 13689 4700 621 138 0 3941 8989 0 

Plav 24716 8129 1975 624 0 5530 16587 0 

Pljev lja 69042 28237 9412 341 0 18484 40804 1 

Pluzine 19749 7316 754 27 0 6535 12433 0 

Sav nik 32164 7092 323 50 0 6719 25071 1 

Zabljak 22066 6406 197 0 0 6209 15660 0 

293924 115472 27166 4431 5 83870 178437 15 


2004. 518047 188766 46888 9696 3921 128261 326620 2661 

15


Arable land by way of use (ha).2004. 

Arable fields 

and gardens 

Industrial 

Nursery uncultiv ated 

(ha) Total sow n area (ha) Cereals plants Vegetables Fodder Flow ers plants arable fields 

Andrijev ica 768 762 341 0 346 75 0 0 6 

Berane 3949 3018 500 0 1590 928 0 0 931 

BijeloPolje 8170 6210 2061 0 2779 1370 0 0 1960 

Kolasin 997 957 141 0 767 49 0 15 25 

Mojkov ac 621 621 195 0 285 141 0 0 0 

Plav 1975 1975 407 0 558 1010 0 0 0 

Pljevlja 9412 1975 260 0 1425 290 0 0 7437 

Pluzine 754 341 16 0 273 52 0 0 413 

Sav nik 323 323 34 0 280 9 0 0 0 

Zabljak 197 197 101 0 96 0 0 0 0 

27166 16379 4056 0 8399 3924 0 15 10772 


2004. 46888 31902 5937 196 18181 7588 6 16 14964 

16


(ha) 

barly 

total y ield(t) y ield per ha 

(t) 


Production of cereals and vegetables. 2004. 

potatoes 

harv ested area (ha) total y ield(t) y ield per ha 

(t) 


(ha) 

beans 

total y ield(t) y ield 

per 

ha (t) 

Andrijev ica 8 13 1.6 250 575 <strong>2.</strong>3 10 8 0.8 

Berane 18 27 1.5 1200 2640 <strong>2.</strong>2 65 42 0.65 

Bijelo Polje 540 1188 <strong>2.</strong>2 2022 35440 17.5 90 270 3 

Kolasin 11 19 1.71 662 5764 7.92 30 10 0.33 

Mojkov ac 26 60 <strong>2.</strong>3 217 1952 8 15 75 5 

Plav 2 2 1.2 428 6460 15 40 24 0.6 

Pljev lja 165 330 2 803 9645 12 140 140 1 

Pluzine 8 12 1.5 254 5064 20 2 16 8 

Savnik 17 20 1.2 257 283 1.1 3 5 1.6 

Zabljak 100 110 1.1 82 925 9 0 0 0 

895 1781 1.631 6175 68748 9.502 395 590 <strong>2.</strong>098 


2004. 1026 1960 1.92 10350 117039 11.21 768 1324 1.72 

17

maize 


Production of cereals.2004. 

harv ested area total y ield(t) y ield per harv ested area total y ield(t) y ield per harv ested area total yield(t) y ield per 

(ha) 

ha (ha) 

ha (ha) 

ha 

Andrijev ica 320.00 608.00 1.90 3.00 7.00 <strong>2.</strong>30 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Berane 300.00 540.00 1.80 140.00 294.00 <strong>2.</strong>10 15.00 20.00 1.30 

Bijelo Polje 651.00 2930.00 4.50 550.00 1925.00 3.50 40.00 84.00 <strong>2.</strong>10 

Kolasin 124.00 241.00 1.94 3.00 8.00 <strong>2.</strong>55 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Mojkov ac 133.00 93.00 0.70 6.00 14.00 <strong>2.</strong>30 5.00 11.00 <strong>2.</strong>20 

Plav 400.00 400.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 1.20 

Pljevlja 8.00 10.00 1.25 9.00 3<strong>2.</strong>00 3.50 37.00 12<strong>2.</strong>00 3.00 

Pluzine 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 1.20 <strong>2.</strong>00 <strong>2.</strong>00 1.00 

Sav nik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Zabljak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

1936.00 482<strong>2.</strong>00 1.31 714.00 2284.00 1.75 10<strong>2.</strong>00 243.00 1.08 



wheat 

rye 

18

Number of 

productiv e 

apples 


Fruit trees and fruit production. 2004. 

Number of 

productiv e 

pears 

Number of 

productive 

Total yields Yield per tree 

Total y ields Yield per tree 

Total yields Yield per tree 

trees (t) 

(kg) 

trees 

(t) 

(kg) 

trees 

(t) 

(kg) 

Andrijev ica 6380 38 6 5950 18 3 60100 240 4 

Berane 38900 156 4 19050 57 3 287950 864 3 

Bijelo Polje 90000 712 8 35570 141 4 353800 1396 4 

Kolasin 40250 466 11.6 10160 79 7.8 112850 267 <strong>2.</strong>4 

Mojkov ac 5610 56 10 1560 16 10.2 889 7 8 

Plav 28000 280 10 10000 100 10 100000 1000 10 

Pljevlja 20000 200 10 21000 210 10 100000 400 4 

Pluzine 3100 31 10 2900 29 10 6070 240 40 

Sav nik 1050 26 25 550 11 20 6500 78 12 

Zabljak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

233290 1965 9.46 106740 661 7.8 1028159 4492 8.74 


2004. 385244 3980 10.4 183005 1647 9 1200835 6155 5.1 

plums 

19

Literature 


Livestock, chickens, beehives.2005. 

cattle pigs sheep horses poultry beehives 

Andrijev ica 4363 721 5359 604 10203 842 

Berane 15717 1383 20808 1278 53766 1551 

Bijelo Polje 24259 3202 33941 1168 62337 2224 

Kolasin 6724 223 10318 273 32924 836 

Mojkov ac 6187 137 12347 631 25439 1147 

Plav 5810 396 17616 527 18163 1339 

Pljev lja 23395 397 31680 377 50424 2340 

Pluzine 5241 101 1591 285 17001 362 

Savnik 6268 28 13884 281 4520 944 

Zabljak 3537 15 6233 115 4060 257 

101501 6603 153777 5539 278837 11842 


2005. 169340 27241 254406 7447 738330 35772 

Durmitor Region-Integral Dev elopment, Miljan Radovic & Gavro Cerov ic 

Prokletije of Montenegro, Miljan Radov ic & Rajko Maric 

Strategy of regional development of Montenegro, Gov ernment of Montenegro- Secretariat for dev elopment 

Strategy for food and rural areas dev elopment, Gov erment of Montenegro, Ministry for agriculture, forestry and w ater management 

Durmitor-Nature and People, Miljan Radov ic & Gavro Cerovic 

Statistical Yearbook 2005- Statistical Office, Republic of Montengro 

20

ANNEX 4, CHAPTER 6, 

THE TABLE ON FOCAL TARGETS AND THREATS

Pinus mugo Turra 

Pinus peuce 

Gri seb. 

8 - 2 

Annex 4 – The table on focal targets and threats 

Species Se lection criteria Indicating Population trend Main threats 

Forests 

Potential 

threats 

Pinus heldreichii - Endemic specific species -Distributed on mountain - On individual - Fires and 

- Building of 

Chri st 

of central and western massifs where sometimes localities are reclamation of forest infrastructural 

part of Balkan and south build up forest limit providing presented natural surfaces in order to objects (ski 

part of Apennine’s survival to many flora and processes of provide agricultural lifts, 

peninsula 

fauna species in this zone progression and surfaces 

transmission 

natural 

- illegal lodging lines etc.) 

revitalization ex. 

- Tourist 

fire places 

objects 


Or ph. 

- Distributed on middle 

and southern Europe, 

has protective character 

Keeping from soil erosion 

and on lowest parts from 

flooding and snow 

avalanches Regards 

mentioned it has to be 

protected Protection 

exists only in Bjelasica 

Mountain area 

- Endem central part of 

Balkan peninsula 

- Tercial relict 

- Endem Balkan 

peninsula. Dinaric region 

- Keeping from soil erosion 

and on lowest parts from 

flooding and snow 

avalanches and keeping 

upper forest limit (to 2000 

m) and provide viability 

and surviving of flora and 

fauna species association 

on this zones 

- Adaptation to rigid high 

mountain conditions 

enable this specie to build 

high mountain belt of 

kserotherm and frigorifil 

vegetation w here 

numerous flora and fauna 

species f inding their 

residence 

- Hihgest belt of Beech 

forest create an 

- increasing in 

areas without 

anthropogenic 

impacts 

(livestock and 

agriculture) 

- Specie is 

increasing by 

process of 

natural 

revitalization 

- On few localities 

revitalising 

- Fire in order to 

spread surfaces for 

pasture during the 

summer 

- Fires 

- Illegal lodging 

- Decreasing - economical important 

specie exposed to 

- Fires 

- Agriculture 

- Livestock 

- Building of 

infrastructura 

l objects (ski 

lifts, 

transmission 

lines etc.) 

- Tourist 

objects 

- Illegal 

lodging


association Aceri-Fagetum, 

forest of mountain Maple 

and sub Alps Beech. 

Above this association are 

settled forests of Spuca so 

this species in association 

presents neutral zone. 

high lodging 

activities, nowadays 

population left in very 

small number 

- Fires 

- Tourist 

objects 

Species Selection criteria Indicating Population 

trend 

M ain thre ats 

V as cular Plants 

Potential threats 

Campanula - IUCN Red List of - Paleoendemic specie - Stable - No threats - development of high 

secundiflora Threatened Plants, E 

mountain tourism, 

category 

gathering plants 

Daphne malyana 

Ble čić 

Androsace 

mathildae 

Cypripedium 

calceolus L. 

- IUCN Red List of 

Threatened Plants, V 

category 

- National list of 

endangered species 

- Annex I b Habitat 

Directive 

- Annex I of Berns 

Convention 

- Annex I b Habitat 

Directive 

- Annex I of Berns 


- Protected by CITES 


- National level category 

as IUCN category V 

(vulnerable) 

- National endem - Stable - No threats - reducing of habitats by 

building HP (example 

w as building of HP Piva) 

- regional endangered 

and important 

species 

- regional endangered 

and important 

species 

- Stable - No threats - development of high 

mountain tourism, 

gathering plants 

- Small 

population 

but stable, 

one 

location, 50 

examples 

- Degradation of 

habitat on small level 

- development of high 

mountain tourism in 

Crna Poda, gathering 

plants 

8 - 3

Protoedraianthus 

tarae 

Sil ene ma crantha 

(Pančić) 

Gomphus 

clava tus 

8 - 4 



as IUCN R (rare) 


as IUCN R (rare) 

- Local edema of 


- endemic asociation 

Valeriano Silenetum 

macranthae 

- Stable - No threats - Spreading the roads 

borders or damaging 

borders 

- Stable - No threats - No threats 

Species Selection criteria Indicating Population 

trend 

Hygrophorus 

marzuolus 

Strobilomyces 

strobilaceus 

- In EU Red lists 

- Suggested by ECCF for 

appendix I of Bern 

convention 

- In ECCF list of European 

f ungi species f or 

mapping and monitoring 

- In OPTIMA project list of 

Mediterranean fungi 

species for mapping 

-In EU Red lists 







- In EU Red lists 





- Natural 

- habitats 

- Natural habitats 

- Rich soil 

- Relatively 

stabile 

- Unknow n 

- Unknow n 

- Habitat destruction, 

collecting 


- Forest cutting 





Fungi 

Main Potential threats 

threats 

- Increasing of interest for 

rare fungi species 

- Habitat fragmentation 


- Increasing of interest for 

rare fungi species 


- Air pollution 


- Air pollution




Butterflies 

Species Selection criteria Indicating Population trend M ain thre ats Potential 

Parnassius apollo 

dardanus Rubel 

Erebia manto 

osmanica 

Schawerda 

Erebia ca ssi oides 

Hoch 

Boloria pales 

contempta Rubel 

und Zerny 

Adscita sta tices 

statices L 

- endemic species of 

Montenegro and Serbia 

(Prokletije Mts) 

- under International 

protection (European 

Red list of Globally 

Threatened Animals and 

Plants) 

- Endemic species of 

Balkan 

- Indicating of good condition 

of habitat 


of habitat 

- glacial relict - Indicating of good condition 

of habitat (high mountain 

areas over 1700 m) 

- glacial relict - Indicating of good condition 

of habitat (habitats over 

upper forest limit) 

- expansive species w ith 

pontomediterranan type 

of expansion 


of habitat 

- indicating a 

pontomediterranan type of 

expansion 

- stabile - Habitat 

destruction 

- unknown - Habitat 








threats 

- intensive 

pasture 

- intensive 

pasture 

- intensive 

pasture 

- intensive 

pasture 

- intensive 

pasture 

8 - 5

8 - 6 


Fishes 

Species Selection criteria Indicating Population trend M ain thre ats Potential 

- Salmo 

marmoratus 

Leuci scus 

montenegri nus 

- Endemic for Balkan 

- Separated and border 

population 

- Indicator species 

- Terminal predator 

- IUCN status LC 

- Inf ormativ e 

- Gene resource for 

species 

- Endemic for Montenegro 

(Morača drainage 

system) 

- Inter-drainage migrating 

species 


- Primary predator 

(predating on water 

invertebrates) 

Hucho hucho - Endemic for Danube 

drainage system and 

Balkan peninsula (River 

Sava drainage) 

- IUCN conservation 

status is EN 

(A2bcde,B1+2bce) 

- The world southernmost 

natural (native) border 

populations 

- Terminal predator in 

- Good river ecosystem 

healthiness 

- Clean and oxygen rich water 

- River Trophycal level 

- River f ood chain 

disturbances 


healthiness 

- Clean and oxygen rich water 

- Decreasing - over-fishing 

- fishing with 

forbidden tools 

- fishing in 

spaw ning season 

- absence of good 

management 

- stocking w ith nonautochthones 

fish 

species 

threats 

- potential 

dam 

building 

- farming 

- agriculture 

-Increasing - no threats -potential 

dam building 

- Decreasing - over-fishing 



- fishing in 



management 

- stocking w ith non 

-autochthones fish 

species 


- potential 

dam 

building 

- farming 

- agriculture

Thymallus 

thymallus 


Black Sea drainage 

rivers 


- The world southernmost 

native populations 


- Gene resource for 

species 


healthiness 

- Extremely Clean and oxygen 

rich water 

- gravel extraction 

-Stabile - over-fishing 



- fishing in 



management 

- gravel extraction 

- farming 

- agriculture 

Species Selection criteria Indicating Population Main threats 

Big m ammals 

Potential 

trend 

threats 

Ursus arctos - Indicator species - Good healthiness of all types - Stabile - Non controlled - Intensive and 

- Mountain umbrella of forests, especially for the 

hunting 

unsustainable 

species 

all type of beech and oak 

- Habitat destruction tourism 

- Omnivorous species forests 

(destruction of development 

- Endangered species - Good healthiness of high 

f orests by non- - Building of 

mountain meadow 

controlled cutting) high-way 

- Disturbance by - Intensive and 

man 

unsustainable 

- Insufficiency of development 

good management of high 

strategy 

mountain 

- Forest fires farming 

Lynx spp. - Extremely rear and - Intact nature 

- Unknown - Non controlled - Intensive and 

endangered species - Intact forests (mainly beech 

hunting 

unsustainable 

- Border population and oak forests) 

- Habitat destruction tourism 

- Isolated population 

(forests destruction development 

by non-controlled - Building of 

cutting) 

- man disturbance 

- Insufficiency of 

high-way 

8 - 7

8 - 8 

Lutra lutra 

Rupicapra 

rupicapra 


- Protected by national 

legislative 

- The only mammals 

species in Montenegro 

who adopt for living in 

water 


- Indicating the good 

conditions of rivers and their 

surrounding (forests) 

- Indicator species - Indicator of arduous high 

mountain pasture 

- Indicator of all types of deep 

canyon habitats 

- Indicators of men 

disturbances 

Cervus elaphus - Only mammals w hich is 

introduced in 



of forest 

good management 

strategy 


- Increasing - men disturbance 



farms 

- Destructing of 

habitats 

- Decreasing - non controlled 

hunting, over - 

hunting 

- Stabile - No threats, 

because this 

species lives only 

in National Park 

“Biogradska Gora” 

w here it is well 

protected 

- No potential 

threats 

- no potential 

treats 

- human 

disturbance 

by intensive 

and 

unsustainable 

development 

of tourism in 

PA s

2. Background information on Tara river

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?