Τσικολάτας Α. (2010) Κοινωνικο-οικονομική Ανάπτυξη του Δήμου Πρεσπών. Αθήνα EN

1. March 20, 2010
Τσικολάτας Α. (2010) Κοινωνικο-οικονομική
Ανάπτυξη του Δήμου Πρεσπών. Αθήνα
tsikolatas@gmail.com

2. Table of contents
2

3. Table of Contents
 Sources and tools used
 Stakeholders’ analysis
 Key findings
 Your Vision & acknowledged actions
 Main issue
 Our vision and mission statement
 Proposals
 Conclusions / Next steps
 Learning experience
 References
3

4. Sources and tools
used
4

5. Sources and tools used
 Leaflets and other printed material available at local information centers and
NGOs’ offices
 Internet available data (see references)
 Other literature regarding the sustainable economic development of protected
areas
 Semi-structured questionnaires addressed to representatives from
stakeholders organizations
 Informal conversations with locals
5

6. Stakeholders’
analysis
6

7. Society for the Protection of Prespa
7

8. Society for the Protection of Prespa
WHO IS SPP:
NGO with the mission to protect the natural and cultural heritage and to
promote the continuous viable economical development of the whole region
of Prespa
ACTIONS
Protection of the natural heritage
 Research and conservation measures for the protection of the Dalmatian
Pelican and the Great White Pelican
 Monitoring of the fish populations of the two lakes
 Monitoring of bird populations (herons, cormorants and other aquatic bird
species)
 Monitoring of certain rare species of fauna and flora
 Restoration and management of wet meadows in Lake Mikri Prespa (LIFE-
Nature) 8

9. Society for the Protection of Prespa
Protection of the cultural heritage
 Restoration of a private building in Lemos, Prespa
 Establishment of the Prespa Centre for Human and Nature
Public awareness and education
 Operation of the SPP Information Centre
 Publication of informative material
Support to authorities and bodies for the sustainable development and
protection of Prespa
 Collaboration with and support to the Municipality of Prespa in its efforts to
protect and develop the area
 Support to the newly-established Prespa National Park Management Body
 Support of transboundary cooperation in the framework of the Prespa Park
9

10. Society for the Protection of Prespa
Support to authorities and bodies for the sustainable development and
protection of Prespa
 Collaboration with and support to the Municipality of Prespa in its efforts to
protect and develop the area
 Support to the newly-established Prespa National Park Management Body
 Support of transboundary cooperation in the framework of the Prespa Park
The above SPP action framework has received wide reception from the local
community
However the involvement of SPP in various environmental and societal
issues, poor knowledge of actions has been recorded
10

11. Society for the Protection of Prespa
AIMS
 Protection of the habitats, wild life and biodiversity
 Promotion of moderate development
 Raising awareness of citizens and local authorities around environment
protection and cultural protection
BARRIERS
 Insufficient provision of information
 Lack of effective feasibility studies
 Breach of rules and agreements by citizens and local authorities
11

12. SPP SWOT Analysis
12
Strengths
•Comprised of and supported by 10 NGOs
•Funding from major sponsor
• EU & national legislation
•Clear vision & tangible achievements
•Transboundary vision of cooperation
•Accumulated knowledge and experience
•Passion and commitment
Weaknesses
• Ineffective communication of vision and
achievements
•limited scope of field activities, unable to
commit resources on developmental initiatives
•Lack of human resources
•Lack of sufficient funds/funding
Opportunities
•Bringing people together under a common
vision-creating consent for viable economic
development
•Lead in the field of transboundary
cooperation
• Prespa a model for sustainable
development in a protected area
Threats
•Lack of local consensus
•Non compliance with legislation and agreed
terms
•Insufficient collaboration with Albania/FYROM
relevant organizations
•Insufficient organization of other stakeholders

13. Other stakeholders
Overview
13

14. Other Stakeholders’ Overview
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
AIMS
 Development of infrastructure and networking with neighboring countries
 Conservation and enhancement of Prespa’s cultural heritage
 Boost of tourism with respect to the environment
 Creation of strong organizational mechanisms between local professionals
and authorities
 Citizen’s satisfaction
BARRIERS
 Limitation of funding
 Strict enforcement of environmental restrictions
14

15. Stakeholders’ analysis
LOCAL COMMUNITY
AIMS
 Development of infrastructure which will contribute to the improvement of the
professional activity, health, entertainment and living standards.
 Preservation of the local element and cultural heritage
 Net working with neighboring regions for the growth of trade
BARRIERS
 Deficiency of unity and communication between the factors of local
community
 Speculative exploitation of tourism which resulting in the maintenance of low
levels of service
 Strict enforcement of environmental restrictions which creates the feeling of
limitation of their reality
15

16. Other Stakeholders’ Overview
CULTURAL TRIANGLE OF PRESPA (CTP)
AIMS
 Minimizing the effects of rural isolation among local communities in terms of
cultural, economic and educational levels
 Engagement of the local community, interaction and support for skills
development and networking
 Creation of opportunities for children and young people in order to enhance
their creativity, develop their skills in arts and new technologies and take
initiatives
BARRIERS
 Insufficient interactive collaboration between local authorities, NGOs and the
local community.
 Inadequate social sensitivity and lack of creative activities and employment
opportunities for young people
16

17. Other Stakeholders’ Overview
NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY MANAGEMENT OF PRESPA
AIMS
 Improving living standards of citizens through the conservation of natural and
cultural values of region
 Promotion of awareness and cooperation between the three countries
 Ensuring the protection of ecological value and biodiversity of Prespa
 Promotion and control on prudent use of natural resources
BARRIERS
 Limited economical resources
 Lack of efficient communication among environmental organizations, citizens
and entrepreneurs
 Breach of environmental accords by citizens and local authorities 17

18. Other Stakeholders’ Overview
PRIMARY SECTOR (farmers, stock breeders, fishermen)
AIMS
 Pursuit and strengthening of effective manufacturing and distribution of
products and finding ways of their continuous improvement.
BARRIERS
 Emergence of fraud in local products
 Ineffective associations lacking long term strategy
 Communication gap between members of primary sector of different ages
18

19. Other Stakeholders’ Overview
SECONDARY SECTOR (Rural Cooperative of National Park’s Bean
Producers)
AIMS
 Enhancement, promotion, standardization and trade of the regional products
(beans)
BARRIERS
 Emergence of fraud in local products
 Lack of willingness for collaborative action between local bean producers
 Lack of modern infrastructure related to the agriculture (irrigation system)
19

20. Other Stakeholders’ Overview
TERTIARY SECTOR (entrepreneurs)
AIMS
 Promotion of tourism and attracting alternative groups of tourism (agro
tourism, ecotourism, gastronomic and conference tourism)
 Preservation of the local element and of the cultural and natural heritage
BARRIERS
 Lack of modern infrastructure and other services (roads, transportation,
ATM, medical services)
 Absence of collective action between the factors of the tertiary sector
 Lack of additional activities, able to extend the visitors’ stay in the area
 Non-availability of appropriate infrastructure to host large numbers of visitors.
The problem becomes more tense in peak tourist periods
20

21. Key Findings
21

22. Our approach
During our research we followed the next steps in order to identify
segregate and present the key findings regarding the case in hand . These
steps included:
 Recording opinions in a wide framework of local issues
 Tracing of current situation and social conditions
 Correlation Major stakeholders’ concerns & SPP’s needs
 Indication of areas of improvement within the community
Our findings are presented in the following page
22

23. Key findings – Needs (2/2)
23

24. SPP vision &
acknowledged
actions
24

25. The Society for the Protection of
Prespa Vision
25
VISION
«Our actions should inspire and initiate active involvement of all local,
national and international stakeholders to protect and promote the natural
and cultural Prespa heritage»
o Protection of natural values and cultural heritage
o Stimulating and participation triggering actions
o Collaboration of stakeholders in local, national and international level

26. Acknowledged SPP’s actions
1. Research and conservation measures (e.g. Dalmatian Pelican)
2. Monitoring rare species (flora & fauna)
3. Σ.Χ.Ο.Α.Π implementation
4. Penstock construction
5. Environmental observation in transboundary level
26

27. Society for the
Protection of Prespa:
Main issues
27

28. Main SPP’s issues
 Economic development projects initiated mainly by SPP (lack of ownership from
stakeholders)
 Overextending SPP limited resources in economic development initiatives /
contrary to organization’s main focus (strictly environmental research)
 Several economic development actions taken by SPP are “under promoted in the
local community”.
 Scientific areas of interest of SPP are disengaged and hard to communicate to
localities.
 Limited alignment among stakeholders (burden on SPP to initiate – do PR etc)
 Public perception of SPP as a substitute of governmental organization in the area
(adding “work load” and obscuring SPPs identify)
28

29. Our Vision & Mission
Statement
29

30. Our vision & mission statement
30
 Vision / Perfect Future
We envision to highlight the importance and illustrate the uniqueness of the
Prespa region. The main guidelines upon which this vision will be built are:
 The recognition and implementation of best, sustainable and feasible
practices, which will enhance local economic development.
 The encouragement and support of initiatives towards environmental
protection and social cohesion
 Mission Statement
Our mission is to reinforce the Society for the Protection of Prespa’s
acceptance in local community through creative and effective relations which
focus on Prespa’s regional and sustainable economic development.

31. Proposal of actions
31

32. Proposal of Actions
 Communication
 Creation of the Prespa Branding & Identity
 Creation of the Prespa Experience
 Tourism
 Protected Region Products
32

33. Proposal of Actions (1/5)
33

34. Proposal of Actions (1/5)
34

35. Proposal of Actions (1/5)
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
2. Amplification of research image to local community
Aim: To initiate and communicate research projects on non-
environmental subjects, that will amplify the SPP image and create stronger
acceptance of the role to promote local society
Fact: Focused scientific research on environmental subjects appeals
less to communities
WHAT/WHY: We propose to initiate and welcome-promote research on:
 Social issues
 Communication
 Marketing fields
(SPP does not have the expertise – fills a GAP)
35

36. Proposal of Actions (1/5)
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
Deliverables: Deploy inexpensive research capabilities, to work
on pressing social issues – structure, enhancement of
communication tactics and cases (example engaging story telling), or
develop branding strategies for Protected Region Products.
WHO: Students from academic institutions, foreign or Greek
WHEN : Continuously, enabling the development of stronger ties
with academia and perhaps cross departmental synergies.
36

37. Proposal of Actions (2/5)
CREATE THE PRESPA IDENTITY (BRANDING)
Create an identity
Aim: Create the Prespa Area Logo and uniform design as well as the
placement of traditional signs around various area spots, local hospitality,
food & beverage enterprises.
WHAT: Uniform design of traditional plates retaining common logo and area
traditional character
WHY: Formulate area branding and identity
WHO: Design by architects & Fine Art students, collaboration with local
entrepreneurs, placement and preservation by local authorities and
volunteers (CTP)
WHERE: Placement at the entrance of the area, forefront of hotels,
restaurants, cultural centers, tenable memorials, info centers, historical
important spots 37

38. Proposal of Actions (3/5)
CREATION OF PRESPA EXPERIENCE
1. Create the mystique
Aim: Gathering and collecting local people stories and legends and place
them around the area.
WHAT: Story & Legend Collection
WHY: Create Mystique, Branding, Folklore element.
WHERE: Place signs and maps around historical spots, region’s main
entrance, village squares.
WHO: Design by architects and fine art students, story gathering by local
students under teacher and parental guidance, cultural triangle workshops,
placing and preservation by local authorities and volunteers(CTP).
38

39. Proposal of Actions (3/5)
39
CREATION OF PRESPA EXPERIENCE
2. Create the interaction
What: Bike tours, hiking/ mountain climbing, observatories/telescopes,
interactive exhibits in information centers, “treasure hunt” activity, water
buffalo visits, kiting
Why: Bonding with the area, increase days of hotel occupancy, encourage
revisiting, local community involvement, self-sustainable proposal
Where: Involvement and participation of information/communication centers as
well as hotels on specially created stands
Who:
• SPP – Observatories, leaflets
• Local authorities – Interactive exhibits (You can do that too!)
• Local community – Biking and hiking tours, treasure hunt organization
When: Short term implementation – long term viability
How: Promotion through leaflets including maps, list of activities (+ existing
ones), general information, time schedule, locations, contact details

40. Proposed actions (4/5)
TOURISM
What:
Attraction of alternative forms of tourism (“eco-tourism”, students, gastronomy tourists)
Why:
Sustainable economic growth of the area, connection and acceptance of stakeholders’
group of tourism entrepreneurs and of the local community
Who:
Initiative and Planning:
SPP, Cultural Triangle of Prespa, Ecotourism Society of Prespa
Implementation:
Local tourism entrepreneurs through the coordination of the other two organizations
How:
Learn, understand and adjust if necessary possible existing models in similar
protected areas, combining environmental protection with low-budget accommodation
and hotel services. 40

41. Proposal of Actions (5/5)
PROTECTED REGION PRODUCTS
What:
Enhancement of the image of the local products, distribution and promotion through local
producers building on and taking advantage of the region’s uniqueness (protection,
preservation, purity)
Priority should be given to the unique, local product…
“The Prespa Bean”
Why:
Economic growth in harmony with the environmental protection (sustainable practice)
Who:
Initiative and Planning:
Collaboration between SPP and marketing/ communications students; strong feasibility
studies
Implementation:
Producers guided by the outcomes of the studies and strategic action plans
When:
Long term – need for detailed business plan 41

42. 42
Focus Area Improvement Action
Implementation
timeframe
• Communication
• Simplification of scientific work
• Amplification of research image to local community
Long-term
• Create Prespa Identity
Create the region’s special logo
Short-term
• The Prespa Experience
• Mystique about Prespa: Story and legend Collection and
appropriate promotion
• Interaction: Development of interactive actions which will
have a positive effect to the local community as well as the
tourists revisiting.
Short-term
• Tourism
Attract alternative tourism in order to achieve sustainable
economic growth.
Long-term
• Protected Region
Products
Guidance of local producers by the special studies which will be
prepared by marketing/communications students.
Long-term

43. Conclusions
43

44. Conclusion
The sustainable socio-economic growth of the Prespa area is very
complex.
The combination of environmental issues and local stakeholders’
characteristics, as well as the geographical uniqueness (3 nations –
2 lakes) make this task challenging and ambitious.
Our proposals aim at addressing the main issues we have clearly
identified , on short and long term basis.
At the same time, we set the ground for supplementary research/
project that, upon implementation, will enhance the fulfillment of our
shared vision for the area and its people.
44

45. Learning
experience
45

46. Future Leaders Living Experience
The Future Leader Program of ΗayGroup, was a
defining experience for us, individually, as a team
and as future leaders.
We learned how to highlight the internal virtues and
manage our emotions for the benefit of the team
even in very difficult and complex situations.
The beauty of the Prespa project was not just the
engagement with nature. It was an inspiring
adventure, compelled by the SPP vision that goes
beyond borders, cultures, and local interests, to
preserve the magic of Prespa.
46
Thank you for inviting, supporting and inspiring us with your vision, as we should
do as future leaders in the society.

47. References
47

48. References
Leaflets:
 Cultural Triangle of Prespa( CTP)
 Maps of Prespa’s cultural sights
 Prespa’s tour guide and map
 Cultural routes
 Prespa: « Agriculture & Environment», one Europe, more nature project
 Prespa’s information centers
 Let’s discover Prespa. People & nature around the lakes
 Florina’s municipality tourist guide
 Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP) for human and nature
 Cultural guide of Municipality of Prespa
 Project Life-Nature 2002-2007
 Bean & Tsironi celebration, municipality of Prespa 48

49. References
Books:
 Prespa’s Information Center Scripts
 «Prespa: a story for man & nature», George Kotsadorakis
Network:
 www. spp.gr (Society for the Protection of Prespa)
 www. ctp.gr (Cultural Triangle of Prespa)
 www. tseaaig.gr (Territorial Quality Mark)
 www. prespes.gr ( Municipality of Prespa)
49