Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid region

Community engagement across the property remains uneven, with no consistent or institutionalised mechanisms to support inclusive and long-term participation in site management.

In North Macedonia, there have been positive steps toward involving local communities and civil society, particularly through planning consultations and capacity-building activities led by municipal authorities and supported by international projects such as EU4Ohrid (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025). These efforts have helped raise awareness and foster collaboration at the local level, but participation tends to be short-term and driven by project cycles. There is still no formal structure that secures community voices within governance processes, nor one that recognises traditional knowledge or local land-use practices in decision-making (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

In Albania, engagement is generally less structured. While the Municipality of Pogradec has supported some outreach on wetland conservation, particularly in partnership with NGOs and schools (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025). However, there does not appear to be a clear framework for local participation in planning or site management. The 2024 Reactive Monitoring Mission noted that consultation processes in Albania are “less formalised,” and typically rely on one-off dialogues rather than ongoing collaboration (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024). Although no Indigenous Peoples, as defined under international law, have been identified in the region, many rural and lakeside communities maintain strong cultural and livelihood ties to the landscape. These communities are rarely given a seat at the table in decisions that affect their environment and heritage (Strategic Recovery Plan, Action Area 4).

Across both countries, stakeholder consultation around major tourism and infrastructure projects has been inconsistent and largely reactive. For instance, local communities were not systematically consulted in the planning phases of the proposed Kičevo–Lin railway or tourism developments along the lakeshore (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024). Governance structures also lack a clear focus on gender equity or youth involvement. The mission report emphasised the need to improve transparency and broaden participation, particularly for underrepresented groups (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

Despite the presence of multiple legislative instruments in both Albania and North Macedonia, including spatial planning laws, environmental protection acts, and heritage legislation—the legal framework is fragmented and inconsistently applied. Overlaps and contradictions between national, regional, and local laws, combined with unclear mandates across institutions, contribute to significant gaps in implementation (Council of Europe, 2023; UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024). The 2024 Reactive Monitoring Mission observed that planning approvals, particularly for tourism-related infrastructure and shoreline developments, often proceed without coordination between different levels of government or adherence to agreed zoning regulations (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

Enforcement mechanisms are weak, with infractions rarely penalized. Unauthorized developments, such as lakeside constructions, road upgrades, and informal accommodation facilities, have been documented repeatedly within the site, often in areas of high ecological or visual sensitivity. The failure to halt or reverse such developments raises serious questions about the site’s legal framework, and its enforcement (Council of Europe, 2023; UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

The integration of legal frameworks into governance systems remains limited, particularly in terms of practical planning and permitting procedures. While both States Parties have committed to harmonizing legislation through the Strategic Recovery Plan, progress remains slow and uneven. In some areas, responsibilities are duplicated or contested between agencies, resulting in delays or non-enforcement. The situation is exacerbated by limited technical capacity and under-resourced inspection and permitting bodies at the local level (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

Land tenure is complicated across the site due to a legacy of illegal and unregulated developments, and corresponding lack of enforcement of planning laws and regulations (UNESCO, 2024; UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024). There are long-standing customary practices related to fishing and agriculture, particularly in rural and lakeside communities. These practices are not systematically acknowledged or integrated into current planning processes, which increases the risk of local conflict and diminishes support for enforcement.

Governance arrangements for the property remain weak, fragmented, and largely ineffective in ensuring coordinated, transparent, and participatory management. While both Albania and North Macedonia have legal and institutional mandates related to environmental protection, heritage, and spatial planning, the transboundary property still lacks a functional joint governance mechanism. The absence of a unified or binding coordination body has hindered progress on shared planning, implementation, and monitoring, despite long-standing commitments to such arrangements under the World Heritage Convention and earlier recommendations from the Committee (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

Roles and responsibilities across institutions are poorly defined and inconsistently implemented, particularly at the interface between national and local authorities. For example, in both countries, spatial planning responsibilities often overlap with environmental permitting processes, leading to contradictory decisions and a lack of enforcement coherence. Municipalities frequently issue planning approvals without sufficient consultation with environmental bodies, and vice versa (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025).

Stakeholder and rightsholder involvement in governance is limited and largely reactive. While some participatory planning processes have taken place at the local level, such as through civil society engagement in tourism and wetland initiatives (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025), there are no institutionalised procedures to ensure meaningful, ongoing input from communities, including women, youth, and traditional resource users. The planning process lacks consistency in how and when stakeholders are engaged, and decision-making remains largely top-down and opaque (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024; Strategic Recovery Plan, Action Area 4).

Governance processes are not open to regular scrutiny, and there does not appear to be an established grievance mechanism through which stakeholders or rightsholders can raise complaints or disputes. The lack of a shared communications strategy or structured outreach programme further weakens engagement, especially in remote communities where information flow is limited (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

The site lacks a functioning cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, and adaptive management. Evaluation of management effectiveness is not regularly conducted, and learning from experience, including the integration of local knowledge and scientific data, remains minimal. While the Strategic Recovery Plan calls for the establishment of such systems, there is currently no operational framework in place to guide cross-border adaptive management (Strategic Recovery Plan, Action Areas 2 and 5).

Integration of the property into local, regional, and national planning frameworks remains incomplete and uneven, contributing to unmanaged development pressures and fragmented management responses. While the site is formally recognised in various national and municipal-level spatial and environmental plans, its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) is not consistently reflected in actual planning decisions or development control mechanisms. In practice, planning standards and environmental safeguards often fail to prevent harmful development, particularly along the lakeshore and in sensitive areas within the buffer zone (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

Impact assessment procedures are in place but poorly implemented. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) systems of both Albania and North Macedonia formally apply to the property; however, the quality, scope, and transparency of assessments vary considerably. The 2024 Reactive Monitoring Mission noted that assessments are often superficial, fail to consider cumulative impacts, and are not systematically aligned with World Heritage requirements (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024). Public participation in these processes is inconsistent, and findings are not always disclosed or taken into account in final decisions.

Tourism development continues to advance in ways that are poorly coordinated with heritage and conservation objectives. While tourism is acknowledged as a key economic driver in both Albania and North Macedonia, its integration into planning processes remains weak. Municipal and national tourism strategies often prioritise infrastructure expansion and increased visitor numbers without adequate safeguards for the site’s ecological and cultural attributes. The lack of zoning enforcement and sustainable tourism planning has resulted in piecemeal development, including unauthorized facilities and shoreline modifications. As noted in the 2024 Mission Report, tourism infrastructure frequently proceeds without rigorous environmental or cultural impact assessments, and there is little coordination between tourism authorities and site managers (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024; States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025). Strategic alignment between tourism, conservation, and local livelihoods remains a key gap in achieving integrated, landscape-level management.

The current boundaries of the World Heritage property broadly encompass the key landscape and aesthetic attributes that convey its Outstanding Universal Value under criterion (vii), particularly the visual integrity of the lake and its surrounding mountainous backdrop. However, while the core scenic components are included, the boundary configuration is not fully effective in supporting the ecological integrity and long-term protection of the site.

In Albania, approximately 95% of the inscribed area is comprised of the lake itself, with the surrounding watershed designated only as a buffer zone. In North Macedonia, by contrast, much of the watershed is included within the core area, but no buffer zone has been designated, weakening the site's ability to withstand external pressures. This asymmetry poses particular challenges for coordinated management, especially around shared and hydrologically sensitive features, such as the St. Naum–Drilon spring complex, which connects Lake Ohrid to Lake Prespa through the karstic Galičica mountain. Inflow from Prespa mediates water levels in Lake Ohrid and can be a potential source of invasive species and pollution, and its exclusion from any buffer zone limits effective protection of Lake Ohrid. Including Prespa and associated hydrological corridors in an expanded or redefined buffer zone could better safeguard the lake’s ecological processes (UNESCO, ICOMOS & IUCN, 2017).

The lack of boundary demarcation on the ground, especially in high-pressure zones such as the lakeshore, has led to ongoing confusion, enforcement challenges, and unauthorized development (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

While the Albanian buffer zone does provide some regulatory structure, it is not consistently enforced, and land use within it is often at odds with conservation aims. In North Macedonia, the absence of a buffer zone leaves sensitive areas exposed to unregulated activity, with developments occurring directly adjacent to the core zone.

The World Heritage site is entirely encompassed within the transboundary Ohrid-Prespa Biosphere Reserve (designated in 2014), which spans both Albania and North Macedonia. Additionally, the North Macedonian portion of the property is recognised as a Ramsar Site of International Importance. However, the Albanian side of Lake Ohrid has not yet been designated under the Ramsar Convention, despite similar ecological and hydrological characteristics. The 2024 Reactive Monitoring Mission explicitly recommended that Albania pursue Ramsar designation for the remainder of Lake Ohrid and the Mali i Thatë (Galichica) range, to promote harmonised conservation across the lake system (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

There does not appear to be a harmonised legal or administrative framework that aligns the requirements of the World Heritage Convention, the Man and the Biosphere Programme, and the Ramsar Convention across the property. While the Biosphere Reserve has a strategic framework, it is not fully integrated into the planning or decision-making systems for the World Heritage site or Ramsar site. This lack of coordination hampers effective implementation of shared conservation goals and limits opportunities to address transboundary and cross-ecosystem challenges, such as hydrological connectivity, invasive species, and sustainable tourism, all of which represent significant challenges to the OUV of the site. Addressing these issues could harmonise the management of this site as a whole, and maximise the benefits of international recognition, and their corresponding processes, for this Multi-Internationally Designated Area (MIDA).

The States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia have undertaken actions to implement decisions of the World Heritage Committee from 2014 through to the present day (World Heritage Committee, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2019a, 2019b; 2021; 2023; 2024; States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025). Key achievements include the formal adoption of the Management Plan for the North Macedonian side of the property, the establishment of the Commission for the Management of the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid Region, the extension of the property to the Albanian side of Lake Ohrid in 2019, and the cancellation or modification of several harmful infrastructure projects, including the Galičica Ski Centre and Resort, sections of the A3 road, and the Ljubaništa 3 development zone (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

However, many Committee decisions and mission recommendations remain unimplemented or only partially addressed. These include the preparation of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Impact Assessments to evaluate the impacts, including cumulative impacts, developments on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), a requirement repeatedly requested by the Committee since 2017 and reaffirmed in subsequent reports (UNESCO, 2021; 2023; 2024).

Transboundary cooperation remains inadequate, particularly in areas such as joint biodiversity and water quality monitoring, and the implementation of shared conservation actions, such as harmonised fishing regulations or enforcement procedures. These gaps persist despite clear commitments to joint management and protection made in past Committee decisions and mission reports.

The 2017 Reactive Monitoring Mission set out 19 recommendations, spanning governance, land-use control, tourism, and stakeholder engagement. As of 2024, most remain incomplete or significantly delayed (UNESCO, ICOMOS & IUCN, 2017; UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024). In addition, independent monitoring by civil society, notably Ohrid SOS (2019, 2020), has raised concerns about the accuracy of information provided to the Committee, particularly regarding the status of infrastructure projects claimed to be cancelled or revised.

In response to ongoing governance and conservation challenges, both States Parties endorsed a Strategic Recovery Plan, intended to serve as a roadmap for implementing World Heritage Committee decisions and previous mission recommendations. The plan outlines actions across four strategic goals, including management system, spatial and urban planning, infrastructure development, and sustainable tourism. However, implementation of the plan has been slow and uneven, with few actions fully operationalised and limited evidence of alignment with planning procedures or decision-making frameworks (UNESCO, 2024).

The findings of the 2024 Reactive Monitoring Mission underscore the urgent need to accelerate implementation of actions to address continued threats to the site’s integrity from unchecked development, institutional fragmentation, and weak enforcement (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024). The mission reaffirmed that without full and timely application of the Strategic Recovery Plan and earlier Committee recommendations, the property remains at serious risk.

Overall, while there has been partial progress, the overall response to World Heritage Committee decisions has been limited and slow. The Strategic Recovery Plan provides a comprehensive framework for addressing these gaps, but its success will depend on urgent, coordinated, and fully transparent implementation, particularly of the 2017 and 2024 mission recommendations, to ensure the continued protection of the property’s Outstanding Universal Value.

Climate change is acknowledged in the 2024 Reactive Monitoring Mission report as a significant and growing threat to Lake Ohrid and its biodiversity, yet it does not appear to be currently addressed in a systematic way within the site's management frameworks (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

The mission report notes that increasing water temperatures are disrupting the lake’s ecological balance, affecting the distribution and health of endemic species. Shifts in precipitation patterns are altering water levels and nutrient inputs, which in turn influence habitat availability and species interactions. These observed and anticipated changes underscore the importance of developing adaptive management strategies to sustain the site’s unique biodiversity under evolving climatic conditions.

Although the Strategic Recovery Plan recognizes climate change as one of the key threats to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the site, it does not define targeted recovery measures explicitly dedicated to climate action. References to climate change are embedded within broader objectives, such as habitat restoration, sustainable tourism planning, and water quality improvement, but are not accompanied by standalone indicators or a dedicated adaptation strategy. Moreover, although some restoration actions listed in the SRP (e.g., the revitalization of Studenchishte Marsh and riparian zones) may indirectly enhance climate resilience by improving ecosystem resilience, these are not framed within a structured climate monitoring or adaptation context.

A draft Management Plan for the World Heritage site in North Macedonia was prepared in 2010, and further revised in 2015 and in 2019. The Management Plan (2020-2029), accompanied by a Strategic Environmental Assessment, was finally adopted by the government on January 2020. The Management Plan for the Pogradec Protected Landscape in Albania was approved in December 2014, and is accompanied by a World Heritage Supplement intending to complement and strengthen the management for the property.

The overall management framework for the property remains fragmented and under-resourced. While both Albania and North Macedonia have national structures tasked with environmental protection, there continues to be no effective joint governance mechanism to ensure coordinated and integrated management of the transboundary property. In North Macedonia, the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning retains the primary mandate for the natural components of the site, while in Albania, responsibility falls under the Ministry of Tourism and Environment. However, despite these institutional assignments, there is limited evidence of operational coordination between the two countries on the ground.

The 2024 Reactive Monitoring Mission reaffirmed that inter-agency collaboration is inconsistent and largely ad hoc, hampering efforts to develop and implement coherent management strategies (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024). The Mission further noted that, in both countries, responsibilities for site management are diffused across multiple agencies and levels of government, without a clear mechanism for ensuring horizontal and vertical coordination. This lack of institutional clarity has contributed to delays in implementing key conservation measures, including those recommended by previous missions and Committee decisions.

Moreover, the Mission highlighted persistent weaknesses in institutional capacity and accountability. In both national contexts, staff shortages, limited budgets, and a lack of dedicated technical expertise constrain the ability of authorities to conduct systematic monitoring, enforce protective measures, and respond to emerging threats. There is also a continued absence of adequate resourcing for the Strategic Recovery Plan for the property, which does not yet contain costed actions. Without the necessary coordination across and within national contexts, and in the absence of a sufficiently resourced management system, efforts to address pressures, such as uncontrolled development, pollution, and tourism impacts, remain fragmented and reactive rather than strategic and preventive.

Enforcement of land use and environmental regulations remains weak across both the Albanian and North Macedonian components of the World Heritage property.
Illegal construction, unregulated tourism operations, and non-compliant agricultural expansion continue largely unchecked across both core and buffer zones of the property. These activities pose a direct and ongoing threat to the site’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), undermining conservation objectives and weakening the credibility of existing legal protections.

In North Macedonia, for example, the Law on Waters explicitly prohibits construction of permanent structures within 50 metres of the highest water level of Lake Ohrid. However, this provision has been systematically violated, with widespread illegal construction along the lakeshore, often in visually sensitive and ecologically critical areas. Similar violations are reported on the Albanian side, where the enforcement of coastal development restrictions is inconsistent and lacks transparency. Despite long-standing recognition of these issues in multiple World Heritage Committee decisions and mission reports (UNESCO, 2017; UNESCO, 2019), there has been no effective halt to illegal development, and in many cases, buildings constructed in violation of planning laws have later been retroactively legalised, further weakening deterrence (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

The capacity of inspectorates and enforcement agencies is severely constrained. Field monitoring is irregular, under-resourced, and often lacks legal follow-through. Offences such as illegal fishing, unauthorised timber harvesting, reedbed clearance, and unpermitted shoreline alterations continue with little consequence, particularly in areas under municipal jurisdiction where enforcement is further politicised or deprioritised (Ohrid SOS, 2019; 2020).

Sustainable financing remains a major constraint for the effective management of the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid Region. While some mechanisms are in place, current financial resources are inadequate to meet operational needs or support the full implementation of conservation and planning measures essential for maintaining the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV).

Although the Management Plan for the Albanian side includes a financial framework, it is aspirational and lacks specificity, with no clearly defined funding commitments or costed action plan. Similarly, the Strategic Recovery Plan (SRP), though structured around six thematic action areas, does not include a corresponding budget or financial strategy, making it difficult to assess implementation feasibility or prioritise actions based on available resources (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025).

In North Macedonia, the primary conservation authority, Galičica National Park, continues to operate with limited government funding and has historically relied on revenue from the extraction of natural resources, including logging and firewood sales, to fund its core activities (Nacionalen Park Galičica, 2010). This undermines conservation objectives and highlights the lack of alternative income streams to support the park’s role within the World Heritage site.

A notable positive example is the Prespa Ohrid Nature Trust (PONT), a transboundary conservation trust fund that provides long-term and reliable financing for protected area management and conservation initiatives in the wider region. PONT funding is used to support government agencies and civil society organisations, including for activities related to biodiversity monitoring, planning, and stakeholder engagement. However, while PONT is a valuable and stable funding source, it is not designed to replace core state funding and cannot address the broader structural financing gaps affecting institutional operations and enforcement capacity.

Staffing levels and institutional capacity to manage the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid Region are critically inadequate, particularly on the Albanian side, and fall short of what is required to ensure the protection of the property’s OUV.

In Albania, the staffing and institutional capacity is limited. Environmental management responsibilities are concentrated within a small regional authority, with limited specialized staff. In North Macedonia, staffing within Galičica National Park is more established, but still constrained by limited financial and technical resources. The park authority has historically relied on revenue from the extraction of natural resources, such as logging and firewood sales, to fund its operations due to insufficient government support (Nacionalen Park Galičica, 2010). While some staff are present for enforcement and ecological monitoring, the 2024 Reactive Monitoring Mission confirmed that overall capacity remains insufficient to meet basic management obligations across the wider property (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

In terms of infrastructure and operational readiness, equipment and facilities are limited and often outdated, particularly in Albania, where logistical challenges further constrain enforcement and outreach. The 2024 mission reported that field equipment is poorly maintained, vehicles are insufficient, and communications systems are lacking (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

The Galičica National Park authority has established a visitor centre near the town of Ohrid, which provides general information on the park’s ecological features and visitor opportunities. While this facility offers a valuable starting point for public engagement, education, interpretation, and awareness programmes across the World Heritage property remain limited in scope, coordination, and funding (Nacionalen Park Galičica, 2010).

Some positive outreach activities have been undertaken in recent years, including public campaigns on the conservation of wetlands and Lake Ohrid biodiversity, implemented in partnership with NGOs and educational institutions (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025). On the Albanian side, the Municipality of Pogradec has participated in awareness-raising initiatives on wetland protection and sustainable tourism. Similarly, in North Macedonia, civil society organisations and local authorities have cooperated on community workshops and student programmes focused on nature protection and cultural heritage.

Despite these efforts, the site could benefit further from a site-wide education or interpretation strategy, and programmes are typically ad hoc and reliant on short-term donor funding. As a result, awareness activities are not systematically linked to the site's OUV.

Tourism and visitation management across the World Heritage property remains fragmented, weakly regulated, and insufficiently aligned with the conservation of the site’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). While the scenic and cultural values of the Ohrid Region are widely promoted in local and national tourism strategies, these efforts often focus on mass visitation and economic gain rather than protection of the site's heritage values. References to the OUV in tourism policy are limited, and conservation objectives are rarely integrated into destination planning or investment strategies (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

A comprehensive, transboundary tourism or visitation management plan does not exist. While institutions such as Galičica National Park have prepared park-level tourism strategies, these are not harmonised across the property and have no binding influence on broader development decisions. The Strategic Recovery Plan acknowledges the need for sustainable tourism but lacks a costed action plan, implementation timeline, or enforcement mechanism (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025).

Construction of tourism related infrastructure, including roads, resorts, marinas, and other shoreline modifications, have been undertaken without adequate spatial planning, permitting, or alignment with World Heritage requirements. Numerous World Heritage Committee decisions, as well as the 2017 and 2024 Reactive Monitoring Missions, have raised concern over the lack of adequate Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) for tourism-related projects (UNESCO, ICOMOS & IUCN, 2017; UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024). Where assessments have been conducted, they have often been superficial, failed to consider cumulative impacts, or were undertaken after projects had already begun.

Furthermore, the World Heritage Committee has repeatedly requested the States Parties to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) covering all tourism and infrastructure developments within the property and its buffer zone. However, as of 2025, this has not been delivered, and developments continue to proceed in the absence of a formal assessment framework to guide development of the tourism industry int he site, particularly in high-pressure areas such as the lakeshore and protected natural landscapes (UNESCO, 2021; 2023; States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025).

Tourism activities within the site are not effectively managed to support conservation outcomes. There are no formal visitor limits, permit systems, or zoning frameworks to regulate access to vulnerable natural or cultural areas. As a result, tourism pressure has contributed to habitat degradation, visual impacts, pollution, and strain on local infrastructure (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024; States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025).

The sustainable use of natural resources within the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid Region is increasingly recognised as a priority, with recent bilateral and site-level initiatives laying important groundwork. Notable progress has been made in shifting towards more conservation-oriented management approaches. However, to fully secure the site's OUV, further efforts are needed to strengthen regulatory frameworks, enhance monitoring systems, and ensure consistent implementation across the site.

Fisheries management has seen recent positive developments at the transboundary level. In December 2020, the Ministries of Agriculture of North Macedonia and Albania signed an agreement for the joint sustainable management of fish in the watersheds of Lakes Ohrid and Prespa, which commits both States Parties to harmonising fisheries legislation, sharing information, and protecting fish stocks. A Joint Fisheries Committee was established under the agreement and has met annually since, including in 2023, where discussions focused on legislative alignment and coordinated fishery governance (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025).

Despite this framework, practical enforcement and sustainable resource use remain insufficient. A robust, transparent system has yet to be fully implemented, and illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing continues to threaten endemic species such as the Ohrid trout, and there is no consistent system of monitoring or regulation in place in either country.

Timber harvesting has historically been another major concern, particularly within Galičica National Park, which operated for many years with a self-financing model reliant on firewood sales and timber extraction (Nacionalen Park Galičica, 2010). However, notable progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the 2020 Reactive Monitoring Mission. The park has significantly reduced timber extraction to protect forest ecosystems and prioritise biodiversity conservation (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024). This shift marks a positive move toward more ecologically sound management and aligns with a broader reorientation of the park’s objectives. Furthermore, the Strategic Recovery Plan includes a specific measure to ensure that the ongoing development of a new Management Plan for Galičica National Park halts all timber extraction activities within its territory. It also calls for reinforcing the protection of forested areas and regulating sustainable tourism activities. The plan recommends that the draft management plan be submitted to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies for review, underscoring the importance of transparency and international alignment in revising resource use policies (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025).

Nevertheless, resource use elsewhere in the property remains problematic. In the Pogradec Protected Landscape, timber extraction continues with little oversight or evidence of sustainable yield assessments (Pogradec Protected Landscape, 2017). Similarly, there has been no comprehensive assessment of the sustainable limits for resource use—whether for fisheries, forestry, reedbed clearance, or non-timber forest products—across the transboundary site. The absence of clearly defined limits for resource use and coordinated regulatory frameworks has allowed various conflicting uses to proliferate, including unsanctioned recreational activities such as off-road driving, motor rallies, and trail events in ecologically sensitive zones.

Monitoring of the values for which the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid Region was inscribed on the World Heritage List is ongoing but remains fragmented, inconsistently applied, and insufficiently aligned with the site’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Although both States Parties have undertaken various natural and cultural monitoring activities—often supported by external projects—there is no integrated, transboundary monitoring framework that systematically assesses OUV attributes or informs adaptive management across the entire property (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

Environmental indicators are monitored through institutional and donor-supported programmes. The Hydrobiological Institute in Ohrid conducts long-term monitoring of Lake Ohrid’s water quality and endemic fish populations, including the Ohrid trout (Salmo letnica) (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025). In Albania, INCA and the Albanian Centre for Environmental Governance (ACEG) have implemented biodiversity monitoring activities under the EU4Ohrid project, focusing on wetland and riparian habitats (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025). Under the Prespa-Ohrid Nature Trust (PONT), funding has supported pilot monitoring programmes in Galičica National Park, including habitat condition assessments and ranger-based ecological data collection (PONT Annual Report, 2023).

Despite these examples, data collection is not harmonised between the two countries, and findings are often not centrally stored, analysed, or used to guide site-level decision-making. There is no common monitoring protocol or regular reporting mechanism for key ecological indicators related to the OUV, such as shoreline integrity, endemic biodiversity trends, or hydrological connectivity. Importantly, the monitoring outcomes are not consistently integrated into management planning or enforcement. While the draft Strategic Recovery Plan calls for the development of an “evidence-based, adaptive management approach,” including strengthened biodiversity monitoring and improved data sharing (Strategic Recovery Plan, Action Areas 2 and 4), this has not yet been implemented in practice. Current management plans and zoning decisions are largely static and not regularly updated in response to new ecological or cultural data (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

Nonetheless, there is considerable potential to enhance monitoring through formalised partnerships with academic and research institutions. Both States Parties have national universities and scientific institutes with relevant expertise—such as the Faculty of Natural Sciences at the University of Tirana and the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje—that could support long-term ecological and heritage monitoring. The ongoing development of a new Management Plan for Galičica National Park presents an opportunity to integrate structured monitoring indicators and adaptive decision-making processes from the outset (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025).

Various academic and scientific institutions conduct research on aspects of the site particularly its unique limnology, biodiversity, and cultural heritage. Scientific research on the site’s natural values is long-standing and internationally recognised. In North Macedonia, the Hydrobiological Institute in Ohrid plays a leading role in freshwater research, particularly regarding the ecology and endemic species of Lake Ohrid, including long-term studies on the endemic Ohrid trout (Salmo letnica) and benthic invertebrates (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025). Additionally, international research collaborations, such as the SCOPSCO (Scientific Collaboration on Past Speciation Conditions in Lake Ohrid) drilling project, have provided globally significant paleoclimatic and evolutionary data.

On the Albanian side, environmental NGOs and universities—such as INCA, ACEG, and the University of Tirana—have undertaken studies on wetland ecosystems, biodiversity, and landscape connectivity. Some of this work has been supported by the Prespa Ohrid Nature Trust (PONT) and the EU4Ohrid project, which also contributed to cross-border scientific exchange and community-based conservation research (States Parties of Albania and North Macedonia, 2025).

Despite this, research is generally carried out independently and are not necessarily embedded within a strategic, coordinated framework to inform site-level planning or management (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

The management system and governance structures remain largely ineffective in addressing external threats to the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid Region. Many of the most serious pressures, such as agricultural runoff, deforestation, and pollution from settlements, originate outside the immediate boundaries of the property, particularly within the broader watershed. However, these are not adequately controlled through current spatial planning frameworks, regulatory enforcement, or cross-sectoral governance mechanisms.

Institutional responsibilities remain fragmented across national, regional, and municipal levels, with limited coordination and inconsistent application of land-use regulations. In North Macedonia, the absence of a formally designated buffer zone further weakens the ability to manage edge effects, while in Albania, enforcement within the existing buffer zone remains weak. Despite repeated requests from the World Heritage Committee, Impact Assessments (EIA/HIA & SEA) are still not systematically applied to infrastructure or tourism developments, limiting the capacity of site managers to anticipate and prevent cumulative impacts.

A notable positive development is the planned redirection of the Sateska River, which historically contributed significant sediment and nutrient pollution to Lake Ohrid following its diversion into the lake in the 1960s. The current plan to reroute the river back to its original flow into the River Crn Drim offers a valuable opportunity to reduce sedimentation and pollution, and improve lake water quality over time. However, as highlighted by the 2024 Reactive Monitoring Mission, the success of this project will depend entirely on its design and implementation in line with international best practice (UNESCO, IUCN & ICOMOS, 2024).

While strategic frameworks such as the Strategic Recovery Plan call for improved landscape-level integration and transboundary coordination, implementation to date remains limited. Aside from the Joint Fisheries Committee, few mechanisms exist to align policies and actions across the watershed or between sectors such as tourism, agriculture, and heritage conservation.

The management system remains only partially effective in addressing threats occurring within the boundaries of the World Heritage property. Key pressures, including illegal construction and unregulated tourism infrastructure continue to occur inside the site due to weak enforcement, limited institutional capacity, and fragmented governance.

While some notable progress has been made, such as the reduction of timber extraction in Galičica National Park and efforts to regulate tourism through awareness campaigns and visitor centres, these actions are not yet part of a coherent, site-wide strategy. Enforcement of existing regulations is inconsistent, and permit systems are often bypassed or poorly monitored.

The lack of harmonised management across the transboundary property and the absence of an operational joint governance mechanism limit the ability to respond effectively to shared threats. Additionally, monitoring and impact assessment procedures are not systematically applied, and local development decisions frequently conflict with conservation objectives.

Overall, while there are positive site-level efforts, the overall management system is not yet robust or coordinated enough to prevent or mitigate the range of threats occurring within the property. Strengthening enforcement, integrated planning, and cross-border governance is essential to ensuring effective protection of the site’s Outstanding Universal Value.