4.1. Vegetation management in practice

Irene Koutseri

Irene Koutseri

Society for the Protection of Prespa

The management targets set annually in spring by the WMC and the MBPNP (please refer to Step 3.4) form a practical guide for the implementation of actions, and they are adapted to the current water level at the time. Although the water level regime is the main defining factor for planning activities, other conditions, as well as last-minute modifications, limit or at least affect the implementation of activities. Within this chapter, we will present some of the limitations which can arise, as they have been documented within the LIFE Prespa Waterbirds project. 

Extreme weather phenomena and dependency on weather conditions

Unpredictable weather phenomena within the year may affect management operations. For example, in November 2018, heavy snowfall completely flattened the reedbeds, and this unique situation, with large amounts of compressed thick dry reed biomass over a very large part of the reedbed, did not allow cutting operations for the creation of firebreaks to be implemented in early winter. The effects of this event were exacerbated by fires spreading quickly through the reedbed, burning more than 300 hectares in February 2019 in the largest fire event ever recorded. In addition, a large reedbed breeding site, although not burnt, was very limited in extent in 2019, having become unsuitable for nesting due to the flattened reeds, and was completely abandoned, with waterbirds spreading to other scattered parts of the reedbed to nest. This event caused an overall rescheduling of interventions for the creation of firebreaks, which are normally implemented in November/December with complementary activities taking place, if possible, in January/February, before the season of fires starts.


Figure 1: Flattened reedbed, as an effect of heavy snowfall in November 2018 (SPP Archive/ G. Catsadorakis)

The bulk of plant biomass extracted from the wetland, whether that mowed by stockbreeders directly or that mowed and distributed by the SPP, ends up with stockbreeders for use as fodder. This constitutes an incentive for stockbreeders to apply vegetation cutting, extraction and baling, which in turn allows the application of management to larger areas within a limited timeframe. The timeframe for operations is usually planned to start in July and last until October, with biomass being more valuable as fodder if cut during summer (in July and August, see also Step 3.4 on biomass studies). Although the 4-month timeframe may appear long, the operational time period is in fact dependent on weather conditions, as cutting, collecting, drying and baling has to occur under ideal conditions, over the course of 4-5 consecutive dry days, for the fodder to maintain its quality. As a result, the “range” of interventions has to be adapted to the prevailing weather conditions, with interventions and the processes of organisation between the interested stakeholder, i.e., stockbreeders, the MBPNP and the SPP, prioritised accordingly.

Participation of stakeholders/stockbreeders

Winter fodder is a significant cost for stockbreeders, which can vary annually according to market prices, so reed/wetland biomass can provide a low cost alternative source of quality fodder (see also Step 3.4 on biomass studies). Nonetheless, it is an unpredictable source, as, for example, the extent of mowable areas and the amount of biomass extracted depends on various factors (e.g. water level, weather conditions). Therefore, there is a need for effective co-ordination between participating stockbreeders and organising a fair distribution of biomass, while also maintaining the interest of stockbreeders at a high level. As the amount of biomass is unknown at the start of operations, so is the degree of participation at the early stages, affecting the extent of management that can be carried out. Planned grazing regimes may change mid-season, if, for example, rooting by wild boar on a pasture may render it unsuitable for livestock grazing. At the same time, it is relatively common that conflict arises between stockbreeders, mainly on issues of: (a) grassland availability; (b) cutting operations taking place ad hoc by stockbreeders in sites that have been designated for grazing; and, less so, (c) the amount of biomass to be received by each interested stockbreeder.  

An application process for cutting and collecting fodder, and for the distribution of biomass cut by the SPP within the LIFE Prespa Waterbirds project, has been developed  by the MBPNP, and the organisation of annual operations is based on this process, following the submission of applications by mid-June, adhering to the management targets set earlier in the year. This process aims to minimise conflict, identify and address arising issues, and pinpoint the number of interested stockbreeders for the season, thus ensuring that management targets are met to the maximum possible degree. 

Unpredictable changes related to the management sites 

Unpredictable factors affecting annual management targets have already been postulated, and a few more that relate to the structural or quality characteristics of wetland habitats can be added. 

Wildfires spreading in the reedbed, usually set between January to April, are one of these factors, and depending on their timing they can cause the destruction of nests of early breeders, degrade the breeding grounds for migratory waterbirds, and are often related to shifts of breeding populations from traditional colonies to new ones. Changes in breeding sites every year have been related to extreme weather events and fires, as well as dry conditions (low water levels), and at the start of the year they are largely unpredictable. This irregularity in breeding grounds, especially present in the last few years, has led us to act proactively in relation to firebreaks; as there is usually limited time to create new firebreaks at the beginning of the breeding season, the aim is to maintain firebreaks near traditional breeding sites and/or the breeding sites of the previous year. 

The fact that large areas of reedbed may be subject to fires in late winter/early spring can also affect programmed activities (cutting operations), especially if the extracted biomass is scheduled to be used as heating material. Such use requires that dry reed is harvested, but every year fires affect the amount of material that can be harvested. As a result, plans to use such material can change drastically after fire events and thus a “fixed” amount of biomass for heating purposes cannot be foreseen annually. 

Other limitations in achieving management targets and implementing activities relate to past and current land-use issues in the littoral zone. Within the LIFE Prespa Waterbirds project it has been possible to expand the management of littoral habitats and reedbeds into previously “uncharted” territories for management. In particular, several reedbed areas where cutting equipment entered for the first time were found to contain old structures, such as fences or poles for attaching boats; these structures remain unseen within thick reedbeds and pose a threat to the functioning of equipment and possibly to the safety of equipment operators. In addition, expanding the effective conservation sites to previously unmanaged public littoral land has brought other land-use issues to the fore, such as the expansion of private agricultural fields into wetland areas. The incidences noted above have either led to: (a) adapting activities and in essence aiming to apply grazing rather than cutting in areas where man-made structures pose a risk to cutting equipment; or (b) postponing management in areas where agricultural fields have expanded, for a period of time that both allows farmers to complete the cultivation cycle and the MBPNP to signpost a distinctive line between private and public land. 

Equipment limits 

Finally, malfunction, damage to equipment or the inability of equipment to function on water-logged soil are to be expected within the period of implementation, and may cause delays in reaching management targets, forcing managers to revise management plans. However, co-operation between stakeholders (i.e., the SPP and stockbreeders) has prevented delays from lasting too long, with managers supplementing each other’s work, should such instances arise. 

Concluding remarks

In conclusion, the management of larger littoral areas and reedbeds has created an incentive for additional stakeholders to take part in the wetland management of Lesser Prespa Lake, but the degree of implementation depends on various factors that cannot be predicted in detail. The guidelines and wetland management targets, as defined annually and approved by the MBPNP, define a maximum area of management sites, which are prioritised for management (e.g., littoral land near colonies is prioritised for wet meadow restoration, over other isolated sites), and when it comes to implementation, actions are implemented gradually, aiming to cover as many of the foreseen targets as possible. Adaptation of management requires the co-ordination of all those involved, and it has proven a valuable tool for achieving maximum results each year.