4.2. LIFE Prespa waterbirds: Implementation of large-scale management

In this step, we will describe the implementation of wetland management activities within the three-year period of the LIFE Prespa Waterbirds project in more detail; based on the annual planning, and a selection of in situ problems and how these were overcome, or how they led to an adaptation of the targets that were set. 

Planning and implementation of wetland vegetation management in the littoral zone

All wetland management planning were incorporated into the annual operational plans (OPs) that were presented to, and approved by, the MBPNP (see also Step 3.3 for the approval process). Following the initial studies and assessments of the LIFE Prespa Waterbirds project, the first OP was drafted in 2018 and included a review of the long-term management as well as presenting detailed proposals for cutting operations, separating these into operations that would be carried out by the SPP as part of the LIFE Prespa Waterbirds Project and operations to be carried out by local stockbreeders. 

Figure 1: Planning map for the first year site management in the northern part of Lesser Prespa Lake

“Management Areas” along the littoral zone were clearly defined as wider areas where cutting and/or grazing should be employed, while “Management Sites” were defined as the parts of the management areas that would be managed by vegetation cutting within the LIFE Prespa Waterbirds project (Figure 1). Under the project, it was decided that deeper areas should be cut, as a means to ensure that climate change effects, and in particular the projected increase in the frequency of dry years with low water levels, would be ameliorated; more specifically, cutting at low water levels (down to 853.80) is a measure that would ensure that flooding, even if only to a limited extent, would be attained in 8 out of 10 years (based on the water level data of the last 10 years). 

Similar management activities were proposed for 2019. In 2020, it was decided that planning should be more generalised within the “management areas”, highlighting the fact that these areas were managed jointly by the stockbreeders and the SPP and no predefined limits for the contribution of management activities, such as cutting and grazing, would be necessary (see Figure 2 for the planning in 2020). Moreover, the initial cutting in the deeper parts of the wetland in 2018 and 2019 removed any long-standing dry reed stems, and the interest of the stockbreeders in the removal, baling and use of the fresh reed and other vegetation in fodder for their animals increased, leading to higher contributions to management. 

Figure 2: Planning map for 2020 vegetation cutting activities; note the fact that action implementation was not separated into sites where the LIFE Prespa Waterbirds would implement cutting, but is generalised to entire Management Areas, where management implementation by various means is imperative.

In terms of implementation the following maps (Figure 3, 4 and 5) and table summarise how management by cutting vegetation was carried out in the littoral zone throughout the period of 2018 to 2020. 

Co-operation with local stockbreeders is a key practice for the co-ordinated and effective implementation of management activities. Photo credits: SPP Archive/ I. Koutseri

There are notable differences in the extent of cutting each year, and these are mainly attributed to three key factors:

a. 2018 was a wet year, with the water level reaching its the highest limit, which of course did not allow early cutting in deeper areas, so neither individual stockbreeders nor the SPP team could cut the fullest possible extent. 

b. In addition, there was a delayed start to the cutting operations of the LIFE Prespa Waterbird project in 2018, owing to both the high water level and a delay in the delivery of the machinery to the SPP (October 2018), which allowed little time for the implementation of activities.

c. Following 2018, the next two years were very dry, with low water levels; in terms of management, this was beneficial, as a large part of the littoral zone was managed by cutting in 2019; however, in 2020, cutting operations covered a smaller extent, as in the higher/drier parts, either grazing was carried out or the vegetation dried out completely in early summer, rendering cutting unnecessary and/or the vegetation non-beneficial for use as fodder. 

What about grazing? 

As reeds, or high helophytes generally, are repeatedly removed from the littoral zone, the vegetation gradually changes and becomes more meadow-like. This, as noted above, increases the interest of stockbreeders in participating in cutting operations. At the same time, some of the managed sites become increasingly appropriate for grazing, and throughout the LIFE Prespa Waterbirds project, we have noticed an increased interest in the application of grazing from cattle herd owners. The application of cattle grazing, in combination with cutting, is a sustainable way to restrict reed regrowth in the littoral land and sustain wet meadows. However, in some areas, littoral land is adjacent to agricultural fields and grazing in these areas may create conflict with farmers, as cattle may move into and destroy cultivations. In order to overcome this, the LIFE Prespa Waterbirds project acquired the appropriate licensing and equipment to temporarily enclose specific areas with electric fences. This was applied in one area (Opagia/ Slatina Plateos) in 2020, after cutting operations were completed in July, and repeated in 2021; in 2021, the project is similarly organising licenses and equipment in order to fence an additional area in Mikrolimni, based on the interest of specific stockbreeders. 

Lessons learnt, affecting the future of implementation

Overall, the LIFE Prespa Waterbirds project has provided a much-needed background to various issues relating to the implementation of wetland vegetation management. Some general conclusions and lessons learnt through the project are summarised here:

• Wetland conservation, as well as water and vegetation management, should be based on scientifically sound goals, objectives, and targets; while objectives should be general, targets will have to be adjusted annually to accommodate for changes, unpredictable factors, and the degree of interest in participation from stakeholders (i.e., stockbreeders). 

• Participation by stakeholders is largely driven by the incentives provided, which are beneficial for their activities; while this participation is key to successful implementation, it should always be driven by conservation objectives and organised by the site manager (in this case the MBPNP). 

• Depending on various conditions annually, individual stakeholders may benefit to a different degree, and as such efforts should be made in order to keep their interest high, with implementation efforts and benefits being equitably distributed by the MBPNP. 

• Long-term solutions, applied by stakeholders (grazing and/or cutting), are always preferable, as they secure the continuation of actions beyond the scope of a project and are key to maintaining ideal wetland conditions. 

Further reading

Wetland management planning processes

Chatterjee, A., Phillips, B & Stroud, D.A. 2008. Wetland Management Planning. A guide for site managers. WWF, Wetlands International, IUCN & Ramsar Convention. 76 pp.

https://www.fws.gov/international/pdf/guide-wetlands-management-2008.pdf 

Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2010. Managing wetlands: Frameworks for managing Wetlands of International Importance and other wetland sites. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, 4th edition, vol. 18. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland.

https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/lib/hbk4-18.pdf 

Springate-Baginski, O., Allen, D. and Darwall, W.R.T. (eds.) 2009. An Integrated Wetland Assessment Toolkit: A guide to good practice. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Cambridge, UK: IUCN Species Programme. xv+144p.

https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2009-015.pdf