The water supply of the floodplain channel network has another source as well. A smaller volume comes from a fishery. In case of this second source the nutrient content of the fishery is assimilated in the forest as an additional service. Previously this load were let back into the river directly.
Design & implementations
The landscape relief that has the former river branches in the territory
Lessons, risks, implications...
The key difference of this application compared to an area with generally the same problems is the possibility to sort out the transaction costs that emerge from in an area with multi-party ownership.
If the suitable complex knowledge happens to be at the right place, no further incentive is needed to take advantage of an upcoming possibility. †“ It highlights the fundamental need of education about the complex nature of the water-land use-ecosystem nexus.
The main success factor was the forestry management's unequivocal understanding of the structural problem what threatens the sustainable operation: the lack of inundations. They grasped the first occasion to finance and negotiate such a development. The financial consolidation/restructuring process of the state forestry organizations provided financial sources that were used to improve fundamental production conditions.
Transfer from the (that time existed) national Forest Regeneration Fund
- Should the forestry pay for the water (resource)? It was resolved as ecological water supply
- No water inlet at the front side of the flood waves because of flood safety reasons.
- The forestry resign to demand compensation for damages what the water that remains out in its territory can cause.
Policy, general governance and design targets
Wildlife management, the area provides higher animal carrying capacity
Assimilation of nutrient load of incoming water