Scholarlink

<p>The article discusses legal implications at the interface of water law and nature conservation law, using the example of the implementation of renaturation measures in form of the construction of facilities for fish ascent and descent as well as other types of fish-passable structures. Planning and construction of such facilities - although desirable or even required from the perspective of water law - often lead to disadvantageous consequences for project developers under nature conservation law. The construction of such facilities, that are advantageous for the aquafauna and thus for the ecological value of surface waters as a whole, may be qualified as an intervention under nature conservation law within the meaning of § 14 (1) BNatSchG. It is therefore not uncommon for the authorities to demand appropriate compensation measures. This administrative practice delays the procedures, makes the already very expensive restoration of continuity of rivers even more expensive and therefore has a negative impact on the achievement of water law objectives, which de facto leads to an inhibition of the exploitation of ecological potential under the guise of nature conservation. The following article examines the question of whether nature conservation law actually contains such requirements.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Die naturschutzrechtliche Ausgleichspflicht für wasserrechtlich gebotene Renaturierungsmaßnahmen am Beispiel von fischpassierbaren Bauwerken

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月3日

查看全文
  • Marcus Lau,
  • Viktoria Herden

摘要

The article discusses legal implications at the interface of water law and nature conservation law, using the example of the implementation of renaturation measures in form of the construction of facilities for fish ascent and descent as well as other types of fish-passable structures. Planning and construction of such facilities - although desirable or even required from the perspective of water law - often lead to disadvantageous consequences for project developers under nature conservation law. The construction of such facilities, that are advantageous for the aquafauna and thus for the ecological value of surface waters as a whole, may be qualified as an intervention under nature conservation law within the meaning of § 14 (1) BNatSchG. It is therefore not uncommon for the authorities to demand appropriate compensation measures. This administrative practice delays the procedures, makes the already very expensive restoration of continuity of rivers even more expensive and therefore has a negative impact on the achievement of water law objectives, which de facto leads to an inhibition of the exploitation of ecological potential under the guise of nature conservation. The following article examines the question of whether nature conservation law actually contains such requirements.