Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Ambio logoLink to Ambio
. 2025 May 6;54(11):1809–1820. doi: 10.1007/s13280-025-02192-y

Of ponds and people: Governance to balance biodiversity conservation and carp pond farming in Central Europe

Kathleen Schwerdtner Máñez 1,2,✉, Irene Ring 1, Rosa Hildebrandt 1, Uwe Brämick 3
PMCID: PMC12480271  PMID: 40329089

Abstract

Due to the loss of many natural water bodies, artificially created ponds often serve as refuge for numerous endangered species. The history of pondscapes in Central Europe is closely tied to the introduction of the common carp. Changing political, social, and climatic conditions, along with the increasing threat from fish-eating species, make the economic viability of pond aquaculture increasingly fragile. However, maintaining these pondscapes is crucial to meet societal demands for landscape and nature conservation. This article addresses the neglect of pondscapes in conservation literature and contributes to the ongoing discussion on the importance of cultural landscapes for biodiversity conservation. Lusatia, one of Europe’s largest pondscapes, faces challenges that reflect those encountered in other European pondscapes. In this study, we present these challenges along with the governance approaches implemented in Lusatia, using this analysis to outline potential solutions for conserving European pondscapes more broadly.

Keywords: Biodiversity governance, Carp, Cultural landscapes, Environmental policy instruments, Pond aquaculture

Introduction

Traditionally, much of biodiversity conservation has been about limiting human impacts. Ideas of pristine nature and wilderness as valuable land free from human presence and untransformed by human action have long dominated conservation actions (Cronon 1995; Adams and Hutton 2007). But in an increasingly human-dominated world, this approach has reached its limits, and alternative solutions to address the current biodiversity crisis must be found. Cultural landscapes provide the opportunity to coproduce biodiversity through biodiversity-friendly and sustainable land-use schemes and are therefore seen as a promising conservation strategy (Kueffer and Kaiser-Bunbury 2014). Often characterised by semi-natural ecosystems, cultural landscapes can hold remarkable biological diversity (Barthel et al. 2013).

Literature on biodiversity conservation in cultural landscapes strongly focuses on terrestrial systems (Farina 2000; Assandri et al. 2018; García Ruiz et al. 2020). Relating to aquatic ecosystems, substantial knowledge has been accumulated on the biodiversity of natural lakes and other smaller natural water bodies. However, man-made ponds have been mostly overlooked (e.g. Brönmark and Hansson 2002), and there is a particular dearth of data regarding the biodiversity of semi-natural fishponds (Broyer and Curtet 2012). Despite the evidence presented in several papers that fishponds are important habitats for amphibians (Kloskowski 2010), macrophytes and breeding birds (Broyer and Curtet 2012), their general role in biodiversity conservation has long been neglected and undervalued. Like other artificially created water bodies, fishponds constitute unique ‘islands’ of aquatic biodiversity, providing stepping-stones and increased connectivity between freshwater habitats for a variety of taxa that are fully or partially aquatic. This phenomenon is especially evident in regions where floodplains and wetlands have disappeared due to changes in agriculture and infrastructure (EPCN 2008; Sayer et al. 2012; Bätzing 2013). Ponds have been found to support a higher species richness at the pond level and a greater biodiversity at the landscape level in comparison with other freshwater habitats (EPCN 2008; Wezel et al. 2014; Hill et al. 2017). They also deliver a multitude of ecosystem services, including provisioning services, regulating services (e.g. water retention, microclimate regulation and nutrient fixation) and cultural services (e.g. cultural identity, recreation and tourism) (Plieninger et al. 2013; Färber et al. 2020; Rey-Valette et al. 2024). As they help retain water during hot and dry spells and improve water quality flowing into other freshwater habitats, ponds offer effective nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation (Biggs et al. 2024).

In Central Europe, pond construction for fish production dates back nearly 1000 years and is closely linked to the introduction of the common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Carp pond farming remained largely unaffected by intensification, except for a brief period in the late twentieth century, mainly in socialist countries, when high-density production methods were introduced. While intensive methods may come along with nutrient emission, sediment turbation and downstream transport, application of disinfectants, etc., traditional extensive carp pond systems are considered non-polluting and stabilising for ecosystems (Kestemont 1995; Kocour et al. 2025). Regular maintenance, including reed cutting and sediment removal, is essential for preventing overgrowth and enhancing biodiversity, especially for macrophytes and invertebrates (Sayer et al. 2012). Rare plants like moss grass (Coleanthus subtilis) benefit from regular pond draining (Richert et al. 2016).

Across Europe, changing political, social, and climatic conditions—such as environmental regulations, rising production costs, and water scarcity—threaten the economic viability of many carp pond farms (Wezel et al. 2014; Zdeněk et al. 2025). Additionally, the growing populations of protected species such as cormorants, herons, otters, and beavers increase production costs while also endangering and reducing fish production yields (Brämick and Schiewe 2023). With fewer enterprises and reduced pond areas, the continued existence of pondscapes is at risk. Current support measures are inadequate, and without proper maintenance, the existence and ecological functions of ponds are compromised. However, societal demands for landscape conservation and nature preservation, especially in meeting legal obligations to maintain specific habitat or population statuses, can only be fulfilled if pondscapes are properly maintained.

This article highlights European pondscapes as endangered cultural landscapes of significant conservation value. Focusing on the Lusatian pondscape as one of the largest artificially created pondscapes in Central Europe, we examine the challenges of maintaining carp farming, describe current governance approaches, and propose opportunities for improvement. By addressing the lack of attention to pondscapes in conservation literature, we expand the discussion on cultural landscapes and biodiversity conservation to include man-made water bodies. The article provides an overview of carp pond farming history and current challenges, followed by an assessment of governance approaches and potential improvements. While focused on Lusatia, our findings are relevant to other European pondscapes with similar histories and challenges, subject to European Union (EU) legislation.

Carp pond farming in Central Europe

Carp ponds are shallow, nutrient-rich water bodies that are cyclically filled and drained. Fish production relies on the pond’s food web, supported by autotrophic and heterotrophic organisms. In Central Europe, under typical climate conditions, 250–350 kg/ha of carp can be produced per growing season, depending on nutrient availability from water inflows, sediment, and precipitation. The natural food supply can be enhanced with external nutrients (manure, fertiliser) and supplemented with feeds like grain or dry formulations, increasing seasonal carp production to 500–1000 kg/ha (Müller-Belecke 2023b). Market-sized carp requires three growing seasons, cultivated by year-class in ponds with varying size, morphometry, and management.

Carp aquaculture in China dates back 8000 years (Nakajima et al. 2019), but the belief that carp was introduced to Europe from China was disproven by Balon (1995), who showed that wild carp existed in the Danube catchment area. After the last ice age, carp spread from the Ponto-Caspian Basin, likely by human intervention. While Romans consumed carp from the Danube, there is no evidence they reared them (Hoffmann and Winiwarter 2010). Carp aquaculture developed in monastery ponds with the spread of Christianity, and as monasteries expanded, they introduced carp farming to new regions (Balon 1995; Beveridge and Little 2002). The spread of carp aquaculture was driven by broader economic and environmental factors (Hoffmann 1995).

By the tenth century, population growth led to increased cereal production, converting woodlands into plowland and altering hydrological conditions, along with a rise in water-powered grain mills. This caused nutrient emission and stressed freshwater fisheries as demand for food fish grew. Evidence of high fishing pressure on stocks in natural waters includes a decline in the average size of sturgeon (Acipenser sturio), salmonids, and pike perch (Sander lucioperca) in fish remains from Central European sites (Paul 1980; Hoffmann 1995). In response, the culture of warm-water species, particularly common carp, spread (Hartstock 2004; Hoffmann 1995, 2005). Pond construction also helped address fertiliser shortages by acting as nutrient traps, making fish pond farming a solution for infertile soils (Hoffmann and Winiwarter 2010).

In Central Europe, fish pond construction began in the eleventh century, expanding rapidly during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, often in areas with poor or wet soils. By the thirteenth century, pond farming spread to Eastern Europe. By the early fourteenth century, standardised carp management practices were well-documented (Hoffmann 1995).

Carp pond farming in Europe peaked between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, with carp prices six times higher than pigs (Bätzing 2013). Its decline began during the Little Ice Age due to unfavourable climate and accelerated with the introduction of mineral fertilisers in the 1850s. Fertilisation made pond-based nutrient collection obsolete, allowing agricultural expansion on previously pond-used soils (Szumiec and Augustyn 2000). A revival of carp aquaculture followed industrialisation and population growth, but declining economic feasibility has led to its continued decline. Despite significant losses, countries like Poland (70 000 ha) and the Czech Republic (41 000 ha) still have high pond densities (EUMOFA 2021; Turkowski 2021). One of the largest continuous pondscapes in Europe is in Lusatia, Germany, with approximately 1250 ponds covering about 9500 ha across Brandenburg and Saxony (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Lusatian pond landscape and Natura 2000 sites in Saxony and Brandenburg

The Lusatian pondscape: Biodiversity hotspot and management challenges

Environmental regulations and protected species

The Lusatian pondscape, spanning Saxony and Brandenburg, is a globally unique cultural landscape, including the UNESCO biosphere reserve Upper Lusatian Heath and Pond Landscape on the Saxon side. It is a biodiversity hotspot (Ackermann and Sachteleben 2012), with its ponds and ditches serving as key habitats for many bird and amphibian species (Ohnesorge et al. 2013). The area hosts priority species from the Habitats Directive, including the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) and European fire-bellied toad (Bombina bombina), and supports diverse insect populations, including 53 of Germany’s 80 dragonfly species, along with more than 20 native fish species (Böhnert et al. 1996).

Fishponds attract piscivorous species such as the Eurasian otter and the Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis). Once considered pests, these species have recovered due to European nature conservation directives like the Birds Directive (RL 79/409/EWG 1979), which protects all European wild birds and requires the designation of Special Protection Areas (SPAs). The cormorant is now more widespread than in the past 150 years, leading to significant environmental conflicts (Cowx 2013; Carss 2022). Other species, such as grey herons (Ardea cinerea) and great egrets (Ardea alba), have also increased, causing further damage to fish culture in ponds.

The majority of fishponds in Brandenburg and Saxony are protected under the 1992 Habitats Directive (RL 92/43/EWG) as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), making them part of the Natura 2000 network. Within these sites, activities must not lead to habitat deterioration or disturb species, and managed ponds that harbour priority (Annex II) or rare species (Annex IV) require additional protection measures. Yet, while regular maintenance—such as reed cutting—is crucial for maintaining pond biodiversity, the European Commission provides no specific guidelines, and German conservation law restricts reed cutting during the growing season. This conflict between legal restrictions and necessary management practices challenges pond farmers to balance compliance with conservation needs and their economic interests (Ritterbusch et al. 2004).

More complex, more costly: Changing production conditions

The reunification of Germany in 1990 was followed by an initial decline in demand for carp in Lusatia, as a greater variety of other species, such as salmon, trout, cod, and pollock, became more readily available than they had been under the socialist economy. Although this trend has come to a halt in recent years on a comparably low level, it was accompanied by a consistent decline in carp production figures. Yields now average around 200 kg/ha in Brandenburg and 220 kg/ha in Saxony. The reasons for this are a more extensive production with lower stocking densities because of nature conservation requirements and higher losses, particularly due to predators (Brämick and Schiewe 2024).

Research indicates that losses caused by disease, environmental factors, and predation have risen significantly due to growing populations of fish-eating animals. Average losses in the first growth season have increased from 70 to 80%, in the second season from 40 to 60%, and in the third from 10 to 30%. Maximum values now reach 94%, 92%, and 92%, respectively (Müller-Belecke 2023b). Increasing predation pressure in combination with recurrent shortages in young fish for stocking, rising prices for supplementary feedstuffs, fuel and electricity have significantly increased production costs. Since the liberalisation of Germany’s electricity market, electricity prices have surged by 210% between 1998 and 2024, while fuel prices have risen by 220% (Statistisches Bundesamt 2024).

Climate change further complicates carp production by increasing risks such as oxygen depletion due to higher temperatures in late summer. In winter, increased metabolism leads to higher energy demands, requiring more frequent feeding. Prolonged dry periods during summer can also cause ponds without a stable water supply to dry out (AG NASTAQ 2020).

In the last decade, the number of carp pond businesses in Germany decreased by 35%, impacting the Lusatian region as well (Brämick and Schiewe 2023). As of 2023, Brandenburg still had 22 pond farms, covering around 2949 ha, with farm sizes ranging from 50 ha to several hundred hectares (Brämick and Schiewe 2024). Most ponds are privately owned, with some leased to other pond farmers (Müller-Belecke 2023a), while a few have been transferred to the Brandenburg Nature Protection Fund Foundation and are pilot-tested to be managed according to nature conservation objectives without fish stocking (Stiftung Naturschutzfonds Brandenburg 2025). In Saxony, there were 119 pond farms covering 7713 ha (Brämick and Schiewe 2024). Most of the ponds in Saxony are state-owned and leased to farmers (LfULG 2023), with a few privately owned, and a small percentage owned by nature conservation associations.

Rising production costs and increased demand for regionally produced fish have led to higher average carp prices, from 5.05 €/kg in 2020 to 6.84 €/kg in 2023 (Statistisches Bundesamt 2024). In direct marketing, carp is sold at 6.84 €/kg, while wholesale prices range from 3.31 to 3.78 €/kg. Around 10% of fish in Saxony is marketed directly, compared to up to 40% in Brandenburg (Müller-Belecke 2023a). Growing demand may boost production, but nature conservation regulations restrict this potential. Economic studies in Lusatia (Huber 2021a, b), Bavaria (Lasner et al. 2020), and the Czech Republic (Zdeněk et al. 2025) consistently demonstrate that many pond farms—especially smaller ones—cannot sustain themselves economically in the long run. Consequently, maintaining effective pond management and preserving biodiversity requires continuous financial support from society (AG Lasner et al. 2020; NASTAQ 2020), underscoring the need for robust biodiversity governance, which is discussed in the next section.

Governance for biodiversity-rich pondscapes

Multiple actors, multiple instruments

Biodiversity governance refers to the institutions, structures, and processes that determine how and by whom decisions affecting biodiversity are made (Bennett and Satterfield 2018). With governments traditionally being the most important decision-makers in conservation, alternative ways of governing involving new actors and mechanisms are becoming increasingly relevant. This also impacts the use of policy instruments, which are structured activities aimed at achieving long-term environmental goals. Policy instruments can be categorised into four categories: legal and regulatory instruments, rights-based instruments and customary norms, economic and financial instruments, and social and cultural instruments (Ring et al. 2018). In this article, we focus on two of these categories, legal and regulatory instruments as well as economic and financial instruments.

The conservation of aquatic biodiversity and wetlands has long been characterised using legal and regulatory instruments, such as the US Clean Water Act or the EU Water Framework Directive. The failure of these efforts to halt and reverse biodiversity loss has led to a growing interest in economic instruments, such as payments for environmental services, biodiversity offsets, or biodiversity credits (Ring and Schröter-Schlaack 2011; Schwerdtner Máñez and Clifton 2025).

Payments for environmental services (PES) have played a major role in global conservation policy over more than two decades (Porras et al. 2013; Wunder 2015; Clifton and Schwerdtner Máñez 2025). They offer monetary incentives to individuals or communities to voluntarily adopt behaviours that are not legally obliged, and which target and improve the provision of well-defined ecosystem services that they would otherwise have been economically unviable to provide (Sommerville et al. 2009; Muradian et al. 2013). PES are currently the most significant instrument for financing the maintenance of pond landscapes, as they provide payments for environmental services to pond farmers and other actors preserving the pond landscapes. In several EU countries, such as Germany, Austria and Poland, PES for pond farming are implemented. Especially when co-financed with EU-fisheries funds, they mostly only compensate for the additional costs of pond farmers of the relevant management activities, but do not reward the actual benefits in terms of the wider services of these measures provided to society. However, many of today’s cultural landscapes shaped by extensive agricultural or aquaculture production on marginal lands, such as high nature value farm- and grasslands (Keienburg and Prüter 2006; Matzdorf et al. 2010), or extensively managed pondscapes (Müller-Belecke 2023b), are costly to maintain and often not financially viable to manage. Here, farmers depend on receiving payments for the environmental services they provide to society, and this means assessing the wider benefits for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services provision as well as considering design rules for successful governmental PES (Meyer et al. 2015; Albert et al. 2017).

As part of its offset policy, the USA pioneered the concept of commercial wetland mitigation banking in 1991, creating a market for privately owned “wetland ecosystem services” such as duck habitat, flood protection and biodiversity (Robertson 2004). This has led to the development of conservation banking: Landowners who manage their land for conservation purposes can establish a conservation bank and are granted credits that can be purchased by developers (White et al. 2021). Freshwater ecosystems are included in several offsetting frameworks (Hermoso and Filipa Filipe 2021), and in England, standardised pond units can be purchased to offset development under the Biodiversity Net Gain approach (DEFRA 2023).

Biodiversity credits are the latest addition to the portfolio of economic instruments in conservation policies. While they focus on the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity, biodiversity credits are not linked to specific operations. As a result, they have the potential to contribute to the long-term conservation of natural habitats and the restoration of degraded ecosystems (Schwerdtner Máñez and Clifton 2025). Freshwater ecosystems are included in only a small number of the 53 biodiversity credit schemes currently in operation or under development (see Bloomlabs 2025), for example, as aquatic ecosystem function credits (Willamette Partnership 2025).

Recent research on the sustainable financing of ponds has identified a range of potential instruments for consideration, including user fees, philanthropic contributions, crowdfunding, environmental subsidies, green bonds and loans, or grants (McDonald et al. 2023). As awareness of the importance of ponds and pondscapes grows, these instruments may gain increased relevance.

Conserving the Lusatian pondscape: Environmental policy instruments at play

Pond aquaculture in Lusatia is shaped by a mix of policies, with a legal framework rooted in European legislation, further specified by national and state laws (Schwerdtner Máñez and Ring 2021). Key areas include conservation, fisheries, water, state aid, and regulations on animal welfare and disease control. The most relevant policy instruments for maintaining pondscapes as biodiversity-rich cultural landscapes focus on providing financial support for biodiversity conservation and the provision of environmental services. They also include measures to deter and prevent damage by protected species, along with compensation for any resulting harm (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Policy instruments for conserving pondscapes in Brandenburg and Saxony (economic instruments emphasised in italics)

Brandenburg Saxony
Compensation for nature conservation measures Funding guideline for aquaculture and inland fisheries, Sect. 2.2.3 compensation for environmental services in carp pond aquaculture Funding guideline for pond management and nature conservation
Regulated deterrence and damage prevention for protected species Cormorant ordinance Cormorant ordinance
Beaver ordinance Hunting ordinance (with a culling quota for grey herons)
Funding guideline for prevention measures to protect against beaver damage
Damage compensation Compensation guideline for damage caused by protected species in pond farms Hardship compensation regulation
Open in a new tab

The EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) oversees the market and financial aspects of aquaculture, with funding through the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), which supported nature conservation efforts in pond farming from 2014 to 2023. This was replaced by the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), providing 6.1 billion € to co-fund national projects from 2021 to 2027 (Council of the EU 2020). To access funding, member states must have a National Aquaculture Strategic Plan.

Germany’s operational programme prioritises the preservation of pond aquaculture and pondscapes in its fisheries policy (Germany—Operational Programme for EMFAF 2021–2027), supporting state-level initiatives. Payments for environmental services in aquaculture mirror agri-environmental schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy. Fish farmers receive compensation for income losses or additional efforts to implement environmental measures, typically for five years. In Lusatia, these measures vary between Brandenburg and Saxony.

In Brandenburg, the new EMFAF-based Funding Guideline for Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries provides compensation for environmental services in carp pond aquaculture. Maintenance Plan A offers a basic premium of 250€/ha/a for extensive fish production and pond maintenance measures. Maintenance Plan B, co-funded by federal funds, requiring consultation with nature conservation authorities, includes additional measures with funding obligations that can be combined, e.g. related to damming and stocking limitations. The compensation amount varies between measures in a range from 29 to 367€/ha/a (MLUK 2024). With the new guideline being in place since May 2024, funding amounts were significantly increased compared to the previous period, where similar measures were reimbursed only at an overall maximum of 150€/ha/a.

Since October 2022, Saxony has implemented the EMFAF-based Funding Guideline for Pond Management and Nature Conservation. The funding programme includes two parts: Part A, co-funded by EMFAF and Saxony, offers support for conservation-friendly pond management and measures prescribing, e.g. yield limits and/or excluding the stocking of predatory fish species. Part B, co-funded by federal funds, covers extensive fish production measures of non-aquaculture actors and maintenance measures for ponds without fish stocking. Organic carp production can receive additional financial support. The amount of compensation payment ranges from 205 to 820€/ha/a (SMEKUL 2023).

Furthermore, Brandenburg and Saxony have implemented regulations to manage conflicts with protected species (Table 1). Brandenburg’s Cormorant Ordinance, in place since 1999, allows deterrent shooting outside nature reserves to prevent significant fishery damage and breeding colony establishment. Grey herons and great egrets require special permits for control, while a beaver ordinance permits dam and lodge removal in commercial fishponds and, in some cases, culling. The aquaculture and fisheries guideline subsidises protective measures like nets and fences, with separate funding available for beaver damage prevention.

Saxony’s Cormorant Ordinance permits culling and breeding colony prevention to protect the fisheries sector and native wildlife. The Saxon Hunting Ordinance allows grey herons to be hunted within 200 m of ponds to prevent fishery damage, though this is subject to a quota.

In addition to these regulatory measures, damage compensation plays a key role in balancing nature conservation with the interests of pond farmers (Rabe von Pappenheim 2023). These payments reflect the principle that protecting species like cormorants and otters is a societal objective, while the costs are largely borne by private individuals. Strict protection measures also limit options for damage prevention. Compensation can help mitigate conflicts and foster acceptance of protected species (Schwerdtner and Gruber 2007).

The EU has no uniform regulations on compensating damage from protected species, leaving it to individual member states. Germany’s Framework Compensation Guideline for Damage Caused by Protected Animals in Fisheries and Aquaculture enables states to create their own compensation rules, independent of state aid law (RRL 2023).

In Brandenburg, the Compensation Guideline for Damage Caused by Protected Species in Pond Farms covers damage to commercial carp stocks and beaver-related damage, particularly to inlet and outlet structures, embankments, and dams. Compensation for damage to carp stocks is calculated based on a flat rate for each age group and production area. Beaver damage compensation is determined by an official beaver consultant, with affected aquaculture businesses eligible for up to 100% compensation for direct damage.

In Saxony, the Hardship Compensation Regulation provides financial relief for damages caused by wild animals. It covers up to 60% of total losses, with the possibility of increasing compensation to 80% under special site conditions.

The TeichLausitz project: Assessing governance and charting a path to solutions

The “TeichLausitz project” (2021–2025) develops recommendations for supporting pond conservation and its biodiversity. An evaluation of the regulations and compensation schemes in Brandenburg and Saxony related to damage caused by protected species found existing policies inadequate to sufficiently reduce farm damage or resolve conflicts with fish farmers. Brandenburg offers better support for dealing with beaver damage, including easier removal and compensation for non-fish-eating species, while Saxony allows more freedom to manage cormorants and offers hunting options for grey herons (Rabe von Pappenheim 2023).

With the new EMFAF funding period, Saxony revised eligible areas for certain measures to align with Natura 2000 monitoring and evaluation results, sparking conflicts with fish farmers. They criticised their exclusion from the process and the lack of scientific basis for certain measures, such as restricting maximum annual yield to 400 kg/ha despite limited evidence that this positively effects habitat or priority species preservation. Farmers also opposed treating each pond as separate, ignoring their pond group-based management approach and specific year-class management schemes.

To address concerns over recent funding guideline changes, the TeichLausitz project held a workshop in March 2023 with 54 participants, including pond farmers, fishery and environment protection authorities, and conservation groups. While Saxony’s new guideline was already published, Brandenburg’s was not, making Saxony the primary focus. In the first part of the workshop, a shared information base was established, with representatives from environmental ministries and conservation authorities outlining the process of developing the new funding programme, while pond farmers discussed its impact on pond farming. The findings highlighted a disconnect: policymakers, driven by EU legislation, prioritised habitat conservation, particularly in Saxony, while fish farmers felt excluded, fearing their businesses were at risk, although key to maintaining biodiversity and habitat preservation.

In the second part of the workshop, participants developed a framework for a future guideline to conserve the pond landscape and ensure the economic sustainability of fish farms. Using the Min Specs method (Lipmanowicz and McCandless 2013), they identified the essential “must dos” and “must not dos” for success. First, they compiled a list of all necessary rules. Then, four breakout groups (10–12 participants each) tested each rule against the purpose statement, discarding non-essential ones. Finally, the groups compared their findings in a plenary session and agreed on a final list, organised into four key categories: (1) effectiveness, (2) development process, (3) implementation, and (4) design (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Potential guideline for supporting the maintenance of pondscapes

  1. “Effectiveness” refers to a guideline’s ability to preserve pond landscapes and biodiversity while sustaining pond aquaculture. This requires balancing legal conservation requirements with the economic needs of fish farmers.

  2. The “guideline’s development process” must be grounded in robust ecological and economic data to ensure informed funding decisions. A participatory and transparent process is essential for acceptance and integrating diverse knowledge effectively. Participants stressed the need for adequate personnel and time, while pond farmers highlighted final approval from practitioners as key to the guideline’s success.

  3. “Implementation” refers to the practical application of the guideline. Participants emphasised the need for clear information, support in drafting applications, and transparency in decision-making regarding approved measures and accepted applications.

  4. To “design” the guideline, several key factors were agreed upon. Measures should be grounded in solid knowledge, and a comprehensive assessment of pond groups is essential, considering factors like pond positioning, water supply, and multi-year production cycles. Adjusting yield ceilings and implementing flexible water retention strategies were seen as crucial for economic viability. The principle of “good professional practice” (Füllner et al. 2007) should serve as a foundation.

Current financial support mainly covers income losses and additional costs but does not sufficiently reward the environmental services provided by fish farmers to society. As a result, funding lacks the necessary incentive for long-term engagement in fish farming. Participants agreed on the need for a sufficient basic premium, with supplementary payments for additional efforts. Any imposed restrictions should be fully compensated, and predator compensation should be integrated into the funding programme rather than managed separately.

Ways forward for conserving European pondscapes

Pondscapes provide an excellent case study of a cultural landscape in which biotopes for biodiversity are co-produced through the interaction between human management and natural processes over time. The conservation of these habitats presents a significant opportunity to mitigate threats to freshwater ecosystems and hold the decline of freshwater biodiversity on a global scale (Hill et al. 2017). The new paradigm for conservation emphasises the necessity for continuous and intensive care to conserve man-made habitats and their biodiversity (Kueffer and Kaiser-Bunbury 2014). This situates humans in the role of “guardians of biodiversity” (Teneggi and Zandonai 2017). It is crucial to align conservation objectives with the economic needs of those responsible for managing these landscapes. Policies that treat biodiversity as an isolated value, detached from the economic realities of land managers, are unlikely to succeed (Riechers et al. 2021; Bobiec et al. 2025).

The regional focus of our article comes with certain limitations, meaning that not all findings can be directly transferred to other European pond landscapes. Nevertheless, it is evident that traditional carp pond farming across Europe faces similar challenges: restrictive legal requirements, rising costs, and increasing production losses due to predators equally burden pond operations in many regions.

The protective status of many ponds limits the options available to pond farmers when selecting and applying production schemes, particularly in terms of economic feasibility. Financial support for farmers managing ponds to maintain habitats of priority importance and their biodiversity should therefore be viewed as a societal obligation and a fair and necessary remuneration. While current instruments only compensate for the additional effort required for certain measures or the income lost due to restrictions, this would require a genuine reward for the environmental services provided by pond farmers. Such a “pond premium” would need to be high enough to make pond farming profitable in the long term, thereby creating a real incentive for its continuation. Future research should provide insights on the amount of the pond premium, for example, based on economic evaluation studies of environmental services provided by pond farming.

Integrating the needs and expertise of pond farmers into policy instrument design is essential for ensuring both effectiveness and broad acceptance. Co-designing measures with stakeholders not only builds support, it also enhances ecological and economic efficiency (Hölting et al. 2022). The TeichLausitz project demonstrates that such collaborative approaches can reconcile diverse stakeholder demands and create a unified framework for policy instruments. To further support this, future social research is needed to examine the perceptions and motivations of pond farmers in relation to their increasing dependence on subsidies.

Pondscapes are receiving growing attention for their ecological and cultural importance, which might prompt an expansion of policy instruments—including innovative tools such as biodiversity credits or crowdfunding. However, only a policy mix that balances economic needs with conservation goals will ensure these unique landscapes and their biodiversity endure for future generations.

Biographies

Kathleen Schwerdtner Máñez

was a senior researcher at the International Institute Zittau at TUD Dresden University of Technology. She is currently the project coordinator of the Baltic Sea Conservation Foundation, and an associated senior researcher at the Department of Sustainability Science and Applied Geography, University of Greifswald. Her research interests include the sustainable use of natural resources, environmental policy instruments, and the use of behavioural science in biodiversity conservation.

Irene Ring

is a Professor of Ecosystem Services at the International Institute Zittau at TUD Dresden University of Technology. Her research interests include environmental and ecological economics, biodiversity and ecosystem services governance, and economic instruments in conservation policies.

Rosa Hildebrandt

is a research associate at the International Institute Zittau at TUD Dresden University of Technology. Her research interests include biodiversity and ecosystem services governance, policy instruments for natural resources management, agroecology and integrated landscape management.

Uwe Brämick

is Scientific Director of the Institute of Inland Fisheries in Potsdam-Sacrow. His main research interests comprise the dynamics, evaluation and sustainable management of fish stocks in inland waters as well as technological issues for optimising the breeding and farming of fish in aquaculture facilities, particularly ponds.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Our research was financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the collaborative project “Safeguarding biodiversity through sustainably managed pond landscapes in Lusatia (TeichLausitz)” as part of the BMBF Research Initiative for the Conservation of Biodiversity (Grant No. 16LW0085, 16LW0084K).

Declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. AG NASTAQ. 2020. Nationaler Strategieplan Aquakultur 2021–2030 für Deutschland. Retrieved 8 July, 2021, from https://www.portalfischerei.de/fileadmin/SITE_MASTER/content/Dokumente/Bund/Aquakultur/NASTAQ_2021-2030.pdf.
  2. Ackermann, W. and J. Sachteleben. 2012. Identifizierung der Hotspots der Biologischen Vielfalt in Deutschland. BfN Schriften 315. Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz.
  3. Adams, W.M. and J. Hutton. 2007. People, parks and poverty: Political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and Society 5: 147–183. [Google Scholar]
  4. Albert, C., C. Schröter-Schlaack, B. Hansjürgens, A. Dehnhardt, R. Döring, H. Job, J. Köppel, S. Krätzig, et al. 2017. An economic perspective on land use decisions in agricultural landscapes: Insights from the TEEB Germany Study. Ecosystem Services 25: 69–78. [Google Scholar]
  5. Assandri, G., G. Bogliani, P. Pedrini, and M. Brambilla. 2018. Beautiful agricultural landscapes promote cultural ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 256: 200–210. [Google Scholar]
  6. Balon, E.K. 1995. Origin and domestication of the wild carp, Cyprinus carpio: From Roman gourmets to the swimming flowers. Aquaculture 129: 3–48. [Google Scholar]
  7. Barthel, S., C. Crumley, and U. Svedin. 2013. Bio-cultural refugia—Safeguarding diversity of practices for food security and biodiversity. Global Environmental Change 23: 1142–1152. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bennett, N.J. and T. Satterfield. 2018. Environmental governance: A practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis. Conservation Letters 11: e12600. [Google Scholar]
  9. Beveridge, M.C.M. and D. Little. 2002. The history of aquaculture in traditional societies. In Ecological Aquaculture: The Evolution of the Blue Revolution, ed. B.A. Costa-Pierce, 1–29. Oxford: Blackwell Science. [Google Scholar]
  10. Biggs, J., S. Hoyle, I. Matos, B. Oertli, and J. Teixeira. 2024. Using ponds and pondscapes as nature-based solutions: Guidance for policy makers on the use of ponds and pondscapes as nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation. EU Horizon 2020 Ponderful project, CIIMAR.10.5281/zenodo.13847395
  11. Bloomlabs. 2025. Biodiversity Credit Schemes. Retrieved 30 January, 2025, from https://airtable.com/appXHR0Nau8HqfPa8/shrt5JZqmLMrQgdfF/tblTM31mqfzbGGBtR/viwLkSPMhe3K76baF.
  12. Bobiec, A., I.D. Rotherham, S. Kırca, Z. Molnár, and M. Agnoletti. 2025. Towards biocultural realism: Connecting conservation with historical ecology and common sense. A European Perspective. Ambio 54: 505–519. 10.1007/s13280-024-02089-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Broyer, J. and L. Curtet. 2012. Biodiversity and fish farming intensification in French fishpond systems. Hydrobiologia 694: 205–218. [Google Scholar]
  14. Brämick, U. and S. Schiewe. 2023. Jahresbericht zur Deutschen Binnenfischerei und Binnenaquakultur 2022. Institut für Binnenfischerei e.V. Potsdam – Sacrow, Germany (in German) 64 p. Retrieved 8 August, 2024, from www.ifb-potsdam.de.
  15. Brämick, U. and S. Schiewe. 2024. Jahresbericht zur Deutschen Binnenfischerei und Binnenaquakultur 2023. Institut für Binnenfischerei e.V. Potsdam—Sacrow, Germany (in German) 65 p. Retrieved 6 January, 2025, from www.ifb-potsdam.de.
  16. Brönmark, C. and L.A. Hansson. 2002. Environmental issues in lakes and ponds: Current state and perspectives. Environmental Conservation 29: 290–307. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bätzing, W. 2013. Nutzungskonflikte zwischen Teichwirtschaft, Naturschutz und Freizeitinteressen im Aischgrund. Mitteilungen der Fränkischen Geographischen Gesellschaft 59: 81–100. [Google Scholar]
  18. Böhnert, W., R. Buchwald, and L. Reichhoff. 1996. Biosphärenreservatsplan Teil 1. Grundlagen für Schutz, Pflege und Entwicklung, 1st ed. Mücka: Biosphärenreservat Oberlausitzer Heide- und Teichlandschaft. [Google Scholar]
  19. Carss, D.N. 2022. There must be some kind of way out of here: Towards ‘reframing’ European cormorant-fisheries conflicts. Ardea 109: 667–681. [Google Scholar]
  20. Clifton, J. and K. Schwerdtner Máñez. 2025. A framework based on payments for ecosystem services to support the delivery of high integrity carbon and biodiversity credits. Ecosystem Services. 73: 101724. [Google Scholar]
  21. Council of the EU. 2020. Press release: Informal agreement on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund for the period 2021–2027. Retrieved 8 July, 2024, from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/12/04/informal-deal-on-european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund-for-the-period-2021-2027/.
  22. Cowx, I. 2013. Between fisheries and bird conservation: the cormorant conflict. Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies. Retrieved 8 July, 2024, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies.
  23. Cronon, W. 1995. The trouble with wilderness, or, getting back to the wrong nature. In Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature, ed. W. Cronon, 69–90. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. [Google Scholar]
  24. DEFRA—Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2023. Statutory biodiversity credit prices. Retrieved 26 February, 2025, from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/statutory-biodiversity-credit-prices.
  25. EPCN – European Pond Conservation Network. 2008. The Pond Manifesto. Retrieved 15 June, 2024, from https://content.freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/2016/06/EPCN-MANIFESTO.pdf.
  26. EUMOFA. 2021. Freshwater Aquaculture in the EU. Bruxelles: EUMOFA European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products. Retrieved 8 January, 2025, from https://eumofa.eu/documents/20178/442176/Freshwater+aquaculture+in+the+EU.pdf?
  27. Farina, A. 2000. The cultural landscape as a model for the integration of ecology and economics. BioScience 50: 313–320. [Google Scholar]
  28. Färber, B., A. Bartel, M. Dolezel, B. Ferner, O. Gabriel, H. Gaugitsch, M. Götzl, A. Greiter, et al. 2020. Pilotstudie 4—Umweltdaten der Aquakultur. Endbericht. Reports, REP-0715. Wien: Umweltbundesamt.
  29. Füllner, G., M. Pfeiffer, and N. Langner. 2007. Karpfenteichwirtschaft. Bewirtschaftung von Karpfenteichen. Gute fachliche Praxis. Dresden: Sächsische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft.
  30. García Ruiz, J.M., T. Lasanta, E. Nadal Romero, N. Lana Renault, and B. Álvarez Farizo. 2020. Rewilding and restoring cultural landscapes in Mediterranean mountains: Opportunities and challenges. Land Use Policy 99: 104850. [Google Scholar]
  31. Hartstock, E. 2004. Teichwirtschaft in der Oberlausitz. Bautzen: Lusatia Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hermoso, V. and A. Filipa Filipe. 2021. Offsetting connectivity loss in rivers: Towards a no-net-loss approach for barrier planning. Biological Conservation 256: 109043. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hill, M.J., J. Biggs, I. Thornhill, R.A. Briers, D.G. Gledhill, J.C. White, P.J. Wood, and C. Hassall. 2017. Urban ponds as an aquatic biodiversity resource in modified landscapes. Global Change Biology 23: 986–999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoffmann, R.C. 1995. Environmental change and the culture of common carp in medieval Europe. Guelph Ichthyology Reviews 3: 57–85. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hoffmann, R.C. 2005. A brief history of aquatic resource use in medieval Europe. Helgoland Marine Research 59: 22–30. [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoffmann, R.C. and V. Winiwarter. 2010. Making land and water meet: The cycling of nutrients between fields and ponds in pre-modern Europe. Agricultural History 84: 352–380. [Google Scholar]
  37. Huber, L. 2021a. Facts and Figures: German Aquaculture under Pressure. Factsheet: Carp from traditional ponds in Upper Lusatia: DE-FCP-80. agri benchmark. Retrieved 5 February, 2025, from http://www.agribenchmark.org/fileadmin/Dateiablage/B-Fish/DE-FCP-80-JM.pdf
  38. Huber, L. 2021b. Facts and Figures: German Aquaculture under Pressure. Factsheet: Large-scale carp production in Upper Lusatia: DE-FCP-200. agri benchmark. Retrieved 5 February, 2025, from http://www.agribenchmark.org/fileadmin/Dateiablage/B-Fish/DE-FCP-200-JM.pdf.
  39. Hölting, L., M. Busse, S. Bülow, J.O. Engler, N. Hagemann, I. Joormann, M.L. Kernecker, N. Larondelle, et al. 2022. Co-design: Working with farmers in Europe to halt the loss of biological diversity. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 3: e12169. 10.1002/2688-8319.12169. [Google Scholar]
  40. Keienburg, T. and J. Prüter, J. 2006. Naturschutzgebiet Lüneburger Heide—Erhaltung und Entwicklung einer alten Kulturlandschaft. Schneverdingen: Alfred Toepfer Akademie für Naturschutz (NNA).
  41. Kestemont, P. 1995. Different systems of carp production and their impacts on the environment. Aquaculture 129: 347–372. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kloskowski, J. 2010. Fish farms as amphibian habitats: Factors affecting amphibian species richness and community structure at carp ponds in Poland. Environmental Conservation 37: 187–194. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kocour, M., M. Prchal, J. Lipka, O. Valentová, and H. Kocour Kroupová. 2025. Effect of common carp group, mass yield and supplemental feeding on basic water quality parameters under semi-intensive pond management in Central Europe: Implications for selective breeding under near-natural conditions. Aquaculture 601: 742168. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kueffer, C. and C.N. Kaiser-Bunbury. 2014. Reconciling conflicting perspectives for biodiversity conservation in the Anthropocene. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 131–137. [Google Scholar]
  45. Lasner, T., A. Mytlewski, M. Nourry, M. Rakowski, and M. Oberle. 2020. Carp land: Economics of fish farms and the impact of region-marketing in the Aischgrund (DEU) and Barycz Valley (POL). Aquaculture 519: 734731. [Google Scholar]
  46. LfULG – Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie, 2023. Daten und Fakten, Vollzug Fischereigesetz, Table 2—Fisheries lease agreements and pond lease contracts administered by the fisheries authority in Saxony (as of Dec. 2023). Retrieved 4 January, 2025, from https://lfulg.sachsen.de/download/DuF_Blatt_Vollzug_Fischereigesetz.pdf.
  47. Lipmanowicz, H. and K. McCandless. 2013. The surprising power of liberating structures: Simple rules to unleash a culture of innovation. Seattle, WA: Liberating Structures Press. [Google Scholar]
  48. MLUK. 2024. Richtlinie des Ministeriums für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und Klimaschutz über die Gewährung von Zuwendungen zur Förderung der Aquakultur und Binnenfischerei in den Ländern Brandenburg und Berlin. Retrieved 12 August, 2024, from https://mluk.brandenburg.de/sixcms/media.php/9/RL-EMFAF-Amtsblatt-21-24.pdf.
  49. Matzdorf, B., M. Reutter, and C. Hübner. 2010. Bewertung der Ökosystemdienstleistungen von HNV-Grünland (High Nature Value Grassland). Abschlussbericht. Müncheberg: Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF).
  50. McDonald, H., I. Seeger, M. Lago, and L. Scholl. 2023. Synthesis report on sustainable financing of the establishment of ponds and pondscapes. PONDERFUL Project (EU Horizon 2020 GA no. ID869296), Deliverable 1.4., ecologic.eu/19473.
  51. Meyer, C., M. Reutter, B. Matzdorf, C. Sattler, and S. Schomers. 2015. Design rules for successful governmental payments for ecosystem services: Taking agri-environmental measures in Germany as an example. Journal of Environmental Management 157: 146–159. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Muradian, R., M. Arsel, L. Pellegrini, F. Adaman, B. Aguilar, B. Agarwal, E. Corbera, D. Ezzine, et al. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions. Conservation Letters 6: 274–279. [Google Scholar]
  53. Müller-Belecke, A. 2023a. Untersuchungen zur Situation, Betriebsstruktur und -ökonomie der Brandenburger Karpfenteichwirtschaft. Schriften des Instituts für Binnenfischerei e.V. Potsdam-Sacrow (63), Potsdam, Germany.
  54. Müller-Belecke, A. 2023b. Erarbeitung von Fachgrundlagen eines ganzheitlichen Teichprogramms zur Sicherung naturschutz- und fischereifachlicher Ziele in Schleswig-Holstein. Abschlussbericht. Institut für Binnenfischerei e.V. Potsdam-Sacrow, Potsdam, Germany.
  55. Nakajima, T., M.J. Hudson, J. Uchiyama, K. Makibayashi, and J. Zhang. 2019. Common carp aquaculture in Neolithic China dates back 8000 years. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3: 1415–1418. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Ohnesorge, B., T. Plieninger, and P. Hostert. 2013. Management effectiveness and land cover change in dynamic cultural landscapes—Assessing a Central European biosphere reserve. Ecology and Society 18: 23. [Google Scholar]
  57. Paul, A. 1980. Knochenfunde aus dem mittelalterlich-neuzeitlichen Lübeck (Grabung Königsstrasse 59–63). Lübecker Schriften Zur Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte 2: 7–104. [Google Scholar]
  58. Plieninger, T., S. Dijks, E. Oteros-Rozas, and C. Bieling. 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33: 118–129. [Google Scholar]
  59. Porras, I., D.N. Barton, M. Miranda, and A. Chacón-Cascante. 2013. Learning from 20 years of payments for ecosystem services in Costa Rica. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. [Google Scholar]
  60. RRL—Rahmenrichtlinie für Beihilfen zur Verhinderung und Begrenzung von durch geschützte Tiere verursachte Schäden sowie für den Ausgleich von durch geschützte Tiere verursachten Schäden in der Fischerei und Aquakultur. 2023. Retrieved 1 July, 2024, from https://www.portal-fischerei.de/fileadmin/SITE_MASTER/content/Dokumente/Bund/Aquakultur/RRL_Praedatoren_Fischerei_04122023_RF.pdf.
  61. Rabe von Pappenheim, C. 2023. Teichwirtschaft und geschützte Arten: Abwehr und Ausgleich von Schäden in Brandenburg und Sachsen. Masterarbeit. Zittau, Germany: Professur für Ökosystemare Dienstleistungen, Internationales Hochschulinstitut (IHI) Zittau der TU Dresden (in German, English summary). Retrieved 8 July, 2024, from https://tu-dresden.de/ihi-zittau/ess/forschung/TeichLausitz.
  62. Rey-Valette, H., J.-M. Salles, and T. Blayac. 2024. Perceptions of ecosystem services and bonds with nature: The case of fish-farming ponds in France. Ecological Economics 217: 108049. [Google Scholar]
  63. Richert, E., R. Achtziger, Z. Dajdok, A. Günther, H. Heilmeier, A. Hübner, H. John, and K. Šumberová. 2016. Rare wetland grass Coleanthus subtilis in Central and Western Europe—Current distribution, habitat types, and threats. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 85: 3511. [Google Scholar]
  64. Riechers, M., I.A. Pătru-Duse, and Á. Balázsi. 2021. Leverage points to foster human–nature connectedness in cultural landscapes. Ambio 50: 1670–1680. 10.1007/s13280-021-01504-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Ring, I. and C. Schröter-Schlaack. 2011. Instrument Mixes for Biodiversity Policies. POLICYMIX Report, Issue No. 2/2011. Leipzig: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZ. Retrieved 8 January, 2025, from https://policymix.nina.no/Publications.
  66. Ring, I., C. Sandström, S. Acar, M. Adeishvili, C. Albert, C. Allard, Y. Anker, R. Arlettaz, et al. 2018. Chapter 6: Options for governance and decision-making across scales and sectors. In The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia, eds. M. Rounsevell, M. Fischer, A. Torre-Marin Rando, and A. Mader, 661–802. Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Retrieved 8 July, 2024, from https://www.ipbes.net/assessment-reports/eca.
  67. Ritterbusch, D., K. Schreckenbach, and C. Thürmer. 2004. Verlandung von Karpfenteichen. Schriftenreihe der Sächsischen Landesanstalt Für Landwirtschaft 9: 78. [Google Scholar]
  68. Robertson, M.M. 2004. The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: Wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance. Geoforum 35: 361–373. [Google Scholar]
  69. SMEKUL. 2023. Richtlinie des Sächsischen Staatsministeriums für Energie, Klimaschutz, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft zur Förderung von Maßnahmen der Teichpflege und naturschutzgerechten Teichbewirtschaftung im Freistaat Sachsen (Förderrichtlinie Teichwirtschaft und Naturschutz—FRL TWN/2023). Retrieved 12 August, 2024, from https://www.recht.sachsen.de/vorschrift/19909.
  70. Sayer, C., K. Andrews, E. Shilland, N. Edmonds, R. Edmonds-Brown, I. Patmore, D. Emson, and J. Axmacher. 2012. The role of pond management for biodiversity conservation in an agricultural landscape. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 22: 626–638. [Google Scholar]
  71. Schwerdtner, K. and B. Gruber. 2007. A conceptual framework for damage compensation schemes. Biological Conservation 134: 354–360. [Google Scholar]
  72. Schwerdtner Máñez, K. and J. Clifton. 2025. Biodiversity credits: A new currency to support nature conservation? Oryx. 10.1017/S0030605324001467. [Google Scholar]
  73. Schwerdtner Máñez, K. and I. Ring. 2021. Politikinstrumente, Governancestrukturen und Stakeholder der Lausitzer Teichwirtschaft. TeichLausitz-Projekt, Phase 1. Zittau: Internationales Hochschulinstitut (IHI) Zittau der TU Dresden. Retrieved 8 July, 2024, from https://tu-dresden.de/ihi-zittau/ess/forschung/TeichLausitz.
  74. Sommerville, M.M., J.P. Jones, and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2009. A revised conceptual framework for payments for environmental services. Ecology and Society 14: 34. [Google Scholar]
  75. Statistisches Bundesamt. 2024. Verkaufspreise für lebende Oder frisch geschlachtete Fische: Deutschland, Jahre, Fischarten, Vermarktungswege. Retrieved 1 January, 2025, from https://www-genesis.destatis.de/datenbank/online/statistic/41363/table/41363-0001.
  76. Stiftung Naturschutzfonds Brandenburg. 2025. Naturschutz durch Nutzung—Aus Fischteichen werden Naturschutzteiche. Retrieved 6 January, 2025, from https://www.naturschutzfonds.de/natur-schuetzen/naturschutzmassnahmen/naturschutzteiche.
  77. Szumiec, M.A. and D. Augustyn. 2000. Climate and ponds since the middle ages. Prace Geograficzne 108: 87–92. [Google Scholar]
  78. Teneggi, G. and F. Zandonai. 2017. The community enterprises of the Appennino Tosco-Emiliano UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, Italy: Biodiversity guardians and sustainable development innovators. Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, Special Issue on Community-Based, Collaborative Solutions to Sustainable Economic Development in and around Biosphere Reserves 6: 33–48. [Google Scholar]
  79. Turkowski, K. 2021. Fish farmers’ perception of ecosystem services and diversification of carp pond aquaculture: A case study from Warmia and Mazury Poland. Sustainability 13: 2797. [Google Scholar]
  80. Wezel, A., B. Oertli, V. Rosset, F. Arthaud, B. Leroy, R. Smith, S. Angelibert, G. Bornette, et al. 2014. Biodiversity patterns of nutrient-rich fish ponds and implications for conservation. Limnology 15: 213–223. [Google Scholar]
  81. White, T.B., J.W. Bull, T.P. Toombs, and A.T. Knight. 2021. Uncovering opportunities for effective species conservation banking requires navigating technical and practical complexities. Conservation Science and Practice 3: e431. [Google Scholar]
  82. Willamette Partnership. 2025. Aquatic Ecosystem Function Credit Tools and Rules. Retrieved 1 January, 2025, from https://willamettepartnership.org/resources/market-tools-rules/#habitat-credits.
  83. Wunder, S. 2015. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 117: 234–243. [Google Scholar]
  84. Zdeněk, R., J. Lososová, and J. Mráz. 2025. Long-term trends in the economic viability of pond aquaculture in Central Europe—The example of Czechia. Aquaculture 598: 742069. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Ambio are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES