生态环境损害赔偿诉讼：定义与定位矫正

面对生态环境损害赔偿诉讼这一新型诉讼形式,准确把握其定义和定位至关重要。现有生态环境损害赔偿诉讼按国家自然资源所有权私权化路径进行制度构建,其现行定义为特殊私益诉讼,现行定位为环境行政替代工具。这种定义与定位导致其与环境公益诉讼割裂,运行序位上优先于环境民事公益诉讼,引起国家机关角色错位。生态环境损害赔偿诉讼与环境民事公益诉讼的诉讼标的相同,救济和保护的利益均为环境公益,其定义应回归公益诉讼本位;政府在环境公益保护上有着广泛的职权和手段,是环境公共治理的优先主体,仅在少数行政不能的情形下才有借助司法的必要性和合理性,其在定位上应作为环境行政执法的补充机制在有限范围内发挥作用。据此,生态环境损害赔偿诉讼在制度体系上应与既有环境民事公益诉讼置于同一诉讼系属统筹立法,在诉讼序位上应让位于社会组织提起的环境民事公益诉讼。     

新疆生态环境保护法律问题研究

通过对新疆地区生态环境及其法制建设现状进行分析,发现新疆地区的法制现状不容乐观,环境立法与执法不能完全适应经济社会可持续发展的要求。鉴于此,结合区情对所存在的问题提出生态环境保护的法制构想,以期推动区域经济、社会和环境的协调发展。     

生态补偿助力脱贫攻坚：协同、拮抗与对接

中央政府提出的“生态补偿脱贫一批”标志着生态补偿扶贫正逐步成为我国打赢脱贫攻坚战的重要途径之一。2020年是脱贫攻坚战的决胜之年，生态补偿如何有效助力脱贫攻坚成为研究的热点。本文以实践与政策为导向，运用文献研究法和逻辑分析法，在厘清生态补偿扶贫理念形成与发展的基础上，解析生态补偿与脱贫攻坚之间存在的协同效应和拮抗效应。研究发现生态补偿与脱贫攻坚在地理空间位置、实施主客体、标准、方式和途径等方面相耦合容易产生协同效应，在价值诉求、农户资源禀赋、政府部门工作等方面矛盾产生拮抗效应。生态补偿有效助力脱贫攻坚的关键在于构建对接机制以强化协同效应、弱化或去除拮抗效应。为此，通过建立精准的瞄准制度、稳定脱贫的长效机制、政府部门内部生态补偿扶贫协调机制等举措，构建生态补偿与脱贫攻坚的对接机制，以促进二者高效协同发展。     

GEP核算：理论内涵与现实挑战

当前学术界对于GEP的概念内涵和核算方法仍在探索之中,而地方实践已然走在理论研究之前。GEP核算是生态服务价值的货币化评价,主要是为了科学认识生态系统服务的潜在价值,不等同于生态服务价值的市场显现;核算的出发点是为了更好保护自然资本,而非生态产品价值转化。GEP核算通过货币化评价生态服务价值,将自然资本保护更好地纳入经济社会发展决策,为完善生态补偿机制、进行生态文明绩效考核、引导人造资本和人力资本进入生态产业化提供重要参考依据。GEP和GDP都是流量,将GEP直接转化为GDP在逻辑上不成立。如何使GEP核算更好地服务于生态产品价值实现,需要在理论上厘清逻辑关联,在实践中明晰政策边界。     

激励相容理论视角下生态公益林补偿对农户的增收效应——以福建三明为例

基于福建三明499户农户的实地调查数据,用倾向得分匹配法测算了生态公益林现金直接补偿和岗位性补偿对农户的增收效应,结果表明:现金直接补偿和岗位性补偿对生态保护和农户增收都是正效应。现金直接补偿对农户增收效应不显著,而岗位性补偿对农户家庭总收入和家庭人均收入的净效应分别达55.4%和57%。进一步研究发现,两种补偿方式对贫困户和非贫困户的增收效应也不尽相同,其中现金直接补偿不利于贫困户增收,而岗位性补偿对不同收入的农户都具有正向显著增收效应。此外,从生态公益林的根本使命出发,可以发现现金直接补偿和岗位性补偿对生态保护的净效应也存在较大差异。故此,科学规划生态补偿方式和补偿标准是实现生态保护和农户增收双重效应的根源所在。     

基于生态系统服务价值的阿勒泰地区生态补偿区域空间选择与策略

生态补偿可有效缓解区域经济发展与生态保护之间的矛盾。基于2010—2020年阿勒泰地区土地利用数据,运用当量因子法计算研究区的生态系统服务价值（ESV）并进行时空变化分析,引用修正后生态补偿优先级指数对阿勒泰地区6县1市进行生态补偿区域空间选择,并计算生态补偿额度。结果表明：2010—2020年阿勒泰地区草地、耕地、水域、建设用地面积增加,林地与未利用地面积减少。2010—2020年总ESV呈现降增交替的波动变化,整体减少0.85%,林地ESV降幅最大,单项功能价值量占比最高的为调节服务。阿勒泰地区生态补偿理论总额度为60.05 亿元,修正后生态补偿（补偿额占总额比例）优先顺序依次为青河县（21.60%）>布尔津县（18.33%）>吉木乃县（10.46%）>哈巴河县（11.43%）>阿勒泰市（10.99%）>富蕴县（14.12%）>福海县（13.07%）。基于研究结果,从发挥政府作用、健全法律体系、拓宽资金渠道、创新补偿方式及规范补偿方与受偿方等方面提出完善阿勒泰地区生态补偿的策略。

     

The potential for biodiversity offsetting to fund effective invasive species control

Compensating for biodiversity losses in 1 location by conserving or restoring biodiversity elsewhere (i.e., biodiversity offsetting) is being used increasingly to compensate for biodiversity losses resulting from development. We considered whether a form of biodiversity offsetting, enhancement offsetting (i.e., enhancing the quality of degraded natural habitats through intensive ecological management), can realistically secure additional funding to control biological invaders at a scale and duration that results in enhanced biodiversity outcomes. We suggest that biodiversity offsetting has the potential to enhance biodiversity values through funding of invasive species control, but it needs to meet 7 key conditions: be technically possible to reduce invasive species to levels that enhance native biodiversity; be affordable; be sufficiently large to compensate for the impact; be adaptable to accommodate new strategic and tactical developments while not compromising biodiversity outcomes; acknowledge uncertainties associated with managing pests; be based on an explicit risk assessment that identifies the cost of not achieving target outcomes; and include financial mechanisms to provide for in‐perpetuity funding. The challenge then for conservation practitioners, advocates, and policy makers is to develop frameworks that allow for durable and effective partnerships with developers to realize the full potential of enhancement offsets, which will require a shift away from traditional preservation‐focused approaches to biodiversity management. El Potencial de la Compensación de la Biodiversidad para Financiar Controles Efectivos de Especies Invasoras     

生态补偿机制及模式研究进展

详细综述了生态补偿机制概念、理论基础、补偿标准、补偿模式及国内外生态补偿实践经验等方面的研究进展。发现外部性的内部化是生态补偿的关键和环境经济学基础,其核心问题包括：谁补偿谁,补偿多少以及如何补偿。通过回顾美国、欧洲发达国家与中国、拉丁美洲发展中国家在实施生态补偿过程中采取的各种措施,发现生态学与经济学理论已经逐渐融入生态补偿的研究之中。在此基础上,指出了国内生态补偿的科研和实践中有待解决的问题,最后提出了包括补偿的法律机制、补偿经济标准、政策制定等方面的建议。     

Assessing disabling and non-disabling injuries and illnesses using accepted workers compensation claims data to prioritize industries of high risk for Oregon young workers

Introduction: Young workers are especially vulnerable to occupational injuries and illnesses. There is a continued need to investigate injury burden among young workers across demographics and industry to inform targeted interventions. Workers compensation (WC) claims are important for quantifying work-related injuries and illnesses, however published studies have focused on disabling claims. This study extended previous research on Oregon young workers by including the most recent WC claims data to identify patterns of injury and high risk industries. Methods: We obtained all accepted disabling claims (N = 13,360) and a significant portion of non-disabling claims (N = 24,660) on workers aged 24 years and under from 2013 to 2018. Claim count, rate and cost were calculated by year, age, gender, industry, and injury type. A prevention index (PI) method was used to rank industries in order to inform prevention efforts. Results: Average annual disabling and non-disabling claim rates were 111.6 and 401.3 per 10,000 young workers. Workers aged 19–21 (disabling: 119.0 per 10,000 and non-disabling: 429.3) and 22–24 years (115.7 and 396.4) and male workers (145.3 and 509.0) had higher claim rates than workers aged 14–18 (80.6 and 297.0) and female workers (79.8 and 282.9). The most frequent injury types were “struck by/against” (35.6%) and “work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs)” (19.5%). High risk industries included agriculture, construction, and manufacturing for both genders combined. For female young workers, the highest risk industry was healthcare. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the added value of non-disabling WC claims data. Using both disabling and non-disabling data and PI method, agriculture, construction, manufacturing and healthcare industries were identified as priority workplaces to prevent common and costly injuries among Oregon young workers. Practical Applications: While the industries identified are considered hazardous for all workers, findings in this study can guide targeted research and prevention efforts specific to young workers.