Since 198s, many countries have begun to try to compensate the ecological benefits of soil and water conservation, and made progress and gained many successful experiences. Among them, some developed countries, such as the United States, Australia, Germany, Japan, etc., have carried out well in the practice of ecological compensation for soil and water conservation, and the relevant laws are relatively perfect, many of which have important reference value for the construction of the legal and policy system of ecological compensation for soil and water conservation in China. The following focuses on the representative foreign laws and regulations on compensation for ecological benefits of soil and water conservation.
I. laws and policies related to ecological compensation for soil and water conservation in the United States
The United States protects agricultural cultivated land and restores its ecological functions by formulating and implementing a series of agricultural protection plans such as the protective returning farmland plan. In 1956, the U.S. government implemented the protective plan of returning farmland to encourage farmers to return part of their land to the soil bank in a short or long term, and the bank paid a certain subsidy, subsidized the price of agricultural products for farmers who returned farmland according to the plan, and guided farmers to use the returned farmland for soil protection. In 1965, the paid conversion plan was implemented, which further refined the ecological subsidies for returning farmland to fallow. In 1985, the U.S. government formulated and implemented the "Protective Reserve Plan", the main content of which is that under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, cultivated land prone to soil erosion will be fallow for 1 years or permanently returned to grassland and forests, and at the same time, as compensation, the Ministry of Agriculture will pay a certain amount of subsidies to the participants of the plan every year.
The American Agricultural Security Act of p>1985 is a landmark legislation, which set a sample for the American Farmland Act of 199, 1996 and 22. Since 1985, the U.S. Congress has changed the prices of some daily necessities and the supporting loan funds into farmland protection payments, and continued to increase the protection funds in the American Farmland Act of 199, 1995 and 22.
In p>1994, with the US Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation beginning to pay equal attention to wetlands, water quality and soil quality, the broad fund projects and land fallow protection plans implemented since 1985 were changed into some new plans, such as reserve safety plan and wetland conservation plan, and the level of fund support for these plans was gradually improved. The objectives, methods and requirements of each plan are different, but they are all managed by the United States Department of Agriculture, and these plans provide development potential for the ecological plan of the agricultural sector.
The American Soil and Water Conservation Administrative Region Act provides a set of mechanisms for establishing soil and water conservation administrative regions, thus protecting water, soil and related resources. In the process of soil and water conservation, the American government usually adopts the method of cost sharing and introduces loan projects to make up for the cost of resource protection activities of farmers and land users.
Many states in the United States have enacted farmland protection laws and provided various mechanisms to protect farmland. For example, in order to effectively protect farmland, the California government requires authoritative organizations to collect contract fees, development rights, land service taxes and other income from land in coastal areas to prevent soil erosion of agricultural land, and to gather these agricultural land into plots of appropriate scale to facilitate continued agricultural production. When obtaining agricultural land benefits, authorities should give priority to urban fringe areas, because in urban fringe areas, the progress of urbanization has the greatest impact on agricultural land.
In order to protect the mining land, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin have enacted open-pit mining laws. The open-pit mining laws of these States have established open-pit land reclamation funds to protect and preserve natural resources and reclamation areas affected by open-pit mining activities. Maryland's open-pit mining method has two additional provisions to solve the dehydration problem of karst terrain. These regulations protect the affected property owners in Baltimore, Carroll, Frederick and Washington County, which are located in karst terrain. The open-pit mining law requires the relevant institutions to establish dehydration-affected zones around open-pit mines in karst areas, and take plans to make permit holders in these counties reduce or compensate the impact on property owners.
II. Legal Policy of Ecological Compensation for Soil and Water Conservation in New Zealand
As early as 1893, New Zealand promulgated the Land Drainage Act, which provided a basis for the Drainage Committee to establish a drainage scheme in the drainage area. The drainage scheme was funded by charging local landowners and government support.
By 194, 1% of New Zealand's land was seriously eroded, and a large amount of sediment flowed from the land into rivers or oceans every year. In order to cope with the degradation of ecological environment, New Zealand enacted the Soil and Water Conservation and River Control Act in 1941 to prevent and reduce soil erosion caused by deforestation and uneconomical farming methods, promote soil and water conservation, and dispatch water flow in affected areas. The law stipulates that "the river basin committee should establish a tax collection area to collect land tax from the occupiers who benefit from the project, and the proportion of tax collection should be determined according to the degree of benefit", which obviously has the meaning of ecological compensation.
The New Zealand Water Rights Rules, based on the New Zealand Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1967, established the nationalization (national ownership) of water resources, specifically stipulating that if a person wants to take water, transfer water, build dams, use water or discharge wastewater, he needs to obtain water resources permission.
In p>1991, New Zealand promulgated the Resource Management Act, which basically recognized the goal of sustainable development as an important condition for the future survival of the earth, realized intra-generational equity through welfare redistribution, and benefited people in the future by maintaining the viability of the ecosystem, thus realizing intergenerational equity. The purpose of the bill is to maintain environmental potential to meet people's needs in the foreseeable future; Ensure the life-bearing capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystem; Avoid, remedy or mitigate the negative impact of any behavior on the environment.
The New Zealand Regional Council is also actively formulating regional policy documents and plans on soil and water conservation. These policies, rules and guidelines all recognize the necessity of protecting water and soil resources under the principle of sustainable management, and some policies and plans require taking measures to protect rivers and soils. For example, it is required to set up buffer zones to reduce the inflow of chemical fertilizers into lakes and rivers. These requirements are strongly supported by associations and financial support from local authorities. The cost of ecological restoration projects is generally borne by local councils. Where funds are obtained from the central government, relying on the policies of relevant ministries (commissions) (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry), the funds will be distributed fairly to the approved projects. Otherwise, the remedial project funds may be paid by the landowner as a voluntary contribution, or through the regional or regional councils, at the land tax, or at a specific ratio of the profit cost of restoring the whole or part of the service. Therefore, the local authority rate (land tax) can include the annual maintenance of dikes, flood control works, costs, erosion control and reducing runoff into waterways.
III. Australian Legal Policy on Ecological Compensation for Soil and Water Conservation
For more than 7 years, Australia has adopted various technologies, systems, laws and strategies to achieve the purpose of soil and water conservation. In the past 2 years, significant changes have taken place in the political policy and legislation of soil and water conservation, and the main structure of soil and water conservation in Australia has been completed nationwide. By 195, laws and regulations on soil and water conservation had been established in most parts of Australia, and some soil and water conservation institutions had been established, some of which were world-famous for their highly comprehensive methods of soil and water conservation.
The Australian Constitution has subsidy policies, tax policies and preferential interest rate policies for banks and insurance. The compensation policy established by the constitution is mainly aimed at agriculture and soil and water conservation projects. Under the background of soil and water conservation action and land degradation management, Article 96 of the Australian Constitution is an important source of federal influence. The federal parliament can assure the country that it can show an overwhelming advantage in raising public funds, whether through direct or indirect taxation or loans. The application of funds mentioned in Article 96 in agricultural areas has a long history, and it was used to subsidize wheat growers as early as 193. Between 1974 and 1975, funds will also be allocated for soil and water conservation construction projects, and conditional States will participate in the national cooperative research on soil and water conservation. The state has also established funds for national soil and water conservation projects, which is an important achievement of cooperative research. In Australia, compensation is now generally replaced by another way, that is, the financial assistance plan for resource protection and engineering.
since 194, the tax power of the constitution (article 51 (2) of the constitution) has stipulated that tax deduction is allowed for soil and water conservation. This power can be more actively used to set differential tax rates with high tax rates from activities that cause soil degradation. The legislative power (Article 51 (3) of the Constitution) on the amount of incentives can also play the same role in tax deduction or tax refund. The amount of incentives can be used to pay for equipment or other inputs used to promote soil and water conservation. The Constitution also stipulates that banks (as a specific type of financial company, Articles 51 (13) and 51 (14) of the Constitution) and insurance companies may consider providing loans for soil and water conservation or giving preferential interest rates to land users to help control the effects of soil degradation, drought and floods.
The Victorian Water Law has provisions on compensation for environmental public interest litigation. In the normal litigation of environmental public interests, it is unlikely to claim damages, because the applicant will not suffer compensatable losses. If someone suffers property loss or damage due to some form of land degradation in violation of the environmental protection law, he has the right to obtain the expenses incurred by taking actions to prevent or reduce losses, which may include preventive protection expenses, reducing environmental damage expenses and restoration expenses. When the crime is successfully prosecuted, such compensation can be applied for, without the need for the affected party to conduct another civil lawsuit.
iv. laws related to ecological compensation for soil and water conservation in Germany
german water law, soil protection law and other laws all have provisions on ecological compensation for soil and water conservation. The third paragraph of Article 8 "Approval" of the German Waters Law promulgated in 1987 stipulates: "According to the law, when the use of waters will cause other adverse effects and the opposition of relevant personnel, the permit can only be issued after the adverse effects are avoided and compensated by facilities. If the above conditions cannot be met, but in order to meet the public interests, approval can also be issued, and relevant personnel should be compensated. " Article 18 "Compensation of ownership and authority" stipulates: "When all the requirements for utilization cannot be met according to the quantity and attributes of water areas, or public interests, especially public water supply, the implementation type, scale and time of permission, approval and original ownership and authority can be adjusted or limited by applying to the authorities for compensation procedures."
Chapter 1 "Other Provisions" of the German Soil Protection Act promulgated in p>1998 stipulates: "The competent authorities shall issue land management regulations on restricting agricultural and forestry land use to fixed land owners and residents according to regulations. If the land use restriction regulations cause burdens and difficulties to the parties concerned, the competent authorities shall make adjustments and formulate corresponding economic compensation systems on the premise of complying with the laws of each state." Chapter 25 "Value Compensation" stipulates: "If the market value of the plot increases due to restoration measures, the different values of the plot should be distinguished, that is, the value without implementation measures (initial value) and the value after completion of restoration measures (final value). The compensation shall be paid after the safety and recovery measures are completed, and the amount shall be determined by the competent authority. If the compensation amount has not been determined by the end of the fourth year after the completion of safety and restoration measures, the obligation of value compensation will be terminated. "
v. research results of soil and water conservation law in the European union
since the early 197s, the protection of air and water has been incorporated into European environmental policies, and soil and water conservation has also received more and more attention in recent years. The EU attaches great importance to the important role of economic means in ecological compensation for soil and water conservation. The European Commission suggested that environmental policies should make more use of market economy means rather than administrative supervision means. Market means include subsidies, taxes, fees, licensing system, etc. Although economic means (except subsidies) have not been used for soil protection, and in the next few years, especially under the EU emission permit trading system and the new water resources framework directive, the full cost compensation mechanism of water resources utilization (excluding pollution) may adopt economic means more widely.
on January 26th, 21, the European Commission issued the "Guidelines for Environmental Assistance", which stated that the assistance applicable to the treaty, such as subsidies, can be used to improve the agricultural water and drainage facilities with pollution problems, but we must pay attention to the expected results that subsidies can achieve, otherwise, it will be like some subsidies used in forestry and agriculture, which have been accused of having a bad impact on the environment because they fail to distinguish the effects of subsidies. Better soil protection is based on increasing the existing subsidies for information, training, consultation and agricultural environmental soil protection among states. As long as these measures do not support environmentally harmful behaviors, this action will be welcomed, and compensation for environmentally sensitive behaviors may also be regarded as this category. The current rural protection policy has always been voluntary, and farmers and landowners can be compensated when they agree to give up some of their own interests because of environmental interests. This is sometimes through direct compensation, and sometimes through negotiation of management agreements. For example, a management agreement can be reached for the protection of national natural resources or areas with special scientific value.
Environmental taxes and land use rights transactions are regarded as effective means of ecological compensation in some EU countries. Environmental tax is based on the principle that polluters who directly consume the environment pay. For example, in Britain, landfill tax is levied according to each ton of waste treated in landfills, and a special tax on the use of mineral nitrogen fertilizer is also helpful to reduce harmful substances from entering the soil. In addition, the United Kingdom has also established a mechanism to allow the transfer of landfill rights between garbage disposal institutions. Combined with the collection of soil compaction tax, it can effectively prevent land compaction and further reverse the unreasonable utilization trend of land resources.
VI. Legal Policy of Ecological Compensation for Soil and Water Conservation in Japan
Japan's legislation on land expropriation compensation is very perfect. According to the provisions of Japan's Land Expropriation Law, important public utilities can use the land expropriation system, and the compensation for expropriation losses is based on individual payment. In principle, the property paid is mainly in cash, and the compensation amount is based on the land rent or rent of the expropriated land or land of similar nature nearby. Japan's land expropriation compensation is determined according to the standard of equivalent compensation, and in most cases, the land compensation fee is determined by the standard of complete compensation. Specifically, the compensation for land expropriation in Japan includes compensation for expropriation loss, general loss, compensation for a few survivors, compensation for those who leave their jobs, and compensation for career losses. In addition, in addition to cash compensation, there are alternative compensation methods for land expropriation in Japan, including cultivated land development, homestead development, relocation agency and engineering agency compensation.