Research On The Reduced Application Of Full Compensation Principle—Taking The Judicial Interpretation Of Administrative Agreements As An Example

Since 2021,courts in Fujian,Sichuan,Guizhou,and other regions have recognized the purchase of carbon sinks by parties involved in criminal and accompanying civil public interest litigation and environmental civil public interest litigation as a substitute for fulfilling ecological restoration responsibilities.This alternative restoration approach aims to compensate for carbon loss during the period of ecological restoration,reduce greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere,and increase carbon sequestration.In June2022,the Supreme People’s Court issued the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Forest Resources,which stipulates in Article 20 that if parties purchase verified forestry carbon sinks to fulfill their responsibilities for forest ecological restoration,the People’s Court may consider factors such as the opinions of the parties involved and the reasonableness of different responsibility mechanisms and permit it in accordance with the law.However,judicial practices regarding the purchase of carbon sinks for substitutionary restoration still face challenges such as unclear scope of application,inconsistent trial procedures,and lack of supervision over carbon funds,which hinder environmental judicial services and the achievement of the carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals.Therefore,it is crucial to analyze and summarize cases involving the purchase of carbon sinks for substitutionary restoration,elucidate the legal foundations,examine the difficulties in judicial application,and provide specific and practical guidelines for the standardized application of carbon offset in the context of substitute restoration responsibilities.The paper consists of four sections:The first part discusses the foundational theory of carbon offset in substitute restoration responsibilities.Based on the theories of ecological conservation compensation and ecological restoration,it reveals the inherent connection between carbon offset and substitute restoration responsibilities,emphasizing the necessity for parties to purchase carbon sinks to fulfill substitute restoration responsibilities in environmental litigation.Through comparison with other substitute restoration methods,it highlights the advantages of carbon offset in terms of ecological restoration cost-effectiveness.The second part examines the current application status of carbon offset in substitute restoration responsibilities.By analyzing judicial cases involving the purchase of carbon sinks for substitute restoration,it is found that these cases are predominantly related to criminal offenses involving forest resource destruction.The implementation of such cases is relatively scattered across pilot regions,resulting in various approaches to carbon credit purchase.Comparative analysis reveals inconsistent expressions and procedural application in judicial practices related to carbon credits.The third part focuses on the practical challenges of carbon offset in substitute restoration responsibilities.The reasoning in judicial documents regarding the purchase of carbon sinks for substitute restoration is insufficient,and there are irregularities in the judicial and enforcement procedures.The underlying reasons for these issues lie in the absence of relevant laws,regulations,and institutional norms.This is manifested in the lack of pre-trial procedural rules,unclear administrative participation rules,and insufficient incentives for lenient punishment under the wider punitive system.Furthermore,the unclear judicial rules,improper application of ecological restoration measures,and the lack of unified sentencing standards contribute to the challenges.Inadequate enforcement supervision and the lack of coordination in the implementation of ecological restoration plans also pose risks related to secondary trading of carbon credits,while transparency in the use of carbon funds is insufficiently regulated.The fourth part focuses on the standardized application of carbon offset in substitute restoration responsibilities.This includes establishing voluntary performance rules for carbon offset in substitute restoration during the pre-trial stage,which advocates voluntary carbon credit purchases and incentivizes lenient punishment for voluntary purchases.During the trial and enforcement stages,optimizing the coordination rules for carbon offset in substitute restoration based on the responsibilities of different entities is crucial.Lastly,it recommends improving the supporting rules for carbon offset market transactions,enhancing the legal and institutional norms for carbon compensation,optimizing the existing carbon market trading rules,and developing the carbon credit intermediary service market.