- A governance-based perspective
China.com/China Development Portal Network News The mainland is promoting a modern national governance system. As the main body of the nature reserve system and an important area to promote the construction of ecological civilization system, national parks need to take the lead in breaking through the constraints of traditional administrative control models and exploring the construction path of China's modern national park governance system.
National parks are a combination of natural, geographical, humanistic, historical and other elements, and are a complex of multiple functions such as ecological protection, scientific research, nature education, ecological experience, and green development. In the face of complex governance elements and multiple stakeholders, the importance of scientific decision-making in national parks is extremely prominent, and an effective consultation mechanism is an important guarantee to improve the scientific decision-making and improve the effectiveness of governance. Since the pilot of the national park system, the mainland authorities have carried out many explorations in scientific decision-making and consultation, but the standardization of relevant work and the perfection of supporting systems are still insufficient, and there is an urgent need for systematic research and demonstration. This study is problem-oriented, draws on international experience, discusses the key elements of the establishment of scientific decision-making and consultation mechanism in mainland national parks from the perspective of governance, and attempts to answer the question of how to establish the organizational form of scientific decision-making and consultation of national parks and the positioning of the rights and responsibilities of the advisory body from the perspective of governance.
Decision-making and consultation in the governance of national parks
The complexity of national park governance
Governance is a concept different from administrative control, which has the characteristics of pluralism of subjects, dynamic and adaptive processes, and emphasizes the distribution of rights and responsibilities and benefit sharing among multiple parties. The governance of national parks is highly complex. Under the guidance of the three concepts of ecological protection first, national representativeness and public welfare for all, the national park takes the integrity and authenticity of important ecosystems as the protection goal, takes the harmonious coexistence of man and nature as the vision, and has the functions of scientific research, nature education, ecological experience and green development, which is a multi-element, multi-functional and multi-dimensional complex.
Complex natural attributes and human-land relationships further increase the difficulty of national park management. The ecological environment itself has multi-dimensional, dynamic and complex characteristics, such as the professional characteristics derived from the uncertainty of biodiversity and environmental elements, the regional differences caused by differences in land space and natural conditions, and the systematic characteristics of the integration of various ecological environment elements and biodiversity elements through ecological processes such as energy flow and material cycle. Under the goal of ecosystem integrity protection, the ecological elements and spatial structure involved in national parks are diverse, the relationship between industries and regions is complex, and the vision and goal of harmonious coexistence between man and nature are superimposed, making national parks have a larger and more complex stakeholder network than other spatial entities. In addition, the mainland's huge population base, long history of human-land symbiosis, and the coexistence of natural resources owned by the whole people and collectives have all increased the complexity of governance to varying degrees.
The necessity of establishing a scientific decision-making and consultation mechanism for national parks
Decision-making is the premise of the development of various undertakings, and the governance of complex systems requires scientific and democratic decision-making. A reasonable and efficient scientific decision-making and consultation mechanism is an important basis for effectively coordinating the trilateral interaction between the public sector, social forces and the private sector, ensuring the public and service of public governance, and is one of the key paths for the effective governance of complex systems.
The decision-making of national park governance must be the best choice to give full play to the multiple functions of national parks under the premise of ecological protection, a "no-regret choice" that will not cause irreversible impact on the ecosystem, and a wise choice that can take into account the interests of the vast majority of groups. Through the establishment of a scientific decision-making and consultation mechanism, we can fully absorb scientific groups and industry representatives to provide consulting services and support decision-making and implementation, give full play to the advantages of collective wisdom, coordinate the relationship between different stakeholders, drive social participation, coordinate socio-economic and resource allocation, avoid the path deviation under the "autocratic" management of the government, and gradually guide the decision-making power from class privilege to a necessary link of public power based on scientific facts and the objective needs of social development.
Problems and root causes of the decision-making system of national parks
The construction of national parks in mainland China is a process of "breaking and building at the same time". At the beginning of the pilot system, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) took the lead and worked with 12 ministries and commissions to carry out a series of decision-making consultations, including the establishment of a multidisciplinary core expert group, and the promotion of documents such as the "Overall Plan for the Establishment of a National Park System" by relying on scientific groups. After the reorganization of the State Council in 2018, under the comprehensive coordination of the newly established National Forestry and Grassland Administration, the coverage of national park decision-making and consultation has been gradually expanded, such as the gradual establishment of research and consulting institutions at different levels, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences and other scientific research institutions have been absorbed as technical support and decision-making consulting departments for national park legislation, planning, acceptance and evaluation.
Significant progress has been made in scientific decision-making and consultation in national parks, but problems cannot be ignored. Through interviews and questionnaire surveys with different stakeholders such as representatives of legislative bodies, experts and scholars, front-line management and staff representatives, and community residents, the author found that there are shortcomings in decision-making in the governance of national parks, which is related to the failure of the opinions and suggestions of scientific groups and representatives from all walks of life to be fully and reasonably reflected, but the fundamental reason is that the system and mechanism are not perfect.
Specific manifestations of the shortcomings of national park governance decision-making
The governance of national parks involves the establishment of rules and regulations, planning and layout, protection and restoration, public services, community development and other affairs, and the decision-making defects in each link are mainly reflected in four aspects.
The evaluation and demonstration of some major decisions such as selection and establishment are not sufficient. Before the national representativeness, ecological importance and management feasibility have not been fully demonstrated, and the overall management plan and management system and mechanism of natural resource assets have not been clarified, the situation of rebuilding light management and pursuing quantity and speed still exists.
The disciplinary support on which the decision-making is based is not comprehensive enough. Ecology, forestry and other related majors occupy a mainstream position in the planning and management of national parks, but experts in the fields of management, sociology, economics, and law are insufficient, and the coverage of disciplines is still relatively narrow.
The rights and interests of the community are not fully protected. Affected by the traditional management model of nature reserves, the compatible development path between national parks and communities has not yet been clarified, and the "one-size-fits-all" policies such as relocation and ban on logging and grazing have aroused negative emotions among community residents to a certain extent.
The path and mode of participation of social forces are unclear. The willingness of community groups such as social organizations, enterprises and individuals to express their demands, make suggestions and even support decision-making and consultation is increasing, but the channels for participation are relatively simple, the methods are not clear, and the degree of participation is insufficient.
Institutional and institutional root causes
The imperfection of the system and mechanism is one of the root causes of the shortcomings in the governance decision-making of national parks, which is embodied in four aspects.
The position of rights and responsibilities is ambiguous, and the independent third-party support role of consulting institutions is not significant. In recent years, various national park research institutes, expert committees and other technical support and decision-making advisory bodies from the national to the local level have emerged rapidly, but their functions and positioning are not clear enough - which work needs expert consultation, what rights and responsibilities scientific groups and other advisory bodies have in different matters, what are the forms and paths of consultation, etc., there is no clear institutional plan, which leads to the transfer of independent argumentation, neutral advice and other rights of advisory bodies to decision-makers, affecting the objectivity and effectiveness of consultation.
The path dependence of departmental management has not yet been broken, and there are still departmental barriers in decision-making consultation. Affected by the long-term industrial management of protected areas, the decision-making and consulting affairs of national parks are mainly focused on the natural sciences mainly in the fields of forestry and ecology, and the discipline comprehensiveness of expert composition, consulting services, consulting processes and decision-making models is not prominent enough.
The linkage mechanism between decision-making and scientific research is not sound enough, and scientific research results do not effectively play a role in decision-making support. The functions of decision-making departments and advisory bodies are different, and the current incentive mechanism for the transformation of scientific research into decision-making is not perfect; except at the national level, many national park research institutes or expert committees fail to convert scientific research results into effective information required for decision-making in a timely and sufficient manner, and the decision-making support role of scientific research is not significant enough.
The institutional constraints of decision-making consultation are insufficient, the procedures are not standardized, and the effectiveness of consultation is not significant enough. The mainland has not yet issued a special system for the scope, organizational form and operation procedures of national park decision-making consultation, not only the establishment and funding of advisory institutions cannot be included in the regular management, but also the limitations, randomness and temporary nature of the consultation work occur from time to time, and some of the consultation and argumentation are mere formalities, and their rationality and effectiveness are affected.
International experience in scientific decision-making and consultation in national parks
The definition of the powers and responsibilities of the advisory body, the multidisciplinary coordination of the consulting experts, the linkage and coordination of the decision-making and consulting departments, and the institutional norms of decision-making and consultation are effective means to make up for the shortcomings of national park governance decision-making, but the mainland lacks sufficient practical experience accumulation. Considering that the operation mode of the advisory mechanism is inseparable from the governance system and decision-making mechanism, and the national parks in the United States and France are typical representatives of the two governance models of centralized management and pluralistic co-governance, the corresponding decision-making and consultation mechanisms are also completely different. This study focuses on the case studies of these two countries, so as to gain insight into the effective decision-making and consulting models of the governance process of all public goods and complex tenure of natural resources, and provide reference for the governance of China's national parks with these characteristics.
The organizational form of decision-making consultation on national parks in the United States and France
The U.S. model: government-led decision-making, assisted by scientific consultation. The U.S. national park system accounts for 96% of the federal land area, which is a typical public good owned by the whole people, and implements a government-led decision-making model, and the National Park Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior exercises sole decision-making power in accordance with the law. As needed, the federal government establishes advisory committees with specific functions within the federal government in accordance with the law, and cooperates with external experts to provide advisory services for national park decision-making, and also forms a check-and-balance role for government decision-making to avoid government arbitrariness.
The French model: pluralistic co-governance, where the scientific community exercises the decision-making power on major matters. The land ownership of national parks in France is complex, and multiple factors such as environment, culture and economy are intertwined, with biodiversity conservation and sustainable development as the parallel goals, and pluralistic co-governance is implemented. France's Ministry of Ecological Transition and Territorial Solidarity is legally responsible for the overall management of national parks at the national level, while each national park is governed by a board of directors, a management committee, a committee of scientific experts and an economic, social and cultural committee. In addition, the central and national parks are staffed by chief scientists who are responsible for decision-making consultation.
Operational models for decision-making consulting on national parks in the United States and France
The operation mode of national park decision-making consultation is matched with the organizational form, and the organizational form determines the operation mode to a large extent.
Boundaries of authority of decision-making advisory bodies. In the United States, under the system of single decision-making of the federal government, the advisory body of the national parks in the United States mainly plays the role of assisting decision-making and avoiding government dictatorship. The Federal Advisory Council Act provides that advisory bodies have advisory functions only and are not involved in decision-making. For national park action plans that may have significant environmental impacts or potentially significant economic and social impacts, it is necessary for independent environmental assessment agencies and external experts to carry out environmental impact assessments and peer reviews to demonstrate, and the results of the argumentation should be used as an important basis for decision-making. Decisions about national parks in France are public decisions based on public choice. The French National Park Scientific Expert Committee has a stronger functional orientation and influence on decision-making in decision-making consultation, mainly including the leading decision-making consultation before the establishment of national parks and the decision-making consultation functions of major matters in the operation of national parks. For example, before the establishment of a national park, the right to formulate scientific plans for the boundaries of the optimal membership area, the scope of the core area and the provisions of the charter, the review of the relevant provisions of the conservation or ecological restoration engineering projects in the core area, projects that may have environmental impacts, and the relevant provisions of the charter renewal process. The Economic, Social and Cultural Council provides advisory services only on economic and social issues in the member territories.
Multidisciplinary coordination of consulting experts. U.S. National Parks places a high value on advisory committees, expert expertise, and industry composition. Take the national-level Advisory Committee of the National Park System, for example, with 12 members with different disciplines, skills, and geographical backgrounds in the natural sciences, social sciences, national park management, finance, and so on. The EIA system and peer review mechanism also require an interdisciplinary approach to analysis to ensure the comprehensiveness and impartiality of the assessment and argumentation conclusions. The same requirement applies to France. The Scientific Council of French National Parks is composed of leading scientists in the fields of life and earth sciences, human and social sciences, while the Economic, Social and Cultural Council is composed of representatives of relevant institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), scientific professionals, representatives of local communities, representatives of industry associations, well-known social figures, etc.
Linkage and coordination of decision-making and advisory bodies. The advisory committees of U.S. national parks have a clear scope of work. For example, the committees coordinate with the competent authorities within their respective areas of business, such as the formulation of laws and regulations, the preparation of special plans, the protection of natural and human resources, the management of land property rights, the authorization of human activities, and the management of vehicles. The Advisory Board of National Parks in France conducts its activities through scientific arguments and debates on economic, social and cultural issues convened by national park authorities. Some national parks, such as Ekeland National Park, have also set up an information technology platform between policy-making departments and advisory bodies, on which documents requiring recommendations from the scientific committee are shared, relevant experts give corresponding responses, and experts from outside the industry can choose to participate or not to participate.
Institutional norms for decision-making consultation. The United States has a complete set of legal systems and directive systems to ensure the standardized operation of the decision-making and consultation mechanism. The National Environmental Policy Act requires all federal agencies to: conduct in-depth research on the impact and options for proposed "significant federal action"; The Law on the Protection of National Historic Records regulates the consultation work in the protection and management of cultural resources. The Federal Advisory Committee Act clarifies the legal status of advisory bodies. In order to implement the requirements of the congressional act, the U.S. National Park Service has developed a series of directive policies that refine the specific provisions for decision-making consultation. There are three levels of laws and regulations in France: the Environmental Code, the General Law on National Parks, and the Executive Order. The Environmental Code clarifies that the National Park Board relies on the expertise of the Scientific Expert Committee and the results of the debates of the Economic, Social and Cultural Committee to make relevant decisions. The National Park Reform Act, as the general law of national parks, defines the organizational structure of national park governance and the boundaries of the powers and responsibilities of the national park management committee, the board of directors, the scientific committee and the economic, social and cultural committee. Based on this, the State Council Decree (a type of executive order) further clarifies the basic composition and operating mechanism of the two advisory committees.
In summary, national parks in the United States are typical public goods, with prominent public welfare, strong government leadership in the decision-making mechanism, and advisory institutions mainly play the advisory function of assisting decision-making. All kinds of experts assist decision-making through a variety of external review mechanisms to avoid the monopoly of a single government decision-making body. The public goods attribute of French national parks is weaker than that of the United States, and major decisions are mainly based on collective choice or public choice, and advisory institutions tend to play the function of pre-decision-making scientific support and in-depth support decision-making. This difference is shown in Figure 1.
The construction path of scientific decision-making and consultation mechanism in mainland national parks
The future direction of the construction of the decision-making system and consultation mechanism of the national parks in mainland China
The attributes of public affairs determine the operation mode of the decision-making system, and then determine the implementation path of decision-making consulting. China's national parks require the public welfare of the whole people under the premise of ecological protection first, which is close to the positioning of national parks in the United States. As a national park with the same management goal of strict protection, government-led decision-making can ensure the public welfare of the whole people to the greatest extent. However, the centralized government management of national parks in the United States is closely related to the relatively centralized bundle of land rights, clear property rights boundaries, and relatively developed social organization system in the context of private ownership. These conditions cannot be fully adapted to the actual situation in many countries, including China. In France, the construction of national parks led to serious social conflicts due to poor coordination of local stakeholders, so the subsequent reform and establishment of a pluralistic co-governance system was established.
It is necessary to adhere to the basic concept of national parks, take into account the complexity of the relationship between man and land, the diversity of management objectives and other characteristics, and the decision-making system of mainland national parks should be an evidence-based decision-making system with the government as the main body and guidance, multi-party linkage, and full respect for science. Under this decision-making system, in addition to the function of regular consulting services, it is also necessary for the advisory institutions of national parks to deeply support decision-making for major affairs, and assume the dual functions of general consultation and supporting evidence-based decision-making on major affairs.
The organizational form of scientific decision-making and consultation in national parks
The form of organization in which advisory services should be provided is the first issue that needs to be addressed in the implementation process of the decision-making and consultation mechanism. It is suggested that the combination of research institutes and expert committees should be adopted to give full play to the advantages of the two and jointly provide support for the scientific decision-making of national parks.
Clarify the differentiated functional positioning of the research institute and the expert committee
The National Park Research Institute is an entity that is usually established by a scientific research institute or higher education institution, such as the National Park Research Institute, which is jointly established by the National Forestry and Grassland Administration and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Due to the nature and professional characteristics of the entity, such research institutes usually have their main business areas, such as spatial layout and planning, biodiversity investigation and research, ecological protection and restoration, etc., and it is difficult to cover the comprehensive consulting business of national parks. The expert committee is not a physical institution, but is led by the competent department, mobilizing expert representatives from different institutions and different professional backgrounds, and the consultation matters can cover multiple fields including nature and humanities.
In the form of consultation, in addition to daily consultation, the National Park Research Institute can also provide systematic research results and advice by undertaking specific topics, while the expert committee has no physical body, and its decision-making consultation process is usually to provide group advice on specific matters.
Decision-making and consultation in national parks need to rely on both of these different types of organization. For decision-making matters that are highly professional and need to be supported by systematic research results, the consultation of the institute is the mainstay, while for interdisciplinary and comprehensive affairs involving more stakeholders, on the basis of relying on the support of research results of relevant institutions, the group decision-making and consulting function of the expert committee is further exerted. This organizational form of "research institute + expert committee" can take into account the professional depth and breadth of scientific consultation work in national parks, as well as the professional stability and flexibility of the organization, and improve the scientific and rational decision-making.
Establish comprehensive expert committees with multidisciplinary backgrounds at the national and park levels
The national park expert committee at the central level focuses on providing decision-making support for the macro policy formulation of the competent authorities, international cooperation and exchanges, and the evaluation of the effectiveness of work at the national scale. The secretariat or office of the expert committee may be located in the National Park Service, and the selection of the director and members shall follow the principle of diversity, taking into account the disciplines of ecology, forestry, environment, geography, geology, sociology, economics, management, law and so on. The Expert Committee of Individual National Parks focuses on the implementation of national policies, the design, management and supervision of local policies and systems. On the basis of adhering to diversity, the composition of the membership should also consider the expertise and skills at the practical level, and attract the participation of more social forces. The expert committees at both levels can set up special groups in different areas to submit collective opinions on different matters to the decision-making level in the form of official documents.
Boundaries of the scientific community's responsibilities in decision-making and consultation in national parks
In the process of decision-making consultation, the clear establishment of the boundaries of the rights and responsibilities of scientific groups and other advisory bodies is the key to effectively realize their organizational form and improve the scientificity and rationality of decision-making.
Considerations for establishing boundaries of authority and responsibility
The experience of the United States and France shows that the degree of potential ecological impact is the primary consideration of the scientific community in supporting evidence-based decision-making. Policies and measures that have a significant potential impact on the ecological environment must be subject to the strictest decision-making required by law, and the core scientific community must be given voting rights. The degree of influence can be considered from the perspective of whether the core ecological characteristics have a positive or negative deep impact after the implementation of the decision. The degree of potential social impact is an important factor in determining the degree of decision-making support of scientific groups and other consulting experts. Whether the implementation of the decision may lead to major social impacts, such as changes in social structure, positive and negative significant changes in the livelihood structure of community residents and industrial forms, should be considered as important factors in decision-making, and the opinions of advisory bodies should be sought. The practical constraints of decision-making implementation also need to be taken into account in the establishment of the boundaries of authority and responsibility of the advisory body. For decision-making with high government financial investment and complex stakeholders, it is necessary to evaluate the feasibility of decision-making on the basis of risk prediction such as economic impact and social conflict, so as to improve the feasibility, effectiveness and sustainability of decision-making.
A list of the powers of advisory bodies such as scientific societies
Based on the above considerations, this study proposes a list of powers for scientific groups and other advisory bodies to support decision-making: if there is a high potential ecological impact or potential social impact, it is necessary to ensure that the scientific community can effectively support the decision-making through a statutory process, and for matters with high potential social impact or high practical constraints on the implementation of decision-making, it is necessary to initiate multi-party argumentation (Figure 2).
In order to refine the list of rights and responsibilities, the author conducted a survey from May to July 2022 on experts whose research fields are national parks and protected areas management, who have been engaged in national park research and planning for more than 5 years, and who have a good reputation in the field of national park research or their research team. The survey was conducted in two steps: the experts were interviewed on the types of decision-making affairs of national park governance, and through summarizing and combining with the previous research results, 8 business scopes and 34 specific decision-making contents were put forward from the top-level design such as the formulation of laws and regulations to the specific work links such as planning, protection and development (Table 1), and the opinions of the interviewed experts were consulted on the potential ecological environmental impact, potential social impact and practical constraints of decision-making implementation of the 34 decision-making contents. A total of 12 questionnaires were sent out, and 10 were returned, including 4 young scholars aged 35 and below, 5 scholars aged 36-50, and 1 scholar over 50 years old. In addition to 1 respondent with a master's degree, there were 8 respondents with a Ph.D. degree and 1 respondent with a Ph.D. degree. The assessment results of the interviewed experts are calibrated with the numbers "1", "2" and "3", which correspond to the potential impact or actual constraints as "low", "medium" and "high", respectively. Based on the feedback of the 10 respondents, after removing one maximum value and one minimum value for each item, the average value of the remaining eight values was taken, and the value higher than 2.00 was regarded as the potential impact or actual constraint was higher, and the specific rights were judged accordingly (Table 1).
According to Table 1, for 26 decision-making contents, such as the formulation of national park laws and regulations at the national level, the establishment of the boundaries of rights and responsibilities between the central and local governments, and the establishment and implementation of national park management agencies and relevant departments, and the construction and implementation of ecological monitoring networks, it is necessary for the national park authorities to issue relevant management systems and measures, and give scientific groups the right to deeply support decision-making, and even give them the right to veto on particularly important issues. For the 19 decision-making contents at the national level, such as the formulation of national park laws and regulations, the formulation of nature education and ecological experience planning, and the formulation of community development planning, it is necessary to initiate a multi-party argumentation mechanism to ensure the rationality of the decision.
Suggestions on the operation guarantee of scientific decision-making and consultation mechanism in national parks
The effective implementation of the decision-making consulting organization and the positioning of rights and responsibilities requires the guarantee of the operation system. In this regard, the author suggests:
Formulate rules and regulations for decision-making and consultation work in national parks. The norms and procedures of the National Park Research Institute and the expert committee are regulated, and their functions, responsibilities, list of powers, and term of office are clarified in the top-level design of the National Park Law and the Nature Reserve Law, which are being promoted. The overall plan of the national park and related special plans also need to be coordinated and arranged for the corresponding organizations. The role and positioning of the secretariat or management office of the expert committee are clearly stated in the three plans of the national park management agency, and the nature and functions of the committee are clarified. It is recommended that the director of the National Park Research Institute and the director of the expert committee be included in the list of the leading group of the National Park Administration and participate in the executive meetings of the decision-making level of the national park.
Establish a regular linkage mechanism between the decision-making departments and advisory bodies of national parks. Establish a joint meeting mechanism between the decision-making departments and advisory bodies of national parks, combine regular work dynamic sharing with irregular information exchange, and build an information technology sharing platform for decision-making and consultation in national parks, form a two-way information sharing mechanism between decision-making departments and consulting departments, and promote the effective docking of information between the two sides and the timely and efficient transformation of research results.
(Authors: Wei Yu, Cheng Duowei, Wang Yi, Institute of Science and Technology Strategy Consulting, Chinese Academy of Sciences.) Contributed by Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences)