Legal process and governance of public rangelands： Experiences and implications from America

doi:10.11686/cyxb2021115

Abstract

Abstract:

This paper clarifies the process of legal management of public rangelands in the United States through a literature review， with coverage divided into four categories according to the legislation： Grassland degradation， establishment of multi-utilization and federal ownership， adjustment of the grazing fee system， and amendment of legislation and improvement of policies. Our report details the contradictions and conflicts， governance goals and policy tools of each stage， and summarizes the outcomes. The study found that after experiencing severe degradation of rangelands， the federal government established the principle of multi-utilization under federal ownership through legislation. In the process of legislation， classification， a grazing fee system， public ownership， land resource survey and marketization became more sophisticated， forming a stable governance pattern. From the perspective of a modern property rights system， the public ownership of rangelands is also an effective form of exploration of property rights management for capitalist private ownership countries， and a relatively comprehensive legal system has been formed. Although China and the United States embrace different political and economic systems， especially the property rights structures， the United States example still provides a wealth of experience. It is recommended that China continue to adhere to the principle of state-owned property for grasslands， and strengthen the legal framework for grassland ecological environmental protection and inventory of grassland resources， implement clear classification and management of production and responsibility， and carry out ecological and well-being monitoring. Compensation for grassland ecological outcomes should be incorporated into routine legislation， giving more attention to the supply of products and ecosystem services.

Key words: public rangelands, grassland degradation, multi-utilization management, state ownership, rule of law

Feng HAN, Zhi-tao ZHANG, Xin ZHANG, Jian-hao WANG, Hao WANG. Legal process and governance of public rangelands： Experiences and implications from America[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2022, 31(9): 220-232.

Figures/Tables 3

References 41

1	Wang X Y. From “rangeland leasing” to “recentralization in rangeland conservation”——Policies of rangeland conservation in north China. China Rural Survey， 2009， 3： 36-46， 95.
	王晓毅. 从承包到“再集中”——中国北方草原环境保护政策分析. 中国农村观察， 2009， 3： 36-46， 95.
2	Yang L. The evolution trend of grassland-livestock balance management： Administrative regulation or market regulation. Reform， 2013， 6： 95-100.
	杨理. 草畜平衡管理的演变趋势：行政管制抑或市场调节. 改革， 2013， 6： 95-100.
3	Yang L. Perfecting the grassland resource management system. Journal of Inner Mongolia University（Philosophy and Social Sciences）， 2008， 40（6）： 33-36.
	杨理. 完善草地资源管理制度探析. 内蒙古大学学报（哲学社会科学版）， 2008， 40（6）： 33-36.
4	Dong S K. Views on distinguishing concepts between rangeland and grassland and proposing proper use of their terminology. （2021-12-07）［2021-3-29］. https：//kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx？dbcode=CAPJ&dbname=CAPJLAST&filename=STXZ20211 204000&uniplatform=NZKPT&v=jyiSt3aKI2Jzs4HI7LZJGO9FvfxPJdNv7cDGgLfmhewfhWjPfCXlENg4rO0t0EeA.
	董世魁. 草原与草地的概念辨析及规范使用刍议. （2021-12-07）［2021-03-29］. https：//kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx？dbcode=CAPJ&dbname=CAPJLAST&filename=STXZ20211204000&uniplatform=NZKPT&v=jyiSt3aKI2Jzs4HI7LZJGO9FvfxPJdNv7cDGgLfmhewfhWjPfCXlENg4rO0t0EeA.
5	Ross J V. Managing the public rangelands： 50 years since the Taylor Grazing Act. Rangelands Archives， 1984， 6： 147-151.
6	Borman M M， Johnson D E. Evolution of grazing and land tenure policies on public lands. Rangelands， 1990， 12（4）： 203-206.
7	Rong Y P， Bai K Y， Zhang Z S. The developing path of US legislative regulation of rangeland management. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2007， 16（5）： 133-139.
	戎郁萍，白可喻，张智山. 美国草原管理法律法规发展概况. 草业学报， 2007， 16（5）： 133-139.
8	Blumm M C. Public choice theory and the public lands： Why multiple use failed. Harvard Environmental Law Review， 1994， 18： 405-432.
9	Bureau of Land Management， Department of the Interior， U.S. Federal Land Policy and Management of 1976. （1976-10-21）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/chapter-35.
10	Nelson R H. How to reform grazing policy： Creating forage rights on federal rangelands. Fordham Environmental Law Journal， 1996， 8： 645-690.
11	Department of the Interior. Rangeland Reform ’94. （1994-05-13）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.federalregister.gov/documents/1994/05/13/94-11364/draft-environmental-impact-statement-for-rangeland-reform-94-and-request-for-public-comment.
12	Miu J M， Li W W. Grassland resources management and reference of America. Pratacultural Science， 2006， 23（5）： 20-23.
	缪建明，李维薇. 美国草地资源管理与借鉴. 草业科学， 2006， 23（5）： 20-23.
13	Zhao Y， Yang L， Li M D. Market-based management process in American public grassland and its enlightenments. World Agriculture， 2019（3）： 18-24， 39.
	赵奕，杨理，李鸣大. 美国公共牧草地的市场化管理过程及启示. 世界农业， 2019（3）： 18-24， 39.
14	Wang L， Guo Y， Lin J. National grassland management of United States and its enlightenment to China. Forestry Economics， 2019， 6： 123-126.
	王丽，郭晔，林进. 美国国家草原管理及其对我国的启示. 林业经济， 2019， 6： 123-126.
15	Forest Service， Department of Agriculture， U.S. Rangeland management. （2021-03-22）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.fs.fed.us/rangeland-management/.
16	Natural Resources Conservation Service， Department of Agriculture， U.S. Programs. （2021-03-22）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/.
17	Jiang X Q， Lin Z Y， Shi Y， et al. Historic experience from American public rangeland management policies. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2020， 29（11）： 151-164.
	姜晓群，林哲艳，时钰，等. 美国公共放牧地管理政策演进的历史经验. 草业学报， 2020， 29（11）： 151-164.
18	Forest Service， Department of Agriculture， U.S. Forest and grassland. （2021-03-22）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/national-forests-grasslands.
19	Forest Service， Department of Agriculture， U.S. Laws， regulations， and policies. （2021-03-22）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.fs.fed.us/rangeland-management/aboutus/lawsregs.shtml.
20	Lambert D K. Grazing on public rangelands： An evolving problem of property rights. Contemporary Economic Policy， 2010， 13（2）： 119-128.
21	Lafrance J T， Watts M J. Public grazing in the west and “Rangeland Reform ’94”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics， 1995， 77（3）： 447-461.
22	Forest Service， Department of Agriculture， U.S. Rangeland management directives-the forest service’s rangeland management manuals. （2021-03-22）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsm？2200！..
23	Bureau of Land Management， Department of the Interior， U.S. Rangeland health. （2021-03-22）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.blm.gov/.
24	Forest Service， Department of Agriculture， U.S. Rangeland management directives the forest service’s rangeland management handbooks. （2021-03-22）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh？2209.13！..
25	Office of the Federal Register （OFR）. Executive Order 12548-Grazing Fees， 1986. （1986-02-14）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12548.html.
26	Ostrom E. Coping with tragedies of commons. Annual Review Politic Science， 1999， 2： 493-535.
27	Ostrom E. Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. The Policy Studies Journal， 2011， 39（1）： 7-27.
28	Huang C， Luo P Z， Mei Y， et al. The application， development， and rethink of the management institutions of forest commons in developing countries. Issues in Agricultural Economy， 2019（2）： 135-144.
	黄冲，罗攀柱，梅莹，等. 发展中国家公共林地管理制度的应用、发展和反思. 农业经济问题， 2019（2）： 135-144.
29	Forest Service， Department of Agriculture， U.S. The Rescission Act of 1995 （Public Law 104-19）. （1995-07-27）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.fs.fed.us/rangeland-management/aboutus/rescissions-act.shtml.
30	Forest Service， Department of Agriculture， U.S. National grasslands， a primer. （1997-11）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.fs.fed.us/rangeland-management/aboutus/lawsregs.shtml.
31	Forest Service， Department of Agriculture， U.S. National Range and Pasture Handbook. （2021-03-22）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/landuse/rangepasture/？cid=stelprdb1043084%20.
32	Secretary of Agriculture， Senate and House of Representatives of the United States. The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937. （1937-07-22）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.fs.fed.us/rangeland-management/aboutus/lawsregs.shtml.
33	Forest Service， Department of Agriculture， U.S. The Wilderness Act of 1964. （2021-03-22）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.fs.fed.us/rangeland-management/aboutus/lawsregs.shtml.
34	Council on Environmental Quality. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. （1970-01-01）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.fs.fed.us/rangeland-management/aboutus/lawsregs.shtml.
35	Forest Service， Department of Agriculture， U.S. Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. （1974-08-17）［2021-3-29］. https：//www.fs.fed.us/rangeland-management/aboutus/lawsregs.shtml.
36	Davis C， Wurtzebach Z. The administrative presidency and public lands regulatory change. California Journal of Politics and Policy， 2014， 6： 103-125.
37	Forest Service， Department of Agriculture， U.S. Rangelands management reports. （2021-03-22）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.fs.fed.us/rangeland-management/reports/index.shtml.
38	Secretary of the Interior （Secretary）. Taylor Grazing Act， 1934. （1934-06-28）［2021-03-22］. https：//www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/rangelands-and-grazing/livestock-grazing/about.
39	Vincent C H. Grazing fees： An overview and current issues. （2005-02-08）［2021-03-22］. https：//digital.library.unt.edu/ark：/67531/metacrs8904/m1/1/high_res_d/RS21232_2005Feb08.pdf.
40	Ho P. Institutions in transition： Land ownership， property rights and social conflict in China？ Beijing： Social Science Literature Press， 2008.
	Ho P. 谁是中国土地的拥有者？北京：社会科学文献出版社， 2008.
41	Brown C G， Waldron S A， Longworth J W， et al. Sustainable development in western China. Cheltenham： Edward Elgar Publishing Press， 2008.

年份 Year	重要法律、政策及关键事件 Important laws polices and key issues	突出问题 Outstanding issues	关键举措 Key initiatives
1862	《宅地法》允许公共牧草地的私有化Homestead Act allowed privatization of public grasslands	草地退化严重，联邦政府在公共牧草地作为很小。The grasslands were seriously degraded， and the federal government did not take much action in public grasslands.	《泰勒放牧法》的出台旨在确立公共牧草地合理的利用制度与方式，并以此减缓经济萧条带来的农业发展危机，同时减少对农地的损害，基本在1934年后形成了牢固的放牧费制度和分类管理原则。The “Taylor Grazing Act” was promulgated to establish a reasonable system and method for the use of public rangelands， so as to alleviate the crisis of agricultural development brought about by the economic depression， and at the same time reduced the damage to farmland. Basically formed a system of grazing fee and classification of management after 1934.
1905	联邦政府制定放牧区划方案Federal government developed grazing zoning plan
1934	国会出台《泰勒放牧法》Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act
1937	国会出台租赁人法即《班克黑德-琼斯农场租赁法案》Congress passed the Bankhead-Jones Farm Lease Act
1946	重组内政部土地管理局Reorganization of the Bureau of Land Management	政府在公共牧草地权力扩大后，由于法治不完善和更多利益团体的进入，争夺激烈，放牧费标准一再提升。After the government expanded the power of public grazing land， due to the imperfect rule of law and the entry of more interest groups， competition was fierce， the standard of grazing fees was repeatedly raised.	确立土地“多用途利用”的准则，公共牧草地开启了生态价值、文化价值、经济价值多元开发的阶段；在众多利益集团的争夺中联邦政府坚持了公共牧草地的公有制原则。Established the principle of “multi-purpose use” of land， the public grassland had opened the stage of diversified development of ecological value， cultural value and economic value， in the competition of many interest groups， the federal government had adhered to the principle of public ownership of the public grassland.
1958	艾森豪威尔政府上调放牧费Eisenhower Administration raised grazing fees
1964	国会出台《土地分类和多重利用法案》 Congress introduced the Land Classification and Multiple Use Act
1964	出台《荒野法》Introduction of Wilderness Act
1969	国会出台《国家环境政策法》 Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act
1974	出台《森林牧场可再生资源规划法案》Introduced the Forest Ranch Renewable Resource Planning Act
1976	出台《联邦土地政策与管理法》 The introduction of the Federal Land Policy and Administration Act
1978	出台《公共草原改良法》 Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978	放牧费系统的挑战从初见端倪到愈演愈烈，70年代后期开始，保守主义和新自由主义势力上升，放牧费问题逐渐成为各届政府拉拢利益集团的筹码。The challenge of the grazing fee system had grown from the beginning to the intensified. Since the late 1970s， the forces of conservatism and neoliberalism had risen， and the issue of grazing fees had gradually become a bargaining chip for various governments to win over interest groups.	《公共草原改良法》进一步提出了基于市场准则的放牧费计算公式，并针对草地类型分类计算；在草原管理目标方面优化改良，确立放牧许可证的期限最长为10年；且在分配公共牧草地时，需要从改良草地的状况确定分配方案；分阶段削减载畜量。《94草地革新法》提出了增加西部地区放牧费的法条。 Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 further proposes a formula for calculating grazing fees based on market criteria， and calculated according to the classification of rangeland types， optimized and improved in terms of rangeland management objectives， and established a grazing license for a maximum period of 10 years， and when allocating public grasslands， the allocation plan need to be determined from the status of the improved grassland， the stocking capacity was reduced in stages. The Rangeland Renovation of ’94 proposed legislation to increase grazing fees in the western region.
1985	1985年农场法案（Farm Bill）颁布，次年正式实施退（休）耕保护计划，但只针对私人土地。In 1985， the Farm Bill was promulgated， and the CRP， or fallow protection plan， was officially implemented the following year， but only for private land.
1986	国会扩大公共草原改良法的执行范围，同时签署总统令，对公共牧草地放牧的家畜征收放牧费。Congress expanded the implementation of the Public Rangelands Improvement act of 1978 and signed a presidential decree imposing grazing fees on livestock grazing on public grasslands.
1993	克林顿政府任命环保主义者管理土地管理局Clinton administration appoints environmentalists to run Bureau of Land Management
1994	出台1994《草地革新法》The Rangeland Reform of ’94 was introduced
1995	颁布1995干预法Enactment of the Intervention Act of 1995	放牧费标准和草地保护问题并重，但近两届政府执政期间，草地环境保护问题明显更具主导地位。Grazing fee standards and grassland protection issues were equally important， but during the past two governments in power， grassland environmental protection issues had become more dominant.	出台政策法规指导公共牧草地使用和保护，提供具体执行方案和措施，其中，《1995干预法》是对《国家环境政策法》中相关放牧地内容的完善和补充；市场化手段尝试平衡公共牧草地管理。Promulgated policies and regulations to guide the use and protection of public grasslands， and provided specific implementation plans and measures. Among them， enactment of the Intervention Act of 1995 was the improvement and supplement to the relevant content of grazing land in the National Environmental Policy Law， market-oriented meant try to balance public grasslands land management.
1997	颁布《国家草原白皮书》指导国家草原管理工作Promulgated the “National Grassland Management” to guide the national grassland management work
2003	颁布《国家牧草地和牧场管理手册》Promulgation of National Range and Pasture Handbook
2005	颁布牧草地管理指令Issue a pasture management directive

年份 Year	重要法律、政策及关键事件 Important laws polices and key issues	突出问题 Outstanding issues	关键举措 Key initiatives
1862	《宅地法》允许公共牧草地的私有化Homestead Act allowed privatization of public grasslands	草地退化严重，联邦政府在公共牧草地作为很小。The grasslands were seriously degraded， and the federal government did not take much action in public grasslands.	《泰勒放牧法》的出台旨在确立公共牧草地合理的利用制度与方式，并以此减缓经济萧条带来的农业发展危机，同时减少对农地的损害，基本在1934年后形成了牢固的放牧费制度和分类管理原则。The “Taylor Grazing Act” was promulgated to establish a reasonable system and method for the use of public rangelands， so as to alleviate the crisis of agricultural development brought about by the economic depression， and at the same time reduced the damage to farmland. Basically formed a system of grazing fee and classification of management after 1934.
1905	联邦政府制定放牧区划方案Federal government developed grazing zoning plan
1934	国会出台《泰勒放牧法》Congress enacted the Taylor Grazing Act
1937	国会出台租赁人法即《班克黑德-琼斯农场租赁法案》Congress passed the Bankhead-Jones Farm Lease Act
1946	重组内政部土地管理局Reorganization of the Bureau of Land Management	政府在公共牧草地权力扩大后，由于法治不完善和更多利益团体的进入，争夺激烈，放牧费标准一再提升。After the government expanded the power of public grazing land， due to the imperfect rule of law and the entry of more interest groups， competition was fierce， the standard of grazing fees was repeatedly raised.	确立土地“多用途利用”的准则，公共牧草地开启了生态价值、文化价值、经济价值多元开发的阶段；在众多利益集团的争夺中联邦政府坚持了公共牧草地的公有制原则。Established the principle of “multi-purpose use” of land， the public grassland had opened the stage of diversified development of ecological value， cultural value and economic value， in the competition of many interest groups， the federal government had adhered to the principle of public ownership of the public grassland.
1958	艾森豪威尔政府上调放牧费Eisenhower Administration raised grazing fees
1964	国会出台《土地分类和多重利用法案》 Congress introduced the Land Classification and Multiple Use Act
1964	出台《荒野法》Introduction of Wilderness Act
1969	国会出台《国家环境政策法》 Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act
1974	出台《森林牧场可再生资源规划法案》Introduced the Forest Ranch Renewable Resource Planning Act
1976	出台《联邦土地政策与管理法》 The introduction of the Federal Land Policy and Administration Act
1978	出台《公共草原改良法》 Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978	放牧费系统的挑战从初见端倪到愈演愈烈，70年代后期开始，保守主义和新自由主义势力上升，放牧费问题逐渐成为各届政府拉拢利益集团的筹码。The challenge of the grazing fee system had grown from the beginning to the intensified. Since the late 1970s， the forces of conservatism and neoliberalism had risen， and the issue of grazing fees had gradually become a bargaining chip for various governments to win over interest groups.	《公共草原改良法》进一步提出了基于市场准则的放牧费计算公式，并针对草地类型分类计算；在草原管理目标方面优化改良，确立放牧许可证的期限最长为10年；且在分配公共牧草地时，需要从改良草地的状况确定分配方案；分阶段削减载畜量。《94草地革新法》提出了增加西部地区放牧费的法条。 Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 further proposes a formula for calculating grazing fees based on market criteria， and calculated according to the classification of rangeland types， optimized and improved in terms of rangeland management objectives， and established a grazing license for a maximum period of 10 years， and when allocating public grasslands， the allocation plan need to be determined from the status of the improved grassland， the stocking capacity was reduced in stages. The Rangeland Renovation of ’94 proposed legislation to increase grazing fees in the western region.
1985	1985年农场法案（Farm Bill）颁布，次年正式实施退（休）耕保护计划，但只针对私人土地。In 1985， the Farm Bill was promulgated， and the CRP， or fallow protection plan， was officially implemented the following year， but only for private land.
1986	国会扩大公共草原改良法的执行范围，同时签署总统令，对公共牧草地放牧的家畜征收放牧费。Congress expanded the implementation of the Public Rangelands Improvement act of 1978 and signed a presidential decree imposing grazing fees on livestock grazing on public grasslands.
1993	克林顿政府任命环保主义者管理土地管理局Clinton administration appoints environmentalists to run Bureau of Land Management
1994	出台1994《草地革新法》The Rangeland Reform of ’94 was introduced
1995	颁布1995干预法Enactment of the Intervention Act of 1995	放牧费标准和草地保护问题并重，但近两届政府执政期间，草地环境保护问题明显更具主导地位。Grazing fee standards and grassland protection issues were equally important， but during the past two governments in power， grassland environmental protection issues had become more dominant.	出台政策法规指导公共牧草地使用和保护，提供具体执行方案和措施，其中，《1995干预法》是对《国家环境政策法》中相关放牧地内容的完善和补充；市场化手段尝试平衡公共牧草地管理。Promulgated policies and regulations to guide the use and protection of public grasslands， and provided specific implementation plans and measures. Among them， enactment of the Intervention Act of 1995 was the improvement and supplement to the relevant content of grazing land in the National Environmental Policy Law， market-oriented meant try to balance public grasslands land management.
1997	颁布《国家草原白皮书》指导国家草原管理工作Promulgated the “National Grassland Management” to guide the national grassland management work
2003	颁布《国家牧草地和牧场管理手册》Promulgation of National Range and Pasture Handbook
2005	颁布牧草地管理指令Issue a pasture management directive

项目 Item	美国United States				中国China
项目 Item	西进运动-1930 Westward Movement-1930	1930-1976	1976-1994	1994-至今 1994-Now	1950-1980	1980-1990	1990-2018	2018-至今 2018-Now
主要治理问题 Outstanding issues	草地退化 Grassland degradation	草地退化、平衡多集团利益寻求多用途利用。Grassland degradation， balanced multi-group interests and sought multi-purpose utilization.	草地退化、推动放牧费制度市场化。Degradation of grassland and marketization of grazing fee system.	完善草地保护，平衡放牧费问题。Improved grassland protection and balanced grazing costs.	草地退化Grassland degradation	平衡草地退化、畜牧业发展和民生。Balanced grassland degradation， animal husbandry development and people’s livelihood.	遏制草地退化、牧区脱贫攻坚。Curbed grassland degradation and poverty alleviation in pastoral areas.	严控草地退化、实现草畜平衡；牧区如何高质量发展。Strictly control degradation of grassland and achieved a balance between grass and livestock； how to develop high-quality pastoral areas.
基本制度、政策措施Fundamental systems， measures	确立联邦政府的所有权（公有制）；采用立法、总统令、法规政策等约束；持续实施放牧费制度，利用放牧权等放活制度；对国家草原、林间草地等分类治理。Established the ownership of the federal government （public ownership）， adopted legislation， presidential decrees， regulations and policies， etc.， continued to implement the grazing fee system， and used the grazing rights and other revitalization systems， classified the national grasslands， forest grasslands， etc.				国有（全民所有）、集体所有的公有制；家庭承包经营制度、逐步推动立法约束；牧民定居政策；依照草原地域特性、行政区划、制度安排等制定规划、计划；生态补偿。State-owned （owned by the whole people） and collectively owned public ownership， household contract management system， gradually promoted the legislative constraints； herdsmen settlement policy， formulated plans based on grassland regional characteristics， administrative divisions， and institutional arrangements， ecological compensation.
主要立法法规政策Main legislation， regulations and policies	《泰勒放牧法》《班克黑德-琼斯农场租赁法案》《联邦土地政策与管理法》《国家环境政策法》《公共草原改良法》《94草地革新法》等。Taylor Grazing Act， Bankhead-Jones Farm Lease Act， Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976， National Environmental Policy Act， Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978， Rangeland Reform of ’94， etc.				《草原法》1985年颁布，《防沙治沙法》《草畜平衡管理办法》、其他涉草法律（《农业法》《农村土地承包法》《畜牧法》《自然保护区法》《种子法》等），政令和计划（《国务院关于加强草原保护和修复的若干意见》）。“Grassland Law of the People’s Republic of China” was promulgated in 1985， “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Prevention and Control of Desertification”， “Measures for Balance Management of Grass and Livestock”， related laws （“Agricultural Law”， “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Land Contract in Rural Areas”， “Animal Husbandry Law”， “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Nature Reserves”， “Seed Law”， etc.）， executives and plans （“Several Opinions of the State Council on Strengthening the Protection and Construction of Grasslands”）.
主要政府管理机构Major administration	内政部土地管理局、农业部林务局、自然资源保护局；内政部国家公园管理局、渔业和野生动植物管理局协助管理。Bureau of Land Management， Forest Service， Natural Resources Conservation Service； National Park Service， and Fish and Wildlife Service.				农业农村部统筹管理（畜牧兽医局、草原监理中心、全国畜牧兽医总站）。Overall management by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs （Bureau of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary， Center of Supervision and Management of Grassland， National Animal Husbandry and Service）.			国家林草局草原管理司及农业农村部畜牧兽医局等。National Forestry and Grassland Administration， Bureau of Animal Husbandry， etc.
管理目标 Management goals	公共牧草地的保护与多用途合理利用，适度合理发展畜牧业。The protection of public pastures， the rational utilization of multi-purposes， and the appropriate and rational development of animal husbandry.				实现草原生态系统的可持续发展，同时缓解生计压力，发展草牧业经济。Achieved sustainable development of grassland ecosystems while alleviated pressure on livelihoods and developed the grass-grazing economy.
管理结构 Administration structure	联邦政府主导，实现权力结构的分权和制衡，州政府具有较大的自主权，环保组织等第三方机构也可以诉诸国会，影响立法程序。The federal government is leader， and the checks and balances of powers were realized in the separation of powers. State governments had greater autonomy， and third-party agencies such as environmental protection organizations can also appeal to Congress to influence the legislative process.				垂直于中央政府的管理方式，集中又分散，机构之间保持管理的垂直性，但权力授权于基层，体制相对分散，如地方的畜牧局、畜牧站、草原站及个别县级监理所等。Vertical to the management method of the central government， centralized and decentralized， with vertical management among agencies， but power was delegated to the grassroots， and the system was relatively decentralized， such as local animal husbandry bureaus， animal husbandry service， grassland stations， and individual county-level supervision offices， etc.			地方林草局、草原站及基层草原监理机构（机构改革后待完善）。Local forest and grass bureaus， grassland stations and local grassland supervision institutions （to be improved after institutional reform）.
相对优势Comparative advantages	形成特有的保育方式，完善的法治；市场化运作良好，产业发达；较为客观的第三方监督，尤其与私人牧草地对比，集中治理优势明显。Formed a unique conservation method， perfect rule of law， good market operation， developed industry， more objective third-party supervision， especially compared with private grassland， the advantages of centralized governance were obvious.				既集中权力又放权基层，实现中央政府垂直管理和上下协调的优势，同时，基层牧区形成以农户为基本单元的社区管理，即自上而下与自下而上治理结合；减少中央政府负担。Centralized power and delegating power to the grass-roots level， realized the advantages of vertical management and coordination between the top and bottom of the central government. At the same time， the grass-roots pastoral areas formed community management with farmers as the basic unit， that was， the combination of top-down and bottom-up governance； reduced the burden on the central government.
治理困境、挑战Dilemmas and challenges	放牧费问题导致利益集团扯皮、斗争，甚至成为政府内阁的争夺筹码；放牧费系统衍生的放牧权、转让权、地役权等处理不顺；政体与意识形态原因所致立法程序复杂，相关法律修订历程艰难；保育方式不成功，内政部修复公共牧草地财政压力大。The issue of grazing fees had caused interest groups to argue and fight， and even became a bargaining for the government and cabinet， the grazing rights， transfer rights， and easements derived from the grazing fee system were not handled smoothly， due to political and ideological reasons， the legislative procedures were complicated. The revision process was difficult， the conservation method was unsuccessful， and the Ministry of the Interior was under great financial pressure to restore public grasslands.				人口和生计压力，超载过牧持续存在；资源和经济管理体系相对分散，基层权力存在交叉，机构改革后，基层管理机构不健全；农户分散化和小规模系统经营；弱市场化。Population and livelihood pressure， overloading and grazing persisted， resource and economic management systems were relatively scattered， grassroots powers overlap， and after institutional reform， grassroots management institutions were not sound， farmers were decentralized and small-scale systematic management， weak marketization.

项目 Item	美国United States				中国China
项目 Item	西进运动-1930 Westward Movement-1930	1930-1976	1976-1994	1994-至今 1994-Now	1950-1980	1980-1990	1990-2018	2018-至今 2018-Now
主要治理问题 Outstanding issues	草地退化 Grassland degradation	草地退化、平衡多集团利益寻求多用途利用。Grassland degradation， balanced multi-group interests and sought multi-purpose utilization.	草地退化、推动放牧费制度市场化。Degradation of grassland and marketization of grazing fee system.	完善草地保护，平衡放牧费问题。Improved grassland protection and balanced grazing costs.	草地退化Grassland degradation	平衡草地退化、畜牧业发展和民生。Balanced grassland degradation， animal husbandry development and people’s livelihood.	遏制草地退化、牧区脱贫攻坚。Curbed grassland degradation and poverty alleviation in pastoral areas.	严控草地退化、实现草畜平衡；牧区如何高质量发展。Strictly control degradation of grassland and achieved a balance between grass and livestock； how to develop high-quality pastoral areas.
基本制度、政策措施Fundamental systems， measures	确立联邦政府的所有权（公有制）；采用立法、总统令、法规政策等约束；持续实施放牧费制度，利用放牧权等放活制度；对国家草原、林间草地等分类治理。Established the ownership of the federal government （public ownership）， adopted legislation， presidential decrees， regulations and policies， etc.， continued to implement the grazing fee system， and used the grazing rights and other revitalization systems， classified the national grasslands， forest grasslands， etc.				国有（全民所有）、集体所有的公有制；家庭承包经营制度、逐步推动立法约束；牧民定居政策；依照草原地域特性、行政区划、制度安排等制定规划、计划；生态补偿。State-owned （owned by the whole people） and collectively owned public ownership， household contract management system， gradually promoted the legislative constraints； herdsmen settlement policy， formulated plans based on grassland regional characteristics， administrative divisions， and institutional arrangements， ecological compensation.
主要立法法规政策Main legislation， regulations and policies	《泰勒放牧法》《班克黑德-琼斯农场租赁法案》《联邦土地政策与管理法》《国家环境政策法》《公共草原改良法》《94草地革新法》等。Taylor Grazing Act， Bankhead-Jones Farm Lease Act， Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976， National Environmental Policy Act， Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978， Rangeland Reform of ’94， etc.				《草原法》1985年颁布，《防沙治沙法》《草畜平衡管理办法》、其他涉草法律（《农业法》《农村土地承包法》《畜牧法》《自然保护区法》《种子法》等），政令和计划（《国务院关于加强草原保护和修复的若干意见》）。“Grassland Law of the People’s Republic of China” was promulgated in 1985， “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Prevention and Control of Desertification”， “Measures for Balance Management of Grass and Livestock”， related laws （“Agricultural Law”， “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Land Contract in Rural Areas”， “Animal Husbandry Law”， “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Nature Reserves”， “Seed Law”， etc.）， executives and plans （“Several Opinions of the State Council on Strengthening the Protection and Construction of Grasslands”）.
主要政府管理机构Major administration	内政部土地管理局、农业部林务局、自然资源保护局；内政部国家公园管理局、渔业和野生动植物管理局协助管理。Bureau of Land Management， Forest Service， Natural Resources Conservation Service； National Park Service， and Fish and Wildlife Service.				农业农村部统筹管理（畜牧兽医局、草原监理中心、全国畜牧兽医总站）。Overall management by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs （Bureau of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary， Center of Supervision and Management of Grassland， National Animal Husbandry and Service）.			国家林草局草原管理司及农业农村部畜牧兽医局等。National Forestry and Grassland Administration， Bureau of Animal Husbandry， etc.
管理目标 Management goals	公共牧草地的保护与多用途合理利用，适度合理发展畜牧业。The protection of public pastures， the rational utilization of multi-purposes， and the appropriate and rational development of animal husbandry.				实现草原生态系统的可持续发展，同时缓解生计压力，发展草牧业经济。Achieved sustainable development of grassland ecosystems while alleviated pressure on livelihoods and developed the grass-grazing economy.
管理结构 Administration structure	联邦政府主导，实现权力结构的分权和制衡，州政府具有较大的自主权，环保组织等第三方机构也可以诉诸国会，影响立法程序。The federal government is leader， and the checks and balances of powers were realized in the separation of powers. State governments had greater autonomy， and third-party agencies such as environmental protection organizations can also appeal to Congress to influence the legislative process.				垂直于中央政府的管理方式，集中又分散，机构之间保持管理的垂直性，但权力授权于基层，体制相对分散，如地方的畜牧局、畜牧站、草原站及个别县级监理所等。Vertical to the management method of the central government， centralized and decentralized， with vertical management among agencies， but power was delegated to the grassroots， and the system was relatively decentralized， such as local animal husbandry bureaus， animal husbandry service， grassland stations， and individual county-level supervision offices， etc.			地方林草局、草原站及基层草原监理机构（机构改革后待完善）。Local forest and grass bureaus， grassland stations and local grassland supervision institutions （to be improved after institutional reform）.
相对优势Comparative advantages	形成特有的保育方式，完善的法治；市场化运作良好，产业发达；较为客观的第三方监督，尤其与私人牧草地对比，集中治理优势明显。Formed a unique conservation method， perfect rule of law， good market operation， developed industry， more objective third-party supervision， especially compared with private grassland， the advantages of centralized governance were obvious.				既集中权力又放权基层，实现中央政府垂直管理和上下协调的优势，同时，基层牧区形成以农户为基本单元的社区管理，即自上而下与自下而上治理结合；减少中央政府负担。Centralized power and delegating power to the grass-roots level， realized the advantages of vertical management and coordination between the top and bottom of the central government. At the same time， the grass-roots pastoral areas formed community management with farmers as the basic unit， that was， the combination of top-down and bottom-up governance； reduced the burden on the central government.
治理困境、挑战Dilemmas and challenges	放牧费问题导致利益集团扯皮、斗争，甚至成为政府内阁的争夺筹码；放牧费系统衍生的放牧权、转让权、地役权等处理不顺；政体与意识形态原因所致立法程序复杂，相关法律修订历程艰难；保育方式不成功，内政部修复公共牧草地财政压力大。The issue of grazing fees had caused interest groups to argue and fight， and even became a bargaining for the government and cabinet， the grazing rights， transfer rights， and easements derived from the grazing fee system were not handled smoothly， due to political and ideological reasons， the legislative procedures were complicated. The revision process was difficult， the conservation method was unsuccessful， and the Ministry of the Interior was under great financial pressure to restore public grasslands.				人口和生计压力，超载过牧持续存在；资源和经济管理体系相对分散，基层权力存在交叉，机构改革后，基层管理机构不健全；农户分散化和小规模系统经营；弱市场化。Population and livelihood pressure， overloading and grazing persisted， resource and economic management systems were relatively scattered， grassroots powers overlap， and after institutional reform， grassroots management institutions were not sound， farmers were decentralized and small-scale systematic management， weak marketization.

[1]	Cheng-yi LI, Xi-lai LI, Yuan-wu YANG, Hong-lin LI, De-fei LIANG. Effect of nitrogen addition on soil bacterial diversity in alpine degraded grasslands of differing slope [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(12): 161-170.
[2]	LIU Ya-jing, MENG Zhong-ju, DANG Xiao-hong, SONG Wen-juan, ZHAI Bo. Allelopathic effects of Stellera chamaejasme on seed germination and seedling growth of alfalfa and two forage grasses [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(8): 130-138.
[3]	WANG Xue-xia, DONG Shi-kui, GAO Qing-zhu, ZHANG Yong, HU Guo-zheng, LUO Wen-rong. The rate of soil nitrogen transformation decreased by the degradation of alpine grasslands in the Qinghai Tibet Plateau [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(6): 1-9.
[4]	LI Ya-juan, LIU Jing, XU Chang-lin, CAO Wen-xia. Effects of different grassland degradation levels on inorganic nitrogen and urease activity in alpine meadow soils [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2018, 27(10): 45-53.
[5]	LIU Chang-Yi, HU Xia-Song, DOU Zeng-Ning, LI Xi-Lai, XU Zhi-Wen. Shear strength tests of the root-soil composite system of alpine grassland vegetation at different stages of degradation and the determination of thresholds in the Yellow River source region [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2017, 26(9): 14-26.
[6]	CAO Xu-Juan, Ganjurjav H, LIANG Yan, GAO Qing-Zhu, ZHANG Yong, LI Yu-E, WAN Yun-Fan, DANJIU-Luobu. Temporal and spatial distribution of grassland degradation in northern Tibet based on NDVI [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(3): 1-8.
[7]	ZHANG Yong-Chao, YUAN Xiao-Bo, NIU De-Cao, WU Shu-Juan, ZHANG Dian-Ye, ZONG Wen-Jie, FU Hua. Response of plateau pika burrow density to vegetation management in an alpine meadow, Maqu County, Gansu [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2016, 25(2): 87-94.
[8]	GUO Cheng-lu, LI Zong-li, CHEN Nian-lai, LIU Lei. The grassland degradation problems of the Minqin oasis, in the lower reaches of the Shiyang River Basin [J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2010, 19(6): 62-71.