国家林业局


国家林业局令
第26号


《国家林业局关于废止和修改部分部门规章的决定》已经2011年1月25日国家林业局局务会议审议通过，现予公布，自公布之日起施行。


国家林业局局长 贾治邦

二Ｏ一一年一月二十五日



国家林业局关于废止和修改部分部门规章的决定


根据《中华人民共和国立法法》和国务院的有关规定，我局对现行部门规章进行了清理，对部门规章名称不规范、引用法律法规名称不一致和明显不符合法律规定的下列部门规章予以废止或者进行修改：
一、废止的部门规章
林业系统内部审计工作规定（1996年4月2日 林业部令第7号）
二、修改部分条款的部门规章
（一）对下列部门规章中涉及行政许可的规定作出修改
1.植物检疫条例实施细则（林业部分）（1994年7月26日 林业部令第4号）
（1）将第十二条修改为“生产、经营应实施检疫的森林植物及其产品的单位和个人，应当在生产和经营之前向当地森检机构备案，并在生产期间或者调运之前向当地森检机构申请产地检疫。对检疫合格的，由森检机构发给《产地检疫合格证》；对检疫不合格的，由森检机构发给《检疫处理通知单》。产地检疫的技术要求按照《国内森林植物检疫技术规程》的规定执行”。
（2）将第十八条修改为“森检机构应当自受理检疫申请之日起二十日内实施检疫并核发检疫单证。二十日内不能作出决定的，经森检机构所属的林业主管部门负责人批准，可以延长十日,并告知申请人”。
（3）将第二十三条中的“森检机构应当在收到引进申请后三十日内按林业部有关规定进行审批”修改为“森检机构应当自受理引进申请后二十日内作出决定”。
2.林木种子生产、经营许可证管理办法（2002年11月2日 国家林业局令第5号）
（1）将第十条中的“县级以上人民政府林业行政主管部门应当在收到申请或者审核材料之日起15个工作日内”修改为“县级以上人民政府林业行政主管部门应当自受理之日起20日内”。
（2）删除第十六条。
（3）删除第十八条第一款中的“年检材料”。
3.国家重点保护野生动物驯养繁殖许可证管理办法（1991年1月9日 林业部发布）
将第五条第三款修改为“批准驯养繁殖野生动物的，作出行政许可决定的林业行政主管部门应当核发《驯养繁殖许可证》”。
（二）对下列部门规章中涉及行政复议的规定作出修改
植物检疫条例实施细则（林业部分）（1994年7月26日 林业部令第4号）
将第三十二条中的“当事人对森检机构的行政处罚决定不服的，可以自接到处罚通知书之日起十五日内，向作出行政处罚决定的森检机构的上级机构申请复议”修改为“当事人对森检机构的行政处罚决定不服的，可以自接到处罚通知书之日起六十日内提起行政复议”。
（三）对下列部门规章中涉及“征用”的规定作出修改
1.将《林木和林地权属登记管理办法》（2000年12月31日 国家林业局令第1号）第七条修改为“林地被依法征收、征用、占用或者由于其他原因造成林地灭失的，原林权权利人应当到初始登记机关申请办理注销登记”。
2.将《占用征用林地审核审批管理办法》（2001年1月4日 国家林业局令第2号）修改为《占用征收征用林地审核审批管理办法》;将第一条、第二条、第三条、第四条、第五条、第十条、第十一条、第十五条、第十六条中的“征用”修改为“征收、征用”。
3.将《森林公园管理办法》（1993年12月11日 林业部令第3号）第十三条中的“征用”修改为“征收、征用”。
4.将《沿海国家特殊保护林带管理办法》（1996年11月13日 林业部令第11号）第十一条、第十二条、第十三条中的“征用”修改为“征收、征用”。
（四）对下列部门规章中引用法律、行政法规名称或者上位法修改后条文内容不对应的规定作出修改
林木良种推广使用管理办法（1997年6月15日 林业部令第13号）
（1）将第一条中的“《中华人民共和国种子管理条例》”修改为“《中华人民共和国种子法》”。
（2）将第十一条第二款修改为“国家投资或者国家投资为主的造林项目和国有林业单位造林，应当根据林业行政主管部门制定的计划使用林木良种，实行目标管理，逐步实现造林良种化”。
（3）删除第十二条、第十三条、第十九条、第二十二条。
（4）将第十七条第二款修改为“对国家投资或者国家投资为主的造林项目和国有林业单位造林，应当将使用林木良种的情况作为验收内容”。
（5）将第二十条中的“伪造《林木良种合格证》或者《良种壮苗合格证》的”修改为“伪造林木良种证书的”。
（五）对下列部门规章中涉及行政收费的规定作出修改
1.植物检疫条例实施细则（林业部分）
将第十六条第二款中的“不收检疫费，只收证书工本费”修改为“不收检疫费和证书工本费”。
2.国家重点保护野生动物驯养繁殖许可证管理办法
删去第十三条中的“核发《驯养繁殖许可证》时，可适当收取工本、手续费。收费标准由省、自治区、直辖市政府林业行政主管部门提出，报同级物价、财政部门核定，并报林业部备案”。
（六）对下列部门规章中涉及行政审批改革的规定作出修改
1.植物检疫条例实施细则（林业部分）
将第二十五条修改为“对森检对象的研究，不得在该森检对象的非疫情发生区进行。因教学、科研需要在非疫情发生区进行时，应当经省、自治区、直辖市林业主管部门批准，并采取严密措施防止扩散”。
2.林业标准化管理办法（2003年7月21日 国家林业局令第9号）
将第十一条第二款第三项修改为“国家林业局经汇总、协调后，组织实施林业行业标准项目年度计划”。
3.中华人民共和国植物新品种保护条例实施细则（林业部分）（1999年8月10日 国家林业局令第3号）
（1）删除第八条第二款。
（2）将第十四条修改为“中国的单位和个人申请品种权的，可以直接或者委托代理机构向国家林业局提出申请”。
（3）将第十六条修改为“外国人、外国企业或者其他外国组织向国家林业局提出品种权申请和办理其他品种权事务的，应当委托代理机构办理”。
三、本决定自公布之日起实行。



Risks and challenges of the EU expansion
周大勇 (Zhou,Dayong)

I. Introduction
For several years now the European Union is discussing a possible enlargement, because several European countries have applied for membership in the EU. These are especially the former socialist countries in Eastern Europe, that have clearly turned towards the west since the collapse of the iron curtain. These countries are Bulgaria, the Baltic countries Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Hungary.

In addition Turkey, Cyprus and Malta are trying for quite some time already to join the EU. These application are not to be accepted without any further deliberation because they do bring along some risks and the consequences are hard to distinguish therefore these countries are not very expected joining the European Union in the near future and will therefore not be included in the following evaluation.
II. Risks and challenges
If we wants to evaluate the risks and challenges of an upcoming enlargement of the EU, we should first take into account experiences gained during previous expansion which were to some extent comparable. Here the southern expansion from 1986 should be mentioned where two economically pathetic countries sought admission to the then European Community. The admission procedure of these two candidates, being Spain and Portugal, were lengthy and considered very problem bearing. Especially the amount of produce that would add to the already existing agricultural over-production of the Community was seen to be a problem since it would increase the load on the European budget.

But seen from a global economical perspective the joining of Spain and Portugal was overall positive for the EC and the two countries, although Spain struggled with a further rise of unemployment and disparities within the Community were further amplified.

The disparities within the Union will most certainly increase when it comes to an eastern expansion, but the agricultural problem will not be an issue, because the candidates have not got their focus on agriculture, already because of their communist heritage which focused on industry rather than on agriculture or the tertiary sector.

In case of the approaching expansion towards Eastern Europe the Union will have to resolve several problems, the most severe being without any doubt the financial one that will go along with the extension, estimated to be ?5 - ?6 billion annually, just for the technologically underdeveloped agriculture in the new member states.

The financial problem will also lead to a temporary discontent among the population of the existing members, since the financial load on the countries will cause budget cuts because the new members will undoubtedly belong to the payees rather than the payers. Especially the Mediterranean members, for instance Italy, Spain etc. fear cuts in their subsidies particularly the agricultural ones, and agriculture is already making up the biggest part of the EU′s budget.

Of course it is also to be questioned whether with the joining of economically weak countries the economies of the "richer" members are not weakened.

What should be taken into consideration as well is the impact the joining will have on the population of the candidates, especially considering the rights they will gain when they are citizens of the European community. They do then have the right to settle and work anywhere within the community, this could lead to a large amount of people pouring into the old member countries trying to seek work there and make their living. And since most of the European countries are already struggling with high unemployment the high rates could be pushed up further and the discontent among the population could worsen, especially against the background of Neo-Nazis in Germany and other countries such as Britain or Italy. Off course this would only be a temporary problem, which would solve itself over time as the new members develop economically, but still this could prove to be a major issue.

Of course their comes also a minor problem along with the expansion, this problem being even more languages than the twelve, already being used, in which EU communications would have to be carried out adding to the already huge administrative body of the European Union and also causing further costs of the EU.
But because the expansion represents a political necessity one should also take into account the positive aspects caused by such a historic event. With the expansion the continent would take a huge step towards the ethnic integration within Europe, different cultures would be facing each other and could also profit from each other. Also the global competitiveness of the EU against the USA and Asia would improve and another step towards global peace would be undertaken.
III. Changes in administration
It is obvious that an expansion potentially including ten countries would not be feasible without fundamental institutional reforms.

For instance with the existing structure of the Union which allocates most of the power to the European Council, where each member state has one vote, it would be imaginable that smaller members would have a majority over the larger members. Except for Poland, which is by population comparable to Spain and would consequently be a large member, all other candidates are relatively small in size an population.

Another point is that with more than twenty members the decision finding and making process needs to be completely reconsidered, so it represents the actual size of the member countries in terms of population rather than giving each member a veto and especially one single vote. The existing voting and weighting system is also already making the decision finding process a painfully and lengthy one, another ten different opinions added to this would make it virtually impossible to come to an agreement that at least partially satisfies all members and is therefore being supported and not vetoed against.

A changed "legislature" would also keep the democratic thought that the entire EU is based on alive and not vanish it like the existing system.

What should also be pointed out is the fact that an increase in members could lead to new coalitions within the Union and also increase competition among the individual countries. There are even critics that fear that an eastern expansion could lead to a shift in power towards the reunified Germany, since the potential new members are already heavily bound and leaning towards Germany.

What should also be considered is a change in European agricultural policy, which should actually be reformed already. The system of milk quotas, subsidies etc. which subsidises an over-production in many areas, just not to infuriate the farmers, because smaller farms would not be able to survive without the subsidies and the entire face of the European primary sector would change is completely outdated. This system could definitely no longer be kept up with even more farmers to support.
IV. Successful without absorbing the new members?
It is obvious that this question needs to be answered with a clear no. The existing members of the EU are already being absorbed by it and they have all chosen this faith. The goals of the European Union do state the loss of sovereignty in the areas of economic and currency politics, the latter one already realized, also in the political areas of social politics, education, research, consumer protection, health and also environmental issues. Now one could argue how many of these goals need to be realized in order for the EU to be successful, from the British point of view for example the cooperation in economic issues and the creation of the single market have already been enough, considering their opinion towards the Maastricht treaty.

If one would see it from the British point of view the EU could be successful without absorbing the new members, but since most other countries would like to see the above mentioned goals implied and would like to realize the dream of de Gaulle, Adenauer and others of "the United States of Europe", the new members would surrender a huge part of their sovereignty and consequently would be absorbed by the EU, especially considering that they will join in a couple of years at the earliest when European integration will hopefully have advanced beyond the point it is today.
Another point one could consider is what would happen if the European integration would further advance up to the point of the United States of Europe without any new countries joining. This would create another superpower alongside the USA and the then non-members would live in the shadow of the EU or whatever its name would be by that time and also be absorbed by the enormous power, in any terms, of their big neighbour just like the Caribbean, Canada and Mexico, even the entire Americas are by the USA. So the conclusion drawn by this could be that the central and eastern European countries would be better off in any case if they joined the EU even if they had to surrender much of their sovereignty.
Sources:

(1) http://www.europa.eu.int/ (March 17th, 2001)
(2) http://idw.tu-clausthal.de/public/zeige_pm.html?pmid=26445 (April 5th, 2001)
(3) Informationen zur politischen Bildung: Europäische Union (BpB, 1995)
(4) Microsoft Encarta 98
(5) Mittel- und Osteuropa auf dem Weg in die Europäische Union (Werner Weidenfeld, Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, 1996)
(6) http://www.e-politik.de/beitrag.cfm?Beitrag_ID=559 (April 1st, 2001)