Legal information

[Key points of the case]

In the forest land where Ma Moumou legally acquired the forest rights, the red pines and hazelnuts were gnawed and damaged by wild animals. Although the forestry bureau of a certain city confirmed the fact of damage, it decided not to compensate on the grounds that the local compensation method did not specify the loss of economic forest. Ma Moumou was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit requesting to revoke the decision and receive reasonable compensation. Lawyer Ying Ting pointed out that the core of such cases lies in whether the administrative agencies have performed statutory compensation duties in accordance with the law, rather than simply shirk the case with "no detailed rules."

The court held that Ma’s losses were “other property losses” stipulated in the Wildlife Protection Law and relevant measures of Jilin Province, and were within the scope of statutory compensation. Although specific calculation standards are missing, regulations allow for compensation upon approval by superiors. The Forestry Bureau's refusal to compensate simply because there are no special standards is an error in the application of law. In the end, the court ruled to revoke the decision not to award compensation and ordered the Forestry Bureau to re-process the matter within a time limit.

This case clarified that administrative agencies have legal obligations to compensate for damage caused by nationally protected wild animals, and this obligation cannot be waived due to the lack of specific operational standards. The ruling established clear guidelines: Administrative agencies must actively perform their duties, resolve compensation issues through superior approval and other channels, effectively protect citizens’ property rights and interests, and achieve a balance between ecological protection and people’s livelihood security.

Ma Moumou v. Administrative Compensation Case of a Municipal Forestry Bureau

Brief facts of the case

The Korean pine and large hazelnuts planted by forest classes 92 and 93 in a certain village where Ma had obtained a forest rights certificate were gnawed and damaged by wild animals. Staff from a certain city's forestry bureau issued an on-site investigation form after an investigation, confirming that ungulates damaged relevant economic crops. After Ma Moumou submitted the compensation application, a certain city's forestry bureau issued a compensation determination form and made a decision not to compensate based on the "Compensation Measures for Personal and Property Damage Caused by Key Protected Terrestrial Wild Animals in Jilin Province" on the grounds that damage to economic forests and seedlings in the forest land will not be compensated in principle. Ma Moumou then filed a lawsuit, requesting to revoke the decision of a certain municipal forestry bureau not to provide compensation and order it to provide reasonable compensation for the losses involved in the case.

referee result

Ma Moumou completed the registration change of the forest rights certificate in 2018 and legally obtained the right to operate the forest land. The loss of economic trees in his forest land fell into the "other property losses" stipulated in the "Wild Animal Protection Law of the People's Republic of China" and the "Compensation Measures for Personal Property Damage Caused by Key Protected Terrestrial Wild Animals in Jilin Province", which is within the scope of compensation. Although the Jilin Province Compensation Measures do not specify the calculation method of compensation for this type of loss, it stipulates that compensation in other circumstances can be subject to approval and confirmation by superiors. Ma Moumou has the right to apply for compensation according to law. The forestry bureau of a certain city had no objection to the fact that wild animals caused harm, but made a decision not to provide compensation only because there was no special compensation standard. This was an error in the application of law and should be corrected. The decision was then made to revoke the decision not to award compensation, and ordered a certain municipal forestry bureau to make a new compensation decision within a time limit.

Typical meaning

Based on the rule of law principle of unifying ecological protection and administrative powers and responsibilities, administrative agencies have statutory compensation responsibilities for property losses caused by nationally protected wild animals. This duty is clearly stipulated in laws and regulations related to wildlife protection. It is a legal obligation that administrative agencies must perform, rather than a discretionary and optional obligation. This case clarified that the administrative agency’s decision not to grant compensation on the grounds that there was no specific compensation standard was inappropriate in the application of law, and established clear guidelines for the judgment standards of similar cases, effectively protecting citizens’ legitimate property rights and interests, and achieving both wildlife protection and people’s livelihood rights protection.