摘要： 在生态环境损害司法救济中,直接适用修复生态环境责任常面临实践障碍,过度依赖赔偿损失责任则引发资金管理与使用难题。生态环境替代性修复可在一定程度上缓解此矛盾,其与直接修复均着眼于生态环境完整利益的恢复,属于广义恢复原状的范畴,是直接修复在性质、空间、时间等方面变通处理的结果。《生态环境法典》首次在法典层面确立替代性修复责任,为其提供了合法性基础,但其规范适用仍有待厘清。替代性修复与赔偿损失均为直接修复的替代形态,二者适用关系是实践难点。通过类型化方法可理顺二者关系:异质型替代性修复的损害填补效果弱于直接修复但强于赔偿损失,适用顺位介于二者之间;异地型替代性修复的填补效果随空间距离增大而减弱,损害填补地与发生地处于同一县域时,其适用顺位优先于赔偿损失;异时型替代性修复在司法实践中表现为修复与预防未来生态环境损害两种子类型,其中赔偿损失责任与替代性修复责任具有同一性,而“劳务代偿”“技改抵扣”等以预防为主的责任方式适用顺位劣后于赔偿损失,需严格审查其必要性、有效性与可行性。

关键词: 生态环境法典, 替代性修复, 恢复原状, 生态环境损害

Abstract: In the judicial remedy for damage to the ecological environment, the direct application of liability for restoring the eco-environment often encounters practical obstacles, while an over-reliance on liability for monetary compensation leads to challenges in fund management and utilization.Alternative restoration can alleviate this contradiction to a certain extent; both alternative and direct restoration aim at recovering the integrated interests of the eco-environment, falling under the broad category of restitutio in integrum as a flexible adaptation of direct restoration in terms of nature, space, and time.Although the Eco-Environment Code establishes alternative restoration Responsibility at the codification level for the first time, providing a legal basis for its implementation, its normative application remains to be clarified.As both alternative restoration and monetary compensation serve as alternative forms of direct restoration, their applicable relationship constitutes a challenge in practice.Through a typological approach, the relationship between the two can be rationalized: the damage indemnification effect of heterogeneous alternative restoration is weaker than direct restoration but stronger than monetary compensation, placing its priority between the two; the effect of off-site alternative restoration diminishes as spatial distance increases, yet it precedes monetary compensation when the restoration occurs within the same county as the damage; and heterochronic alternative restoration manifests in judicial practice as either restoration or the prevention of future damage, where the liability for monetary compensation and the liability for alternative restoration are identical in nature, and prevention-oriented methods such as “compensation of labor service” or “technical transformation deductions”, rank lower in priority than monetary compensation and require strict scrutiny regarding their necessity, effectiveness, and feasibility.

Key words: Eco-Environment Code, Alternative Restoration, Restitution, Damage to the Ecological Environment