滇池的“生态保护费”让笔者想起了前不久的大理古城保护费,还有洱海资源保护费。这种收费的逻辑如出一辙,都是面向游客强制收取。

Of dianchi lake“Ecological protection”Let the author think of recently Dali protection money,And erhai lake resources protection money。The logic of this charge and prosperity,For tourists are mandatory charge。

　　顾名思义,所谓“生态保护费”是保护生态的。表面上看,既然景区面向游客开放,生态的损害与游客有关,向游客征收一点“保护费”来进行生态保护是理直气壮的。但实际上犯了大错。按照我国文物保护法的相关规定,“国有博物馆、纪念馆、文物保护单位等事业性收入,专门用于文物保护,任何单位或者个人不得侵占、挪用。”这意味着,景点收费所得收入,都须用于文物保护和修缮用途。滇池是国内著名的旅游景点,景点门票收入想必是一个庞大的数字。笔者不禁想问,这些门票和各种税费收入都到哪里去了?都用到生态保护上去了吗?

Just as its name implies,The so-called“Ecological protection”Is the ecological protection。On the surface,Since the scenic spot to open to visitors,The ecological damage and the tourists,On a little to the tourists“Protection money”For ecological protection is righteous。But actually making a big mistake。The law on the protection of cultural relics in China in accordance with the relevant provisions,“State-owned museum、memorial、Units of cultural relics protection departments such as income,Specially for the protection of cultural relics,Any unit or individual is allowed to occupy、misappropriate。”This means that,Attractions charge the income,Must be used for cultural relics protection and maintenance purposes。Dianchi lake is the famous domestic tourist attractions,Attractions tickets income must be a huge Numbers。The author can't help but want to ask,These tickets and all kinds of tax income are to where?All use ecological protection up?

　　或许有人会说,生态保护耗资巨大仅有门票等收入远远不够。那么,文物保护法还有这样的规定:“县级以上人民政府应当将文物保护事业纳入本级国民经济和社会发展规划,所需经费列入本级财政预算。国家用于文物保护的财政拨款随着财政收入增长而增加。”于是,笔者还想追问:滇池的保护性经费开支有没有列入公共财政预算?当地政府对于滇池生态保护有没有投入应投入的资金?

Maybe someone will say,Ecological protection costly tickets only income such as far from enough。so,Cultural relics and such regulation:“The people's government at or above the county level shall be undertakings for the protection of cultural relics into the plans for national economic and social development,The funds needed at the corresponding level on budget。State for the protection of cultural relics and finance allocates funds with financial income growth and increase。”so,The author also want to cross-examine: the protective funds expenditure dianchi lake in public finances have budget?The local government for ecological protection in dianchi lake have should be money spent?

　　有业内人士表示,虽然法律规定“文物保护单位所得事业性收入均用于文物保护”,但在现实的操作中,这一笔“事业性收入”是一块被瓜分的利益蛋糕。扣除文物局、旅游局等相关职能部门人员福利、公务费用、旅游宣传费用等,真正划拨用于文物保护的资金少之又少捉襟见肘。而另一方面,一些地方政府对于文物保护上的投入也逐年减少。如此看来,不从游客身上征收生态保护费,还能从哪里拿钱呢?

The personage inside course of study expresses,Although the law“Units of cultural relics protection departments are used for income from the protection of cultural relics”,But in real operation,This a“Service income”Is a piece of cake was divided up interest。Deduct cultural relics bureau、Tourism bureau related functional department staff welfare、Business expenses、Tourism promotion expenses, etc,Real transfer for the protection of cultural relics are few and less money to their knees。And on the other hand,Some local governments for the protection of cultural relics of the investment also reduced year by year。So it seems,Not on ecological protection fee collection from the visitors,Where can also take money?

　　靠山吃山,靠水吃水,靠游客吃游客说白了,这终归是一种利益逻辑。宰的是游客,“肥”的却未必是生态。

Backer has mountain,Draft relying on water,By visitors to eat tourists after all,It is a kind of interest that logic。Slaughter is tourists,“fat”But is not necessarily the ecology。