The level of comprehensive agricultural law enforcement has been continuously improving.
Comprehensive agricultural law enforcement means the administrative penalty powers granted to agricultural departments by laws, regulations and rules are centralized and uniformly exercised by a specific law enforcement body established within the agricultural department. Implementing comprehensive agricultural law enforcement meets the objective requirements of agricultural law enforcement and is also an important measure for implementing national laws and relevant State Council documents. It is an important measure for promoting law-based agriculture, invigorating agriculture in accordance with the law, and protecting agriculture through law enforcement, effectively curbing practices that cheat and harm farmers, safeguarding rural social stability, and helping farmers increase their incomes. It conforms to the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of farmers and is the direction of reform of the agricultural law enforcement system. At present, the management targets of agricultural law enforcement are numerous, widely distributed and spread over long lines, which has invisibly created a chaotic and disorderly situation in agricultural law enforcement. Many problems exist, and there is an urgent need for a comprehensive agricultural law enforcement body and personnel assessment standards.
Composition of the administrative law enforcement assessment indicator system
From the perspective of indicator types, the following relationships should be handled well:
(1) The relationship between subjective indicators and objective indicators. In designing the indicator system, objective indicators should be used as much as possible, and the weight of objective indicators in the total score structure should be increased. Subjective indicators may be relatively “hardened”, that is, divided into several grades such as satisfied, relatively satisfied, and dissatisfied, and converted into corresponding scores. These are then added to the objective indicator scores to form the total assessment score.
(2) The relationship between input indicators, process indicators and output indicators. Input indicators include the human and financial resources invested in the initial stage of administrative law enforcement; process indicators include the daily work performance of administrative law enforcement conduct; output indicators are work performance results. The evaluation of administrative law enforcement effectiveness should take into account input indicators, process indicators and output indicators, but should focus on examining output indicators, with emphasis on examining the actual results of administrative law enforcement.
(3) The relationship between affirmative indicators and negative indicators. Affirmative indicators, also called “positive indicators”, reflect the achievements and progress of administrative law enforcement; negative indicators, also called “reverse indicators”, reflect problems and negative aspects in administrative law enforcement. Most of the administrative law enforcement effectiveness assessment indicator system consists of affirmative indicators, but it is necessary to set a certain number of negative indicators to comprehensively evaluate administrative law enforcement effectiveness from both positive and negative aspects.
(4) The relationship between absolute indicators and relative indicators. Absolute indicators use absolute numbers, that is, statistical totals, to reflect the state of administrative law enforcement. However, because different evaluation targets have different basic conditions, scope of duties, and work difficulty, direct comparison of absolute indicators is not entirely reasonable. Therefore, relative indicators should be used. At present, a “one-vote veto” is applied to major agricultural product quality and safety accidents and similar matters, which uses absolute indicators.
From the perspective of the technical requirements for indicator design, attention should be paid to the following issues: the accuracy of indicators; the specificity of indicators; the completeness of indicators; the feasibility of indicators; the independence of indicators.
Specific indicator content for assessment of comprehensive agricultural law enforcement bodies
(1) Relevant concepts
1. Agricultural administrative department: refers to the administrative authorities in charge of crop farming, animal husbandry (grassland), veterinary medicine, fisheries, agricultural reclamation, township enterprises, the feed industry, and agricultural mechanization.
2. Agricultural administrative law enforcement body: refers to agricultural management institutions authorized by laws and regulations to exercise agricultural administrative law enforcement powers in accordance with the law, comprehensive agricultural administrative law enforcement bodies established by agricultural administrative departments in accordance with the law, and agricultural management institutions entrusted by agricultural administrative departments in accordance with the law to implement administrative law enforcement powers.
(2) Assessment entities
The Ministry of Agriculture is in charge of and guides the assessment of agricultural administrative law enforcement bodies nationwide. Local agricultural administrative departments at all levels are responsible for managing and organizing the assessment of agricultural administrative law enforcement bodies within their respective jurisdictions and within the scope of their duties. The legal affairs offices of agricultural administrative departments at all levels are responsible for the specific organization and implementation of the assessment of agricultural administrative law enforcement bodies within their respective jurisdictions. Where a provincial-level comprehensive agricultural law enforcement body is established, the provincial-level comprehensive agricultural law enforcement body is responsible for the specific organization and implementation of the assessment of agricultural administrative law enforcement bodies within its jurisdiction.
⟦NL> (3) Assessment content
This should include the construction of administrative law enforcement bodies, legal affairs work, construction of the law enforcement team, conduct of administrative law enforcement work, administrative law enforcement supervision, administrative law enforcement performance, handling of administrative reconsideration, administrative litigation, state compensation, and appeal and complaint cases, implementation of reporting and supervision matters, social evaluation, and other content requiring assessment.
(4) Organization and implementation of assessment
Agricultural administrative departments at all levels should establish an assessment leading group headed by the head of the department, with participation by relevant departments or bodies, to carry out assessment work for agricultural law enforcement bodies and conduct assessment work through specific implementation methods. They may, in light of annual work tasks, appropriately adjust the assessment content and determine key areas and projects for assessment. The assessment adopts a 100-point system, and the score occupied by each assessment item is determined according to the scope of the assessment content. Provincial-level agricultural administrative departments should determine unified assessment items and scoring standards in light of the actual conditions of their locality and system. The assessment results of law enforcement bodies are based on annual scoring and are divided into three grades: excellent, up to standard, and not up to standard.
The following assessment methods are adopted:
The assessment adopts a combination of self-inspection and self-evaluation, centralized assessment, mutual inspection and mutual evaluation, and social evaluation to conduct comprehensive evaluation. The main methods include: reviewing relevant reports and materials and listening to briefings; organizing on-site inspections or undercover visits; reviewing law enforcement case files and consulting relevant documents and materials; conducting special work inspections or special case investigations; testing the legal proficiency of administrative law enforcement personnel; data statistics and report analysis; holding symposia; issuing law enforcement assessment and evaluation cards; setting up public suggestion boxes; feedback from reporting and complaint centers; hiring supervisory evaluators; distributing questionnaire survey forms; and conducting public opinion polls.
Assessment schedule:
The assessment of agricultural administrative law enforcement bodies shall be conducted at least once each year. Agricultural administrative departments below the provincial level shall report the administrative law enforcement evaluation and assessment for the year in writing to the people's government at the same level and the agricultural administrative department at the next higher level.
Supervision and implementation of assessment:
1. Supervision by higher authorities: A higher-level agricultural administrative department may review the assessment results of a lower-level agricultural administrative department. If problems are found during assessment, rectification opinions should be promptly put forward.
2. Assessment reconsideration: If a unit being assessed has objections to the assessment results, it may, within 15 days from the date the results are notified, submit a written appeal to the department responsible for the assessment. The assessment authority shall conduct a review within 10 days from the date of receiving the appeal and notify the appealing unit of the review results in writing.
(5) Assessment results and their application
The assessment results of agricultural administrative law enforcement bodies are an important indicator for measuring the work performance of agricultural administrative departments and their subordinate law enforcement bodies. Units rated as excellent in the assessment of administrative law enforcement bodies shall be commended by circular by the assessment authority in accordance with relevant provisions. For units rated as not up to standard in the evaluation and assessment, their qualification for selecting advanced individuals and excellent units for the year shall be canceled in accordance with relevant provisions, and the administrative law enforcement responsibility of the unit and its relevant responsible personnel shall be pursued.