生态环境损害赔偿诉讼与环境民事公益诉讼客观上皆有修复生态环境的功效，两种诉讼在保护客体、适用范围、诉讼请求和责任方式等程序设置方面极为相似，彼此间具有高度同质性。针对同一生态环境侵权的法律事实，既可提起环境民事公益诉讼，亦可提起生态环境损害赔偿诉讼，但实质请求权只有一个。在同一案件中仅能请求同一行为人为其损害行为承担一次生态环境损害修复或赔偿责任。当选择任一种诉讼时，另一种诉讼则会丧失法律上的意义，从而产生一种事实上的竞合效果。

这种规范竞合现象源于两种诉讼内部基础概念相互混淆，关系定位不清和设立路径异化等因素。为化解两种诉讼之间的冲突，优化制度结构，在对各制度不同认知和理解基础上，学界、立法界和实务界发展出“择一而用”“择优而用”和“同时并用”三种不同进路。在上述三种观念指导下，主要形成六种具体适用模式，即优先适用、排他适用、任意适用、限制适用、交叉适用、并举适用等。但在制度系统内，既有适用模式并未从根本上化解这种冲突，使两种诉讼间形成高度有序和协调一致的耦合结构，增强制度整体效益。

若一项制度不能有效与其他制度保持区分，终会沦为其他制度的一部分。面对这种竞合冲突，除合理设计起诉的先后顺序之外，尚可通过划分各诉适用范围的方式予以解决。相较于既有适用模式，“并行适用模式”旨在促使两者并立而行：从量上，按照一定标准确立和扩展生态环境损害赔偿制度的应然适用范围，摆脱包含与被包含关系的一般认知；从质上，注重彼此分工的确定性和关系的稳定性，防止相互任意扩张各管辖范围，从而最大限度地避免竞合冲突现象的发生。为证成“并行适用模式”的合理性和可行性，在理论层面，根据历史语境和语法结构梳理“生态环境”概念的三种解析方法，并从法学（而不是科学）角度界定“生态环境损害赔偿”的一般定义；从自然事实和权利本质上澄清生态环境损害赔偿诉讼的公益属性；从体系融洽和制度实践上确立两种诉讼的诉讼标的。

在具体操作设计层面，结合本土化特征，排除通过以诉讼请求、诉讼性质和实体权利等域外常用方式实现区分我国两种诉讼制度的可能。在正视生态环境损害赔偿权利人特殊身份的情境下，确立两项基本的分配和适用原则：一是法律效果为主，兼顾整体效果。二是实体法为主，诉讼法为辅。在上述原则指导下，将下述六种情形纳入生态环境损害赔偿制度适用空间之内。即：为避免损害发生和防止损害后果扩大，行政机关已经采取合理处置措施的情形；影响国家环境政策重点保护事项的情形；单行法授权行政机关起诉的情形；生态环境损害后果严重的情形；与地方性规定或政策密切联系的情形；需由行政机关替代社会组织提起诉讼的情形等。在该范围内，行政机关应当依法提起生态环境损害赔偿诉讼，并辅之以环境行政公益诉讼。但因“两诉”分享共同的立法目的，并非必然导向互不关涉和完全平行的立场，未来在进行制度改革上，应避免走入另一个极端，陷入“特殊到底”的思维误区，故应遵循“双阶构造理论”：诉讼层面注重自主关系，非诉层面则注重协同关系。

Objectively speaking ,both the ecological environment damage compensation litigation and the environmental civil public interest litigation have the effect of restoring the ecological environment. However, the two types of litigation are very similar in terms of procedural Setting such as the protection of the object, scope of application, claims, and assumption of responsibility, and they are highly homogenous. Regarding the same legal facts of the ecological environment infringement, both environmental civil public interest lawsuits and ecological environmental damage compensation lawsuits can be filed, but there is only one substantive right to claim. In the same case, the same actor can only be requested to take responsibility undertaken the due obligation for the restoration or compensation once for the ecological environment damage. When one kind of litigation is chosen, the other kind of litigation will lose its legal meaning, which will produce a de facto co-opetition effect.

The occurrence of this phenomenon of normative competition is due to factors such as confusion between the basic concepts of the two types of litigation, unclear relationship positioning, and alienation of establishment paths.In order to resolve the conflict between the two types of litigation and optimize the system structure, on the basis of different cognition and understanding of each system, the academic, legislative, and judicial circles have developed three different solutions. They are "choose Alternative Use", "use the Selective Use" and "Simultaneous Use ."Under the guidance of the above three concepts, six specific application models have been formed. They are priority application, exclusive application, arbitrary application, restricted application, cross application, simultaneous application, etc.However, within the institutional system, the existing application model has not resolved this conflict fundamentally, so that a highly orderly and coordinated coupling structure does’t formed between the two lawsuits, and the overall effectiveness of the system is not enhanced.

If a system cannot be effectively distinguished from other systems, it will eventually become a part of other systems. In the face of this kind of competition and conflict, in addition to rationally designing the order of prosecution, it can be resolved by dividing the scope of application of each lawsuit. Compared with the existing applicable model, the "parallel application model" aims to promote the two to work side by side. On the one hand, establishing and expanding the scope of application of the ecological environment damage compensation litigation system according to certain standards, so as to get rid of the general perception of the relationship between inclusion and inclusion. On the other hand, pay attention to the certainty of the division of labor and the stability of the relationship, to prevent the arbitrary expansion of each jurisdiction, so as to avoid the occurrence of competition and conflict to the greatest extent. In order to prove that the "parallel application model" is reasonable, theoretically, according to the historical environment and grammatical structure, three analytical methods of the concept of "ecological environment" are sorted out. And define the general definition of "eco-environmental damage compensation" from the perspective of law (not science). From the perspective of natural facts and the nature of rights, I believe that ecological environmental damage compensation litigation is a litigation used to protect public interests.From the perspective of system harmony and system practice, I have defined the subject matter of two types of litigation.

Combining with the characteristics of localization(China),I have ruled out the possibility of distinguishing between the two litigation systems in my country through common methods outside the territory such as litigation claims, litigation nature, and substantive rights. In the context of facing up to the special status of the holders of compensation for ecological damages, two basic principles of distribution and application are established: First, the legal effect is the main factor and the overall effect is taken into account. The second is substantive law as the mainstay, and procedural law as the supplement. Under the guidance of the above principles, I have included six situations into the scope of application of the ecological environment damage compensation system. They are situations in which administrative agencies have taken reasonable measures to prevent damage from occurring and to prevent the consequences of damage from expanding. Circumstances affecting key protection items of the national environmental policy. Circumstances where a separate law authorizes an administrative agency to sue Situations where the consequences of ecological environmental damage are serious. Circumstances closely related to local regulations or policies. Circumstances where an administrative agency needs to replace a social organization . Within this applicable scope, the administrative agency shall file an ecological environment damage compensation lawsuit in accordance with the law. And supplemented by environmental administrative public interest litigation However, because the "two lawsuits" share the same legislative purpose, they do not necessarily lead to a mutually independent and completely parallel position. In future institutional reforms, we should avoid going to the other extreme and falling into the misunderstanding of "special to the end" . Follow the "two-stage structure theory": the litigation level focuses on the autonomy relationship, and the non-litigation level focuses on the coordination relationship.