文章 Articles

皮革企业污染上海(一)

一家位于上海的跨国皮革公司长期污染数据超标,生产中散发的刺鼻臭气给当地居民的生活带来了很大的困扰,徐叔大报道。

Article image

2008年初搬到上大路祁连山路的聚丰园小区后,上海居民冯珉在56年的人生岁月里,第一次闻到如此难闻的味道,“那个味道就像狐狸臊臭加点沥青,还有一种猫屎臭。”在聚丰园小区门口,冯珉眉头紧锁指着西南方向,两公里外,是富国皮革工业股份有限公司(下文简称富国皮革厂)的厂区。

“富国皮革厂”成立于1995年,当时的总投资额为2990万美元,新西兰富国集团占95%的股份,是东南亚地区最具规模的皮革生产基地。其主要客户Giorgio ArmaniCalvin KleinUggNikeClarksRockport,以及Toyota等多家全球知名鞋类、服装、饰品和汽车品牌。

公众与环境研究中心主任及中外对话作者马军说,在他的中心收集的数万家污染企业中,富国皮革厂是唯一一家从2004年开始每年都因环境违规被环保部门查处的企业。

居民因污染致病

上大聚丰园小区位于上海市区西北方向,在上大路和祁连山路交界处,是上海大学地块最大的居住小区,在上海,相似地块的房价每平方米至少1万5千元,但在这里,一套170平方米的复式住宅,售价仅为180万。聚丰园周围的房产中介公司在介绍时总要加一句——“超低价位”。

北章村与富国皮革厂仅有一墙之隔。在离村口很远的南大路上,就闻到了阵阵刺鼻的味道,越往里走,眼睛越觉得干涩,鼻腔一阵阵发酸,呼吸有些不畅起来。

“太久了,我们都闻不出来了。”38岁的村民章志东无奈地说。从70年代开始,北章村就被皮革工厂包围,土地也被污染了。章东亮说,富国皮革厂1996年在这 里投产以来,浓浓的臭鸡蛋味道就开始萦绕,“住在这里的富国厂工人,回家把自行车往院子里一停,一个院子都是臭鸡蛋的味道!”

上海市环保局与宝山区环保局发布的环保执法信息显示,从2004年到2008年,富国连年因环境违规被环保部门查处。 记者致电宝山环保局一位负责人,向其询问2009年对富国的监测结果,该负责人向环境监测站询问后,回电给记者:“富国肯定还是超标!”

收购国企转移污染源

聚丰园居民、上海第四制药厂退休工程师周其超为记者解释说,富国先把皮革浸泡,刮掉皮革上残余的浮肉和脂肪,然后进行去油、去脂、脱毛和铬鞣处理,进一步鞣化熟制,在这个过程中,皮革上的残余脂肪和蛋白质产生了臭气,溶解在废水中,就像小河里有机物腐败一样。富国说他们用喷浆工艺吸收臭气,那也是解决不了的,因为必须进行连续喷淋、反复多次才能吸收,“但他们肯定不会这样用水,因为用水量太大,成本太高了。”

宝山区环保局2008年10月对富国皮革厂的处罚,印证了周其超的说法,因为富国皮革厂根本没有用水——“闲置大气污染治理设施,废气直排出去!”

持久的臭气引来居民持久的抗议,冯珉说,居民数次写信给市政府要求搬迁富国,居民还自费成立了调查组,收集富国排污的证据。章北村的几个生产队,也数次与富国交涉。近两年,富革的臭气已经少了很多。借住在此的富国皮革厂工人徐军也证实,富国污染最大的流水线已在2008年停产。徐军平时的工作,是给已经熟制完毕的半成品皮上色轧花,然后做成汽车上的真皮座椅,“这些工艺不会产生污染。”徐军说。

“现在是周边的小厂污染得厉害。”章志东说。他带领记者围着富国皮革厂转了一圈,并没闻到特别浓烈的臭味,倒是在周围的红光制革厂、皮革化工厂门口,闻到了令人胸闷的刺激性味道,而在富国皮革厂周边还有很多制革相关企业。村民反映,这些厂也在偷偷排污。

不过记者在查阅工商资料时意外发现,富国皮革厂周围那些被村民们称为“晚上肆无忌惮排放废气”的小厂——上海火炬鞋业有限公司上海皮革箱包厂上海皮革化工厂上海制球联合公司上海伟星机用皮件厂上海益民制革厂、红光制革厂,早在2004年前,就都成了富国集团的子公司。而在市、区环保局给当地居民的每封回信中几乎都会点名的三家企业——上海富国皮革有限公司、上海红光皮革厂、上海皮革化工厂,其实同属富国集团一家。

富国工业CEO:臭味并非来自富国皮革厂

2009年11月17日下午,富国皮革厂CEO鲍勃·摩尔对记者说:“从我三月来上海工作至今,从未闻到过你们所说的‘臭味’。”

上大地区的居民在网上论坛里记录了闻到臭味的时间,仅2009年8月,就有11、12、13、14、19、20、27、30日这8天闻到了臭味。

鲍勃·摩尔拿出一份调查报告,上面记录了10月16日之后半个月内,在聚丰园小区附近的气味记录,“这根本不是什么硫化氢的臭味,很多都是氨水的味道,那是化工厂发出的,和富国没有关系。”

鲍勃·摩尔说,自从他来到富国皮革厂之后,一直在环境保护方面做努力,“2004年到2008年,我们都受到了处罚,那是因为我们在不断改善的同时,环保标准也在逐年提高,我相信2009年和前几年是不一样的。”

记者说,宝山区环保局告诉记者,富国2009年依旧超标。鲍勃·摩尔略带愤怒地说,“不可能!没有任何一级政府机构告诉过我,除非宝山环保局把数据拿到桌面上来,我可以对着数据和他们谈!”

他认为,富国旁边很多小厂在排污,不要一闻到味道就想当然地说“那是从富国飘过来的”。记者问他,富国皮革厂周围的多家排污小厂实为富国所有,他如何解释?他没有否认,但说:“我只是富国皮革工业股份有限公司的老板,我的管辖范围是富国皮革厂,我能做的是控制富国皮革厂的废气排放,周围的这些厂我管不到。”

但鲍勃·摩尔的名片显示,他不仅是富国皮革厂CEO,还是富国集团四大支柱产业之一的“富国工业”(Richina Industries)总裁兼首席执行官(President & CEO),而在富国集团网站上,“富国工业”这一栏中,赫然列着“富国皮革工业股份有限公司”和“上海皮革有限公司”。而富国皮革厂周围那些他说“管不到”的厂,都是上海皮革有限公司的下属企业

11月25日,记者收到了鲍勃·摩尔的寄来9月18日、10月28日两天,上海轻工环境保护压力容器监测总站对富国做的两份环境影响评估检测报告。

一直代表居民与富国皮革厂交涉的NGO“自然之友”易晓武告诉记者,他们对富国的要求,并不是仅仅做一个“环境影响评估检测”,而是做一个系统的、全面的“环境责任审计”,“那样可以跟踪富国的每一步生产环节,看污染到底发生在哪个环节,但富国只肯接受事先知道时间和地点的环境影响评估检测。”


徐叔大,上海记者。

下一篇
:向富国集团施压

 
首页图片来自coco+kelley

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

好报道

希望中外对话上多出现一些这样深入生活深入身边的好报道!

Good Report

I hope that many more good articles like this will appear on China Dialogue, good in- depth articles which go deeply into life and things people can relate to!

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

还上海一片蓝天

上海人民强烈要求把这些污染上海环境的企业搬出上海 !! 还上海一片蓝天 !!

give back a clear sky to Shanghai

People in Shanghai are demanding strongly that those polluting factories must be moved out of Shanghai. Give back a clear sky to Shanghai !

Translated by Anna(陈丽英)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

那把谁的蓝天夺走?

2号评论很激动,我相信这位朋友身在上海。

问题是把污染企业迁出上海,还上海一片蓝天,那么他们要迁去哪里,把哪里的蓝天给剥夺掉呢?

关键是要整顿这些污染企业,罚款和拉闸限电居然都不起作用?那说明罚款罚的不够,电也给的太多,根本起不了威慑作用。

不给上海蓝天的究竟是这些企业,还是舍不得丢掉一块肥肉的职能部门?

So then, whose blue sky should be snatched away?

Comment number two was a very excited remark, I'm convinced that this user is in Shanghai.

The problem is that if polluting industries move out of Shanghai, and give Shanghai back its blue sky, then wherever they move to will be deprived of its blue sky.

The crucial point is that these polluting industries need to be cleaned up, yet fines and power rationing surprisingly appear to have no effect. This means that the fines are not sufficient and that too much electricity is given, which will not act as a deterrent at all.

Is it ultimately these industries that don't give Shanghai its blue sky, or is it functional departments unwilling to lose out on money?

Translated by Matthew Bailey

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

上海市政府做了什么呢?

在环境保护这个重要方面,我们的政府有没有确实的做一些有效的工作呢?只是对企业罚款,拿到钱就放任不管,连进一步要求停业整顿的处罚都没有,政府将怎么做?我们是用希冀的目光还是鞭策的言论呢?

What has Shanghai Municipal government done?

Has the government done anything effective in protecting the environment? What will the government do, given the fact that currently they do no more than just fining the companies. There is even no penalties on further internal-rectification. Should we look forward their actions or urge them to take further actions?

Translated by Anna(陈丽英)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

越大型的企业,承担的信誉风险越大

诚信经营的外企(换句话讲,排除在香港注册成立的企业或是在英国海外领土合并的企业)有可能收到当权者的责难。
但是,那些当权者,暗指那些政党,才是应当受到责难的。
并不是环境滥用,才使中国在海外市场保持竞争力。不过,海外市场会逐步将中国那些有严重污染环境嫌疑的产品排除在外,尤其对厂商在合同里没有说明的污染环境的生产过程

此评论由陈丽英翻译

The bigger the enterprise the greater the reputational risk

As in the USA, genuinely foreign-owned enterprises (i.e. not those listed in Hong Kong or incoprated in British Overseas Territories) are likely to be blamed by the authorities

However, it is the authorities - implicitly the party - which are to blame.

It is unlikely that environmental abuse is the only source of China's competitive position in export markets. However, those markets will increasingly exclude products made in China if the supply of those products is suspected of being seriously polluting - particularly if manufacturers "contract out" the most polluting processes.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

到底是什么问题

跟踪这个案子,上海的皮革熟制、鞣制加工部分迟早会搬离上海,只留下印花这些污染很小的加工部分,而严慈亮的富国皮革工业又在与中国辽宁省合作,在阜新建立更大的皮革产业基地。问题是,在政府招商引资,推进产业转型振兴之前,相关的法律、监管、执行这些方面完善了吗?能起到保护人们正常生活的作用吗?如果答案是否或者不确定,这不又是黑心资本家污染环境攫取利润的历史又要在我们眼前重演吗!

What Exactly Is The Problem?

Following this incident, leather producers in Shanghai will eventually move the tanning stage of the production process away from Shanghai, leaving only those stages of processing which produce very little such pollution. Moreover, Yan Ciliang's Richina has also co-operated with Liaoning province to establish a larger leather production base at Fuxin. The problem is, before the government attracts investment and goes ahead with industrial transformation and revitalization, are the relevant laws, regulations, and processes perfect? Will they serve to ensure a normal life for people? If the answer is no, or not necessarily, won't we see another chapter in the history of black- hearted capitalists polluting the environment in the name of making a profit unfold before our very eyes again?!

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

民主在中国和美国的两难境地

当那么多人在美国致力于一项不太可能的任务:改变人们的不利于环境的生活习惯,比如对汽车的依赖,对于single family和 suburban社区的情有独钟的时候,中国基于对高GDP经济的追求,完全不顾环境问题而进行对环境的任意破坏。

美国的难题是私人习惯是受宪法所保护的。民主的社会决定了政府无法过多地干预民众的选择,是喜欢开车还是做公交,都是出于私人的考虑。所以只能引导,但是效果往往收效甚微。

不像美国,在中国上海连买一把水果刀都要实名注册的今天,政府对于私人的干预无孔不入。真是因为没有程序民主的选举,政府无法用传统的选票当作legitimate,而用GDP作为执政合法性的证据。在这个前提下,环境只是关于关于人民的健康问题,既然他们没有选票,就不必在乎他们的健康,毒食品泛滥就是佐证。

所以说民主在美国和中国的境遇全然的不同,但是以不同的方式干扰着环境问题的解决。对于美国环境问题的出路是基于媒体,ngo等不断的对环境危机正方双方的报道,以及学校教育使民众认识到从长远上看,放弃一些眼前的方便,更能造福子孙后代。 对于中国完全是看不到希望,高GDP作为执政合法性的路的尽头,是中国将成为地球上最大的一片近似火星的地方。

Democracy is caught in a dilemma both in China and US

When people in the US are dedicated to the improbable task:Changing citizens' habits which are disadvantageous to the environment,such as the dependence on automobile and the great passion on single-family dwelling as well as suburban community, China has arbitrarily destroyed the environment—regardless the exsiting environmental deterioration —merely in the pursuit of higher GDP.

The US' dilemma is that individual habits are protected by the constitutional law. The democracy determines that the government can not intervene people's options too much. Whether to ride a car or a bus is totally up to the individual's choice.Thus,the government can only provide advices,which often end with little success.

Quite different from the US, China's government has more power to step in the citizen's life, especially in today's Shanghai, people even have to register with their real name in order to buy a fruit knife. In defect of the strict election in accord with democratic process, the government can't use the conventional votes as legitimate basis,but choose the GDP as the mark of the ruling Legitimacy.Under this premise,the environment only has relationship with people's health.Since they have no votes,the health problem becomes unimportant, the best proof is that poisoned food spreads unchecked.

Therefore, the democracy encounters very different situations in the US and China, and interferes the resolvation of environmental issues in different ways. The hope of resolving the environmental issue in the US lies in the sense of righteousness of the media and NGOs, who reveal both sides of the environmental crisis. Besides, the education has raised the citizens' awareness. They realize that they should give up the mess of pottage to benefit their offsprings in the long run. While in China, there is not a ray of hope,if we continue to chase the GDP,our homeland might turn to be the widest barren which is just similar to the Mars.

Translated by Yaqing Liu

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

不要区别对待中国

自从改革开放以来,没人否认中国发生了巨大的变化,全世界都把中国看作是超级大国。他们用不同的眼光看待中国。但实际上,中国仍然是一个发展中国家,这即意味着适用于发达国家的标准在这里并不适用。

不仅是发达国家,中国也想成为一个环境友好型社会。全世界把工厂建在中国,把产品带走,最终留下了污染和废弃物。这公平吗?中国有自己处理问题的方式。如果外资企业继续这样的行为,他们将永远丢掉这块最大的蛋糕—中国。

never treat china differently

Since the reform and opening up ,there is no denying that china has changed a lot.The whole world eye china as a superpower.They see china in a totally different way.But the main point is that China is still a developing country ,which means the standard for developed countries is not fitable here.
Eco-fridendly and human-friendly society is not the only thing for those ddeveloped countries,but for China also.The world brings their factories to china and takes away the products,leaving pollution,wastes here.Isn't fair or something?China has its own way to deal things.If foreign-owned enterprises just keep doning this,they will lose the biggest cake labelled "China" for good

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

如果实行更为严格的环境政策

我觉得其实不止针对跨国企业,对于中国本土的污染型企业,地方政府也没有实行过实际的环境政策。在面对发展经济和保护环境的两难境地时,根据目前中国对地方政府政绩的考核方式,他们只会选择牺牲环境利益。如果我们可以对自己实行更严厉的环境政策,也就不需要指责跨国公司的区别对待了。

If More Serious Environmental Policies Were To Be Enacted

I actually feel that it's not just international industry, and that local governments haven't enacted practical environmental policies with regard to domestic polluters either. Judging by an assessment of current Chinese local administrative achievements, at a time when they are facing the two difficult problems of developing the economy and protecting the environment, they only choose to sacrifice the environment. If we could impose more severe environmental policies on ourselves, we wouldn't have to point the finger at the special treatment recieved by international firms.