文章 Articles

中国环境法治为何失败?

环境法专家、北京大学教授汪劲认为,中国首部《环境保护法》(试行)制定实施30年来,中国还制定实施了大量环境资源保护的法律,立法成就卓著,但这些法律在执行中并未起到大的作用,总体上看中国的环境法治是失败的。

Article image

从1979年到2010年,全国人大及其常委会制订了270至280部法律,其中与环境资源、能源以及清洁生产相关法律29部,约占中国全部立法的十分之一,不可谓立法强度不大。此外还有大量的法规涉及到环境与资源保护,包括民法、刑法和有关企业的法律,还有一些国务院法规和部门规章。

同样,环保机构也在不断发展和扩张,权力不断加强,各级环保部门执法人员逐年增加,环保执法机构体系初步形成,环境监测机构也在不断增加。

但是,政府公开发表的环境状况数据显示,当前我国大气污染和水污染已发展到最严重的状况;中国受污染的耕地大概在1.5亿亩,是中国耕地总面积的1/10;因污染导致癌症以及其他公害病的发病率呈上升趋势;环境污染纠纷自1996年以来每年以20%到25%的速度增加,导致群体性事件不断。

上述结果表明,中国法律实施存在很大问题。西方国家在法律制订一段时间以后要对实施效果做一个评估。如果让我来作一个评估的话,我认为30年的中国环境法治是以失败而告终的。

从形式上看,环境执法存在的问题表现如下

第一,国家基本法律不健全,是整体法治不牢靠的基础。例如,2007年才制定《物权法》、去年才制定《侵权责任法》;国家行政法制方面的若干基本法如组织、程序、强制等仍缺失。另外,中国刑法对重大污染事故犯罪的规定非常落后,只制裁造成重大环境污染事故且必须有重大财产损失或重大伤亡等严重后果的行为,而对故意排放明知可能造成生命健康损害的污染与危险物质的行为,则未纳入危害环境犯罪的范畴。

第二,国家的环境立法在内容上没有大错,但实施起来也无大用。实践中可以明显地发现,当需要依法追究某些主体的具体法律责任时,我们却很难在法律中找到相关规定。

第三,法律的条文与立法目的相悖。例如,法律形式上规定有排污标准,但同时法律还规定企业只要缴纳排污费,即可超标排污。尽管现在法律有所改变,但超标排污现象仍然比比皆是,环保部门为了完成征收排污费的任务也对此现象听之任之。再如环评制度,它本身强调事前预防,但环评法却专门规定没有做环评也可以上马,前提是补办环评手续。根据我们的调查,目前全国补办环评的比例大约在50%以上,特别是那些“两高一资”企业都热衷于“补办”,因为在先拿到土地证和其他部门的许可证之后,可以倒逼环评审批,而事前先做环评的话,该项目很可能就通不过。

此外,公众参与和信息公开、责令限期治理和现场检查制度在执行中都存在这样的问题,归根结底就是所有的法律制度我们都有、看上去都很美,但实施起来基本不起作用。

2010年5月,安徽蚌埠市固镇县环保局因20天内3次检查一家企业,被县政府认定为影响招商,包括环保局局长在内的6名干部被停职。安徽有一部地方法规《合肥市优化投资环境条例》,要求环保部门的检查必须提前上报。其他地方也照着这样去做,其结果污染大户、高能耗、高污染的企业成了地方党和政府重点保护的对象。

在司法方面,影响环境法律实施的因素有几方面:

第一,对污染企业的处罚很难执行。按理说,企业不执行,还可以申请法院执行,但法院的考评机制在很多地方是以诉讼的强制执行来考核,而环保行政处罚属于非诉执行(国家行政机关做出处罚,企业不履行,就请法院来执行),非诉执行在很多地方不是法院考核的指标。因此法院对强制执行也没有热情。

第二,民众告状无门。首先表现在法院不受理。包括最高法院、地方高级法院在内的各级法院内部都有所谓对敏感性、特殊性案件处理的规定,这些规定执行的结果就是你去告状他不受理,他不受理你就没有办法。我曾对国家司法机关12000多人进行过调查,有50%的人认为为了维护社会稳定,诉讼通常不能够被立法。

其次,是受理了不审理、审理了不判决,再后是判决了也不支持执行。

第三,很少有污染者被追究刑事责任,反而很多以暴力抗污的人被追究刑事责任。我们看到很多案件实际上是受害者忍无可忍、告状无门才被迫采取暴力手段抗污的。全国律协环资委有位律师在为对污染侵害忍无可忍而针对企业采取暴力手段实施自力救济行为的污染被害人,被当地检察机关以破坏生产或者寻衅滋事罪提起诉讼时曾辩护道:“企业大量违法排污属于非法生产行为,当地政府和司法机关应当依法予以追究。”然而当地政府和检察院以及法院认为,非法排污不属于非法生产的犯罪,被告人堵他的路、断他的电才是犯罪行为。”当然这个现象背后也和执政体制有关。

除了立法方面,中国一些标准也在不经意地害人,看起来科学的标准实际上一点也不科学。以目前大气污染的环境标准为例,中国大概有20多项,而美国有187项。所以奥运会期间有BBC记者说我们北京空气很差,但中国理直气壮地说北京的空气是达标的。为什么?以PM2.5(大气中直径小于或等于2.5微米的颗粒物)为例,中国没有标准,没有标准当然就不存在超标的问题了。

此外还有执法能力不足、人员数量和素质的问题、技术保障力不足等问题也困扰着法律的实际执行。有句顺口溜形象地描述了环境监测机构的现状:“远看像烧饭,近看像烧炭,走近一看:原来是环境监测站”。同时,主要污染物实际治理的成本和虚拟治理的成本差别很大,包括我们现在统计了很多,说环境保护投资多少亿元,其实虚化的比例非常大。这是关于经费缺失的问题。

总而言之,“有法律无规则、有队伍无权力、有责任不追究”是当前中国环境法治的真实写照。

 

汪劲,法学博士,现任北京大学法学院教授,兼任中华全国律师协会环境资源法专业委员会主任。

此文由中外对话整理自汪劲在绿家园环境记者沙龙的演讲。

首页图片来自Yasmin水资源博客

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

一个巴掌拍不响

中国出口对象国的工业、政府和媒体早已经注意到文章中描画的现实状况一些年了。

但是,他们不但纵容这种违反环境法的行为,甚至通过继续从中国进口鼓励这种做法。

因此,中国国内对这些国家自然不可能持过高评价的。

It Takes Two To Tango

Industry, government and the media in countries to which China exports stuff have for some years been aware of the reality which this article so clearly portrays.

However, they not only condone such abuses but encourage it through their countries' continued imports.

Consequently, perceptions of those countries from within China are unlikely to be flattering.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

环保法执行——一个笑话

中国环保法执行的根本缺陷在于其政府的官僚结构,地方官员——从省到市到县到村——都是主要按他们管制下的企业创造的GDP(以及税收额)来评定政绩的。因此,这些官员便成了污染企业的保护者。

而且当地方政府阶层的环保局是对当地政府负责,而非对独立立法机构如北京环境保护部等负责的,这样问题就更大了。这些环保官员常常对违反相关法律的行为视若无睹,以免惹怒上级领导。

简单来说,除了所有的立法之外,环保今天在中国来说也不过是个笑话。

Blueleaf.

PE Enforcement--A Farce

The fundamental flaw of China's environmental protection enforcement lies in its governmental-bureaucratic structure in which officials at the local level - from provincial, city, township down to village - are evaluated for promotion based heavily on 'GDP' (and tax revenues generated) contribution from industries under their charge. As a result, such officials often become 'protector' of the polluter.

The problem is further magnified when the environmental protection bureau at the local governmental levels is accountable to the local government - and not to an independent regulatory body such as the environmental protection ministry in Beijing. More than often, these local PE officials choose to turn a blind eye on the offender to avoid "ruffling the feather".

In short, despite of all the legislation, PE in China as of to date is nothing more than a farce.

Blueleaf.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

都一个样

如果我们讨论这个环保法不成功这件事情,那么我们先要看看我们成功的立法以及成功被执行的法律是什么,这样就有了一个可以对比的对象,分析起来也就有礼有节了。

从文章看来,是我们的法律基本上都是这个样子,所以呢,个人认为这个也不是件特别值得大惊小怪的事情。我们的饼画得特别的大,我们的菜单做得很精美,只是我们没有料,也没有这个厨师,能够做得出来。我们呼唤的是适合我们情况的,能够执行的法律,哪怕小一些也没事。恐怕就只是这件事情,也会很难。

All part of the same issue

If we wish to discuss the failure of China' green laws, we should first take a look at laws which have been successfully enacted and implemented in China as a point of comparison, so that we can make a fair analysis.

From this article it can be seen that the problem is with our legal system as a whole. As such, I personally feel that it shouldn't really come as a great surprise that our green laws are useless. Grand designs and a fancy menu count for nothing if you don't have the ingredients or a chef to actually do the cooking. What we need are practicable laws for any given circumstances, no matter how trivial. I fear even this might prove too difficult.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

中国的法和美国的法

法律都是人制定的,既然结果那么差强人意,想必也是人的问题,这个不能否认吧。为了了解这个问题到底出在哪儿,我研究了一下美国的Waxman Markey Bill,也就是所谓的Cap & Trade这个法律提案,虽然最近美国参议员否决了这个议案,不要紧,咱们可以参考参考。

真是不看不知道,一看吓一跳。这个法案长达1428页,覆盖了能源的方方面面,引述了很多(具体数量未知)的以前的法律和法规,从人才的培养,研究和科研计划到拨款,对能源部和环保局乃至教育部的要求,到相关具体行业(只要是水泥和钢铁)的现状调查,减排目标,财政补贴,都有详尽的说明,你不能不佩服这个美国人确实是厉害,虽然起草之前没人知道该法律提案能不能生效,人家还是考虑的很周到,而且不是一般的周到。

我也纳闷,提案能否通过八字没一撇呢,何必那么认真呢?劳民伤财,值得吗?这个我不理解,不理解就算了吧。再一想,反而明白了为什么美国有那么多律师(占了全球的80%),为什么律师那么赚钱,人家确实有水平啊!再看我们的新版《节约能源法》,短短的30来页,当然了也是面面俱到,字面上挑不出一个毛病,可是你总是感觉,不痛不痒,没有重点,所以实践中派不上用处实在不需要大惊小怪,本来也没叫你用嘛,有问题,请教政府来给你解释,想到这,我也就释然了。我们的法和人家的法不一样,虽然都是叫做“法”。不知道汪教授,如果屈尊看到这篇文章,会怎么想呢?

[email protected]
同济大学访问教授

Laws in China and in the US

Since laws are made by people, the failure of laws can be attributed to the law-makers, it's undeniable. To understand the root of the problem, I studied the American Waxman Markey Bill, which is also called Cap&Trade Bill. Although it has recently been rejected by US senators, we can still draw some lessons from it.

This 1428 pages long bill struck me with its detailed coverage of every aspect of energy, ranging from training for workers, financial support for R&D, the requirements of the US Department of Energy, Department of Environmental Protection and even Department of Education, to the investigations of the relative industries (cement, iron and steel), emission reduction target, and subsidies, in which numerous old laws and regulations are used for reference. You must admire these Americans for taking so many issues into consideration despite the fact that when they drafted the bill nobody knew whether it would have been approved.

I am also wondering why they drafted it so carefully when they weren't even sure about the Senate's approval. Is it worth such a waste of money? I don't understand. Forget it. On the other hand, I suddenly understand why there are so many lawyers in the US (they take up 80% of the total number in the world) and why they earn so much, it is because they deserve it!
Let's take a look at the new Chinese law on energy saving. It is only 30 pages long, but it covers all the issues and no mistakes can be picked out. However, it can be perceived as very superficial and lacking in content. Therefore it is natural if you don't find it practical, because laws are not for you to use. Any question should be sent to the government who will explain everything. I am relieved when I think of this. Despite being called the same, laws in China are different from those in other countries. What would Professor Wang, the author of the article, think of my comments?

[email protected]
visiting professor in Tongji University

(this comment is translated by Dong Hebing)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

环保法庭

环保法庭什么时候才能建立呢???司法制度跟进才能让环境立法得以实施。

Environmental Courts

When will environment courts be set up??? Only then will the judicial system be able to implement environmental legislation.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

环保法执行——一个笑话

原文最后一句的意思如下:
“总结起来,虽然中国不缺环保的法律,但目前看来,环保还不过是场闹剧。”

Our green laws are a joke

The meaning of last sentence of this article is as follows:
"In conclusion, although China does have environmental laws, for the time being at least, environmental protection is an absolute farce."

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

法律完全取决于法律后面的制度支撑

什么样的制度产生什么样的法律,也决定了如何来“实施”法律。This is another nail on the case for a thorough political reform. However, where is the ladder to the door of heaven?
[email protected]

the making of law depends on the system behind

The system of a society determines the law of it, as well as its implementation. 这是进行彻底的政治改革所必须面对的一个棘手问题。然而解决的方法是什么呢?[email protected]

Default thumb avatar Reply arrow
gaidee

有钱能使鬼推磨

解决的办法,至少是暂时的办法,就是钱。钱嘛,让人浮想联翩,不同的人有不同的想法。制度的改变时比环保更难的问题,环保的问题, 不一定总是要通过制度改变才能做到,因为那是个技术问题。我们中国有发展,先从包产到户做起,为什么?人喜欢钱嘛,人为财死鸟为食亡,无利不起早,关键是让看得见有钱赚,鬼都能推磨,何况人乎?阿门。

Money talks

The solution, at least say the temporary solution, is money. Money entails thoughts, but everyone has his own thoughts. It is more difficult to change the system or institution than to protect the environment. Environmental protection is a matter of technology, one that does not necessarily call for the change of system. China needs development, and it started years ago with the policy of contracting production quotas to individual households. Why? Because money talks. 'Birds die for food; people die for money.' No one is willing to take the initiative without the inspiration of money. The thing is you should let people see there is money ahead. In an ancient Chinese saying, 'money even talks to ghosts', not to mention to human beings. Amen.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

Door to heaven

According to the Bible, the gate (or door if you prefer) to heaven is narrow. And wider gates lead to hell.
I hope the profecy does not apply to the world of energy and/or environment issues.

通往天堂的大门

圣经说,通往天国的“门”(不管你怎么称呼)是狭窄的。宽敞的大门只会带你到地狱。我希望这个预言不要发生在能源和环境问题上。

Default thumb avatar
gaidee

The blind leading the lame

In light of China's economic success (since the whole world agree on this) and also in light of the present state of the Chinese legal system, when comparing China and America, can we not draw the temporary conclusion that in actual fact, America's legal system is also not up to much? The U.S.A reportedly has the greatest number of lawyers in the world, and also the greatest number of criminals- reaching roughly 2.5 million people, causing an overcrowding crisis in prisons. From this perspective, is it not true that we can, for the moment, say that the American legal system and legislative behaviour is a complete waste of society's resources? Our own lax management and laws are at least partially effective. Looking at it from this perspective, it's a case of the the American blind leading the Chinese lame. China is lacking in some ways, but the USA is not necessarily much better.
To put it another way, if (and maybe this will never be realised) we had a legal system like the USA's, would we necessarily develop better, more advanced, and more sustainably than America? Is this line of thought more amenable to our nationalists?
Our neighbour, North Korea, is still in the middle ages, but it is a beautiful country, with free range chickens, ducks and organic food everywhere, and it has no environmental protection laws, no energy-saving laws or anything. Since their environment is better than that of America, should we be learning from the North Koreans?!
We've picked on the good example and the bad example, but where exactly should we go from here? Perhaps we should first resolve the "internal conflict among the people"

五十步笑百步

鉴于中国在经济上的成功(既然全世界人民都这么认为),同时鉴于中国法制之现状,如果对比中美两国,我们是不是暂时可以得出一个结论,那就是实际上美国的法制也不过尔尔?美国据说有世界上最多的律师,据说有世界上最多的罪犯-达到差不多250万人,导致现在监狱人满为患-从这个角度来看,是不是也可以暂时来说,美国的法制以及立法行为纯粹就是浪费社会资源?我们粗旷的管理和法律,也至少达到了部分效果。从这个角度来看,实际上呢,美国也就是五十步笑百步而已,中国是差了点,美国也不见得就好到哪里去。反过来说,假如(也许永远实现不了)我们有美国的这种法制,想必我们可以发展的比美国更好,更发达,更可持续呢?这个思路是不是更贴近我们的民族主义者的喜好呢?还处于中世纪的朝鲜,我们的近邻,山清水秀的,到处是土鸡土鸭和生态食品,也没有什么环保法节能法什么的,环境这点上比美国强多了,难道我们需要向朝鲜学习嘛?好学生,差学生我们都数落了,我们到底该怎么办?还是先解决这个“人民内部矛盾”吧。

Default thumb avatar Reply arrow
yugong

The blind leading the lame

If we follow the example fo North Korea we would have to accept that substantial numbers of people starve to death as they did in the 1990s in North Korea. It might not be so easy to get the people of North America to accept that.

盲目导致无说服力

如果我们盲从北朝鲜的例子我们不得不接受相当数量的人们因饥饿而死,如同北朝鲜在1990年代做的那样。让北美的人接受这样的观点也可能会很难。

Default thumb avatar Reply arrow
gaidee

四十步笑百步:回答Yugong

我们肯定不会效仿朝鲜,但是我们肯定会效仿美国。至于美国吗,也需要好好反思到底怎么办。都不容易,这个步子一旦挪开了,想收回来,可不是那么容易的事了。所以需要突破性的思维才能解决这个棘手的问题。

The blind leading the lame and deaf

We will never copy North Korea, but we will definitely copy America. As for America, they also need to reflect on what to do. It's not easy - this step, once taken, is not easy to reverse. We need to have some breakthrough ideas before we can solve this thorny problem.

Default thumb avatar Reply arrow
gaidee

认知不同

感觉交流起来很困难,很多人对中国的情况不熟悉。中国不是你在网上看到的中国,中国需要用心去体会、揣摩、研究、追踪,才能了解中国之现状以及未来。

Getting to know our differences

I am starting to feel that communication is very difficult, and lots of people aren't very knowledgeable about what's happening in China. The China you see on the web is not China - you need to take the effort to experience, ponder over, research, and track things down before you can understand China's current situation and its future.