China Environmental Law

This is how it is supposed to work.  The developer (a branch of China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) of the proposed Maoming paraxylene (PX) project to be built within the Maoming Oil Refinery Plant has apparently learned the lessons from Xiamen where well-orchestrated, but unsanctioned, public protests forced the relocation of a similar facility.

It is conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), according to China Daily; and, as it’s required by law to do, it has sought public opinion on the development to be included in the EIA report it will ultimately submit for approval to the appropriate environmental protection bureau.

So far it’s saying the right things

public opinion would be a key factor in the decision-making process.

“We will attach great importance to public concerns and promise an effective control on the gas, water and solid waste,” said Ruan Xiaowen, one of the staff workers responsible for the project’s environmental impact assessment.

The local populace also seem to have learned from the Xiamen experience; “[w]e should learn from citizens in Xiamen to join hands to oppose such a chemical project that has a high potential of pollution,”  Protests in online forums have been underway for a month.

“The site of the PX project is too close to residential areas. It will be very harmful to the environment and public health,” Zhang Youxiang, a citizen of Maoming [five kilometers from the proposed construction site], said yesterday.

Maybe yes, maybe no.  Someone’s going to have make the call.  The process so far seems to working as planned.  Let’s hope the ultimate decision is based both on the science and the concerns of the local residents. We’ll keep watching this one.

As China Daily is reporting, you can now get “realtime” (it’s updated every four hours) information about the quality of water in some of China’s major rivers and lakes online.  The results show pH level and concentrations of dissolved oxygen (DO), total organic carbon (TOC), and chemical oxygen demand (COD).  When I tried it out, it didn’t appear that “total organic carbon” readings were available for all segments.

Unlike air quality reports, surface water readings are a slightly less relevant to one’s day-to-day health.  Air is breathed unprocessed, but surface water will go through a drinking water purification facility before it comes out of your tap.  Even then, of course, many people in China will not drink the water.

Still, the data can give you a sense of how clean your favorite water segment is and how it ranks in terms of China’s water quality standards.  Here’s the link: China Water Quality Data.  At the main site, click on the water body you are interested in, then you can select a specific segment in box that appears in the upper left hand corner.  Your results will be displayed on the right.

The Roman numerals in the farthest right-hand column of the results box mean that the reading given meets the water quality standard applicable to:

• Category I: Drinking water source areas and national nature reserves.
• Category II: Rare biological habitats, areas designated for the spawning of fish or shrimp
• Category III: Swimming areas and fishery areas
• Category IV: General industrial use and entertainment use, not involving direct human contact
• Category V: Agricultural use and for general sightseeing

Pretty cool.  Nice work MEP!

The Good

During the first six months of 2009, Beijing experienced its best air in a decade.  Although just how good Beijing’s air is in an absolute sense remains in dispute (for all things Beijing Air, your indispensable source is livefrombeijing), there seems little reason to doubt that air quality has improved on a relative basis lately.  How did that happen you ask?

Environmental protection experts attributed the improvement of air quality to the reduced emission of pollutants and the after effect of measures taken during the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

I love axiomatic responses: the air is cleaner because we are putting less dirt in it.  No doubt this is true.  The cause for “less dirt” is probably a combination of pollution reduction measures and the effect of the economic downturn on industrial production and construction activities.  I suspect favorable weather conditions (”we swept more frequently”) also played a role, but hey, enjoy it while it lasts.

The Bad

While the environment in China’s rich urban areas continues to improve marginally, China’s rural residents continue to run a gauntlet of environmental hazards.

In Beijing’s neighboring Hebei Province, 400 people experienced “symptoms of vomiting, diarrhea and fever” after drinking contaminated tap water.  The underground water line apparently was infiltrated with an as yet unidentified pollutant.

Farther south in Anhui Province authorities warned of an imminent outbreak of blue algae in Chaohu Lake.  The algae, “nurtured mainly by pollutants of nitrogen and phosphorus,” “suffocates” the lake surface “killing aquatic animals.”  It can also result in the disruption of drinking water supplies if it forms near the intake points.

Li Guanggui, a fisherman said only three to four fish in his daily hauls of over 5,000 grams were alive during the algae outbreak last year.

Li Zhaolin, a resident living by the lake side in the outskirt of Hefei, said the lake has smelled so bad since last week that he could not open his windows.

“The dead fish have brought swarms of mosquitoes, affecting the life here,” he said.

You guys should take a vacation to Beijing as enjoy the fresh air.

The Bizarre

On Tuesday this year’s “Greenland dialogue,” an informal annual meeting on climate change began in the west coast Greenland city of Ilulissat.  First held by Denmark four years ago in the same location, this year it has attracted over 30 ministers and delegates from “[s]ome of the world’s biggest polluters — Brazil, Britain, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia and the United States.”

Where is the world’s largest current CO2 polluter you ask?  Pouting, it appears. The Danish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister had the temerity to meet with a certain exiled religious leader last month over protests by the Chinese government.  That meeting, according to China, “destroyed the friendly and co-operative atmosphere between China and Denmark.”  Ergo, no Chinese delegates in Greenland.  I suspect “the friendly and co-operative atmosphere” will be repaired (perhaps by the exchange of joke books or ethnic joy buzzers) in time for the global climate meeting in Copenhagen in December.  All’s well that ends well.

On the climate front, be sure to read Li Gao’s critique of ACES and Paul Krugman’s defense of “border adjustments” to curb greenhouse gas emissions (I like to think of it as “cap & trade locally, tax globally”).  Links to both can be found in the Twitter feed on the left.

Today, however, I want to return to one of my favorite themes, Tiger Wine.  The BBC News’ The Green Room is running an opinion piece by Debbie Banks entitled “Earning their stripes: A thriving black market for tigers is not helped by farming the animals.”

The people who work for the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), which is committed, among other things to “investigating and exposing the illegal trade in tigers and other Asian big cats,” most be among the bravest of the environmental community.  When you read their findings and note the “increasing role of organised criminal networks” in the trade, you realize that EIA staff don’t have safe, cushy desk jobs like we here at CELB.

As we have previously noted “[i]nternational trade in tiger body parts and derivatives is banned under UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).”  In June 2007 the Conference of Parties to CITES voted “to phase out commercial tiger farms.”

Wouldn’t allowing “tiger products” from tiger farms, where tigers are bred in captivity, alleviate pressure on tigers in the wild? No, just the opposite would happen.

Ms Banks [head of the UKEIA's tiger campaign] said this would be “disastrous” for endangered wild tigers. “Lifting the ban would increase demand and lead to a surge in poaching of India’s already embattled wild tiger populations,” she said.

“It would be all too easy to launder their skins, bones and parts among those from legalised tiger farms. This would be effectively declare an open season on wild tigers.”

In addition to international agreements (to which China is a signatory), Chinese law prohibits the domestic trade (including parts from farm-raised tigers).  As with many aspects of Chinese environmental law, enforcement is problematic.

EIA notes

tiger bone wine being marketed as a general tonic and packaged as the gift that wins promotions and seals deals [in China]. Call it a conflict of interest, but there has been no meaningful enforcement action by the relevant authorities to stop this trade.

As a result, tiger farming is still a big business in China.

There are tiger farms in Thailand but by far the biggest ones are in China, where there are reportedly around 5,000 animals in captivity.

Despite a 1993 ban prohibiting the sale and use of tigers in China, business interests have continued to breed them, speculating that the ban would one day be lifted and that they would be sitting on a valuable stockpile of body parts.

So how is China doing on fulfilling its international commitment to phase out these farms?

China’s response to a notification from Cites seeking information on what steps they have taken to fulfill the agreed decision was met with a curt and derisive response that told us nothing.

I can only imagine.

This issue will be discussed during the CITES meeting in Geneva next week.  If we hear anything more, we’ll let you know.  In the meantime, go get ‘em EIA!

Although it was initially reported that China “welcomed” the passage by the US House of Representatives of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), it has quickly pulled up the “Welcome” mat.  A Xinhua article, which could have been written by Pan Jiahua, ridicules and lambasts the House bill.  The US “fell short of taking on its due responsibility as a developed country, much less its self-claimed “leading role” in tackling climate change.”

The initiative by Obama to readjust the U.S. policy on saving energy and cutting greenhouse gas emissions has served to improve U.S. image on the issue. But on the key issue of emission reduction commitment, Washington failed to give the international community a satisfactory answer.

The new U.S. bill, though containing some clauses on reducing fossil fuel use, makes no mention of the country’s responsibility to the world on the issue.

Compared with the commitments of the EU, which use 1990 as a baseline, the US reductions, using 2005 as a baseline, amounted only to “a play of numbers.”

Continuing to show a deep aversion to any talk of carbon tariffs, the article reserves its harshest criticism for those who urge the imposition of such tariffs.

Some U.S. legislators went so far as to propose levying CO2 emission taxes on foreign products shipped into the United States. Experts noted that the consumers of the products rather than their manufacturers should pay CO2 tax. Such an attempt by U.S. legislators has nothing to do with “leadership role,” but only smacks of dodging U.S. responsibility in emissions reduction.

Consumers end up paying most taxes so this particular criticism seems misplaced, and I don’t suspect China would favor a consumption tax on Chinese-made goods as an alternative.  At any rate, it continues to demonstrate that the threat of tariffs has the effect of grabbing China’s attention.

China’s position on the less than aggressive 2020 reduction targets in ACES is a fair one.  These criticisms would have a little more impact, however, if China weren’t sniping from the weeds, but assuming a leadership position of its own on climate change.  So far China has not even been willing to propose any numbers to play with.

I love it when China refuses to play along with its most sycophantic flatterers.  You may recall that we discussed HSBC’s bizarre contention that 37.8% (or US$221.3 billion) of China’s stimulus package is devoted to funding “green” projects.  These numbers lead to mind boggling claims that “China’s leaders are investing $12.6 million every hour to green their economy.”

Wan Bentai, chief engineer at the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), has just slapped these hallucinators across the cheek. He was quoted today to the effect that “some 210 billion yuan (US$30.7 billion) will support environmental initiatives.”  That works out to about 5.25% of the total stimulus package which is even lower than the 10% some Chinese officials had previously quoted.  This is still a significant sum (although by the end of April only about 23 billion yuan had actually been spent), and represents a real commitment to the environment.  It is not, however, anywhere near the HSBC hype.

The same article also included some additional news concerning the Jinsha dam “stop work” order issued by MEP that we reported on earlier this week.  Mr. Wan reported that

“MEP has sent an inspection team to the construction site,” Wan said. “It found the two companies had already halted construction and workers had been withdrawn. People in charge of these projects from the two power companies have come to MEP to acknowledge their mistakes.”

The facts on the ground are anyone’s guess, so take this report with the usual amount of skepticism.  MEP’s next steps are unclear.

The fate of the projects will be determined via an overall assessment being carried out by NDRC, MEP and the Ministry of Water Resources, Wan said.  “Construction of the two hydro projects will only be resumed if they fit into the overall development plan for Jinsha River,” Wan said.

It’s a little hard to understand what is being referred to here from a legal perspective.  It appears that Mr. Wan is saying that a regional or “special program” EIA is going to be conducted to determine if hydro power projects fit within the overall development goal of the region.  Even if the results of this type of EIA support the construction of dams in general, a project specific EIA would still be required for each dam project.

One thing seems pretty clear, however.  With the NDRC involved these projects are in little danger of permanent shut down.

I just stumbled upon a China Daily opinion piece, “No Green Signal,” from June 16 that deals with the game that is played by the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and developers of hydroelectric projects.  In this game MEP and the environment always lose.

Often times, work on projects suspended for environmental reasons are allowed to resume because a lot of money has already been invested; and aborting the project by stopping construction would mean waste of huge capital.

In the circumstances, environmental watchdogs become hostage to the project promoters: The authority is forced to let the firms do whatever they can to reduce the damaging impact of their projects on the environment.

As far as hydropower projects are concerned, none of them has ever been stopped because of environmental concerns. It seems that firms involved in such projects take it for granted that hydropower is a clean energy; and, therefore, so is their construction of dams to harness river water for power generation.

However, that is far from being the case. Building dams along a river has proved to have a huge impact on the ecological system of the river and its surrounding environment. Such impact can be disastrous.

It concludes that it is hypocritical to say the “hydropower is a clean energy without taking steps to counteract the negative impact of dams.”

I doubt that we will see any changes as a result of this article, but it is encouraging to know that there are those who are willing to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection released the English summary of its “State of the Environment” report earlier this month.  We have read it so you won’t have to.

Let’s first look at the ten achievements identified for 2008.  Where interesting facts and figures were given, we have noted them.

• First, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council have made important arrangements for environmental protection under the new circumstances. [Zzzzzzzz]
• Second, the environmental impact assessment system has played an important role in macro control. [Not sure I would have placed this item quite so high given concerns about lax review of stimulus projects and the Jinsha River dam debacle]
  • 156 projects were denied or suspended.
  • Pollution reduction measures helped to cut down 468,600 tons of SO2 and 38,400 tons of COD annually.
• Third, a breakthrough has been made in pollution reduction.
  • Urban sewage treatment capacity was increased by 11.49 million tons/day.
  • 97.12 GW of installed electric generation capacity was installed with desulphurization facilities.
  • 16.69 GW small thermal power plant capacity was shut down.
  • COD discharges dropped by 4.42% compared with 2007, and 6.61% against 2005 levels.
  • SO₂ emissions dropped by 5.95% compared with 2007, and 8.95% against 2005 levels.
• Fourth, accomplished emergency response to severe natural disasters and guaranteed environmental quality for Beijing Olympics.
• Fifth, steady progress has been made in prevention and control of pollution in river basins.
• Sixth, environmental protection work has been unfolded in rural areas.
• Seventh, intensified efforts have been made in supervision of law enforcement.
  • 16,000 enterprises have been placed on the nationwide “rectification blacklist” since 2005.
  • More than 8,000 papermaking companies inspected in 2007 [sic] and 621 were shut down for violating national industrial policy and total discharge standards.
• Eighth, new achievement has been made in environmental legislation, policy, technology, publicity and education and international cooperation.
• Ninth, further built up capacity.
  • The central government invested 34 billion Yuan for environmental protection, an increase of more than 10 billion Yuan compared to that of 2007.
• Tenth, the three strategic programs are proceeding smoothly. [What the "three strategic programs" are, however, is hard to figure out from the description provided].

The report notes, however, that China is still confronted with a “serious environmental situation,” and “general environmental conditions” were described as follows:

• First, surface water pollution remained very serious.
  • The general water quality of the seven major waters including the Yangtze River, Yellow River, Pearl River, Songhua River, Huaihe River, Haihe River and Liaohe River were about the same as last year.
  • 20.8% of 409 sections in 200 rivers were graded worse than Grade V standard [presumably this means you could walk across the water segment].
  • 46.2% of the 26 lakes (reservoirs) under national monitoring programs on their nutrition state suffered from eutrophication.
• Second, the coastal areas nationwide were slightly polluted.
• Third, some cities had good air quality better than last year, but other cities still suffered from serious pollution.
  • 519 cities across the country reported air quality data in 2008. 21 of them reached national Grade I standard for air quality, accounting for 4.0%; 378 ones was up to national Grade II standard, accounting for 72.8%; 113 cities hit Grade III standard, taking up 21.8%; and 7 failed to meet Grade III standard, accounting for 1.4%. 71.6% of the country’s cities at or above prefecture level had qualified water quality, and 85.6% of county-level cities managed to do so.
• Fourth, 71.7% of the country’s cities enjoyed good or relatively good regional acoustic environment, and 75.2% of the 113 major cities on environmental protection managed to do so.
• Fifth, the radiation environmental quality across the country was good at large. ["Good at large" does not provide me with the level of comfort I'm looking for when it comes to radiation]
• Sixth, some progress was made in ecological construction.
• Seventh, the environmental problems in rural areas were increasingly prominent, with aggravated household pollution, worsening non-point pollution, sharpening industrial and mine pollution, and hidden risk for drinking water safety. The pollution tended to transfer from urban areas to rural areas.

That’s a wrap for 2008.  Overall grade, I’d say B-.

I made a presentation today at a seminar sponsored by a large, international company which offers environmental consulting services in China.  The topic was “Sustainable Redevelopment of Contaminated Land.”   There was a lively audience and lots of good questions.  Now if we just had a lot of good answers we’d be making some progress.  Unfortunately, the legal landscape related to “contaminated land” in China is underdeveloped, and what is on the books is vaque and confusing.  China knows this and is working on comprehensive solutions, but it could pick up the pace a little.  In any event, I’ll be back tomorrow with a more substantial post.

There was a little more information in a China.org.cn story today about the Ministry of Environmental Protection’s construction ban on two large hydroelectric projects on the Jinsha River.  Both projects started construction in 2007 and both are owned by subsidiaries of large state-owned power producers (China Huaneng Group and China Huadian Corporation).  The pictures that accompany the story (more can be seen here (see below)  h/t Greenlaw) shows that construction is far advanced; “the cofferdams had been completed and the Jinsha River [has been] dammed.”

The construction crews at the sites did not seem too concerned about the MEP’s order.

Zhou Weidong, general manager of the Ludila plant [a subsidiary of China Huadian Corporation], insisted that the MEP’s discontinuation order did not have a big impact on the overall project.

“It only covers construction of the main dam between cofferdams in the upper and lower parts which would have to be discontinued during the flood season in June,” Zhou said.

“The original river course has been blocked for the use of dam construction.”

Banking on the fact that projects where over 2 billion yuan (U.S.$292.54 million) has been invested so far will not be postponed indefinitely, General Manager Zhou utters a statement which becomes an instant favorite to take top honors in today’s  ”Pan Jiahua ill-considered quote” contest.

“What is done cannot be undone,” Zhou said. “The environmental appraisal report seems to be a mere scrap of paper under such circumstances.”  Zhou argued the MEP’s discontinuation order was purely a procedural problem and unrelated to the environment.

These companies know what they are doing when they start construction without approval of an EIA.  As China.org.cn noted:

Major projects, like building hydropower plants, are required to go through an “early stage” during which they must receive appraisal from the MEP before work can begin on the main part of the project. But investment costs are highest in the early stage, and companies would suffer great economic losses if they fail to pass the appraisal. Rather than wait and risk losing money, companies begin construction without formal approval.

I hope the MEP sticks to its guns, forces an EIAs to be prepared, and requires significant retrofits or kills the projects if the environmental impacts can not be adequately mitigated.  Time will tell.  For now, enjoy the pictures, savor Zhou’s quote, and gaze into the face of green power in China.