China Environmental Law

The weekly Economic Observer (EO), which is quickly becoming my favorite China-based media read, has a great English page. I’ve picked a couple of articles with particular relevance for environmental issues to review for today’s post.

The first (in Chinese here) doesn’t mention the environment at all, but could have great impact on environmental enforcement in China.  It involves proposals for the split in income tax revenues between the national and local governments.

The Chinese Ministry of Finance has proposed for income taxes - both corporate and individual - to be submitted entirely to the Central government for wealth redistribution nationwide; while the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) thinks that the ratio of income taxes between Central and local governments should be 6:4. The former has suggested value-added taxes to be shared between the central and local governments on a ratio of 65% to 35%; but the differing formulas are part of the Chinese taxation reform currently under study. Both the formulas have to some extent highlighted the need to increase the central government’s control of tax collections, contrary to expectations at the local level.

This element of governmental reforms - tax revenue allocations - is described as “最难啃的硬骨头” (the hardest nut to crack, or literally the hardest bone to gnaw). Fortunately, both the MOF and NDRC  proposals advocate an increase in revenues to the central government. This is absolutely crucial if China wants to make significant progress increasing the level of enforcement of its environmental laws. Fundamental change will occur only when local EPB personnel are paid by, and report directly and exclusively to, the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP). For this to happen, the national government needs to increase its share of tax revenues. I’m sure there are plenty of other demands for funds at the national level, and the EO article seems to focus on an increase in subsidies to China’s underdeveloped western areas, but let’s hope the MEP can get in line for some of this money. There is no other way to do it folks.

The second EO article (Chinese here) encourages the “tearing down of barriers on freedom of information.” The article contrasts the actions of officials in Fuyang, Anhui Province where the EV71 outbreak occurred with the hopes and aspirations of China’s “sunshine bill” (as the article characterizes it)-the new Disclosure of Governmental Information regulations passed by the State Council which became effective May 1 (which we discussed here).

The EO article reports that certain Fuyang officials “thought it was their responsibility to remain silent and control public opinion.” As with most attempts to control public opinion, this one ultimately crumbled

[initially,] Fuyang officials informed the public there was no need to worry about the “few” child deaths or fear that other children would be infected. Instead, at kindergartens where students had already died, they “prohibited making careless remarks”. Thereafter, even more children were infected after being sent back to school by parents.

But the truth came too late. By April 30, official data showed there were nearly 1,900 children infected and 20 deaths. There were 300 to 400 new cases of infected children every day from April 26 to 30.

Granted, officers did not cover up the situation - they informed higher-level departments in accordance with protocol. But they did leave the public behind. Within one month, panicked Fuyang was rife with rumors about the unknown “strange disease”. As children continue to be infected and the death toll mounts, it seems to remain beyond the comprehension of local officials there.

How can anyone expect that “careless remarks” will not be made when the public isn’t told the truth. Did they actually think the increasing number of infected children and deaths would go unnoticed in the community? The EO article suggests this mindset is “a practical demonstration of the Confucian notion that ‘ordinary people could be made to do what you want them to do, but not know why they should do so.’” Perhaps; but this notion has had a few more recent advocates as well.

Rumors abound in China because it is so hard to get a straight answer from officials. But public stability requires straight answers. Remember yesterday’s post where the protester in Chengdu is quoted as saying

“What Chengdu people demand is very simple,” [an Internet poster] said. “This is a policy [the location of an ethylene plant and oil refinery] closely related to people’s interests, so why was it not open to the public?”

Public participation in decisions which can impact the local environment increases governmental legitimately and stops the spread rumors. When handled correctly “public participation = public stability.” Here are the EO article’s conclusions

[The SARS experience demonstrated that the] people’s rights, including the most fundamental rights to live and stay healthy, are illusory comforts without the right to information. Only when information is open can citizens be more independent and strong, and society more stable. The Regulations on Access to Government Information, which finally took effect this May 1 after ten years of research and drafting, prescribes that government should voluntarily publicize issues of direct interest to citizens which demand public knowledge or participation.

The freedom to information is a basis of democracy. And yet sometimes this issue surpasses democracy itself, and whether to publicize or cover up, can truly be a matter of life or death.

When describing the outlook of Chinese enjoying democracy, Premier Wen Jiabao once quoted a poem, “if you ask about the hope of China, go ask the thawed land and rivers”. Likewise, we expect a green flourishing land and defrosted rivers. But before this scene becomes a reality, we are still challenged by whether or not we can break the ice covering information.

The publication of this article itself is encouraging. If China can provide more resources to MEP and strengthen the public’s access to environmental information and participation in decisions which can potentially impact their health and welfare, it will be well on the way to the creation of a strong and functioning environmental legal system.