China Daily (Hong Kong)

End cheating in environmen­tal appraisals

- JIXIAN COUNTY IN TIANJIN HAS BEEN RUNNING A WASTE-TO-ENERGY PLANT

since April, after local residents apparently gave it a green light two years ago. In its environmen­tal impact evaluation, the local bureau of environmen­tal protection said 200 questionna­ires had been distribute­d in the 10 villages nearby and 96.5 percent of the respondent­s had said “yes” to the plant. Yet recently, residents from six of the villages said they never saw the questionna­ire or received any other advance notice of the plant. Beijing News says it is highly possible that the power plant fabricated the signatures of villagers and submitted a false report to the local bureau of environmen­tal protection:

This is not the only case of its kind. There have been many reports of enterprise­s falsifying such questionna­ire results; in some cases, they even “obtained” the signatures of people who died in the 1990s. This is not funny. Behind each case, the health and even the lives of local residents might be put at risk.

One of the main reasons for this is a loophole in the law. According to the current regulation on public participat­ion in environmen­tal impact evaluation, public opinion must be sought in advance for programs that might have a serious environmen­tal impact, but the regulation does not specify how. In practice, it is always the enterprise­s that “solicit” public opinions, and some of them cheat in the process because a “yes” result is essential for their interests.

It is time the judiciary strengthen­ed the regulation. The local environmen­tal protection agencies, not the enterprise­s concerned, should be responsibl­e for soliciting public opinions. Besides, the enterprise­s cheating in their solicitati­on of public opinions should be punished, so that others do not dare to flout the law in the future.

The process of public participat­ion should also be made more transparen­t. In the Tianjin case, when some villagers applied to see the 200 signatures, they were told by the local environmen­tal protection bureau that the signatures are confidenti­al. This is ridiculous and will curb transparen­cy. The higher authoritie­s need to investigat­e and punish those responsibl­e if they find there has been any cheating.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from China