Environmental Public Interest Litigation in China

Environmental public interest litigation (huanjing gongyi susong, 环境公益诉讼) is one of the most significant developments in Chinese procedural law. Introduced through amendments to the Civil Procedure Law (2012) and the Environmental Protection Law (2014), and subsequently expanded through Supreme People’s Court interpretations, the system allows qualified organizations and the procuratorate to bring environmental claims in the public interest.

Legal Basis

The Civil Procedure Law (Article 58, as amended in 2012 and 2017) provides that organs and organizations prescribed by law may bring public interest litigation against conduct that pollutes the environment, infringes consumers’ legitimate rights and interests, or harms the public interest. The Environmental Protection Law (Article 58, 2014) specifically authorizes qualified social organizations to bring environmental public interest litigation.

The SPC’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Environmental Public Interest Litigation (2015, revised 2020) provides detailed procedural rules, including: standing requirements, jurisdiction, burden of proof, allocation of costs, and remedies. The SPC has actively promoted environmental public interest litigation, recognizing its role in environmental enforcement.

Standing for Social Organizations

Under Article 58 of the Environmental Protection Law, a social organization may bring environmental public interest litigation if it: was lawfully registered with the civil affairs department at or above the municipal level; has been engaged in environmental protection activities for at least five consecutive years; and has no record of violations of law. The qualification requirements exclude organizations established for the purpose of litigation and ensure that litigating organizations have a genuine environmental protection mission.

The SPC has interpreted these requirements liberally, holding that the five-year requirement runs from the organization’s registration and does not require continuous litigation activities. The All-China Environment Federation (ACEF), the Center for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims, and Friends of Nature are among the most active environmental NGOs in public interest litigation. Despite the expanded standing, the number of qualified NGOs is limited, and many potential litigants lack the resources and expertise to conduct complex environmental litigation.

Procuratorate Environmental Litigation

The 2017 amendment to the Civil Procedure Law explicitly authorized the People’s Procuratorate to bring environmental public interest litigation. The procuratorate may bring suit where no qualified organization brings litigation or where the organization does not initiate proceedings after the procuratorate’s suggestion. The procuratorate’s power extends to both civil environmental cases and administrative environmental cases (challenging administrative inaction).

The procuratorate’s role is significant because it has substantially greater resources and expertise than most NGOs. Procuratorates have brought major environmental cases, including pollution cases involving large enterprises, and have achieved substantial remedies including clean-up orders, damages, and injunctions. The procuratorate also exercises an oversight function, monitoring compliance with environmental judgments.

The Supreme People’s Court Interpretation

The SPC’s 2015 Interpretation established comprehensive procedural rules for environmental public interest litigation. Key provisions include: jurisdiction in intermediate people’s courts; the court’s power to investigate and collect evidence; the burden of proof (the defendant bears the burden of proving that its conduct does not cause environmental harm or that the harm is within permitted limits); the availability of injunctions, restoration orders, and damages; the principle that the plaintiff’s litigation costs and expenses are recoverable from the defendant; and the requirement that damages be paid to a dedicated account for environmental restoration.

The Interpretation also addresses the relationship between public interest litigation and private environmental litigation. Private plaintiffs may file separate claims for personal or property damage, and public interest litigation does not preclude subsequent private claims. The SPC has continued to develop the case law through guiding cases and judicial interpretations.

Landmark Cases

The All-China Environment Federation (ACEF) has brought numerous landmark environmental public interest cases. In ACEF v. Jiangyin Jingyang Chemical Co. (2012), one of the first successful environmental public interest cases, the court ordered the defendant to stop discharging pollutants and to restore the affected environment. The case established that environmental organizations could successfully enforce pollution laws against industrial polluters.

In ACEF v. Zhenjiang Haigao Chemical Co. (2015), the court awarded damages of RMB 54 million for illegal discharge of acids into the Yangtze River. The court applied the principle that damages should be calculated based on the cost of restoring the environment to its pre-damage condition. The case established the precedent for substantial damages awards in environmental public interest litigation.

The Green Dam Cases

The Green Dam cases (luse weiqiang anjian) — a series of environmental public interest cases concerning the Green Dam youth internet filtering software — addressed the relationship between environmental protection and technology regulation. While these cases did not directly concern environmental pollution, they established important precedents for public interest litigation procedures, including: the admissibility of digital evidence; the court’s authority to order interim measures; and the relationship between administrative enforcement and judicial remedies.

Effectiveness

Environmental public interest litigation has become a significant enforcement mechanism in China. Courts have accepted thousands of environmental public interest cases, and litigants have achieved substantial remedies. The system has filled enforcement gaps where government regulators lacked the capacity or willingness to enforce environmental laws. However, challenges remain, including the limited number of qualified NGOs, the cost and complexity of environmental litigation, and the difficulty of enforcing large damages awards against polluters.