An update on environmental law in China
Lester Ross, a partner in WilmerHales Beijing office, discusses developments in the environmental sector
October 29, 2012 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
Six years ago, Lester Ross, a partner in WilmerHale's Beijing office, shared an overview of environmental law in China. Here he offers update on the latest developments in the sector.
Q: The last time InsideCounsel spoke with you, you said there was a greater awareness of environmental problems, as well as heightened attention toward enforcement of environmental law, in China. How has the country's attitude toward environmental law and enforcement evolved since then?
A: At the popular level, demonstrations now take place frequently against industrial projects that are perceived to be threats to the environment and/or quality of life, in several cases forcing changes. For example, there were demonstrations in Shifang, Sichuan, this past summer against a smelter. There also are demonstrations with respect to pollution problems for which the authorities have failed to take strong enforcement actions. For instance, demonstrations concerning Lake Tai resulted in the cleanup or closure of multiple industrial plants which had been dumping untreated or undertreated effluent directly into the lake, causing fish kills, and prohibitions on the use of lake water for human consumption and agricultural use. In Beijing, monitoring of air quality by the U.S. Embassy helped to arouse public discontent, leading the government in Beijing and some other parts of China to accelerate publication of particular matter (PM) 2.5 concentrations, rather than just PM 10 concentrations.
With respect to legislation, several laws have been enacted or amended, including the Promotion of the Cycle Economy Law (effective 2009) and the Tort Liability Law (effective 2010), which includes a chapter on environmental torts as well as numerous central and local government regulations and several Supreme People's Court interpretations. The Environmental Protection Law (1989) also is being amended for the first time since its enactment—a draft was published in August for comment.
Enforcement has been tightened, though it is still inadequate. Among the tightened enforcement measures are stiffer disclosure requirements in credit applications.
Q: Six years ago, you noted that China was particularly focused on environmental reform in preparation for the 2008 Summer Olympics. Has the focus died down in the wake of the games, or is environmental law and compliance still a major priority?
A: It is less of a priority for the relevant municipal governments [Beijing regarding the Olympics, Shanghai regarding the 2010 World Expo)]now that the events are over, but the projects conducted in association with the events accomplished a great deal with respect to environmental quality, including accelerated relocation and/or upgrade of industrial facilities, and the relevant governments are more aware of the importance of environmental quality for the economy and society.
Q: In 2006, you said the central government was giving more power and resources to China's top environmental watchdog, the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). How has SEPA grown since then?
A: SEPA has been upgraded to a full ministry, the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP), and there are unconfirmed reports that MEP's authority may be expanded at the next meeting of the National People's Congress to incorporate functions of other ministries. The Ministry and local environmental protection departments and bureaus have somewhat greater enforcement authority and public support.
Q: What advice do you have for U.S. companies that are just beginning to do business in China as far as environmental law is concerned? What resources should they consult? How can they ensure they are complying with the law?
A: First, understand that China does have laws and regulations that require compliance. Second, anticipate applying the same high standards in place at the corporate level for operations elsewhere in the world, but recognize that Chinese documentation and approval requirements are different yet must be complied with. Third, if there are unreasonable local regulations or standards that may affect the project, try to have them revised before getting underway. Fourth, have Phase I and, if recommended, Phase II environmental due diligence conducted before acquiring and certainly before building on or operating a facility to establish a base line between the presence of pre-existing and new pollutants. Fifth, conduct preemptive community outreach/public relations if there is any reason to anticipate public misunderstanding or fear about the project. Sixth, be sure to have good internal and/or external environmental and legal advisers to guide the process.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Trending Stories
- 1Tuesday Newspaper
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-85
- 3Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
- 4Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 5Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250