652
Z. Wu
for the Environmental Damage Compensation System is under trial implementation,
which gives the provincial governments and below the power to file a lawsuit as the
owner of natural resources. What separates PIL from traditional civil litigation is
that the plaintiff’s qualifications are given by legal techniques, and the plaintiff is
not the “private possessor” entity of the public interest; in other words, the plaintiff
does not hold the substantive rights. On this basis, when the provincial government
or below as the owner of natural resources files a lawsuit claiming environmental
damage compensation, some questions will inevitably arise: What is the relationship
between the environmental damage compensation lawsuit and the EPIL? Does the
filing of environmental damage compensation litigation makes EPIL an ancillary
lawsuit other than ownership protection, with the latter’s scope greatly squeezed? To
answer these questions, we must fully understand the difference between EPIL and
traditional law when trying to improve the EPIL system, carefully weigh the similarities and differences between tort liability and environmental damage compensation,
and rationally construct a sound EPIL system.
Third, we should continue to improve the compensation system for ecological damage to ensure that the maximum institutional value of EPIL is realized
through procedures. The Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several
Issues Concerning the Application of Laws to the Trial of Environmental Civil
Public Interest Litigation Cases stipulates the methods of assuming responsibility for
ecological damage. In particular, the court can rule that the defendant should repair
or adopt alternative repair plans or pay for the environmental restoration cost. But
ecological restoration is a complicated process and covers many tasks, including the
investigation and validation of environmental damage, the analysis of the causal relationship between environmental pollution or the behavior of ecological damage and
the fact of environmental damage, and the physical quantification of environmental
damage at the litigation stage; in the court ruling, the determination of ecological
restoration goals and costs and the formulation of restoration plans; and at the execution stage, the implementation of the restoration plan and the evaluation of restoration
effects. Therefore, in the next step, we should consider cultivating and expanding
specialized appraisal and evaluation agencies, or forming a temporary expert group
to strengthen the feasibility of the restoration plan and maximize the restoration
effect within the budget. In the repair process, we should strengthen supervision and
carefully organize acceptance checks to ensure that the expected effect be achieved.
Regarding the management of restoration funds, “we must take a long-term view and
continue to promote the establishment of a national management system for environmental restoration funds; meanwhile, based on reality, we can consider transferring
the restoration funds to the soil pollution control funds for management or including
them into the environment damage compensation funds in accordance with the Soil
Pollution Prevention and Control Law and the Reform Plan for the Environmental
Damage Compensation System.”
Fourth, we should continue to form a professional trial pattern based on typical
cases. The Supreme People’s Court is constantly advancing the construction of the
trial system and mechanism for environmental cases. In practice, with the appearance of specialized trial departments and tribunals and the introduction of technical
Z. Wu
for the Environmental Damage Compensation System is under trial implementation,
which gives the provincial governments and below the power to file a lawsuit as the
owner of natural resources. What separates PIL from traditional civil litigation is
that the plaintiff’s qualifications are given by legal techniques, and the plaintiff is
not the “private possessor” entity of the public interest; in other words, the plaintiff
does not hold the substantive rights. On this basis, when the provincial government
or below as the owner of natural resources files a lawsuit claiming environmental
damage compensation, some questions will inevitably arise: What is the relationship
between the environmental damage compensation lawsuit and the EPIL? Does the
filing of environmental damage compensation litigation makes EPIL an ancillary
lawsuit other than ownership protection, with the latter’s scope greatly squeezed? To
answer these questions, we must fully understand the difference between EPIL and
traditional law when trying to improve the EPIL system, carefully weigh the similarities and differences between tort liability and environmental damage compensation,
and rationally construct a sound EPIL system.
Third, we should continue to improve the compensation system for ecological damage to ensure that the maximum institutional value of EPIL is realized
through procedures. The Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several
Issues Concerning the Application of Laws to the Trial of Environmental Civil
Public Interest Litigation Cases stipulates the methods of assuming responsibility for
ecological damage. In particular, the court can rule that the defendant should repair
or adopt alternative repair plans or pay for the environmental restoration cost. But
ecological restoration is a complicated process and covers many tasks, including the
investigation and validation of environmental damage, the analysis of the causal relationship between environmental pollution or the behavior of ecological damage and
the fact of environmental damage, and the physical quantification of environmental
damage at the litigation stage; in the court ruling, the determination of ecological
restoration goals and costs and the formulation of restoration plans; and at the execution stage, the implementation of the restoration plan and the evaluation of restoration
effects. Therefore, in the next step, we should consider cultivating and expanding
specialized appraisal and evaluation agencies, or forming a temporary expert group
to strengthen the feasibility of the restoration plan and maximize the restoration
effect within the budget. In the repair process, we should strengthen supervision and
carefully organize acceptance checks to ensure that the expected effect be achieved.
Regarding the management of restoration funds, “we must take a long-term view and
continue to promote the establishment of a national management system for environmental restoration funds; meanwhile, based on reality, we can consider transferring
the restoration funds to the soil pollution control funds for management or including
them into the environment damage compensation funds in accordance with the Soil
Pollution Prevention and Control Law and the Reform Plan for the Environmental
Damage Compensation System.”
Fourth, we should continue to form a professional trial pattern based on typical
cases. The Supreme People’s Court is constantly advancing the construction of the
trial system and mechanism for environmental cases. In practice, with the appearance of specialized trial departments and tribunals and the introduction of technical