7.5 Wastewater Collection and Treatment Tariff
165
charge in most cities due to low tariff levels probably influenced by social pressure.
Undermined by internal tensions and conflicting interests, and defining its aims one
way but practicing them in another, this policy failed. Following the 2014 reform
reversals, more time is required to prove another internally contradictory policy
successful.
Cost recovery. As with the urban water supply tariff, cost recovery has been the
core of the 20-year reform process, but remains unrealized. This failure raises questions concerning policy: is cost recovery a reliable principle and is it appropriate for
wastewater pricing?
7.6 Pollutant Discharge Fee/Tax
The introduction of a charge on pollutant discharge occurred relatively early in China.
The 1979 Environmental Protection Law stipulated that the pollutant discharge fee
should be levied according to the volume and concentration of pollutant discharged if
exceeding the national standard. The 1989 Environmental Protection Law reiterated
that units should pay a standard-exceeding pollutant discharge fee and that revenue
must be used in pollution control. The 2014 Environmental Protection Law revised
these measures, requiring that the discharger should pay a pollutant discharge fee
according to national regulations, which extended the collecting scope from standardexceeding discharge to pollutant discharge (Standing Committee of NPC 1979, 1989,
2014).
In fact, the 1984 Water Pollution Control Law had already defined the pollutant
discharge fee and stipulated that units discharging pollutants to water bodies should
pay a pollutant discharge fee, and if exceeding national or local standards should
pay a standard-exceeding fee. The 1996 Water Pollution Control Law introduced
no notable changes. The 2008 Water Pollution Control Law further clarified that
those units that directly discharge pollutants into water bodies should be levied a
pollutant discharge fee according to pollutant types, volume, and collection standards
(Standing Committee of NPC 1984, 1996, 2008).
To implement the 1979 Environmental Protection Law, the provincial governments piloted a fee collection scheme. Summarizing these pilot experiences, the
State Council issued the Temporary Methods for Collecting Pollutant Discharge Fee
in 1982 to regulate the levying of fees throughout the country. The Methods specified that polluters should report and register pollutant types, volumes, and concentrations to provide the basis for collecting fees after validation by the environmental
protection agency or appointed monitoring agency. If more than two pollutants were
discharged, the pollutant with the highest fee would be collected from the discharger
(State Council 1982). The Methods divided the pollutant concentration groups into
those exceeding the discharge standard by 5, 5–10, 10–20, 20–50, and over 50 times
the accepted level and set corresponding rates for different pollutants between 0.04
and 2.00 RMB/m
3 .
165
charge in most cities due to low tariff levels probably influenced by social pressure.
Undermined by internal tensions and conflicting interests, and defining its aims one
way but practicing them in another, this policy failed. Following the 2014 reform
reversals, more time is required to prove another internally contradictory policy
successful.
Cost recovery. As with the urban water supply tariff, cost recovery has been the
core of the 20-year reform process, but remains unrealized. This failure raises questions concerning policy: is cost recovery a reliable principle and is it appropriate for
wastewater pricing?
7.6 Pollutant Discharge Fee/Tax
The introduction of a charge on pollutant discharge occurred relatively early in China.
The 1979 Environmental Protection Law stipulated that the pollutant discharge fee
should be levied according to the volume and concentration of pollutant discharged if
exceeding the national standard. The 1989 Environmental Protection Law reiterated
that units should pay a standard-exceeding pollutant discharge fee and that revenue
must be used in pollution control. The 2014 Environmental Protection Law revised
these measures, requiring that the discharger should pay a pollutant discharge fee
according to national regulations, which extended the collecting scope from standardexceeding discharge to pollutant discharge (Standing Committee of NPC 1979, 1989,
2014).
In fact, the 1984 Water Pollution Control Law had already defined the pollutant
discharge fee and stipulated that units discharging pollutants to water bodies should
pay a pollutant discharge fee, and if exceeding national or local standards should
pay a standard-exceeding fee. The 1996 Water Pollution Control Law introduced
no notable changes. The 2008 Water Pollution Control Law further clarified that
those units that directly discharge pollutants into water bodies should be levied a
pollutant discharge fee according to pollutant types, volume, and collection standards
(Standing Committee of NPC 1984, 1996, 2008).
To implement the 1979 Environmental Protection Law, the provincial governments piloted a fee collection scheme. Summarizing these pilot experiences, the
State Council issued the Temporary Methods for Collecting Pollutant Discharge Fee
in 1982 to regulate the levying of fees throughout the country. The Methods specified that polluters should report and register pollutant types, volumes, and concentrations to provide the basis for collecting fees after validation by the environmental
protection agency or appointed monitoring agency. If more than two pollutants were
discharged, the pollutant with the highest fee would be collected from the discharger
(State Council 1982). The Methods divided the pollutant concentration groups into
those exceeding the discharge standard by 5, 5–10, 10–20, 20–50, and over 50 times
the accepted level and set corresponding rates for different pollutants between 0.04
and 2.00 RMB/m
3 .