China Policy Journal Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2018 | Page 156

Chronic Noncompliance and Ineffective Enforcement in Guangzhou
Figure 3. Cases of closure and relocation associated with interagency environmental
enforcement in Guangzhou (Guangzhou EPB 2008–2016)
they can be easily frustrated by legal
processes which are not only time-consuming
and expensive but also technically
challenging in the presentation of
evidence. The 1997 Criminal Law for
the first time included articles of “crime
of major environmental pollution accidents,”
but it has not become an enforceable
instrument by which to punish
the decision makers of the polluting
firms mainly due to the lack of accurate
definition of crimes, limited coverage of
behaviors, and a high burden of proof
for the plaintiffs. Even when the environmental
offenders were sued, China’s
legal authorities, such as the courts and
procuratorates, did not have sufficient
professionally trained personnel and
the will to deal with environmental cases.
The absence of enforceable laws and
the weak capacity and will of the legal
authorities have led to a very low number
of criminal prosecutions against the
owners of polluting firms. In Guangzhou,
there was (before 2013) only one
criminal prosecution relating to the serious
illegal emission of pollutants; the
person responsible for the infringement
was sentenced to three years in prison.
Major breakthroughs in China’s
environmental criminal enforcement
came from a special judicial interpretation
made by the Supreme People’s
Court (SPC) in 2013 that specified 14
circumstances that should considered
as “serious environment pollution” and
five criteria for conviction without requiring
evidences of specific harm or
injuries caused by the violation, respectively.
These new legal measures have
granted new powers to environmental
law enforcers to deter and sanction environmental
infringements by specifically
targeting the decision makers of
the polluting firms.
In Guangzhou, the first conviction
for environmental pollution crime
153