Public participation drives environmental review of Gold East Paper
On March 2 2009, the website of Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) posted the “Re-notification of Environmental Review for the Initial Public Offering of Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co.,Ltd.” The notification points out that last August, six environmental groups, including Greenpeace and Friends of Nature, reported the environmental problems of Gold East Paper, a member company of the Sinar Mas APP Group, which was planning to be listed on the A-Share market. Environmental offices in Hainan, Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces then verified the reported problems, so the issue was notified here again for ten days. This move was immediately applauded by several civil environmental groups which believed that “MEP’s serious attitude further promotes the positive interplay between the government and civil society and blazes a new trail for joint monitoring of enterprises’ pollution problems by government and civil society in a comprehensive and transparent manner.”
After a pilot program in the last few years, the “green securities” policy was officially rolled out in 2008. Under it, the enterprises in key polluting sectors must pass environmental review by MEP when they submit documents to go public to the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC). The system of 10-day notification had already been set up as early as 2003 in “the notice of environmental review on enterprises applying for going public and public enterprises applying for refinancing”. Although some enterprises have failed the review, the case of Gold East Paper is the first time that a notification has triggered a fight between the public and the enterprise. As Faren Magazine wrote last year: “the two sides presented two completely different images of the company: one as a notorious environmental destroyer, and the other as an environmental leader in the sector. Who is telling the truth and who is deceiving the public?” Whatever the ultimate outcome of MEP’s review would be like, the fight and inquiry into truth may exactly be the role of 10-day notification.
In recently years, multiple environmental regulations and policies have set up notification procedures, such as the “Interim Measures of the Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment” and the “Green Securities” policies. Perhaps many people still believe that “notification” is a mere shell without substance, because the final decision will not be changed by the notification. There may be several reasons for that. First, the notification mechanism is flawed: either the stakeholders do not see the notification or they have no idea where to see it; second, the content is flawed: stakeholders may have no idea what it talks about and thus do not how to comment on it; third, the response is unsatisfactory: opposing comments are not seriously addressed and often rejected without explanation, so the outcome is the same no matter there is notification or not; fourth, the awareness and action of public participation is inadequate. All in all, when the notification procedure fails to serve as a necessary channel for the public to participate in and influence policy-making, the purpose of institutional design can hardly be achieved.
From this perspective, the environmental review on Gold East Paper represents another milestone following Yuanmingyuan Park’s impermeable membrane case, the Xiamen PX case, and the case of Ahai hydropower station in Jingshajiang River. In this event, “Green Securities” is an important institutional innovation that utilizes an economic lever to improve enterprises’ environmental performance. Since these truth-seeking environmental groups have harnessed the notification procedure according to law, a balance is struck between businesses, the public, and environmental review agencies. This balance leads to the role of institutional design and scientific policy-making; it also ensures that the Green Securities policy is genuinely subject to public scrutiny.
MEP’s re-notification of Gold East Paper is welcomed by the people, and the content is serious and detailed. Despite all the doubts about the company, it is fair to say that MEP passed the test. Environmental defenders may see more fighting of this kind under today’s financial turmoil. The re-notification conveys that this policy is serious, and this will undoubtedly boost people’s confidence.
Case review
- August 5th to 14th 2008, MEP issued a notification of environmental review for the IPO of Gold East Paper, announcing that “upon reviewing, this company basically meets the related requirements of environmental review for going public”
- August 12th, six environmental groups including Friend of Nature, Greenpeace, Global Village, Green Earth Volunteers and Green Watershed sent a letter to MEP, reporting records of environmental non-compliance over three years by Gold East Paper and its associated enterprises, and requested that MEP to handle the matter with caution and suspend the company’s environmental review.
- August 13th, APP China issued a “statement on the environmental compliance by Gold East Paper”.
- August 29th, after two-week’s self inspection, Gold East Paper issued “the results of environmental review on Gold East Paper” aiming at the nine major environmental problems mentioned in the first complaint letter written by the six environmental groups, concluding that the company has rectified all the polluting problems.
- September 2nd, the six environmental groups sent another letter to MEP, reporting that the emissions of waste water and gas by Jinhai pulp and paper has long exceeded environmental standards and posed a serious negative impact on the local residents’ production and daily lives.
- September 4th, APP China posted on its website “response to the environmental NGOs’ accusation against Hainan Jinhai Pulp and Paper.
- March 2nd 2009, MEP issued “the re-notification of environmental review for the IPO of Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co.,Ltd.,” noting that environmental offices in Hainan, Jiangsu and Zhejiang have carried out a second review on Gold East Paper and its associated enterprises based on the reporting of the environmental groups and the conclusion is that “in recent years, this company has constantly improving its environmental management and investing on the rectification of the failed pollution treatment facilities.”
- On that same day, environmental groups welcomed MEP’s serious attitude towards citizens and expressed continued concern over the forest as source of raw material, the information that the company has yet to disclose.
Comments
Leave a Reply