一个湖泊：环境治理成就环保法庭

陈华永 贵州日报记者

五月的红枫湖，高天流云，山青水碧，空气清新，这个比杭州西湖大6倍的高原湖泊，让人流连忘返。

但是，十多年前的红枫湖，蓝藻爆发，水质严重恶化。人们惊呼，贵阳的“水缸”变成了“染缸”。

拯救这颗高原湖泊明珠，催生了中国第一个环保法庭——清镇市生态环保法庭，它开创了中国环保司法实践的先河，开创了中国公益环境诉讼的司法模式。

故事要从15年前说起。

2003年至 2007年，红枫湖水库水质逐渐恶化，所有垂线均达不到国家标准，最差为劣V类水体。

贵州天峰化工有限责任公司被指为祸首，自上世纪九十年代中期建成投产后，每年产生 20至 30万吨磷石膏废渣，湖边逐渐堆集的磷石膏废渣达两三百万吨，严重污染红枫湖水质。

贵阳市两湖一库管理局作为贵阳市民的公益诉讼代理人，将贵州天峰化工有限责任公司推上了被告席。2007年12月27日，在清镇市人民法院环保法庭公开开庭审理。

法院判决，贵州天峰化工有限责任公司立即停止对环境的侵害行为，停止磷石膏尾矿库废渣场的使用，排除废渣场对环境的危险。到2016年，堆积十余年的数百万吨磷石膏废渣全部清运完毕。

这一具有划时代意义的案例，是中国环保司法开启专门化道路以来受理的第一例环境公益诉讼。

清镇市人民法院环境资源审判庭副庭长刘海英说，2007年启动公益诉讼时，是没有法律可作为依据，清镇市人民法院环境资源审判庭可谓开启了全国的先河。2012年，全国人大常委会修改《民事诉讼法》，正式从最高立法上确定了公益诉讼制度，公益诉讼的价值得到了最高立法机关的肯定。

11年来，该法庭用一个一个的判例，探索着环境司法专门化的新路径，为法律完善，提供一次又一次的实践参考。仅 2017年，该法庭就受理各类案件517件，结案492件。

2010年，中华环保联合会与贵阳公众环境教育中心作为共同原告，诉贵阳市乌当区定扒造纸厂水污染责任案件。这个案件是首例法院判决环保组织胜诉的环境公益诉讼案件，后来成为最高法院公布九起环境资源审判典型案例之一。这起案件的特殊性在于，法庭运用法律智慧解决了原告主体资格问题，根据《环境保护法》第六条规定，“一切单位和个人都有保护环境的义务。”

上诉案例判决生效后对立法起到了推动作用。2015年1月1日起实施的《环境保护法》明确了符合条件的环境公益组织可以作为原告提起环境公益诉讼，肯定了环境组织在环境公益诉讼中作为原告资格的法律地位。

以清镇市人民法院环境资源审判庭为样本，环保法庭在全国广泛推行，促使全国法院专门性的环保审判机构如雨后春笋般发展起来。

环境污染案件专业性强，许多法官相关知识欠缺，判起案件来显得力不从心。刘海英认为，审判庭借鉴国外的专家证言制度，为案件判决提供了更公平、更科学的依据。

周期性有计划地排放金属和炉渣，旨在控制熔池高度。合适的熔池高度有利于金属与渣的有效分离、喷枪搅拌强度控制、喷枪枪头损坏程度控制及熔池温度均匀控制，对降低抛渣含铅量百利而无一害。

贵阳市乌当区案件的审理中采用了专家证言，在这起水污染环境公益诉讼中，诉讼请求是要求被告立即停止排污。

然而，这请求给法院审理带来了一个现实问题：如何实现停止排污？为此，法院召开专家研讨会，专家一致认为必须关停企业才能达到零排放，最终判决采纳了专家意见。

2015年，吴国金诉某建筑公司噪声污染侵权损害纠纷也采纳了专家证言，被最高法院评选为2015年10大环境侵权典型案例。

“至今，全国法院以我们为蓝本，设立环境资源审判庭、合议庭和巡回法庭已达1000多个。”刘海英说。

One Lake:Environmental Governance into an Environmental Court

Chen Huayong Guizhou Daily Reporter

May in the Hongfeng Lake is all about high-level clouds, green mountains, clear water, and fresh air. This lake is 7 times larger than the West Lake in Hangzhou,whose view simply makes people linger.

However, over 10 years ago in the Hongfeng Lake, blue-green algae ran rampant and the water quality was deteriorated. People exclaimed that the "water tank" in Guiyang became a "dyeing tank."

The salvation of this pearl of the plateau lake gave birth to China’s first environmental court, the Qingzhen Municipal Environmental Protection Court, which created a precedent for China’s environmental protection judicial practice and created a judicial model for China’s environmental litigation.

From 2003 to 2007, the water quality of the Hongfeng Lake Reservoir gradually deteriorated, and all vertical lines failed to reach the national standard, and the worst was the Class V water body.

Guizhou Tianfeng Chemical Co., Ltd. was accused of being the culprit. Since it was completed and put into operation in the mid-1990s, it produced 200,000 to 300,000 tons of phosphogypsum waste residue every year. The phosphogypsum waste slag piled up by the lake reached 23 million tons, which seriously polluted the water quality of Hongfeng Lake.

The Guiyang Two Lakes and One Resevoir Authority, as the public interest litigation agent of Guiyang citizens, put Guizhou Tianfeng Chemical Co., Ltd. in the dock. On December 27, 2007, an open hearing was held in the Environmental Court of the Qingzhen City People's Court.

The court ruled that Tianfeng Chemical shall immediately stop its encroachment on the environment, stop the use of slag gypsum dump, and eliminate the danger of the waste slag yard to the environment. By 2016, millions of tons of phosphogypsum waste that has been accumulated for more than a decade have been completely cleared.

This epoch-making case is the first case of environmental public interest litigation since China’s environmental protection judiciary initiated a specialized path.

Liu Haiying, deputy head of the Qingyuan City People's Court Environmental Resources Trial Division, said that when the public interest litigation was initiated in 2007, there was no basis of the law. The Environmental Resources Trial Court of Qingyuan City People's Court opened the country's precedent.In 2012, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress revised the "Civil Procedure Law" and formally established the public interest litigation system from the highest legislation. The value of the public interest litigation has been affirmed by the highest legislative body.

In the past 11 years, the court has used one case after another to explore a new path for the specialization of environmental justice, providing reference for legal perfection to practice again and again. In 2017 alone, the court has accepted 517 cases and closed 492 cases.

In 2010, the China Environmental Protection Federation and the Guiyang Public Environmental Education Center acted as the plaintiffs and started proceedings against Dingtao Paper Mill in Wudang District, Guiyang City for water pollution liability cases. This case was the first case of environmental public interest litigation in which the court ruled that the environmental protection organization won the case. Later, it became one of the typical cases in which the Supreme Court announced nine environmental resource trials. The particularity of this case is that the court used legal wisdom to solve the subject qualifications of the plaintiff.According to Article 6 of the Environmental Protection Law, “all units and individuals have the obligation to protect the environment.”

After the appeal case's judgment came into effect, it played a catalytic role in legislation. The "Environmental Protection Law" implemented on January 1, 2015 clarified that qualified environmental public welfare organizations can file environmental public interest litigation as plaintiffs, affirming the legal status of environmental organizations as plaintiffs in environmental public interest litigation.

As a sample, the practice of the Environmental Resources Trial Division of the Qingzhen Municipal People’s Court, has been widely implemented throughout the country by the environmental protection courts, prompting the development of specialized environmental protection adjudication bodies across all the courts in the country.

Environmental pollution cases are highly professional, and many judges are in lack of relevant knowledge and the judgement of the cases tend to be incapable. Liu Haiying believes that the trial court draws on foreign expert testimony system to provide an even fairer and more scientific basis for the judgment of the case.

An expert testimony was used in the case of the Wudang District of Guiyang City.In the case of the water pollution environmental public interest litigation, the litigation request was to require the defendant to stop the sewage immediately.

However, this request brought a real problem to the court hearing: How to exactly stop sewerage? To this end, the court convened an expert seminar. The experts agreed that the company must be shut down to achieve zero emissions, and the final judgment adopted the experts’ proposals.

In 2015, the dispute of Wu Guojin accusing one construction company's noise pollution and infringement damage also adopted expert testimony and was selected by the Supreme Court as a typical case within top ten environmental infringement cases in 2015.

“So far, the national court has exploit our case as the blueprints, and has established more than 1,000 environmental resources trial courts, collegial panels, and circuit courts,” Liu Haiying said.