[File photo]

A local court in Jiangsu province has ordered two environmental NGOs to pay a fee of 1.89 million RMB after the latter lost a lawsuit against three polluting chemical companies.

According to a verdict released by Changzhou Intermediate People’s Court on Jan. 25, Friends of Nature (FON) and China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation (CBCGDF) must pay the legal fees resulting from the lawsuit, while their demands for a public apology and environmental restoration fee from the companies have been denied.

As the first unsuccessful environmental public interest litigation case after China’s revised Environmental Protection Law took effect in 2015, the case has stirred up fierce debate among the public and scholars alike, with many worrying that the high fee may “dampen the enthusiasm of environmental NGOs to supervise polluting enterprises.” The new environmental law allows NGOs to sue polluters on behalf of victims.

Currently, the second lawsuit is ongoing.

Vague liability

The two Beijing-based organizations filed the lawsuit against Jiangsu Changlong Chemicals Co. Ltd., Jiangsu Huada Chemical Group Co. Ltd. and Changzhou Chang-Yu Chemical Co. Ltd. in April 2016.

According to their indictment, the companies used to occupy a site adjacent to a Changzhou Foreign Language School (CFLS) campus. The companies dumped solid waste in the area, which allegedly caused illnesses, including eczema, bronchitis and even leukemia among students at CFLS. CBGCDF and FON reportedly sued the companies for 370 million RMB for the restoration of the local environment.

An official investigation estimated that the three companies had polluted over 70,000 square meters in the area, dumping heavy metals and organic compounds. However, restoration work was not completed by the time the school opened its campus, CRIENGLISH.com reported.

Changzhou Intermediate People’s Court did not agree with the organizations’ claims, announcing that “the goal of the lawsuit is gradually being achieved through soil restoration being conducted by the local government, and the risk of pollution is now under control.” Additionally, the court noted, the three companies “cannot replace the government’s role in the restoration process.”

“The distribution of legal liability is a crucial part of the case. The local government and companies’ [roles] in the environmental restoration process need to be discussed,” said Tang Dawei, a research fellow at Wuhan University, at a seminar held by CBGCDF on Feb. 7.

Wang Xi, a law expert from Shanghai Jiaotong University, told CBGCDF that the local government should try to extract the restoration fee from the polluting enterprises in order to alleviate taxpayers’ burden. Wang also recommended that the government carry out an investigation before reclaiming the land.

Some scholars have drawn a comparison between this incident and the Love Canal scandal in the U.S. in the late 1970s, which led to the launch of the U.S. government’s Superfund program. The Superfund program determines the responsibility of polluters and helps with the clean-up of sites contaminated by hazardous substances and pollutants.

“I think the companies’ legal liability in this case is vague. China also needs a system to identify polluters and compel them to pay restoration fees and clean up polluted sites,” a Beijing-based lawyer told People’s Daily Online.

Whopping legal fees

Unable to pay the high legal fees, CBGCDF is planning to raise funds online to cover the costs, Thepaper.cn reported.

In response to public concern over the legitimacy of the massive legal cost, Changzhou Intermediate People’s Court said the legal fee was determined in accordance with relevant rules and regulations, Legal Daily reported.

“The court calculated the legal fee according to standards for civil interest litigation. However, this case falls into the category of public interest litigation, so the legal cost should be reduced or even waived,” one anonymous expert argued at the seminar.

According to an interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Conduct of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation, which was revised in 2015, plaintiffs in such cases can lawfully apply to defer or reduce legal costs.

“The legal fee is too high for any social organization, and we’ll keep appealing,” promised Ge Feng, director of legal and policy affairs at FON.