On December 4, the highly concerned case of Jiangsu Provincial People's Government v. Anhui Hyde Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. for ecological damage compensation ushered in the second instance judgment: to maintain the first instance judgment, Anhui Hyde Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. applied for payment of compensation in batches on the premise of providing effective guarantees. This is the first time that Jiangsu Provincial People's Government has filed a lawsuit for compensation for ecological environment damage as a plaintiff alone.

In May 2014, Yang Mou, manager of marketing department of Anhui Hyde Chemical Technology Company, illegally handed over 102.44 tons of alkali liquor from hazardous waste produced by the company to individuals who did not possess the qualifications for hazardous waste disposal for disposal. As a result, the waste alkali liquor was directly dumped into the Yangtze River and Xintongyang Canal, which seriously polluted the environment, resulting in Jingjiang City and Xinghua City. The tap water supply was cut off for more than 50 hours.
After the incident, two parties involved in dumping waste alkali were sentenced, but the compensation for the ecological environment of the Yangtze River Basin was not in place. On January 1 this year, the Reform Plan of the Compensation System for Environmental Damage, issued by the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council, was put into practice nationwide. It was made clear that provincial and municipal governments could file environmental damage compensation lawsuits as plaintiffs. The provincial government filed a civil lawsuit with Taizhou Intermediate Court in accordance with the "Program", which is also the first case of environmental damage compensation with the provincial government as the plaintiff in China.
In August this year, the first instance of Taizhou Intermediate People's Court ordered Haide Company to compensate 36.379 million yuan for the cost of environmental restoration, 18.1895 million yuan for the loss of ecological environment service function and 260,000 yuan for the assessment fee, totalling 54.8285 million yuan, which was paid to the fund account of Taizhou Environmental Public Interest Litigation within 60 days of the effective date of the judgment.
Hyde refused to appeal. After hearing the case in public, Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court pronounced the case in public on December 4, 2018. In the first instance, the people's government of Jiangsu Province changed its claim after the explanation of the court of first instance, and raised the main disputes about whether the amount of compensation for damages was legitimate, whether the pollution damage of Xintongyang Canal was reasonable by analogy with the pollution damage of Jingjiang section of the Yangtze River, whether the function damage existed during the period of ecological environment service and whether the calculation was reasonable. Focus, Jiangsu Higher Court of Justice after hearing that:
One
The tortfeasor who causes damage to the ecological environment shall bear the corresponding liability for damages. If the people's court considers that the plaintiff's claim for action is insufficient to protect the interests of the state and the public, it has the right to explain to the plaintiff that the claim for action may be changed or increased. The explanation is only a recommendation, and it is up to the plaintiff to decide whether to adopt it or not. The explanatory act of the court of first instance did not infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of the appellant, and the explanatory act was not inappropriate. The Jiangsu Provincial People's Government's application for alteration of the claim before the debate in the court of first instance also conforms to the provisions of Article 232 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China by the Supreme People's Court.
Two
The case occurred in the Jingjiang section of the Yangtze River and was assessed by Jiangsu Environmental Science Society. It was found that 17.3126 million yuan of environmental damage was caused. Although the environmental damage caused by the pollution event of Xintongyang Canal has not been assessed, it occurred in the same period as the pollution event of Jingjiang section of the Yangtze River. The hazardous waste dumped by Haide Company is of three kinds of water quality. The amount of waste alkali liquor dumped by Xintongyang Canal is more, and the dumped area is low-lying river network area. The water flow is slow, the pollutant dilution rate is low, and the environmental capacity is far less than that of the Yangtze River. The damage caused by the same pollutants dumped into the new Tongyang Canal is greater than that of the Yangtze River. Therefore, the ecological environment damage calculated by analogy will not be higher than the actual ecological environment damage, and will not damage the legitimate rights and interests of Hyde Company.
Three
The pollution incident involved resulted in the loss of service function. There are 161 species of aquatic animals, 148 species of fish and 59 species of important fish in Jingjiang section of the Yangtze River. There are also state-level protected animals such as Chinese sturgeon, porpoise and carmine, as well as national aquatic seed reserves. The pollution incident occurred during the fishing ban period of the Yangtze River, which was the most sensitive and fragile period of the ecological environment of the Yangtze River. After tens of tons of high concentration alkali liquor with PH of 13.6 were dumped into the Yangtze River, the pollution zone of 20 kilometers was formed only on May 9, 2014, which would cause serious damage to fish reproduction and larval growth in the Yangtze River, and it would be difficult to recover in a short time. Although pollution occurred during the fishing ban period, the assessment report showed that no fishery loss was found in the Yangtze River, but it could not prove that no loss of ecosystem services had occurred. The Xintongyang Canal is an important source of drinking water, agricultural irrigation and aquaculture. It is also the main channel of the South-to-North Water Transfer Project. There is evidence that pollution incidents have caused the death of fish. The pollution incident involved in the case caused serious damage to the ecological environment in the region, and it is difficult to recover in a short time. Hyde Company should compensate for the loss of service function.
Four
It is not improper to determine the loss of service function according to 50% of the amount of ecological environment damage. The pollution incident was caused by the illegal dumping of waste alkali liquor. Dumping occurs at midnight. Dumping locations are remote. Pollution is sudden and hidden. It is difficult to accurately measure the polluted area and collect evidence in time to accurately assess the loss of service function. Considering comprehensively that Haide Company has repeatedly deliberately and illegally disposed of hazardous wastes across provinces, the degree of fault is serious; the dumped hazardous wastes are extremely high in PH, complex in pollutant composition, and the degree of damage to the ecological environment is very serious and difficult to recover quickly; the ecological environment of the Yangtze River has been very fragile, and the great protection of the Yangtze River has become the consensus of the whole people. In the case of extremely sensitive and fragile ecological environment, the illegal dumping of hazardous wastes during the fishing ban period of the Yangtze River has a very bad impact and other factors. At the same time, in view of the conservative calculation method adopted by the Jiangsu Society of Environmental Sciences in assessing the ecological environment damage of the Jingjiang environmental pollution incident, the original trial was conducted. It is reasonable and not inappropriate for the court to determine the amount of loss of service function according to 50% of the amount of damage to the ecological environment.
In summary, the judgment of Jiangsu High Court rejected the appeal and maintained the first instance judgment. At the same time, in order to effectively link up ecological environment protection and economic green development, ecological environment should be considered comprehensively.The need for environmental restoration and the ability of enterprises to pay compensation and survival and development, Hyde Company can apply for payment of compensation in batches on the premise of providing effective guarantees. (Source: Jiangsu ecological environment)