风险预防背景下的外来物种入侵法律规制

随着世界经济贸易的发展,外来物种入侵成为威胁生物多样性、公众健康,甚至生态安全和国家安全的重大问题。我国目前在外来物种入侵相关立法方面存在立法理念滞后、调整范围欠充分、监管碎片化、法律制度缺失且责任追究机制单一等问题,无法有效回应高风险社会对外来物种入侵的防范。在国内外相关制度经验总结的基础上,我国防治外来物种入侵的相关法律法规应在《生物安全法》的指导下,确立整体生态安全理念,采取风险预防原则,健全外来物种风险评估、引种许可证、全过程跟踪监测、公众参与和法律责任制度,优化外来物种风险管理机制,促进生物安全治理体系进一步完善。     

整体性治理视域下防治外来物种入侵法治研究

外来物种入侵是威胁国家生物多样性、生态安全和公众健康的重大安全问题。《生物安全法》的通过为防治外来物种入侵提供了综合性的制度规范。我国防治外来物种入侵法治实践长期以行政规制为主导,较少关注司法机关、企事业单位、社会组织和公众等法律主体在治理中的作用。行政规制治理中执法机构及其职能与管理手段的碎片化,亦无法回应高风险社会防治外来物种入侵的需要。我国防治外来物种入侵法治建设应当坚持整体性治理理念,以整体安全观为指导,坚持风险预防、防治结合,明确综合管理程序及责任法律制度和一体化协同执法机制,健全防治外来物种入侵行政规制体系;引入公众参与,形成政府、企事业单位、社会组织和公众协同治理外来物种入侵,鼓励外来物种入侵公益诉讼等,完善防治外来物种入侵的多元共治体系,共促国家生物安全治理体系。     

环境健康风险规制的法律路径——以科学不确定性为视角

环境健康风险防控是当今社会密切关注的常态化问题,面对环境健康风险危机日益突出的情况,将环境健康风险纳入法律之治势在必行。然而,该领域涉及科学不确定性因素,且该因素对环境健康风险规制造成了消极影响。若以确定性法律来规范环境健康风险中的科学不确定性,必定会增加立法、执法、司法和法律监督的难度与成本。为此,本文将动态法治与静态诉求相结合,从法律运行角度发现环境健康风险规制所涉及的科学不确定性问题,并寻求解决该问题的法律路径,以期对化解当前频发的环境健康风险危机有所帮助。     

我国工业场地再利用的环境风险管理困境及对策

我国污染场地再利用的开发活动日渐增多,伴随场地的再利用对环境和人体健康造成不良影响的环境事件也愈加频繁。在土壤污染防治立法、相关的土壤环境质量标准与监管制度都欠缺的情况下,针对污染场地再利用环境风险管理的项目规划的失当、环境风险评估指标的缺失及监督管理制度不健全的障碍,应加强区域环评与单项建设项目环评的协调,落实场地监管主体、层级及各自的监管职责,形成环境损害赔偿机制,从而健全场地环境风险管理制度。     

碳排放权交易的激励性法律规制研究

碳排放权交易制度作为我国应对气候变暖的市场化工具,是减少温室气体排放的有效手段。然而,当前我国碳排放权交易法律规制中存在立法效力等级低、监管制度体系不健全、法律规范激励性不强等问题。以国内碳排放权交易立法现状和需求为视角,运用实证研究方法,指出激励性法律规制是解决上述问题,激发碳市场活力,实现碳中和目标的有效路径。并在此基础上,进一步提出激励性法律规制的完善建议,通过构建碳排放权交易的协同监管模式、完善碳信息披露制度、健全激励性配套措施、实行差异化风险补偿机制等,激发市场主体和监管主体参与碳市场的积极性,实现企业减排行为与政府低碳目标的激励相容。     

新时期我国环境风险防控面临的多元化挑战

当前,环境风险已成为威胁公众健康、公共安全和社会稳定的重要因素,也成为我国生态文明建设面临的巨大瓶颈性考验。本期特别邀请南京大学毕军教授组织“环境风险管理”专题,就环境污染保险制度、环境风险规制成本、土壤污染风险评价,以及特殊风险(Natech)管理等问题展开研究和讨论。     

土壤污染风险评价研究进展

随着工业化和城镇化快速发展,土壤污染带来的人体健康和生态风险日益凸显.本文针对我国土壤污染环境风险评价体系在风险管控中的缺失问题,系统总结了国内外土壤污染的风险研究发展成果,按照土壤污染的人体健康风险和生态风险,分别进行评价方法、评价标准和管理实践的总结与评述.文章着重指出:土壤污染风险评价在生态系统水平及区域流域尺度上缺失,评价方法未能与污染物存在形态完全匹配,评价指标还不能覆盖大部分重金属和有机物,健康风险与生态风险还没有实现综合评价.     

风险社会视域下的环境保护

工业社会的形式理性及其法律制度本身是环境事故高发和风险规制匮乏的重要原因。事故经验本身推动着人类对自身的理性与制度结构做出反思。在"风险知识"的刺激下,风险规制中的预防原则获得法律上的确立,并极大冲击和重塑着现代环境法框架。我国环境法体系侧重后果防治及其责任配置,无法应对贝克指示的新风险,也无法吸纳预防原则要求的法律理性,因而需要根据新的风险知识和法律原则及时做出修改。在以"风险知识"为根据的全新法律框架之下,风险规制机构应强化建制,程序设计也应容纳技术因素之外的社会参与,形成"科学—民主"的宽域治理框架。     

长江经济带突发环境事件风险防控现状、问题与对策

伴随着长期高强度的开发活动,长江经济带面临突发环境事件频发、诱因复杂等突出环境风险问题。近年来,尽管各地环境风险防控体系和应急能力建设取得了长足的进步,但与严峻的环境风险防控形势相比,仍不能满足实际需求,存在源头防控体系不健全、能力不足、协调联动欠缺等问题。本文在对长江经济带突发环境事件风险形势和防控工作现状分析的基础上,针对突发环境事件风险防控存在的问题,结合国家在生态环境风险防控和应急管理领域的最新要求及地方实践经验,从环境风险源头防控、环境应急协调联动以及重点领域风险管控等三个方面提出了突发环境事件风险防控的对策,以期为有效防控长江经济带环境风险、建设"安全长江"提供参考。     

控制环境与健康风险:美国环境标准制度功能借鉴

传统观念下,环境与健康分属两个不同领域,美国作为最早遭遇环境与健康问题的国家,经过多年努力,形成了建立以保障公共健康为核心的环境标准体系和环境与健康风险评估框架,实现了对环境与健康风险的有效控制。美国对环境污染物的界定主要取决于其对公共健康的影响,将污染物分为普遍及对公共健康危害较大的污染物、一些污染范围较小或对公共健康危害较小的污染物两类,且采取不同的标准制定方法。在标准制定方面,主要是将有关科学共识转化为可执行的环境标准。为了避免环境标准的不确定性带来的不利影响,建立了包括科学论证、公开透明、周期性审查等较为严格的环境标准制定程序。美国赋予环境标准制度以控制环境与健康风险的功能,并通过建立以保障公共健康为核心的环境标准体系,实现对环境与健康风险有效控制的执法路径,对解决中国目前存在的环境标准价值缺失、体系割裂、内容缺失等问题,实现环境标准的功能再造具有较强的借鉴意义。     

基于 DPEHA 模型生态环境健康评价体系的法治化研究

生态环境健康评价包括生态环境健康风险评估和环境治理有效性的评价,是监测生态环境质量对公众健康的潜在风险和指导决策的重要技术手段。我国至今尚未形成全面有效的生态环境健康评价体系,且在评价某一区域生态环境质量对公众健康的影响时,往往忽略了生态法治的作用。为此,本文基于驱动力—压力—环境条件—健康影响—行动(DPEHA)模型构建了一套具有生态法治特色的生态环境健康评价指标体系,并以深圳市2019年和2020年生态环境健康工作为例,对模型进行验证,以推进深圳生态环境健康保护法治化建设。未来研究要将评价体系应用至不同城市,以深入推进法治中国建设。     

A method for assessing environmental risk: A case study of Green Bay,Lake Michigan,USA

The Science Advisory Board of the US Environmental Protection Agency has recommended that risk reduction strategies become the centerpiece of environmental protection. The goal in developing such strategies is to identify opportunities for greatest reduction of ecological risks. This is a perspective that is significantly more comprehensive than the traditional focus on human health risks arising from environmental degradation. The identification of ecological risks upon which environmental protection efforts should be focused requires an ecological risk assessment methodology that is based on anthropogenic stressors affecting an ecosystem and a set of impaired use criteria. A methodology based on this concept is developed and discussed in this article. The methodology requires that risk values be assigned to each ecosystem stressor-impaired use pair that reflect the degree to which the given stressor contributes to ecosystem risk as measured by the given impaired use criterion. Once these data are available, mathematical analyses based on concepts from fuzzy set theory are performed to obtain a ranking of ecosystem stressors. The methodology has been tested by applying it to a case study involving Green Bay of Lake Michigan. A workshop was held in which 11 persons with extensive knowledge of the Green Bay ecosystem determined risk values through a group-consensus process. The analytical portion of the methodology was then used to rank the ecosystem risks (stressors) from several perspectives, including prevention management and remediation management. The overall conclusion of the workshop participants was that the fuzzy set decision model is a useful and effective methodology for differentiating environmental risk.     

Prioritizing ecological and human welfare risks from environmental stresses

The ecological systems of Earth are subjected to a wide array of environmental stresses resulting from human activities. The development of appropriate environmental protection and management policies and the appropriate allocation of resources across environmental stresses require a systematic evaluation of relative risks. The data and methodologies for comprehensive ecological risk assessment do not exist, yet we do have considerable understanding of econological stress-response relationships. A methodology is presented to utilize present knowledge for assignment of relative risks to ecological systems and human welfare from anthropogenic stresses. The resultant priorities, developed for the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) relative risk reduction project, highlight global climate change, habitat alteration, stratospheric ozone depletion, and species depletion as the highest environmental risks, significantly diverging from the present emphasis by EPA and the public on toxic chemical issues. Enhanced attention to ecological issues by EPA and development of ecological risk assessment methodologies that value ecological and economic issues equitably are key recommendations.     

应对环境风险的反身规制研究

面对当前日益严峻的环境风险和生态危机,环境领域的两大规制模式——命令控制规制模式和激励规制模式呈现规制失灵、治理不力的困境。从反身法理论来阐释,是由于这两种规制模式忽略了法律系统与其他社会子系统自身的独特运行逻辑,法律系统具有运行的封闭性与认知的开放性,有效的规制模式必须实现不同系统之间的结构耦合。反身规制是一种对自我规制的规制,其在承认法律自身规制局限性的基础上,培育其他子系统的反思结构,为提升当前环境治理绩效提供了一个新路径。实现对环境风险的反身规制,需要从信息披露、程序设计及商谈规范方面建构相应的法律制度。     

生态环境风险管理与损害赔偿制度现状与展望

我国目前面临的生态环境风险形势复杂严峻，严密防控生态环境风险已成为“十四五”和中长期生态环境保护、美丽中国建设的重要任务之一。本文探讨了生态环境风险的概念、分类，系统梳理了生态环境风险评估与管理、生态环境损害评估与损害赔偿等领域的国内外管理经验与研究进展。在此基础上，重点剖析了我国生态环境风险管理面临的痛点与难点问题，从树立生态环境风险法治管理理念、构建生态环境风险管理战略布局、建立生态环境风险常态化管控体系、加强生态环境风险防控技术支撑、强化经济和社会治理手段助力风险管控、建设生态环境损害赔偿业务化工作体系等六个方面，系统提出了加强我国生态环境风险管理的对策建议，以期为更有效地防范化解重大生态环境风险提供决策参考。     

Five-wheel framework for system-based monitoring of heavy metal pollution in rivers

Sectorial approach for monitoring heavy metal pollution in rivers has failed to report realistic pollution status and associated ecological and human health risks. The increasing spread of heavy metals from different sources and emerging risks to human and environmental health call for reexamining heavy metal pollution monitoring frameworks. Also, the sources, spread, and load of heavy metals in the environment have changed significantly over time, requiring consequent modification in the monitoring frameworks. Therefore, studies on heavy metal monitoring in rivers conducted in the last decade were evaluated for experimental designs, research frameworks, and data presentations. Most studies (∼99%) (i) lacked inclusiveness of all environmental compartments; (ii) focused on “one pollutant – one/two compartment” or sometimes “one pollutant – one compartment – one effect” approach; and (iii) remained “data-rich but information poor.” An ecological approach with integrative system thinking is proposed to develop a holistic approach for monitoring river pollution. It is visualized that heavy metal monitoring, risk analyses, and water management must incorporate tracking pollutants in different environmental compartments of a river (water, sediment, and floodplain/bank soil) and consider correlating it with riverbank land use. The systems-based pollution monitoring and assessment studies will reveal the critical factors that drive heavy metals pollutant movement in ecosystems and associated potential risks to the environment, wildlife, and humans. Also, water quality and pollution indexing tools would help better communicate complex pollution data and associated risks among all stakeholders. Therefore, integrating systems approaches in scientific- and policy-based tools would help sustainably manage the health of rivers, wildlife, and humans.     

环境规制对技术创新效率的影响分析——基于创新链视角的两阶段实证检验

新古典经济学理论认为,严格的环境规制会提高污染治理成本,挤占技术创新活动的资金,对技术创新产生"挤出效应"。而"波特假说"认为,长期内适当的环境规制政策将对企业的科技创新活动起到刺激性推动作用,可弥补因规制而增加的额外成本,从而形成"创新补偿效应"。这个观点表明环境规制对于企业的技术创新可能存在非线性影响效应。另外,技术创新要经历研究开发阶段与成果转化阶段,即从资源投入到产生经济效益的过程。本文基于系统观和创新链视角,创新性地构建两阶段关联DEA模型测算技术创新活动的投入产出效率,并运用中国2011——2017年间的省级面板数据进行回归检验,探讨环境规制强度对研究开发阶段和成果转化阶段技术创新效率的非线性影响效应,同时将中国划分为东部、中西部两大区域分别考察,进一步揭示环境规制对技术创新效率影响的空间异质性和阶段性特点,最后提出相应政策建议。     

Bottom-Up Risk Regulation? How Nanotechnology Risk Knowledge Gaps Challenge Federal and State Environmental Agencies

Nanotechnologies have been called the "Next Industrial Revolution." At the same time, scientists are raising concerns about the potential health and environmental risks related to the nano-sized materials used in nanotechnologies. Analyses suggest that current U.S. federal regulatory structures are not likely to adequately address these risks in a proactive manner. Given these trends, the premise of this paper is that state and local-level agencies will likely deal with many "end-of-pipe" issues as nanomaterials enter environmental media without prior toxicity testing, federal standards, or emissions controls. In this paper we (1) briefly describe potential environmental risks and benefits related to emerging nanotechnologies; (2) outline the capacities of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act to address potential nanotechnology risks, and how risk data gaps challenge these regulations; (3) outline some of the key data gaps that challenge state-level regulatory capacities to address nanotechnologies' potential risks, using Wisconsin as a case study; and (4) discuss advantages and disadvantages of state versus federal approaches to nanotechnology risk regulation. In summary, we suggest some ways government agencies can be better prepared to address nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps and risk management.     

论环境风险预防原则中的风险阈值

如何把环境风险预防原则确立为环境法的基本原则,一个重要的问题就是"环境风险"的界定。通过对法律意义上的环境风险进行分析,指出确立风险阈值的原因,即我国对"环境风险"的界定不清,环境风险的风险性缺乏法定依据以及不同种类的利益之间存在冲突等,进而从明确环境风险的类型、评估环境风险量度、明确责任归结三方面思考了风险阈值的确立问题。