By Paul Davies and Andrew Westgate

The Supreme People’s Court (SPC), China’s highest judicial body, issued a judicial interpretation on December 26, 2016 which defines 18 types of environmental crimes as “serious environmental pollution” and identifies 13 types of “serious consequences” under China’s criminal law, subject to increased penalties. The report is available here (in Chinese only). Notably, under the SPC’s interpretation, tampering with or falsifying results from environmental monitoring equipment, which previously would have been subject to civil penalties, is now deemed to be a serious crime.  According to Yan Maokun, director of the Supreme People’s Court’s research office, “it’s the first time that falsifying monitoring data is considered a crime, which could lead to more effective deterrence and punishment of such violations.” The interpretations, which took effect on January 1, 2017, appear to confirm predictions that the government will move to strengthen enforcement of environmental law. “The revised Environmental Protection Law allows us to give managers administrative detention if they falsify data, but the new interpretations can do more to deter polluters,” stated Bie Tao, the Deputy Director of the Ministry of Environmental Protection’s Policy and Law Department.

By Paul Davies and Michael Green

While the overwhelming majority of the UK’s environmental legislation is derived from EU legislation and UK climate change and energy policy is largely influenced by the EU, surprisingly, environment and energy has been the subject of only limited discussion in the context of Brexit. Observers anticipate that most environmental laws will remain in place, initially at least, as the government seeks to avoid a legislative vacuum caused by the repeal of EU laws before new UK laws are in place. However, longer term trends remain unclear as the UK is likely to face challenges associated with its energy supply and the changing energy market. In terms of the likely post-exit relationship, a number of experts have suggested three possible models. First is a limited free trade relationship with the EU, based on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) about to be signed between Canada and the EU (known as the “Canadian model”). A second option may be to agree bilateral accords with the EU governing UK access to the single market in specific sectors and remain part of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) (known as the “Swiss model”). A third option would be for the UK to stay part of the single market by continuing its membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) (known as the “Norwegian model”). There have also been suggestions that the UK may seek its own bespoke arrangement.