Shutting down production at the mere arrival of an environmental inspection? People’s Daily: Let’s not allow a one-size-fits-all approach to become an obstacle.

Release Date:

2018-06-15

Practices such as “shutting everything down across the board” or “stop first, sort it out later” in response to central environmental inspections will be strictly prohibited! Recently, the follow-up reviews of the first round of rectification measures from the central environmental protection inspections have been launched one after another. The Ministry of Ecology and Environment has issued the “Opinions on Prohibiting One-Size-Fits-All Approaches in Environmental Protection Work,” aiming to prevent local authorities from indiscriminately imposing blanket shutdowns of businesses during inspection periods. According to inquiries conducted by the author with interviewed enterprises, without exception, all welcomed the issuance of these guidelines. Since the launch of the central environmental inspections, their rigorous and decisive approach has yielded remarkable results. However, some localities, which remain inactive in routine operations but act haphazardly when inspections arrive, have resorted to crude and heavy-handed measures—simply suspending operations, closing businesses, or halting production—whenever an inspection team is on site.

　 Practices such as “shutting everything down across the board” and “stop first, sort it out later” in response to central environmental inspection campaigns will be strictly prohibited. Recently, the follow-up reviews of the first round of rectification measures from the central environmental protection inspections have been launched one after another. The Ministry of Ecology and Environment has issued the “Opinions on Prohibiting One-Size-Fits-All Approaches in Environmental Protection Work,” aiming to prevent local authorities from indiscriminately imposing blanket shutdowns of operations, businesses, and production during the period when inspection teams are on site. According to inquiries conducted by the author with interviewed enterprises, without exception, all welcomed the issuance of these guidelines.
　　Since the launch of the central environmental inspection campaign, it has tackled tough issues head-on and delivered tangible results. However, some localities have been inactive in routine times yet act haphazardly when inspections arrive, resorting to crude, one-size-fits-all measures—such as ordering relevant enterprises to suspend operations, close down, or halt production. The author has repeatedly heard businesses complain that they have installed all the environmental protection equipment they are required to, yet as soon as an inspection team shows up, they face sudden power cuts and production stoppages. Meanwhile, no one addresses the economic losses or reputational damage incurred during these shutdowns. Such practices leave enterprises feeling insecure about their ability to operate and produce safely.
　　This simplistic, one-size-fits-all approach not only inflicts unnecessary losses on businesses but also undermines the coordinated development of upstream and downstream segments in the industrial chain. For instance, in the building materials sector, if midstream stone-processing firms are abruptly shut down, it could disrupt the steady order flow of upstream tool manufacturers and trigger price volatility among downstream construction firms.
　　The “one-size-fits-all” approach may appear to treat all entities equally, but in reality it undermines fair competition in the market. Polluting enterprises operating without permits or licenses should be resolutely required to make rectifications, and those that genuinely need to shut down must do so in accordance with the law. However, in some localities, even companies that have already invested heavily in transformation, upgrading, and achieving environmental compliance have been subjected to power restrictions and production halts, which will undoubtedly dampen their enthusiasm for pursuing high‑quality development.
　　“A one-size-fits-all” approach can also create hidden safety risks. After a sudden production shutdown, companies often rush to resume operations in order to make up for lost time and fulfill orders, and this cycle of stopping and restarting can be fraught with hazards. For example, if chemical plants fail to properly clean and dispose of equipment and materials, the substances inside may undergo unintended chemical reactions or leak. Similarly, restarting equipment after a short-term shutdown is prone to malfunctions, while personnel may still exhibit complacency or lack familiarity with operating procedures—factors that can all contribute to accidents.
　　1
　　Winning the tough battle against pollution hinges on adopting a sound vision of development and a proper approach to performance evaluation. Environmental protection cannot rely on emergency measures; it requires steady, long-term efforts that yield results over time. In some localities, businesses classified as “scattered, chaotic, and polluting” are often overlooked in routine oversight, leading to a substantial backlog of environmental liabilities. When environmental inspections arrive, these areas are left with no choice but to resort to one-size-fits-all, short‑term fixes. Such campaign‑style enforcement, which addresses symptoms rather than root causes, lacks both legality and reasonableness and ultimately undermines the very foundations of the industries concerned.
　　2
　　To win the tough battle against pollution, we must also strengthen our capacity for integrated planning and coordination in managing complex situations. “One-size-fits-all” approaches are easy; playing the piano—balancing multiple priorities—is far more challenging. Behind the handling of “scattered, chaotic, and polluting” enterprises lies the question of how to develop new sources of tax revenue following a decline in tax receipts, and where to find new jobs after outdated production capacity is phased out. Striking the optimal balance between industrial development and ecological protection tests the governance wisdom of local governments.
　　3
　　To win the tough battle against pollution, law enforcement must be both stringent and precise. For instance, enterprises with proper legal permits and in compliance with environmental standards should not be subject to shutdowns or production halts; those with valid permits but failing to meet environmental requirements should have tailored corrective measures implemented on a case-by-case basis; and those lacking legal permits and falling short of environmental standards must be rigorously rectified in accordance with the law. Only such targeted enforcement can bolster enterprises’ sense of initiative and security as they pursue transformation and upgrading.
　　4
　　To win the tough battle against pollution, we must enforce strict oversight while also fostering a stronger service‑oriented mindset. In some industrial clusters, individual enterprises may be small in scale but collectively possess strong competitiveness; relevant authorities could, on the basis of industrial parks, guide these firms in undertaking clean‑production upgrades. This approach would not only reduce enterprises’ environmental compliance costs and safeguard the smooth functioning of the industry, but also help achieve high‑level protection of the ecological environment.
　　Shifting from a manufacturing giant to a manufacturing powerhouse requires embracing a path of high-quality development in which green practices become the norm. Let us ensure that one-size-fits-all environmental policies do not become an obstacle to this high‑quality growth!