Environmental protection has been a topic frequently discussed by government departments and the media for years. However, the situation is not improving.

Figures on water pollution, atmospheric pollution, air quality and soil contamination have sent shivers down our spines.

Investigative reports about how polluting firms cheat by putting into operation their sewage treatment equipment when being inspected and then leaving them rusting away in their daily production have damped our enthusiasm and confidence in visualizing a pollution-free environment.

It is an embarrassment for environmental protection administrations at all levels.

The State Environmental Protection Administration launched a campaign in 2003 targeting polluting enterprises all over the country. However, only some 500 people involved have been punished.

Some officials or entrepreneurs in charge did not care about the consequences their pollution may have brought because it was unlikely they would bear responsibility. Instead, the units or firms did.

Such a situation, however, is expected to change with the provisional decision on punishment of personnel in violation of environmental protection laws and regulations taking effect on Monday.

The document was jointly released by the State Environmental Protection Administration and Ministry of Supervision.

To make leaders of relevant departments or enterprises directly responsible for environmental protection makes it easier for the environmental watchdog and supervisory departments to put the new rules into practice.

We did have regulations concerning the issue in the past, but they were either too general or ambiguous to be carried out.

But this new document has mapped out specific disciplinary penalties for specific violations and explicitly rules that those officials in charge or leaders of State-owned enterprises must shoulder due responsibilities.

They might be demoted or lose their positions if their firms launch a project without environmental impact assessment. Administrative officials in environmental protection administrations will be disciplined, demoted or dismissed if they cheat in environmental assessment work or in the execution of relevant rules.

Local authorities have long been deemed the umbrella for polluting firms, either for the immediate interest of the local economy or for their own personal gains. Such power is sometimes used to coerce local environmental protection administration officials into cheating in environmental impact assessment for the launch of a project.

The new document poses a challenge to such abuse of power, or explicitly to those who are abusing their power in such a manner.

In the past they could have no scruples, but now they must be aware the rules in the new document could mean they lose their positions. Frequently, authorities at lower levels work out their own tactics to blunt the sharpness of the policies from higher authorities.

We hope that preemptive measures are already in the minds of those who formulated the document, which will be hopefully carried out to the letter.

(China Daily February 22, 2006)