![<?echo $_SERVER['SERVER_NAME'];?>](/template/twentyseventeen/skin/images/header.jpg)
On June 30th, Greenpeace, the international environmental protection organization, held a press conference in Beijing to bombard the world's chemical giant BASF with the implementation of a "double standard" for environmental information disclosure. He also said that its BASF plant in Shanghai still has suspected excess emissions. This is the April 26 announcement of the announcement of the results of the announcement that 13 of the world’s top 100 companies, including BASF, have implemented “double standards†for environmental information in China.
After Greenpeace "certified" BASF and the local environmental protection department, they respectively obtained responses from both parties "in full accordance with the laws and regulations of the local government" and "the information concerning the company's trade secrets, the company does not agree to be open".
Environmental information is a trade secret? Can companies not disclose their environmental information on the grounds of trade secrets?
Behind the controversy is a different understanding of the "Environmental Information Disclosure Approach (Trial)" that was formally implemented on May 1st, in particular, whether the government can disclose corporate environmental information and who defines commercial secrets.
However, according to Bi Tao, deputy director of the Department of Regulations and Regulations of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, at least one thing is certain: "Sewage information should not belong to commercial secrets."
BASF "double standards"?
On April 26, Greenpeace reported that 13 multinational corporations including BASF, Toyota Motor, and BMW Motors had been included on the “black list†in the officially released “Investigation Report on the Status of Corporate Pollutant Information Disclosure,†accusing these Enterprises implement "double standards" in the disclosure of environmental information.
Three days later, BASF responded through the media, "BASF is implementing the same standards in the world and in China," and "fully complies with local laws" regarding the publication of information.
Greenpeace once again accused BASF of carrying out "double standards" on the basis of their follow-up investigations. They have collected information through various public channels and found that, although there are no legally obligatory regulations, BASF actively publishes its detailed pollutant discharge information directly to the public in Germany, the United States, and Canada. And all of its 15 wholly owned and joint venture production companies in China did not do so. "This is contradictory to its claimed 'standard'," said Liu Lican, director of the Greenpeace Pollution Prevention Team.
Obviously, Greenpeace and BASF still have different perspectives on "standards". BASF believes that "full compliance with local regulations" is the embodiment of the same standards, but Greenpeace believes that "as long as a country implements a certain standard, such as information disclosure, it should be implemented in other countries."
In follow-up investigations, Greenpeace selected BASF Applied Chemicals Co., Ltd., located in Pudong, Shanghai, to conduct "communications" and investigations in the field.
At 22:30 on April 11th, 2008, Greenpeace took a sample of water from the sewage outlet at the east side of the BASF dedicated terminal at Jiangxinsha Road, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, and sent it to the Shanghai Laboratory of SGS-compliant company for testing. The test results were analyzed by the Eurofins Development Agriculture and Environmental Analysis Laboratory in Germany. The analysis found that there were 14 organic poisons in the water sample, especially the high concentration of chloroform.
"The sewage outlet is not clearly marked and it cannot be confirmed whether it belongs to BASF." Liu Lican said that according to their survey, BASF is the nearest plant to the sewage sampling outlet. The sewage outlet of the neighboring Shanghai Pesticide Plant is located 100 meters further to the east. , And there is a factory identification plate. ""
Liu Lican stated that Greenpeace sent a letter to BASF Applied Chemicals Co., Ltd. to "prove", but the company refused to provide key information such as the location of its sewage outlets, the type and quantity of pollutants discharged.
On July 1, when a reporter from this newspaper called Tian Lijun, responsible for propaganda of the Beijing Corporate Communication Department of BASF, to ask the matter, she said that BASF had formally responded and said in an e-mail sent to this reporter later:
BASF collects and monitors a comprehensive set of environmental and emissions data at all production sites worldwide. After these data have been audited by internal and external third-party agencies and government agencies, they have been consolidated and published in BASF's annual report. BASF collects and publishes environmental and emissions data in full compliance with local government laws and regulations.
The statement stated that the company has received positive comments from relevant government departments in Shanghai and Pudong New Area for its report data. Once the environmental data has been reported to government agencies, it becomes part of the government's environmental monitoring database.
The reporter found that this declaration was also BASF’s reply to Greenpeace at the time. It was only added in the last part—“We believe that local government departments will handle such information in accordance with laws and regulations.â€
At the same time, Tian Lijun told this reporter: "BASF's application of chemical waste water is discharged to the Pudong Zhuyuan Wastewater Treatment Plant and is discharged to the East China Sea after secondary treatment."
At the same time as communicating with BASF, Greenpeace also applied for the environmental information disclosure of the company to the Pudong Environmental Protection Department. However, it was replied, “The information disclosed this time belongs to the plant's own sewage information collected by BASF Applied Chemicals Co., Ltd. and belongs to the company’s internal information. After consulting with the company in writing by our bureau, the company did not agree to open it."
At the same time, Greenpeace applied to the Pudong Environmental Protection Agency for the 2006-2007 Pollutant Declaration and Registration Form of Ziyuan Printing Pigments (China) Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Pesticide Plant (same as Shanghai BASF Applied Chemical Factory in Shanghai Pudong Gaoqiao Town). The answer is - the company believes that the information relates to the company's trade secrets, the company does not agree to open.
How to define "trade secrets"?
"The opacity of information has led to pollution and there is no way to find the source and the solution." Liu Lican explained why the reason for seizing the information was not disclosed. "If the environmental information is not disclosed, as the victim of pollution, such as residents around the plant, the evidence will be collected." It is difficult. Information disclosure cannot solve environmental problems, but it is a prerequisite for solving problems."
Although Greenpeace has repeatedly raised the issue of "double standards" in the disclosure of environmental information, "full compliance with local laws and regulations" is a consistent statement that BASF responds to Greenpeace and responds to media inquiries.
Obviously, the argument must return to the legal level. In fact, four days after the "double standards" were put forward in Greenpeace, the "Environmental Information Disclosure Measures (Trial)" was formally implemented on May 1. This method makes detailed provisions on the scope, procedures, etc. of the government's environmental information disclosure.
Regarding whether companies disclose environmental information, the "Measures" stipulate that, unless it is an enterprise that exceeds emissions standards, it is basically a voluntary principle. At the same time, the "Measures" also stipulates that government environmental protection agencies shall not disclose government environmental information involving state secrets, trade secrets, and personal privacy, that is, government information on "suspected trade secrets" may not be disclosed.
"Associating relevant environmental information with the environmental protection department has become the government's government information, and the government's environmental information should be made public." On July 1, Bie Tao analyzed the newspaper's reporter that at present, companies need to be in various links. To report environmental information to government agencies, if environmental impact assessments are to be made when applying for a project, it is necessary to report to the environmental protection agency such environmental information as the amount of pollutants discharged. As part of the monitoring information of the environmental protection department, such government information should belong to the range that can be announced.
However, as stipulated in the Measures, environmental protection agencies cannot publish environmental information involving “trade secrets.†Then, how to define trade secrets and who defines commercial secrets have become the key.
"I think that the emission information is not a commercial secret." Bie Tao said that in order to answer the reporter's question, he specifically looked at the legal interpretation of "trade secrets."
According to Article 219 of China's Criminal Law, so-called trade secrets refer to technical information and business information that are not known to the public, can bring economic benefits to right holders, have practicality, and are subject to confidentiality measures by right holders.
"Trade secrets belong to intellectual property protection and operating profits, and have nothing to do with direct emissions-related information."
Regarding who defines commercial secrets, Yang Chaofei, director of the Department of Policy and Regulations of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, said that according to the State Council Information Disclosure Ordinance, companies can decide whether they belong to commercial secrets. However, if there is a dispute or the people raise questions, the local environmental protection department can request them to address the situation. public.
"When companies report environmental conditions to the environmental protection department, they will never report the contents of the 'trade secrets' to the environmental protection department. So, what is the environmental protection department's announcement of corporate information involving trade secrets?" said an environmental expert.
Why is the "Measures" not strictly regulating what constitutes trade secrets? Bitao explained: "The "Measures" as a department regulation cannot be located on the basis of relevant laws, and specific legal interpretations must be determined according to the law."
In response, Liu Lican appealed, "The government will continue to improve the "Measures" as soon as possible to block any "emptiness" that may be drilled."
After Greenpeace "certified" BASF and the local environmental protection department, they respectively obtained responses from both parties "in full accordance with the laws and regulations of the local government" and "the information concerning the company's trade secrets, the company does not agree to be open".
Environmental information is a trade secret? Can companies not disclose their environmental information on the grounds of trade secrets?
Behind the controversy is a different understanding of the "Environmental Information Disclosure Approach (Trial)" that was formally implemented on May 1st, in particular, whether the government can disclose corporate environmental information and who defines commercial secrets.
However, according to Bi Tao, deputy director of the Department of Regulations and Regulations of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, at least one thing is certain: "Sewage information should not belong to commercial secrets."
BASF "double standards"?
On April 26, Greenpeace reported that 13 multinational corporations including BASF, Toyota Motor, and BMW Motors had been included on the “black list†in the officially released “Investigation Report on the Status of Corporate Pollutant Information Disclosure,†accusing these Enterprises implement "double standards" in the disclosure of environmental information.
Three days later, BASF responded through the media, "BASF is implementing the same standards in the world and in China," and "fully complies with local laws" regarding the publication of information.
Greenpeace once again accused BASF of carrying out "double standards" on the basis of their follow-up investigations. They have collected information through various public channels and found that, although there are no legally obligatory regulations, BASF actively publishes its detailed pollutant discharge information directly to the public in Germany, the United States, and Canada. And all of its 15 wholly owned and joint venture production companies in China did not do so. "This is contradictory to its claimed 'standard'," said Liu Lican, director of the Greenpeace Pollution Prevention Team.
Obviously, Greenpeace and BASF still have different perspectives on "standards". BASF believes that "full compliance with local regulations" is the embodiment of the same standards, but Greenpeace believes that "as long as a country implements a certain standard, such as information disclosure, it should be implemented in other countries."
In follow-up investigations, Greenpeace selected BASF Applied Chemicals Co., Ltd., located in Pudong, Shanghai, to conduct "communications" and investigations in the field.
At 22:30 on April 11th, 2008, Greenpeace took a sample of water from the sewage outlet at the east side of the BASF dedicated terminal at Jiangxinsha Road, Pudong New Area, Shanghai, and sent it to the Shanghai Laboratory of SGS-compliant company for testing. The test results were analyzed by the Eurofins Development Agriculture and Environmental Analysis Laboratory in Germany. The analysis found that there were 14 organic poisons in the water sample, especially the high concentration of chloroform.
"The sewage outlet is not clearly marked and it cannot be confirmed whether it belongs to BASF." Liu Lican said that according to their survey, BASF is the nearest plant to the sewage sampling outlet. The sewage outlet of the neighboring Shanghai Pesticide Plant is located 100 meters further to the east. , And there is a factory identification plate. ""
Liu Lican stated that Greenpeace sent a letter to BASF Applied Chemicals Co., Ltd. to "prove", but the company refused to provide key information such as the location of its sewage outlets, the type and quantity of pollutants discharged.
On July 1, when a reporter from this newspaper called Tian Lijun, responsible for propaganda of the Beijing Corporate Communication Department of BASF, to ask the matter, she said that BASF had formally responded and said in an e-mail sent to this reporter later:
BASF collects and monitors a comprehensive set of environmental and emissions data at all production sites worldwide. After these data have been audited by internal and external third-party agencies and government agencies, they have been consolidated and published in BASF's annual report. BASF collects and publishes environmental and emissions data in full compliance with local government laws and regulations.
The statement stated that the company has received positive comments from relevant government departments in Shanghai and Pudong New Area for its report data. Once the environmental data has been reported to government agencies, it becomes part of the government's environmental monitoring database.
The reporter found that this declaration was also BASF’s reply to Greenpeace at the time. It was only added in the last part—“We believe that local government departments will handle such information in accordance with laws and regulations.â€
At the same time, Tian Lijun told this reporter: "BASF's application of chemical waste water is discharged to the Pudong Zhuyuan Wastewater Treatment Plant and is discharged to the East China Sea after secondary treatment."
At the same time as communicating with BASF, Greenpeace also applied for the environmental information disclosure of the company to the Pudong Environmental Protection Department. However, it was replied, “The information disclosed this time belongs to the plant's own sewage information collected by BASF Applied Chemicals Co., Ltd. and belongs to the company’s internal information. After consulting with the company in writing by our bureau, the company did not agree to open it."
At the same time, Greenpeace applied to the Pudong Environmental Protection Agency for the 2006-2007 Pollutant Declaration and Registration Form of Ziyuan Printing Pigments (China) Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Pesticide Plant (same as Shanghai BASF Applied Chemical Factory in Shanghai Pudong Gaoqiao Town). The answer is - the company believes that the information relates to the company's trade secrets, the company does not agree to open.
How to define "trade secrets"?
"The opacity of information has led to pollution and there is no way to find the source and the solution." Liu Lican explained why the reason for seizing the information was not disclosed. "If the environmental information is not disclosed, as the victim of pollution, such as residents around the plant, the evidence will be collected." It is difficult. Information disclosure cannot solve environmental problems, but it is a prerequisite for solving problems."
Although Greenpeace has repeatedly raised the issue of "double standards" in the disclosure of environmental information, "full compliance with local laws and regulations" is a consistent statement that BASF responds to Greenpeace and responds to media inquiries.
Obviously, the argument must return to the legal level. In fact, four days after the "double standards" were put forward in Greenpeace, the "Environmental Information Disclosure Measures (Trial)" was formally implemented on May 1. This method makes detailed provisions on the scope, procedures, etc. of the government's environmental information disclosure.
Regarding whether companies disclose environmental information, the "Measures" stipulate that, unless it is an enterprise that exceeds emissions standards, it is basically a voluntary principle. At the same time, the "Measures" also stipulates that government environmental protection agencies shall not disclose government environmental information involving state secrets, trade secrets, and personal privacy, that is, government information on "suspected trade secrets" may not be disclosed.
"Associating relevant environmental information with the environmental protection department has become the government's government information, and the government's environmental information should be made public." On July 1, Bie Tao analyzed the newspaper's reporter that at present, companies need to be in various links. To report environmental information to government agencies, if environmental impact assessments are to be made when applying for a project, it is necessary to report to the environmental protection agency such environmental information as the amount of pollutants discharged. As part of the monitoring information of the environmental protection department, such government information should belong to the range that can be announced.
However, as stipulated in the Measures, environmental protection agencies cannot publish environmental information involving “trade secrets.†Then, how to define trade secrets and who defines commercial secrets have become the key.
"I think that the emission information is not a commercial secret." Bie Tao said that in order to answer the reporter's question, he specifically looked at the legal interpretation of "trade secrets."
According to Article 219 of China's Criminal Law, so-called trade secrets refer to technical information and business information that are not known to the public, can bring economic benefits to right holders, have practicality, and are subject to confidentiality measures by right holders.
"Trade secrets belong to intellectual property protection and operating profits, and have nothing to do with direct emissions-related information."
Regarding who defines commercial secrets, Yang Chaofei, director of the Department of Policy and Regulations of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, said that according to the State Council Information Disclosure Ordinance, companies can decide whether they belong to commercial secrets. However, if there is a dispute or the people raise questions, the local environmental protection department can request them to address the situation. public.
"When companies report environmental conditions to the environmental protection department, they will never report the contents of the 'trade secrets' to the environmental protection department. So, what is the environmental protection department's announcement of corporate information involving trade secrets?" said an environmental expert.
Why is the "Measures" not strictly regulating what constitutes trade secrets? Bitao explained: "The "Measures" as a department regulation cannot be located on the basis of relevant laws, and specific legal interpretations must be determined according to the law."
In response, Liu Lican appealed, "The government will continue to improve the "Measures" as soon as possible to block any "emptiness" that may be drilled."
Zinc Oxide For Plastic,High Purity Zinc Oxide Powder,Zinc Oxide For Rubber,Zinc Oxide Zno For Rubber
GuangDong DuBa New Material Technology Co.,LTD , https://www.dubachem.com