Environmental monitoring cannot be allowed to spend money "qualified"
By falsifying and tampering with monitoring data, issuing false monitoring reports, etc., to help pollutant discharging enterprises "muddle through"... According to the Beijing News on October 16, reporters have successively undergone two third-party environmental monitoring agencies in Xi'an and Taiyuan, and found that they often deceive, and "package qualification" has even become an unspoken rule in the industry - when encountering unqualified monitoring results, it is necessary to revise the report or retest until it is qualified.
With the continuous increase of China's ecological environmental protection efforts, all localities have continuously strengthened the monitoring of the production and pollution discharge of relevant enterprises, and established a strict punishment system for production behaviors and illegal discharge behaviors that may affect the quality of the ecological environment such as water, soil and atmosphere. In recent years, third-party environmental testing service organizations have played an increasingly important role in ecological environmental protection. To a certain extent, the data and situation of third-party environmental monitoring can reflect whether the competent departments are in place, whether relevant enterprises have performed corresponding duties and obligations, and whether environmental protection laws, regulations and rules and regulations are in place.
There are many links in ecological protection work, and the environmental monitoring report from a third party is a kind of evaluation and confirmation of the work of each link from a certain perspective. In practice, real environmental monitoring reports can objectively reflect the problems and shortcomings of relevant environmental protection work, and then promote relevant rectification and implementation.
When environmental monitoring and related reports can be "dressed up", and third-party monitoring agencies and polluting enterprises "wear a pair of pants" or even act as their "accomplices", how much truth and credibility can the conclusions of environmental monitoring be?
According to reports, some companies have a "cooperation" relationship with third-party institutions, "If you monitor me, you must let me pass, otherwise I will find another one." Driven or "threatened" by such interests, some third-party monitoring agencies began to "show their talents" - replacing wastewater with tap water when collecting environmental samples, and either falsifying data conclusions or fabricating them when issuing reports...
In the context of the deepening of the reform of "decentralization, management and service" and the implementation of the pollution discharge permit system, the supervision of the ecological environment and the compliance operation of relevant enterprises have become inseparable from third-party monitoring institutions to a large extent. But this must not be a reason for the institutions concerned to be fearless – environmental monitoring is not a purely commercial exercise, and its conclusions can have a significant impact on local decision-making, business operations, etc. If the environmental monitoring report "can be bought with money" and "any result you want", or even the situation of "testing with business" and "testing and raising business" for a long time, it will not only weaken the credibility of third-party monitoring institutions and destroy the market environment of fair competition, but also very likely to lead to the real environmental problems being covered up, and then mislead the decision-making of relevant localities and departments, affecting the governance work and effect. In the end, it is the environment in which people depend that they live.
It is precisely for this reason that in recent years, local environmental protection departments have increased the intensity of environmental monitoring and law enforcement supervision, and focused on the fraud of third-party environmental monitoring institutions - some places focus on environmental monitoring, carbon emission data management, etc., and carry out concentrated special rectification of the problem of fraud by third-party environmental protection service organizations; some places focus on exposing typical cases and warning and educating related enterprises; and some places seriously pursue the person in charge of enterprises that provide false supporting documents... Of course, while cracking down on fraudulent third-party monitoring agencies, it is also necessary to hold companies accountable for purchasing fraudulent third-party services, attempting to cover up substandard environmental indicators, or evading supervision. A two-way attack can form a greater deterrent.
Environmental monitoring cannot become a pure business or a naked exchange of benefits, and environmental quality is an issue that everyone cannot avoid, and even closely related to everyone. The chaos exposed by the media is shocking, and it also prompts relevant localities and departments to earnestly fulfill their responsibilities, continue to increase supervision and rectification, timely discover and block relevant interest chains, so that environmental monitoring can return to the right track, so that the environment can be more effectively protected.
