How Long Can China Keep Pollution Data a State Secret?

How Long Can China Keep Pollution Data a State Secret?

A ChinaFile Conversation

Elizabeth Economy:

The environment is center stage once again in China. A Chinese lawyer has requested the findings of a national survey on soil pollution from the Ministry of Environmental Protection and been denied on the grounds that the information is a state secret. (The government had previously announced that 10 percent of China’s farmland was contaminated, but no details were provided.) The public and media are now pressing the Ministry to reverse its decision.

Why the secrecy? To begin with, the Chinese government’s initial reaction to almost any request for information is to say no. It is simply reflexive on Beijing’s part. Second, to provide details on the types, levels, and location of soil contamination throughout the country would inevitably cause serious financial hardship to farmers, who may be knowingly or unknowingly selling tainted produce, force an entire countrywide evaluation of the likely pollution sources for the contamination, and cause a widespread public health outcry Third, remediating contaminated soil on such a large scale is a costly, time-consuming, challenging project. No doubt the Ministry of Environmental Protection would like to figure out how it might begin the process and develop a plan to do so before it is forced to respond to public anger.

One potentially positive sign: there are rumors that one of the current Vice-Ministers of the Environment, Pan Yue, will be appointed Minister at the upcoming National People’s Congress. This would be a substantial step forward. Pan—who has been kept out of the public eye for the past several years—has been a champion of transparency. A number of years ago, he pushed an initiative to adopt a Green GDP, which was designed to estimate the economic costs associated with China’s environmental pollution and degradation. The effort failed due to the recalcitrance of local provincial officials, as well as the disinterest of the environment agency’s partner, the National Bureau of Statistics. Pan is also outspoken in his support of non-governmental organizations and willingness to cooperate with them.

In the end, I think the information will be released. There is little justification to protect data on soil contamination, when the Ministry has already acknowledged the right of the people to have access to air quality statistics. More importantly, I think this is just the beginning. The “public’s right to know” along with the Internet are likely to be the two great transformative political processes of the next three to five years.


Orville Schell

Orville Schell is the Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society in New York. He is a former professor and Dean at the University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. Schell is the author of fifteen books, ten of them about China, and a contributor to numerous edited volumes. His most recent books are Wealth and Power: China's Long March to the Twenty-first Century (Random House, 2013) (co-authored with John Delury), Virtual Tibet: Searching for Shangri-La from the Himalayas to Hollywood (Metropolitan Books, 2000), The China Reader: The Reform Years (Vintage, 1998), and Mandate of Heaven: The Legacy of Tiananmen Square and the Next Generation of China's Leaders (Simon & Schuster, 1994). He is also a contributor to such magazines as The New Yorker, The Atlantic, The New York Times Magazine, The Nation, The Los Angeles Times Magazine, Granta, Wired, Newsweek, Mother Jones, The China Quarterly, and The New York Review of Books.Schell graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard University in Far Eastern History, was an exchange student at National Taiwan University in the 1960s, and earned a Ph.D. (Abd) at the University of California, Berkeley in Chinese History. He worked for the Ford Foundation in Indonesia, covered the war in Indochina as a journalist, and has traveled widely in China since the mid-1970s.He is a Fellow at the Weatherhead East Asian Institute at Columbia University, a Senior Fellow at the Annenberg School of Communications at USC, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Schell was a Fellow at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism and the recipient of many prizes and fellowships, including a Guggenheim Fellowship, the Overseas Press Club Award, and the Harvard-Stanford Shorenstein Prize in Asian Journalism.

How do we explain a situation in which a country is, on the one hand, suffocating from toxic air pollution, toxic soil, drinking water laced with poisonous chemicals and food that is adulterated, while on the other hand is actively attempting to hide the government findings that might expose the problem and lead to a remedy?

Of course, such contradictions are not unknown in the world at-large, especially where governments are involved. But in contemplating China, we run into a somewhat unique situation. As Justice Louis Brandeis famously noted, “Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.” In China we have a country with a long history of both Confucianism and then Marxism-Leninism, two political traditions whose predominant ideologies were consecrated not to “sunlight,” but to re-enforcing the infallibility and authority of the state and its leaders. In both instances the institutions of education and media, such as they were, were viewed not as independent actors whose goals were to uncover truth, but rather handmaidens of the state and adjuncts to state power.

Thus, what we are witnessing today when China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection refuses to grant a lawyer’s request for government-generated information on the grounds that these are “state secrets” is an expression of one part of China’s now deeply divided self which is in contention with the another. These two contradictory aspects of Chinese society-in-the-process-of-self-reinvention might be described as the “old” vs “the new”: as the retrograde impulse never to release any information that makes the state look bad colliding with the new impulse that was encouraged by Deng Xiaoping with his annunciation of the need “to seek truth from facts” which has been updated by the more recent notion of “scientific development.”

The truth is that both China’s ideological framework and its political system are locked in a state of eternal transition (and tension), making the country perhaps the least “resolved” nation of consequence on the planet today. While every nation must embrace myriad contradictions, China’s lack of foundational beliefs, or of even a confirmed political system, when coupled with its eternal state of reform, makes it very vulnerable to this kind of mind-boggling contrariness. But, what it bespeaks is of a country and society in a very profound, long-term state of destabilizing transition, one that cannot really be understood unless one is able to maintain equal and opposite forces as happening simultaneously in one’s head at the same time.

Under such a circumstance, it is hardly surprising that the release of potentially embarrassing environmental information that protects people’s health and saves people’s lives, which has become the official rule-of-the road in China on the one hand, still collides with the old abiding and very retrograde, impulse to control and censor information that risks making the state and Party look bad.

Donald Clarke

Donald Clarke is a professor at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., where he specializes in modern Chinese law, focusing particularly on corporate governance, Chinese legal institutions, and the legal issues presented by China’s economic reforms. He has previously been on the law faculties of the University of Washington School of Law and the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, and has been a visiting professor at Duke Law School, New York University School of Law, and the UCLA School of Law. In addition to his academic work, he founded and maintains Chinalaw, the leading internet listserv on Chinese law, and writes the Chinese Law Prof Blog. He was educated at Princeton University (A.B.) and the University of London (M.Sc.), and received his law degree (J.D.) from Harvard Law School, where he was a member of the Harvard Law Review. He has served as a consultant on Chinese law matters to a number of organizations, including the Financial Sector Reform and Strengthening Initiative (FIRST), the Asian Development Bank, and the Agency for International Development. He is a member of the New York bar and the Council on Foreign Relations.

How long can China keep pollution data a state secret? The very fact that we can ask this question – that the answer is not obviously “As long as the government wants” – tells us something interesting about recent legal and political developments in China. And it sheds new light on the old question, “Does law matter in China?”

The Caixin web site recently reported that Lawyer Dong Zhengwei made a request to the Ministry of the Environment under the "Regulations on Open Government Information" that its data on soil pollution be made public. In response, the MOE stated that the information could not be released as it was a state secret.

The substance of this story is no surprise. Of course the government does not want to release this information. But think about how this scenario would have played out not so many years ago: (1) Lawyer requests information. (2) No response. And this could have happened whether or not there were regulations on open government information.

Instead, the existence of these regulations combined with a shift in what for want of a better term we might call legal culture has meant that the MOE apparently feels the need to respond in some way. It has to come up with a justification for not revealing the data. And that means it has to put itself in the embarrassing position of lamely claiming that this information is a state secret, implying that releasing it would somehow harm national interests.

Let's make two assumptions: (1) an action based on an explicit rationale is easier to criticize than one for which no rationale is supplied; and (2) government officials and agencies would, all other things being equal, prefer not to put themselves in the position of exposing themselves to criticism. If you buy those two assumptions, then at the margin we should expect to see more information being made available as a result of the regulations.

In other words, this law matters not because there is some institution out there (for example, courts) that can force the government to reveal information, but because the very procedure, even if it results in an effectively unreviewable decision not to disclose, puts some pressure on government to operate differently from the way in which it has operated in the past.

We see exactly this kind of pressure operating here. The very existence of the law on open government information, without changing in any way the government’s arbitrary power to designate information as a state secret, has nevertheless changed things and made it meaningful to ask how long the government can keep this particular data secret.

Susan Shirk

Susan L. Shirk is the chair of the 21st Century China Program and Ho Miu Lam Professor of China and Pacific Relations at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies (IR/PS) at UC San Diego.  She also is director emeritus of the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. Currently she is an Arthur Ross Fellow at Asia Society’s Center on U.S.-China Relations.From 1997 to 2000, Shirk served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of East Asia and Pacific Affairs, with responsibility for China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mongolia.Shirk’s most recent publications are her edited book, Changing Media, Changing China (Oxford, 2011) and China: Fragile Superpower (Oxford, 2007).

Some may find it strange that the official state media is out front lambasting the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) for hiding of soil pollution survey data.   What’s happening is that the competition from commercial media and Internet is forcing state media to change too. The official publications are trying to expand their audience by shoring up their fraying credibility.     Hard-hitting criticism of the government is the way to sound more credible to the public. You can see this effort particularly in the weibo microblogs that the Communist Party central mouthpiece, People’s Daily has started posting.   The sharply critical tone is light years away from the dull defensive officialese of the print newspaper.   

Global Times is a commercial publication focused on international affairs that is part of the People’s Daily media group.    Beginning in the 1990s it attracted a huge audience by publishing exciting stories that dramatize foreign threats and stoke anti-foreign nationalism.    But now it is facing competition too.   And some young Netizens are questioning whether Global Times’ steady diet of hyper nationalism is simply the way the Party is trying to distract them from the serious domestic problems in their own backyard.  That’s why Global Times, led by its editor, Hu Xijin who has become a lightning rod for the debate over nationalism has started to post weibo criticizing the government about domestic problems.

The commercialization of the media -- and its challenge to the credibility of information provided by the official media and the government itself -- also drove the Chinese Communist Party to embrace of the norm of transparency, which is articulated in the Open Government Information Regulations that were enacted in May 2008.   This law is the basis for Mr. Dong Zhengwei’s request for the MEP to release the soil pollution data. I’d bet a lot that the new leadership will overrule the MEP and require it to release the data; the only question is whether they do it right away on the eve of the important National People’s Congress meeting about to open or shortly afterward. 

Isabel Hilton

Isabel Hilton is a London-based international journalist and broadcaster. She studied at the Beijing Foreign Language and Culture University and at Fudan University in Shanghai before taking up a career in written and broadcast journalism, working for The Sunday Times, The Independent, The Guardian, and the New Yorker. In 1992 she became a presenter of the BBC’s flagship news program, “The World Tonight,” then BBC Radio Three’s cultural program “Night Waves.” She is a columnist for The Guardian and her work has appeared in the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Granta, the New Statesman, El Pais, Index on Censorship, and many other publications. She is the author and co-auothor of several books and is founder and editor of, a non-profit, fully bilingual online publication based in London, Beijing, and Delhi that focuses on the environment and climate change. Hilton holds two honorary doctorates and was awarded the OBE for her work in raising environmental awareness in China.

There are two tendencies at war here: the one that has been pushing for transparency and the public right to know, and the one that prefers to classify potentially embarrassing information as a state secret. This is a serious conflict which plays out in confusing results. The progressive group, in which Pan Yue played such an important part, succeeded in 2008 in getting Pan Yue himself, before he had to retreat into purdah, held the famous public hearings on the environmental impact of the proposed Old Summer Palace lake to demonstrate that public consultation and discussion was essential if good decisions were to result.

Since then, there has been a lot of progress, but it is patchy. Some city governments set up websites and as a matter of routine that would have been nigh impossible to get only five years ago. At the same time, there has been a lot of push back, notably over the refusal to publish EIAs on controversial dam projects and the repeated controversies over air quality data in Beijing, recently reprised in the great smog.

Soil pollution, for all the reasons that Elizabeth outlines, is especially sensitive: like air and water pollution, it has direct consequences for public health, but because it affects the food chain these can go much wider than local impacts. Four years ago, attempted to research the health impacts of pollution in Dongguan, including the impacts of soil pollution. We encountered repeated refusals to give us access to essential data: what were the pollutants; where was the soil contaminated; how badly and so on. It was possible to get hold of data at provincial level, but not possible to get the kind of detail that would allow us to relate it to local contamination or local impacts.

The many ways in which this data was refused are described in the we produced. Then, as now, the health impacts of China’s pollution crisis come into the category of information that the government does not want the citizens to know.

The controversy over PM2.5 in December 2011, the recent public outcry over Beijing’s smog and the high nitrogen levels in air and water pollution, can be read as progress. In the recent smog episode, even normally compliant media criticized official reluctance to produce honest data and complained that is damaged the relationship of trust between the citizen and the government. The government now PM2.5 data and the challenge of hand held testing devices in the hands of ordinary citizens is forcing transparency in practice as well as on paper. It is not hard to imagine that similar citizen testing of soil could force the authorities to respond positively.

But that will be decided by the new administration that will be confirmed in the upcoming NPC. Surely this timing is one factor in the public spat now over the right to information. The media are responding, as they now must, to public anger; they are also lining up with those who wish the new government to move in the right direction.

After all, information both guides action and, in the hands of the citizens, obliges the government to act. That means taking on big vested interests and, if not changing the industrial model, at least enforcing the many rules and regulations that currently languish in neglect. It might even make the case for the rule of law. It is, potentially, a pivotal moment.

Elizabeth Economy is the C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The author of The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s...
Orville Schell is the Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society in New York. He is a former professor and Dean at the University of California, Berkeley Graduate...
Donald Clarke is a professor at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C., where he specializes in modern Chinese law, focusing particularly on corporate governance, Chinese ...
Susan L. Shirk is the chair of the 21st Century China Program and Ho Miu Lam Professor of China and Pacific Relations at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies (IR/PS) at UC San...
Isabel Hilton is a London-based international journalist and broadcaster. She studied at the Beijing Foreign Language and Culture University and at Fudan University in Shanghai before taking up a...





The China Africa Relationship: Crossroads or Cliff?

Cobus van Staden, Eric Olander, Huang Hongxiang from ChinaFile Conversation
Eric Olander and Cobus van Staden publish the China Africa Project web site, whose weekly podcast we are proud to syndicate.  As we approach the sixth Forum on China Africa Cooperation Summit in Johannesburg, we’ve also picked up written...



Is China a Credible Partner in Fighting Terror?

Andrew Small, Chen Weihua, Wei Zhu, Eric Hundman from ChinaFile Conversation
In the wake of the terror attacks in Paris China’s foreign minister Wang Yi said, “China is also a victim of terrorism. The fight against the ‘East Turkestan Islamic Movement’… should become an important part of the international fight against...



How Can China’s Neighbors Make Progress at APEC?

Le Hong Hiep, Brian Eyler from ChinaFile Conversation
Ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit next week, we asked a group of experts from China’s neighboring countries what they thought the main thrust of discussion in Manila should be. If host, the Philippines, under pressure from...



The China-Taiwan Summit

Richard Bernstein, Andrew J. Nathan, Jerome A. Cohen, Ho-fung Hung, Wei-chin Lee from ChinaFile Conversation
This Saturday, for the first time since 1949, the leaders of China and Taiwan will meet face to face. Xi Jinping and Ma Ying-jeou will meet in Singapore, not as Presidents, but—to sidestep one of many lingering areas of conflict since the Chinese...



How Far Have China’s Economic Reforms Come over the Past Year?

Houze Song, Arthur R. Kroeber from ChinaFile Conversation
As the Chinese Communist Party leadership wrapped up its Fifth Plenum, the meeting at which the Party’s leadership set the Five Year Plan that will shape economic policy through 2020, what progress has been made on the “comprehensive deepening” of...



Making Waves in the South China Sea

Peter Dutton, Jessica Chen Weiss, Andrew S. Erickson, Elbridge Colby from ChinaFile Conversation
Challenging China’s newly assertive behavior in the South China Sea, this week the U.S. Navy sailed some of its biggest ships inside the nine-dash line, exercising its claim to freedom of movement in international waters plied by billions in trade...



Britain: ‘China’s Best Partner in the West’?

Isabel Hilton, Sebastian Heilmann , Jonathan Fenby, Sophie Richardson, Robert Barnett from ChinaFile Conversation
This week, Xi Jinping is in Great Britain for a state visit, his first since assuming leadership of China nearly three years ago. Britain’s government under David Cameron has signaled—increasingly loudly in recent months—that it hopes to usher in a...



Is There a China Model?

Daniel A. Bell, Timothy Garton Ash, Andrew J. Nathan, Taisu Zhang, Mark Danner, Rebecca Liao, Ryan Mitchell from ChinaFile Conversation
The most recent public event in our ChinaFile Presents series, which we held October 15 in New York, was a discussion of the philosopher Daniel A. Bell’s controversial book, The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy, co-...



What Will the TPP Mean for China?

Barry Naughton, Arthur R. Kroeber, Guy de Jonquières, Graham Webster, Robert Kapp, Yoichi Funabashi from ChinaFile Conversation
On Monday, the U.S., Japan, and ten other countries concluded negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP—the largest regional trade accord in history. If approved, the agreement will set new terms for the nearly $28 trillion in trade and...



The Future of Autonomy in Hong Kong

David Schlesinger, Denise Y. Ho, Ho-fung Hung, Samson Yuen, Alvin Y.H. Cheung, Edmund Cheng, Sebastian Veg from ChinaFile Conversation
Yesterday, the governing board of Hong Kong University, one of the territory’s most esteemed institutions of higher education, voted to reject the promotion of Johannes Chan, a former law school dean, over the objections of the faculty and students...