Challenges and Solutions in the Judicial Determination of Environmental Monitoring Data Tampering

Abstract

China currently faces the dual challenge of economic development and environmental protection. Accurate and reliable environmental monitoring data is crucial for environmental protection efforts; the harm caused by the “falsification” of automated monitoring data is greater than that caused by ecological and environmental pollution itself. In the face of a constant stream of cases involving the falsification of environmental monitoring data, China has been making continuous efforts to address the issue. The introduction of numerous targeted laws, regulations, and institutional rules reflects the Chinese government’s commitment to addressing data fabrication in the environmental monitoring sector. However, at the judicial level, challenges persist, including conflicts within the regulatory framework and difficulties in determining the authenticity, relevance, and admissibility of environmental monitoring data when used as evidence. It is necessary to conduct systematic research on judicial determination issues, moving beyond the traditional research focus on administrative supervision. By approaching the issue from the perspective of judicial determination, we can construct a four-dimensional analytical framework covering responsible parties, evidentiary validity, types of conduct, and causality. This framework will provide guidance for judicial adjudication that combines theoretical depth with practical applicability, thereby promoting the formation of a long-term mechanism that ensures people dare not, cannot, and do not want to fabricate data, and contributing to the construction of a Beautiful China. This paper focuses on the challenges in the judicial determination of fraudulent practices involving environmental monitoring data and is structured in three parts: Part One examines the causes of such fraudulent practices; Part Two addresses the challenges in their judicial determination; and Part Three outlines the normative approaches to determining such fraudulent practices.