环境许可的规范形成机制：论中国排污许可制度与欧盟BAT许可模式的差异

Norm Formation in Environmental Permitting: A Comparative Study of China’s Pollutant Discharge Permit System and the EU’s BAT-Based Permitting Model

摘要: 环境许可的关键，并不止于确认经营者是否具有排放资格，而在于将环境质量目标、排放标准、技术知识以及设施具体条件转化为可执行、可监督、可审查的个案义务。2026年施行的《中华人民共和国生态环境法典》将排污许可确立为固定污染源监督管理的核心制度，并把排放标准、总量控制、环境影响评价、污染防治可行技术和区域环境质量改善要求纳入许可条件。《欧洲议会和欧盟理事会2010年11月24日关于工业及畜禽养殖排放(污染综合预防与控制)的第2010/75/EU号指令(重铸)》(后文简称《工业排放指令》，英文缩写IED)则以最佳可行技术(Best Available Techniques, BAT)为基础，通过BAT参考文件、BAT结论和BAT相关排放水平(Best Available Techniques-Associated Emission Levels, BAT-AELs)建立从行业技术信息到个案许可证条件的规范转换机制。比较表明，中欧制度的差异不宜概括为一方“适用规范”、另一方“创造规范”，而在于技术规范参与个案义务形成的程度、行政裁量的组织方式以及许可证动态复审机制存在结构性差别。中国排污许可目前仍以统一排放标准和既有规范的集中具体化为基本逻辑，污染防治可行技术主要承担达标能力证明和技术支撑功能；欧盟BAT模式则通过具有较强拘束力的BAT结论和BAT-AEL区间，将设施层面的技术可达性直接嵌入排放限值确定。欧盟经验的可借鉴之处，不在于以BAT取代我国排放标准，而在于完善技术规范的程序基础、个案强化许可条件的说明理由以及技术进步和环境质量变化触发的动态复审。

Abstract: Environmental permitting does more than determine whether an operator is authorised to discharge pollutants. It translates environmental quality objectives, emission standards, technical knowledge and installation-specific conditions into enforceable, monitorable and reviewable obligations. The Ecological and Environmental Code of the People’s Republic of China, which entered into force in 2026, establishes pollutant discharge permitting as the central mechanism for regulating stationary pollution sources and incorporates emission standards, total emission controls, environmental impact assessment, feasible pollution prevention and control techniques, and regional environmental quality improvement requirements into permit conditions. Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial and livestock rearing emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast) (hereinafter the “Industrial Emissions Directive” or “IED”), by contrast, is based on best available techniques (BAT). Through BAT reference documents, BAT conclusions and BAT-associated emission levels (BAT-AELs), it establishes a mechanism for translating sectoral technical information into individual permit conditions. The comparison shows that the differences between the Chinese and EU systems cannot adequately be characterised as one “applying norms” and the other “creating norms”. Rather, structural differences lie in the extent to which technical norms shape individual obligations, the way administrative discretion is structured, and the mechanisms for periodic permit review. China’s pollutant discharge permit system remains primarily centred on consolidating and giving concrete effect to uniform emission standards and existing regulatory requirements. Feasible pollution prevention and control techniques mainly serve to demonstrate the capacity to meet those standards and provide technical support. The EU’s BAT-based model, by contrast, incorporates technical achievability at the installation level directly into the determination of emission limit values through legally binding BAT conclusions and BAT-AEL ranges. The lesson for China is not to replace its emission standards with BAT, but to strengthen the procedural foundations of technical norms, the reason-giving requirements for imposing stricter conditions in individual permits, and the mechanisms for reviewing permits in response to technological advances and changes in environmental quality.