當前我國環境群體性事件呈高發態勢。根據引發事件事實狀態的不同可將其分為事前預防型環境群體性事件和事后救濟型環境群體性事件。預防型環境群體性事件中公眾所抵制的是有關環境風險的決策結果,實質上是在主張環境公共決策過程中認知風險的權利。著眼于預防型環境群體性事件所針對的環境公共決策過程,主要運用理論分析、規范分析、比較分析的方法,從行政決策權的行使與公眾參與權利的實現入手,探究環境公共決策無法取得實質合法性的根源,尋求化解之法治路徑。當前環境公共決策在結構和程序上呈現出封閉性,與決策結果具有直接利害關系的公眾被排除在外,其認知風險的權利得不到有效實現,風險溝通不暢導致社會可接受的風險共識不能形成,環境公共決策無法取得實質合法性,引發預防型環境群體性事件增多。由于環境風險的不確定性特征,環境公共決策中專家的理性地位被動搖,公眾參與環境決策的訴求更為強烈,其對風險的認知直接決定了對最終決策結果的認可和接受程度,政府無法獨占風險決策地位。在社會層面形成具體風險認知的共識以便決策結果獲得普遍的認同和接受成為環境公共決策取得實質合法性的必要條件。化解預防型環境群體性事件,需要在環境公共決策過程中進行有效的風險溝通。為此,環境法應當將公眾作為環境決策的合作者,要求決策者主動、全面公開決策所依據的事實和理由,對公眾意見給予及時充分的回應,尋求其理解和支持;實現環境信息公開的風險溝通功能;通過程序性的設計促進風險溝通的實現,保障公眾參與的有效性。當前有關立法已反映出對風險溝通的重視,但只是萌芽。

China witnessed a sharp increase of mass protests against environmental pollution. These protests may be classified into two categories: those seeking remedies for actual damages and those preventing perceived damages. The goal of preventative mass protests against perceived pollution is to prevent the decision-making results about environmental risks,but the more important underlying reason for such protests is to realize the right of perceiving environmental risks in the governmental decision-making process. This paper studies environmental public decision-making processes with the methods of doctrinal analysis,normative analysis,and comparative analysis. It starts with the decision-making powers of administrative agencies and the participation rights of the public in environmental public decision-making processes,then explores the sources for the inability to reach substantive legitimacy,and finally searches for the ways to reach substantive legitimacy. Currently,the process and structure of environmental public decision-making are closed,the public having direct interest to the result are excluded,and the public’s right of perceiving risk cannot be effectively exercised. The lack of effective risk communication leads to the lack of substantive legitimacy and the increase of preventative mass protests against perceived pollution. Because of the uncertainty of environmental risks,the experts’ status as the rational representatives has been shaken and the public make a stronger claim to participate in the environmental decision-making process. The public’s perception of environmental risks determines their degree of acceptance of the final decisions and the government cannot keep the exclusive role in risk decision-making. Effective risk communication in the environmental decision-making process is necessary to reduce or eliminative preventative mass protests against perceived pollution. Therefore,the environmental law needs to develop in three parts. The first is to treat the public as cooperators rather than those being regulated,requiring policy makers to disclose the facts and reasons voluntarily and fully and to response to the public’s opinion timely and adequately to seek the public’s understanding and support. The second is to stress the risk communication function of the disclosure of environmental information. The third is to ensure the effectiveness of risk communication with procedural arrangements. The current rules reflect the attention to risk communication but it is still insufficient.