Please zoom in or out and select the base layer according to your preference to make the map ready for printing, then press the Print button above.

Cancer Village Xiping and Pingnan County Chromium Pollution Case in Fujian, China


Located in the northeast of Fujian Province, Pingnan County is the only natural protection area of Mandarin ducks and rhesus macaques worldwide. Despite of a surrounding of green bamboos and clear streams, the county suffered great poverty due to its isolation and backward economy(1).

In order to drive its economic development, Pingnan County welcomed the construction of Rongping Joint Chemical Plant (榕屏联营化工厂), the largest potassium chlorate factory in Asia, which fully opened for production in Xiping Village. The Rongping plant opened here in 1994. It had previously been in Fujian's capital, Fuzhou. Officials relocated it to take advantage of cheap hydroelectric power from Xiping's mountain streams and promote rural economic development. A state-owned chemicals company based in Fuzhou is the plant's majority owner, although the Pingnan County government held a 30% stake until 2004. The Rongping Plant was providing 1/3 of the county’s total tax, which enabled sufficient income for local teachers and carders (ibid).

But meanwhile, pollution started to creep upon nearby villages. After the factory opened, local timber stands, bamboo, fruit trees, and crops were noticeably withering and dying. Fish and shrimp sharply decreased in volume. Villagers began to experience various unfamiliar illnesses, including headaches, nausea, chest tightness and itchy skin. Incidents of cancer increased markedly with diagnoses in Xiping Village surging from 1 death between 1990 and 1994 to 17 between 1999 and 2001 (ibid).

Noticing these health problems, Xiping villagers voluntarily collected waste water and residue discharged by the plant for an official test, which indicated a dangerous level of pollutants, with hexavalent chromium 10 times higher than normal. Chromium pollution may cause diarrhea and skin allergy, and corrode the respiratory passage. It is also known as a carcinogen (ibid).

The villagers believed that the pollution actually commenced in 1992 with the construction of the first stage of the plant, and the second stage, completed in 1998, brought the most serious harm.(2). They linked the damage to their life to the plant and complained to the township and county governments as well as environmental authorities. In January 1995, the plant made a one off compensation to some villagers for their loss of crops, and since then no villagers had received any further compensation.(1) Early 1999, Mr. Zhang Changjian, a local “barefoot doctor”, who was among the first to notice the pollution, organised a letter writing campaign to various government agencies trying to obtain relief. He continued to organize and send a formal petition to China’s State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) in 2001. SEPA, feeling the attention national media paid to the villagers’ actions, listed the plant one of the 55 worst polluters in China.

In 2002, the Beijing-based Centre for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims (CLAPV) got involved in assisting the villagers (2). Professor Wang Canfa, founder of the centre, inspected the area with a team of environmental experts and journalists.(3) In June the same year, 1,721 plaintiffs, represented by Zhang Changjian and four other villagers, filed a class action lawsuit against Rongping Chemical Plant in the Ningde Municipality Intermediate People’s Court. After a long wait of 2 years, a court session opened and confirmed the environmental damage caused by the defendant. The compensation ordered by the court, however, was 249,736 yuan, which only accounted for 1.8% of the plaintiffs’ required amount of 13,534,640 yuan. Both parties disagreed with the sentence and consequently appealed to the Fujian Provincial High People’s Court.(1) Three years later, the Fujian Provincial High People’s Court’s final judgment ordered Rongping Plant to immediately cease the infringement; to compensate villagers 684,178.2 yuan for their losses to crops, bamboo, timber and so on; and to clean up its chromium-containing waste.(2) The compensation equates to roughly 397 yuan per plaintiff, earning the so-called landmark environmental case an ambiguous victory.(4) The final execution of compensation and legal cost did not take place until 2008.(5) The plant provides 1/3 of the county’s annual tax and other revenues, and this economic benefit to the local government secures its operation and makes judgment difficult to obtain. The plaintiffs criticised the local government for continuously taking the side of the plant; for example, when they went to the county centre to raise funds for the lawsuit and disseminate knowledge on environmental protection, the government accused them of conducting illegal fundraising and confiscated the donation box. Another striking way of silencing opposition happened when China Central Television’s News Probe made a programme on Nanping’s pollution; the day of the screening of the show, the county experienced an unexpected power cut.(1)

Basic Data

Name of conflict:Cancer Village Xiping and Pingnan County Chromium Pollution Case in Fujian, China
State or province:Fujian Province
Location of conflict:Pingnan County
Accuracy of locationHIGH (Local level)

Source of Conflict

Type of conflict. 1st level:Industrial and Utilities conflicts
Type of conflict. 2nd level:Chemical industries
Specific commodities:Chemical products
Potassium chlorate

Project Details and Actors

Project details

Type of populationRural
Start of the conflict:15/01/1995
End of the conflict:01/12/2008
Company names or state enterprises:Rongping Joint Chemical Plant from China
Relevant government actors:Ningde Municipality Intermediate People's Court
Fujian Provincial High People’s Court
Local Environmental Protection Bureau
State Environmental Protection Administration
Environmental justice organizations (and other supporters) and their websites, if available:Centre for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims (CLAPV)
China Central Television (CCTV)

Conflict & Mobilization

IntensityLOW (some local organising)
Reaction stageMobilization for reparations once impacts have been felt
Groups mobilizing:Farmers
Local scientists/professionals
A local doctor, journalists
Forms of mobilization:Community-based participative research (popular epidemiology studies, etc..)
Development of a network/collective action
Involvement of national and international NGOs
Lawsuits, court cases, judicial activism
Media based activism/alternative media
Official complaint letters and petitions
Appeals/recourse to economic valuation of the environment


Environmental ImpactsVisible: Air pollution, Food insecurity (crop damage), Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Soil contamination, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality
Health ImpactsVisible: Deaths, Other environmental related diseases
Other Health impactsCancer
Socio-economical ImpactsVisible: Loss of livelihood, Loss of landscape/sense of place


Project StatusUnknown
Conflict outcome / response:Compensation
Environmental improvements, rehabilitation/restoration of area
Court decision (victory for environmental justice)
Do you consider this an environmental justice success? Was environmental justice served?:Yes
Briefly explain:The Pingnan case is considered as a success. The villagers’ unification around the head representative Zhang Changjian, dubbed the lawsuit’s “emotional leader” by the press, largely contributed to the triumph. Media attention also worked to the plaintiff’s favour. They claimed central media as their best allies, as EPB sent out an inspection team on the day that the News Probe programme went on air.(4)
Despite of the difficulty of proving the link between air pollution and damage to health and crops, the plaintiffs adopted legal means to make the polluter improve its dated production system. There are signs of revegetation, but depending on the plant’s long-term performance, it is still too early to draw any conclusion.(1)

Sources & Materials

References to published books, academic articles, movies or published documentaries

4. Stern, R. E. (2011). From dispute to decision: Suing polluters in China. The China Quarterly, 206, 294-312.

2. Wang, Alex (2006-7) The Role of Law in Environmental Protection in China: Recent Developments. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, Vol 8, 195-223.

Environmental protection in China: the role of law

Author: Alex Wang, Director, China Environmental Law Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, in China Dialogue, Published on: 5 February 2007

5. 【近景中国】王灿发为环境抗争

1. 屏南县千余村民环保讼案始末

3. “及时雨”王灿发

The Wall Street Journal, In Booming China, A Doctor Battles A Polluting Factory

Fouled Waters Lead to Flood Of Protests Nationwide; Officials' Mixed Messages


River of Tears

In Booming China, A Doctor Battles A Polluting Factory

Fouled Waters Lead to Flood Of Protests Nationwide;

Officials' Mixed Messages

Inspired by Erin Brockovich

July 19, 2006 By Shai Oster and Mei Fong

Related media links to videos, campaigns, social network

改革開放三十年 - 中國新面貌: 還我青山綠水

China’s New Faces: Give Me Back The Natural Scenery

Meta information

Contributor:EJOLT team at School of Geography and China Centre, University of Oxford
Last update18/08/2019
Conflict ID:2172




Mr. Zhang Changjian


Xiping river

Xiping river view at Xiping village