我国立法没有对检察机关在环境民事公益诉讼中的调查核实权予以明确规定，现行法依据仅仅是最高人民检察院颁布的司法解释——《人民检察院提起公益诉讼试点工作实施办法》（以下简称《检察院实施办法》）。不同于《人民检察院民事诉讼监督规则（试行）》对调查核实问题进行了专节的规定，《检察院实施办法》仅仅用一个条文规定调查核实权。除却立法层面的缺陷外，学界也鲜有人对这一问题进行研究，至今更没有就环境民事公益诉讼中检察机关的调查核实权进行深入、细致的分析。检察机关调查核实权包括单独提起环境民事公益诉讼的调查核实权和支持环境民事公益诉讼的调查核实权，本文仅讨论单独提起环境民事公益诉讼的调查核实权。作为当下检察机关开展民事公益诉讼的重点，环境民事公益诉讼占据了绝大部分民事公益诉讼案件，解决检察机关在这类案件中如何行使调查核实权的问题就显得尤为重要和迫切。在调查核实权的问题上，从理论上讲需要明确的是，调查核实权的基本内容是什么；调查核实权的正当性是什么。从实践层面需要探讨的是，由谁来代表检察机关真正落实调查核实权；什么阶段开展调查核实证据的工作；调查核实的范围包括哪些；调查核实的方式有哪些；收集到的证据效力如何认定。法院和社会组织同样享有保护环境公共利益的资格，拥有调查收集证据的权力（利），检察机关在调查核实证据的问题上，与法院是否存在冲突，二者如何协调。没有公权力属性的社会组织在收集证据的问题上，如何准确定位，与检察机关民事诉讼监督中调查核实权相比，二者存在着怎样的关系。检察机关调查核实证据，需要哪些保障性的制度安排，使检察机关更为有效的行使这项权力。权力是一把双刃剑，为了防止检察机关不当行使调查核实权，如何对调查核实权的行使进行必要的规制。本文对以上问题都进行了回应，其中： 第一部分主要讨论检察机关在环境民事公益诉讼中调查核实权的理论基础。调查核实权的内容有四个方面，调查核实权的内涵要从调查与核实两个层面来分析；调查核实权的特征则需要从目的上的公益性、方式上的非强制性等角度进行理解；调查核实权的性质是公益性质；调查核实权有可靠性价值和及时性价值。对调查核实权正当性的理解，分别从调查核实权是检察权的应有之义以及调查核实权是环境民事公益诉讼的必要保障两个角度来进行分析。 第二部分是调查核实权的行使。在调查核实权行使的问题上，不仅要弄清调查核实权的内容，还要理解与之相关的法院调查取证权、社会组织收集证据的权利以及检察机关民事诉讼监督中的调查核实权。调查核实权的具体行使包括五个方面，即调查核实权的行使主体、调查核实权的行使阶段、调查核实权的行使范围、调查核实权的行使方式和调查核实权的行使效力。 第三部分主要介绍调查核实权的保障及规制。调查核实权的保障制度，在保障制度基本思路的基础上，认为不仅要从立法上、培训上进行保障，还要构建协力取证保障制度、证据保全、对妨碍调查核实证据的主体进行制裁等制度来保障调查核实权的有效行使。调查核实权的制度规制，首先需要明确规制的基本思路是不对其他合法利益造成损害，在具体规制制度的构建上，至少要包括违法违纪制裁、非法证据排除以及被调查对象的异议权这三个方面。

That the procuratorial organs' right of investigation and verification in environmental civil public interest litigation is not explicitly stipulated in our current legislation, and the basis of existing law is just the judicial interpretation issued by the supreme people's procuratorate --- Measures for the Implementation of the Pilot Program of Initiating Public Interest Actions by People’s Procuratorate (hereinafter referred to as the measures for the implementation of the people's procuratorate). Different from Rules for the supervision of civil procedure of people's procuratorate (trial), in which the problems of the investigation and verification are stipulated in specialized sections, measures for the implementation of the people's procuratorate only stipulates them in one article. Except for the defects on the level of legislation, there are few studies on this issue even in academic fields, even fewer in-depth and detailed analysis on procuratorial organs' right of investigation and verification in environmental civil public interest litigation. The procuratorial organs' right of investigation and verification includes right of investigation and verification on lawsuit alone and right of investigation and verification in supporting indictment. This article only discusses right of investigation and verification on lawsuit alone. As the key point where procuratorial organs developing civil public interest litigation, environmental civil public interest litigation takes a great part of the cases, as a consequence, that how procuratorial organs carry out their right of investigation and verification in these cases is especially important. There are several questions to be discussed on the problem of the right of investigation and verification. Theoretically, it needs to understand the basic components of the right of investigation and verification? What is the legitimacy of this right? What kind of identity should the procuratorial organs use to investigate and verify the evidence? Practically, we need to quest for who should be the representative of the procuratorial organs to make the right of investigation and verification workable? At what stage should the work of investigation and verification be carried out? And what is the scope of investigation and verification. What are the ways of investigating and verifying? How to define the validity of the collected evidence? The court and social organizations both enjoy the qualification of protecting the public interests of the environment and the right of investigating and collecti.g the evidence, so on the problem of procuratorial organs' investigating and verifying the evidence, whether there exists conflict with the court? If there exists, how to coordinate? How to locate the social organization without public power property accurately on the problem of evidence collection? What is the relationship in comparison with the right of investigation and verification of the procuratorial organs in civil lawsuit and supervision? What kind of indemnificatory regulation and arrangement are in need to guarantee the high efficiency of procuratorial organs' exercising this right? Right is a double-edged sword, as a consequence, in case that the procuratorial organs exercise this right improperly, how to govern the exercises of this right? This paper gives the answers to the questions above. The first part mainly discusses the theoretical basis of the right of investigation and verification of the procuratorial organs in environmental public interests litigation. The content of the right of investigation and verification covers four aspects, the connotation of the right of investigation and verification should be analysed in two aspects, investigation and verification; the characteristic of the right of investigation and verification should be understanded from these angles, including the public welfare in purpose、non-obligatory in manners; the nature of the right of investigation and verification is public quality; the right of investigation and verification includes reliability value and timeliness value. Understanding the legitimacy of the right of investigation and verification depends on this right which inherents the procuratorial authority and this right is the necessary safegurard in environmental civil public interest litigation. The second part discusses about the exercise of the right of investigation and verification. On this problem, not only the contents should be clarified, but also relative rights should be comprehend such as the right of investigation and obtainment of evidence of the court, the right of collection of the evidence of the social organizations and the right of investigation and verification of the procuratorial organs in civil actions. The specific exercise of this power includes five aspects, namely the main body, stages, fields, methods and validity. The third part mainly introduces the guarantee and the governance of the right of investigation and verification. On the basis of basic thinking of system safeguard, the institutional guarantee of the right should not only support the investigating officer on legislation and training, but also build the evidence guard, cooperative support system in evidence and sanction the subjects who obstruct the process. The institutional regulation should firstly confirm that no harm would be given to others legal interests. And during the concrete construction of regulations, these should include at least three aspects: illegal and disciplinary sanction, illegal evidence exclusion, and the right of dissent of the informants.