环境民事公益诉讼作为一种司法策略，旨在填补政府在环保行政管控方面的潜在空缺，其作用既包含对环境损害的事后补救，也涵盖了对环境风险的前瞻性防控。调解机制在解决社会争议时展现出了无可比拟的价值，通过提升诉讼进程的效率并降低成本，有力保护环境公共利益，促进了社会稳定，成为司法实践中广泛采纳的结案途径之一。尽管我国法律已明确接纳调解作为解决环境民事公益诉讼案件的一种手段，但在制度设计层面和实际操作过程中，仍面临诸多亟待克服的难题与挑战。

本文第一章主要阐述环境民事公益诉讼调解制度的概述及现状。本文从环境民事公益诉讼的概念、特点和分类出发，提出了环境民事公益诉讼调解制度的优势，即扩展纠纷解决路径、降低诉讼成本提高诉讼效率等。另外笔者梳理了环境民事公益诉讼调解制度的立法历程，叙述此制度目前的立法现状及司法现状，同时列举了几个典型案例并针对案例进行分析。

第二章笔者主要围绕环境民事公益诉讼调解制度的问题及其原因进行阐述。具体来说，环境民事公益诉讼调解制度在启动时间节点的明确性及适用条件的具体化方面仍有欠缺；在调解范围及限度上，尚缺少细化规定；公告程序的规范化建设也有待加强；执行难度较高、后续监督跟进不足等，导致部分协议无法实现修复环境的目的。基于以上问题，笔者从立法层面及司法层面分析其原因，以供后续提出方案更具针对性。

第三章主要围绕环境民事公益诉讼理论与调解理论的协同模式进行论述，探究将调解更好地融合于环境民事公益诉讼以使其制度更为严密完善提供可行性基础。本章主要从环境民事公益诉讼制度的有限调解模式、依职权调解模式与环境民事公益诉讼调解公开模式进行阐释，分析在环境民事公益诉讼中适用或加强以上模式的正当性，为提出解决路径提供指引。

第四章笔者针对上述环境民事公益诉讼调解制度的问题提出完善路径，首先，需明确环境民事公益诉讼这一特殊制度的调解启动时间，要允许在特定情况下诉前调解适用；其次，应当厘定调解的范围和限度，对排除危害型、修复生态型、损害赔偿型、赔礼道歉型诉讼请求，根据其特点针对性地划定调解限度；再次，对于公告制度要进行统一及细化；最后，对于调解协议的监督，可通过强化公众参与、法院监督以及引入第三方机构实现，对于调解协议的执行，可通过强化调解协议的效力、建立定期报告制度、建立执行回访制度、借用互联网政务方式建立一站式网络监督平台等方式确保环境公共利益得到切实保护。

As a judicial strategy, environmental civil public interest litigation aims to fill the potential gap of the government in environmental protection administrative control. Its role includes not only the post-remediation of environmental damage, but also covers the forward-looking prevention and control of environmental risks.The mediation mechanism has shown incomparable value in resolving social disputes. By improving the efficiency of the litigation process and reducing the cost, it has effectively protected the environmental public interests, promoted social stability, and has become one of the ways to settle cases widely adopted in judicial practice. Chinese laws have accepted mediation , but in the system design level and the practical operation process there are many problems and challenges to be overcome.

The first chapter of this paper presents an extensive overview and the prevailing state of the environmental civil public interest litigation mediation mechanism. Commencing with a discussion on the fundamental concepts, unique attributes, and categorization of environmental civil public interest lawsuits, the study underscores the merits of integrating a mediation system into such litigations, particularly in broadening dispute resolution channels, minimizing litigation costs, and enhancing overall litigation efficiency.Furthermore, the author methodically traces the legislative evolution of the environmental civil public interest litigation mediation framework, delineating its current legislative status and judicial standing. A compilation of several emblematic case examples is provided, followed by a meticulous analysis to shed light on their implications within the context of this specific legal mechanism.

In the second chapter, the author delves into the issues prevalent within the environmental civil public interest litigation mediation system and their underlying causes. Specifically, it is highlighted that the said mediation system currently fails to adequately address the timing for initiation and the stipulation of applicable conditions. There exists ambiguity concerning the extent and boundaries within which mediation should be conducted. Additionally, there is a pressing need to bolster the standardization of the procedures for announcing mediation decisions. Furthermore, the practical challenges encountered in implementing these mediations and the lack of effective follow-up supervision often hinder the ultimate objective of restoring the environment.Based on these identified problems, the author conducts an in-depth analysis of the contributing factors from both legislative and judicial perspectives. This critical examination serves to guide future planning efforts towards being more focused and solution-oriented.

The third chapter centers around exploring the harmonious integration of environmental civil public interest litigation theory with mediation theory, arguing for a more seamless embedding of mediation within environmental civil public interest litigation, thus providing a solid theoretical underpinning for refining and strengthening the system. This segment primarily elaborates upon the environmental civil public interest litigation system's adoption of a controlled or constrained mediation approach, as well as the authoritative and transparent nature of the mediation process within such litigations. It further scrutinizes the validity and justifiability of these modalities within the context of environmental civil public interest litigation, thereby offering direction for potential pathways to resolution.

In Chapter Four, strategies are proposed to enhance the aforementioned environmental civil public interest litigation mediation system. Initially, it is crucial to clearly demarcate the commencement point for mediation within the specialized environmental civil public interest litigation framework, allowing for pre-trial mediation under certain defined conditions. Subsequently, defining the ambit and constraints of mediation is essential; for cases involving claims for injunctive relief, ecological restoration, compensation, and demands for apology, the mediation parameters should be set based on the unique characteristics of each claim. Further, a unified and improved notification mechanism is recommended.Additionally, for monitoring the adherence to mediation agreements, enhancing public engagement, intensifying court oversight, and incorporating external third-party scrutiny could serve as effective measures. With regards to enforcing mediated settlements, strengthening the legal validity of such agreements is key. Implementing a regular reporting system, instituting a follow-up review mechanism, and establishing a comprehensive online supervision platform could streamline the supervision process.