In a highly unusual move, China released three documents related to environmental protection last month.
Two of them concern China’s disputed claims in the South China Sea (SCS) – the Scarborough Shoal, which Beijing currently controls, and the Second Thomas Shoal, where the Philippine vessel Sierra Madre is grounded.
Why is Beijing suddenly focusing on environmental issues in the SCS?
The first document, the systematic investigation report released on 8 July, criticises the Philippines for damaging the coral reef ecosystem with the grounded Sierra Madre at Second Thomas Shoal. The second document, the investigation and assessment report of 10 July, lauds China for safeguarding the marine ecology and environment at Scarborough Shoal. The white paper of 11 July outlines China’s efforts to protect the marine ecological environment at national and international levels but does not mention the SCS.
These documents, especially the first two, serve a few objectives.
First, they are intended to counter the Philippines’ accusations that China is destroying the marine environment at Scarborough Shoal. China asserts that the Scarborough Shoal enjoys “excellent environmental quality” and a “rich” marine ecosystem, including the presence of giant clams, which the Philippines has singled out for criticism. Incidentally, giant clams were an issue in 2012 when Philippine navy personnel attempted to arrest several Chinese fishermen for illegal fishing, which included the molluscs. The operation was thwarted by the Chinese navy, which subsequently assumed control of Scarborough Shoal.
The second objective is to pressure the Philippines to remove the Sierra Madre, citing damage to the coral reef system caused by its grounding and corrosion over the years, as well as activities of Philippine servicemen and fishermen in the area that China deems harmful. China claims that due to the negative impact of the above, the aggregate coverage of corals at Second Thomas Shoal declined approximately 38.2 per cent between 2011 and 2024, while those within a radius of 400 metres nearer the grounded vessel declined by up to 87.3 per cent. Beijing, therefore, is pressing the Philippines to remove the vessel to prevent further damage.
The third objective is to counter the Philippines’ efforts to internationalise the environmental issue in the SCS. Apart from its transparency initiative, which spotlights China’s strong-arm tactics in the SCS, the Philippines released images in May showing the destruction of coral reefs and other marine life, particularly giant clams, which it claims was caused by Chinese fishermen. Manila further requested China to facilitate international scrutiny of the area around Scarborough Shoal to assess the environmental conditions there.
This follows earlier indications that Manila was exploring the possibility of filing a second legal case against China, this time for failing to protect the marine environment in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone. Beijing refused to participate in the first legal case brought by the Philippines and rejected its findings. It is likely to adopt the same approach if another case is lodged.
The Chinese reports on the Scarborough Shoal and Second Thomas Shoal are unlikely to deliver Beijing’s desired outcomes. The reports cite relevant experts from Chinese ministries and agencies, and present only China’s views. This one-sided perspective lends credence to the Philippines’ call for China to grant access to third parties to assess the waters at Scarborough Shoal, as independent findings are more likely to gain traction with the international community. Yet, this is something China would not agree to as it undercuts its claims to the area.
There are other questions regarding the line of enquiry in the two reports. The Scarborough Shoal report examines the impact of rising seawater temperatures on coral reef growth, concluding that the “relatively healthy status of the coral communities reflected their resistance and tolerance to global warming”. The same report looks at the impact of natural predators, namely the crown-of-thorns starfish known for decimating coral reefs, concluding that they had “limited influence” on the reef ecosystems at the shoal.
But these two factors were conveniently left out in the Second Thomas Shoal report although both reports relate to the SCS. This selective exclusion raises doubts about their objectivity. Moreover, their findings seem at odds with a Global Times article in May that quoted a Chinese expert as saying that the coral reef degradation issue in the SCS is “very complex” and has more to do with “natural factors such as coral bleaching and outbreaks of coral predators caused by a rise in global temperature”.
More significantly, the environmental damage attributed to the grounded Sierre Madre at Second Thomas Shoal and related human activities in the area, as claimed by China, appear to pale in comparison to the damage caused by the building of artificial islands by the SCS claimant states.
A Center for Strategic and International Studies report pointed out that, among other things, China has caused the most reef destruction through dredging and landfill, burying roughly 4,648 acres of reefs (equivalent to more than 3,500 football fields), followed by Vietnam (1,402 acres or more than 1,000 football fields), Malaysia (83 acres or more than 62 football fields) and the Philippines (40 acres or more than 30 football fields).
Not surprisingly, China has dismissed these findings as neither factual nor verifiable and highlighted its own efforts at protecting marine species in the SCS. But the fact of the matter is that the damage caused by China’s artificial island-building weakens its environmental protection claims at Scarborough Shoal.
With both parties talking past each other, China’s environmental protection reports are unlikely to put to rest the Philippines’ concerns about the destruction of marine life around Scarborough Shoal. Manila further seems eager to press the issue of another legal case against China, with the aim of bringing a fresh bout of international pressure on Beijing.
This article was first published in Fulcrum, ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute’s blogsite.
