South China Sea Verdict Contains Environmental Message for China

A commentary by Dan Southerland
2016-07-22
Email story
Comment on this story
Share story
Print story
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Email
The South China Sea.
The South China Sea.
RFA

Following a UN tribunal’s recent ruling on the South China Sea, media attention focused mostly on the court’s rejection of China’s vast territorial claims in an area larger than the Mediterranean.

But the court’s comments on the disputed region’s endangered marine environment also sent a strong message to China.

On July 12, an arbitral tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague found that China had “caused severe damage” to coral reefs in the South China Sea.

International news reports on the ruling understandably focused on one major aspect of the legal victory by the Philippines in the case it brought against China: the tribunal’s invalidation of Beijing’s territorial claims to about 85 percent of the South China Sea.

But environmental experts consider the court’s extensive comments on damage caused by China and its fishing vessels to sea life in the South China Sea also to be of great significance.

John McManus, a marine biologist at the University of Miami who has visited the region and provided analysis to the tribunal, says that based on satellite imagery the environmental damage done by Chinese clam poaching and the building of artificial islands has been severe.

According to McManus, the most widespread damage has been done by Chinese giant clam poachers who pull boats back and forth with their propellers spinning to dig up reefs and uncover the clams, which can weigh as much as 500 pounds each.

“The sand mixed into the water by these giant clam cutter boats kills everything,” McManus said at a conference on the South China Sea held at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

A BBC crew that sailed into the South China Sea last December produced one of the most startling images to emerge from the scene in years.

The broadcaster came away with video of Chinese fishermen chopping up a coral reef ecosystem in what appeared to be a routine search for giant clams.

The Reuters news agency reported on June 27 from the town of Tanmen on China’s Hainan Island that the shells of giant clams have been carved like elephant ivory into intricate ornaments for sale to tourists there.

These luxury items can also be purchased over the internet.

Some Chinese regard the meat from the clams as a rare delicacy and as an aphrodisiac.

Importance of coral reefs

According to evidence cited by the international tribunal, the South China Sea contains “highly productive fisheries and extensive coral reef ecosystems, which are among the most biodiverse in the world.”

The marine environment around the contested Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Islands includes fish, corals, mangroves, and sea grasses as well as giant clams and sea turtles, some of them recognized as endangered, according to tribunal findings.

Testimony before the tribunal from Kent Carpenter, a professor of biological sciences at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, describes how the impact of any environmental damage occurring at Scarborough Shoal and in the Spratly Islands “can affect the health and viability of ecosystems elsewhere in the South China Sea.”

All of this is of great importance to the nations surrounding the South China Sea, because of a growing appetite for fish and the protein they provide even as fish stocks decline in the region.

The coral reefs protect small fish from predators. They also play a role in replenishing depleted fish stocks.

Experts say that in addition to the Chinese cutter boats’ destruction of coral reefs, further serious damage has been caused by Chinese boats engaged in dredging aimed at gathering sand and gravel to build of China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea.

The Chinese government has also encouraged Chinese fishing boat incursions deep into the South China Sea by offering subsidies for petrol and free satellite-navigation systems.

A comprehensive report published on June 1 in Time magazine concludes that “the Chinese government’s support for local fishermen has made venturing into contested areas more economically attractive, exacerbating the overfishing that already plagues the waterway.”

China’s response

Chinese officials have stated on numerous occasions that China’s island building in the South China Sea has caused no significant damage to coral reefs.

They say that China has conducted “rigorous scientific testing” and that once the country’s construction projects on contested territory that China claims are completed, environmental protection will be “notably enhanced.”

But China declined to participate in the proceedings of the international tribunal in The Hague. Beijing also declined to submit any scientific findings, saying repeatedly that it wouldn’t accept the ruling of the tribunal even before it was announced.

Chinese state media subsequently denounced the ruling as “ill-founded” and questioned the tribunal’s motives, impartiality, and competence.

China’s top naval officer, Wu Shengli, told the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations John Richardson on July 25 in a meeting in Beijing that China would not stop building islands in the South China Sea, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

But in a more conciliatory tone, China’s State Councilor Yang Jiechi said last week that China was willing to work with neighboring countries on the joint development of natural resources in the region.

Most obviously this might include the contested waters surrounding the Scarborough Shoal, where the Hague-based tribunal found that both China and the Philippines have been fishing for many years.

But the Associated Press reported on July 21 that Southeast Asian nations involved in disputes with China over fishing grounds suspect that Beijing’s calls for negotiations are stalling tactics as China continues to build airstrips and other infrastructure in the South China Sea.

The AP said that Tran Cong Truc, the former head of Vietnam’s borders committee, had dismissed China’s overtures.

“They wanted to secure a placement in the joint development as a first step and then control all of it,” Truc was quoted as saying.”There might be some differences in the way they talk…but there is no change in their nature.”

It remains unclear what conditions Beijing would impose on such talks.

“None of the players are giving much thought to sustainable exploitation of the fish stocks,” says David Brown, a retired American diplomat, writer, and analyst who focuses mostly on Vietnam.

“But at this point only the Chinese, with the advantage of both numbers and technology, are capable of wiping out those fish stocks, one species after another.”

Possible solutions

As a course to calmer waters, John McManus of the University of Miami proposes a freeze on territorial claims along with joint resource management shared by the countries concerned.

This would include fisheries management.

David Brown said it was important that the tribunal recognized that both the Philippines and China have traditionally fished over the Scarborough Shoal. They could conceivably share the fish stocks there, he said.

“If there were just a modicum of foresight by these three parties—China, the Philippines, and Vietnam—it’s possible to imagine their coast guards and fisheries agencies cooperating in joint, sustainable management of fishing stocks in the northern two thirds of the South China Sea.”

But bringing the parties together over the joint development of fishing grounds might prove difficult as long as nationalistic passions remain inflamed in all three countries.

This is most evident in Vietnam, where sporadic anti-China protests have been occurring in recent years. In 2014, Vietnamese rioters attacked factories run by owners from both China and Taiwan.

James Borton, a senior fellow at the U.S. Asia Institute in Washington, D.C., recently visited Ly Son Island off Vietnam’s central coast.

There, he found a community of Vietnamese fishermen imbued with nationalistic feelings and in no mood to back away from clashes with Chinese fishing boats and coast guard vessels.

According to Borton, the Vietnamese government has undertaken “a patriotic campaign” aimed at encouraging the population to protect their “ancestral lands” against outside incursions.

Ly Son Island hosts a national exhibition of historical maps from both Vietnam and China under the slogan “Paracel and Spratly Islands belong to Vietnam—the legal and historical evidence.”

Dan Southerland is RFA’s executive editor.

Comments (5)
  • Print
  • Share
  • Email

Anonymous Reader

China is a bully! They have no regard for international laws that don't help their cause! This is not going to change. It has gotten significantly worse since Xi took over! He does not care about anything except the preservation of the communist party rule! China is the biggest problem the world has today! We need to deal with it NOW before it is too late!

Aug 05, 2016 01:30 PM

Wangchuk

from NY

The Chinese Communists don't care to protect or preserve the land or the water or the animals. Chinese Communists believe land, water & animals should be exploited to the fullest by people. The CCP has never been pro-environment. The CCP has polluted China & now they want to pollute the rest of Asia.

Jul 28, 2016 10:21 AM

Anonymous Reader

South EastAsian Sea is a more accurate term than South China Sea !!!

It has been proven that a large part of the Paracel and Spratly Islands belong to Vietnam since the 15th century.

Once a bully and a thief, a bully and a thief will remain.

Jul 26, 2016 03:01 AM

Anonymous Reader

Glittering generalities absent of any factual underpinning--this describes Beijing government spokespersons' claims that their artificial island-building activity among submerged reefs of the South Sea is "enhancing the environment" there. All the evidence gathered by international scientists and other observers so far points precisely to the contrary.

Jul 24, 2016 01:33 PM

(

"Some Chinese regard the meat from the clams as a rare delicacy and as an aphrodisiac."

If these clams are gone, they are never coming back. It seems everything is aphrodisiac to them.


[This comment has been edited by RFA Editorial staff per our Terms of Use]

Jul 25, 2016 04:29 PM

Anonymous Reader

I would like to say.

People can do construction work at their own back yards. we can not complain so much about.

I believe everyone did something at their backyard in their way.

China has heritage at south china sea -- if you check the history , there millions evidences showed that south china sea is belonging to china. -- that is no doubt.

I did not know why Filipino spent time and money to get court case.-- As we know now china has rejected this court case because Filipino's interest to have this case without negotiation with china before settle the case agreement

China so far they are trying to build sea water service stations -- that would benefit to all countries when other counties need at south china sea. China welcome and support cargo (Trading/ commercial) -- but not military.

I have no problem for that -- Look at the history, China ever attacks any other counties.
I do not think china will build something to attack other counties.

Possible some minimum deference facilities to this island -- that is normal and reasonable.

Regarding the environment issue. I believe china has done assessment before doing construction in the sea water. some as other countries did artificial island at sea water.

also the south china sea is huge. one or 2 small islands would not damage so much.

I have looked at picture that island build is much better where I am live now. So nice. China will open this Island to public I think one day everyone has opportunity to have a visit. I like to have a go and look at. that could same as other couture's Island, so nature and nice green and fresh water.










Jul 22, 2016 06:49 PM

Anonymous Reader

Yes, before you do something in your backyard, make sure that's your backyard first. If you are so sure with all historical evidences why didn't you take that to International Tribunal at the Hague? Why?

Jul 25, 2016 04:16 PM

View all comments.

CH. 1: MANDARIN | CANTONESE

CH. 2: VIETNAMESE | BURMESE | KOREAN

CH. 3: KHMER | LAO | UYGHUR

CH. 4: TIBETAN

More Listening Options

View Full Site