Key Yellow Sea Site Wins Reprieve

In wildlife conservation, good news can be likened to a critically endangered species – rarely encountered and with ever-decreasing frequency.  With that in mind, it is heartening to begin 2024 with some good news.  

Readers of Wild Beijing will know about the recent positive turnaround in policy in the Yellow Sea.  From a potential ‘epicentre of extinction’ caused by rampant land reclamation, the State Council ban on further coastal wetland reclamation and subsequent nomination of some of the most important remaining wetlands as a serial World Heritage Site was a significant milestone (watch this short video – “Saving a Flyway” – for a synopsis of the story).

However, despite this notable progress, there is still a long way to go to secure the future of the millions of migratory waterbirds that use the East Asian-Australasian Flyway and the most important sites on which they depend.  One such site that has been under serious threat is Lianyungang in Jiangsu Province. 

Lianyungang is important.  Surveys by local scientists and volunteers have showed that perhaps the entire global population of the Asian Dowitcher (Limnodromus semipalmatus 半蹼鹬 Bàn pǔ yù), a species classified as “Near Threatened” by the IUCN and a Class II State Protected Species in China, relies on this site during migration stopover, in addition to significant numbers of other endangered species including Nordmann’s Greenshank (endangered and a Class I protected species in China), Spoon-billed Sandpiper (critically endangered and a Class I protected species in China), Far Eastern Curlew and Great Knot (both endangered and a
Class II protected species in China).

Despite the importance of Lianyungang to these species, the site was under threat from a major development project, the so called “Blue Bay Project”, described misleadingly as an ‘ecological restoration project’.  Under the proposed project, plans were to convert 1870 ha of natural intertidal mudflat into artificial sandy beaches and tourist facilities. Although the project would have undoubtedly made the area more attractive for many humans and increased property prices, it would have significantly degraded the natural functions of the coastal wetland and severely reduced the quality of the habitat for the migratory waterbirds that depend on it.

The development at Lianyungang appeared to go against both the ban on further commercial-related reclamation announced by the Chinese government in 2018 and the legal protection for Class I and Class II protected species in China.  However, it should be noted that the project was given local approval before the ban came into effect, hence the ‘muddying of the waters’, so to speak.

Fortunately, under changes to environmental protection legislation, it is now possible for approved NGOs to file public interest litigation cases where development plans could have a serious negative effect on biodiversity and habitats.  In this case, Chinese environmental NGO, “Friends of Nature”, with the support of local NGO “Spoon-billed Sandpiper in China”, stepped up and took the developers to court.  The case has been ongoing for several years and the initial verdict has been eagerly awaited by all concerned with nature conservation in China. It was seen as a key test of the new legal framework designed to protect China’s most important natural heritage.

In January 2024, the Nanjing City Intermediate People’s court in Jiangsu Province finally issued a ‘judgement in the first instance’.  The judgement has three key elements.

First, it halts the so-called Blue Bay development project at Lianyungang, until it receives explicit legal approval.

Second, it holds that the initial environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the project omitted the impact on birds and that the EIA provider should be held jointly liable with the construction company.

Third, however, the judgement went on to say that the evidence presented failed to prove that the already-built semi-circular dyke had caused ecological damage, or risked ecological damage, and the judge rejected Friends of Nature’s claim for removal of the development, for ecological restoration, compensation for damages and an apology.

So, what does this mean?

From talking with legal experts, it is clear that this is a significant, but not final, judgement.  Under Chinese law, if either the plaintiff or defendant does not agree with the court’s “judgement in the first instance”, they can appeal, in which case a “judgement of second instance” will be made at a higher court. If both the plaintiff and the defendant agree to the first judgement, then the first instance judgement becomes final.

In an article posted on WeChat on 19 January (in Chinese), Friends of Nature reported this court judgement as a “temporary victory”, and that the risk remains of this project destroying the feeding grounds of waterbirds. The construction project has not been permanently halted, and the developer has not been fined accordingly for destroying the waterbirds’ habitat. Friends of Nature remains worried that this project may end up being an abandoned construction, with no one responsible for the subsequent restoration.

We understand that Friends of Nature will be filing an appeal to push for a permanent halt to the construction of the Blue Bay project and to promote the restoration of the damaged waterbird feeding grounds so that this important site will be protected in a more stringent, sustainable and effective manner. 

At the same time, we have heard that the (powerful) Central Environmental Protection Inspectorate has ordered the project to be rectified, and the project area has been included in the Ecological Protection Redlines and the List of Important Habitats for Terrestrial Wildlife issued by the National Forestry and Grassland Administration.  This makes it hard to see how the project could now be granted the “legal approval” required by the court in order for the developers to be allowed to proceed. 

There is no doubt that, although Lianyungang is not yet secure, the local court’s verdict has given the site a chance.  We will be keeping everything crossed that the higher court, should this case be appealed, upholds that the development is illegal and requires the developer and/or local government to restore the site to its original condition – it is the only outcome that would be consistent with the Global Biodiversity Framework and China’s domestic biodiversity goals.