China’s marine conservation efforts prioritise symbolism over substance

China and Russia have reportedly blocked proposals for new marine protected areas (MPAs) at an international conference in Hobart, Australia, focused on preserving Antarctic marine life. Their efforts highlight a complex mix of geopolitical, economic and environmental interests. Their behaviour also underscores how nationalism is being asserted in resource-rich regions like the Southern Ocean, where fishing rights, mineral reserves and territorial claims hold high value. It could also embolden other nations, like India and Saudi Arabia, to join the scramble for rich resources and defy the charter of the Antarctic Treaty which sought to create a zone for peace and scientific exploration. Resource-driven policies, aimed at sustaining economic growth and achieving self-sufficiency, pose significant challenges to conservation efforts in ecologically sensitive areas, not only in the Antarctic region but also in the South China Sea where competing, expansive maritime claims and resource extraction activities threaten both biodiversity and regional stability. The South China Sea hosts some of the world’s richest marine biodiversity, including essential coral reefs and fisheries that support millions across Southeast Asia. The Spratly Islands in the South China Sea remain disputed territory subject to claims by China, Vietnam, the Philippines and others. China and Vietnam also have competing claims related to the Paracel Islands. Beijing’s approach to the South China Sea reflects a paradox: while it actively exploits the area’s resources – through activities like large-scale fishing, oil exploration and island-building that disrupt local ecosystems – it has simultaneously promoted marine conservation efforts, such as establishing protected areas and regulating certain types of fishing, to project a commitment to sustainability. This dual strategy often raises questions about whether conservation policies are genuine environmental efforts or initiatives that primarily serve Beijing’s political and economic interests in asserting control over the region. Beijing’s resource management strategy underscores the tension between national economic priorities and global conservation goals. As a superpower, China’s actions often set a precedent for other countries aiming to expand economically, sometimes at the cost of environmental sustainability. Even Iran aims to establish a permanent station in Antarctica, despite being a non-signatory to the Antarctic Treaty. South Korea, while supporting conservation efforts, conducts commercial fishing in Antarctic waters. In both the Antarctic and the South China Sea, the geopolitical grab for resource access highlights a larger global issue: the rising tension between environmental conservation and the pursuit of natural resources. Although China took part inthe 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity in Cali, Colombia, where an agreement was reached towards making “peace with nature”, Beijing has not changed its fishing quotas or mineral exploration policies. There appears to be a deep chasm between its actions as well as those of others and the pledges on conservation efforts, undermining the goals of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and other related treaties. In recent years, China, along with Russia has refused to agree to any new MPAs in the Southern Ocean near Antarctica. Despite its public commitment to the global objective of conserving 30 per cent of the world’s ocean by 2030, China’s actions in these regions reveal a selective approach to marine conservation. This comes at a time when protected areas make up about 18 per cent of national waters, but only just over 1 per cent of the high seas. Other nations like Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia also profess to roll out marine protected areas while engaging in resource exploitation. Some marine policy experts suggest that the establishment of MPAs in the South China Sea may be strategically motivated, functioning more as a means to assert national authority than as a commitment to genuine conservation efforts. While China knows that it cannot arbitrarily deny access to international waters, it can restrict certain activities within its marine protected boundaries under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea framework. This environmental approach to enforcing sovereignty allows China to avoid direct military confrontation, which could escalate tensions with neighbouring South China Sea claimants like Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. Additionally, China’s designation of MPAs in the South China Sea aligns with its broader “blue economy” policy, which aims to balance economic development with marine protection. While the rhetoric around the blue economy and MPAs suggests a commitment to environmental sustainability, critics argue this conceals China’s true intentions. For instance, China has built artificial islands and expanded its infrastructure in the South China Sea, activities that damage coral reefs and ecosystems. Such actions are in stark contrast to conservation goals, as they involve dredging, construction and pollution that disrupt marine habitats. However, by establishing MPAs, even if hampered by ineffective management, China can claim that its presence is necessary to protect the area from over-exploitation, athough its own reclamations and overfishing contribute to ecological harm. The establishment of these MPAs might allow China and others to gain international approval by promoting their actions as contributions to global conservation goals. However, these MPAs are established in areas that support Chinese national interests, as opposed to less politically sensitive places like the Antarctic region, where more nations continue to resist similar efforts. By prioritising substance over symbolism, MPAs can meaningfully contribute to global ocean health. Without strict enforcement, these areas risk setting a precedent that encourages other nations to prioritise economic interests over environmental stewardship in shared international waters, undermining broader conservation goals.

China’s marine conservation efforts prioritise symbolism over substance

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Beijing’s maritime policy underscores the global tension between environmental goals and the pursuit of natural resources

Beijing’s maritime policy underscores the global tension between environmental goals and the pursuit of natural resources