China's Nature Reserve at Scarborough Shoal: Purpose, Predictions and Impacts

 

Scarborough Shoal, a horseshoe-shaped coral reef in the Spratly Islands, lies approximately 240 kilometers northwest of Luzon Island in the Philippines. Both China and the Philippines claim sovereignty over the shoal: the Philippines asserts it falls within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), while China regards it as part of the Zhongsha Islands. Since a 2012 standoff between the two countries’ law enforcement forces, China has maintained de facto control of Scarborough. In late 2024, Beijing further reinforced its position by unilaterally declaring a baseline around the shoal [1]. Against this backdrop, the establishment of the Scarborough Protected Area raises critical questions about the intersection of China’s environmental protection objectives with its political ambitions and sovereignty claims in the contested waters of the South China Sea.

 

 

On the morning of September 11, the Philippine Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a formal notice protesting China’s actions and reaffirming the Philippines’ sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal. The statement underscored that the Philippines solely holds the right to establish environmental protection zones within its territory and adjacent waters. It further urged China to respect Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the shoal, to immediately withdraw the document released by the Chinese Government, and to fulfill its obligations under international law—particularly UNCLOS 1982, the 2016 Final and Binding Judgment of the Arbitral Tribunal on the South China Sea, and the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC).[2]

 

On September 12, the U.S. State Department released a press statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, rejecting China’s nature reserve plan and declaring that the United States would stand firmly with the Philippines. The statement emphasized that China’s actions represented yet another coercive attempt to advance its territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea. By restricting access to traditional fishing grounds and causing harm to neighboring countries, China’s activities at Scarborough Shoal continue to erode regional stability [3]. In addition, the U.S.-Japan-South Korea trilateral statement voiced concern over China’s unilateral measures at Scarborough Shoal

 

U.S. allies in the region also voiced strong opposition to China’s actions, denouncing them as an act of “legal violence” and urging Beijing to comply with international law. On September 15, Japanese Ambassador to the Philippines Endo Kazuya expressed concern over China’s move and reaffirmed the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal ruling, stressing that the judgment is “final and legally binding” and must be observed by all parties. Australian Ambassador to the Philippines Marc Innes-Brown likewise called for respect for UNCLOS and the 2016 ruling, emphasizing that Filipino fishermen retain the right to access traditional fishing grounds at the shoal. The Canadian ambassador also weighed in, underscoring the importance of marine habitat protection but rejecting China’s actions, which he criticized as using the guise of environmental protection to occupy the disputed shoal.

 

Also on September 11, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry asserted that Huangyan Island (Scarborough Shoal) is “China’s inherent territory” and that the establishment of a national-level nature reserve falls fully within the scope of China’s sovereignty. The spokesperson emphasized that the measure was intended to protect the ecological environment in accordance with both China’s domestic law and international law. He further stated that Huangyan Island has never been part of Philippine territory, rejected Manila’s objections as unreasonable, and urged the Philippines to cease what he claimed as unfounded provocations, infringements, and exaggerations so as not to complicate the situation at sea [4].

 

Subsequently, on September 15, Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian criticized the United States for intervening in a dispute to which it is not a party, accusing Washington of destabilizing the region. He also claimed the 2016 arbitral ruling to be invalid and non-binding, and called on the U.S. to refrain from interfering in regional affairs. At the same time, the spokesperson reaffirmed China’s commitment to working with ASEAN to implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties (DOC), advance negotiations on a Code of Conduct (COC), and promote a vision of a peaceful, friendly, and cooperative South China Sea.

 

 

Chinese scholars defended the decision to establish the nature reserve, contending that it was consistent with international law and served to reinforce China’s claims in the South China Sea. Dr. Wu Shicun, President of China’s National Institute for South China Sea Studies, argued that such a move reflects a transition from rhetorics to concrete actions, expanding China’s toolkit from purely diplomatic measures to legal and administrative instruments, with clear targets such as the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam [5]. Maritime affairs expert Wang Xiaobang emphasized that the establishment of the Protected Area following the baseline declaration demonstrates China’s resolve to safeguard its territorial sovereignty and maritime interests, while simultaneously creating evidence of “effective management” of “Huangyan” under international law [6]. Similarly, scholar Zheng Zhihe of Shanghai Jiaotong University noted that China seeks to consolidate control over the region amid rising tensions, potentially using environmental protection requirements to restrict both Chinese and Filipino fishermen from entering Huangyan, while also curbing the presence of Philippine law enforcement [7].

 

Chinese scholars also emphasized that China’s actions demonstrate the country’s commitment to protecting the marine environment. Xu Heyun, Director of the Institute for Marine Development Strategy under the Ministry of Natural Resources, explained that the decision to establish the Protected Area is intended to implement Xi Jinping’s Ideology of Ecological Civilization, contribute to the management and preservation of Huangyan’s coral reef ecosystem, and prevent harmful impacts from human activities. He added that the move represents the exercise of rights and obligations granted to China under UNCLOS and international law, noting that many major countries have created similar marine protected areas [8].

 

Scholar Ding Duo of the South China Sea Research Institute argued that the establishment of the Protected Area is designed to strengthen China’s international voice on marine environmental issues. He described it as an inevitable step toward scientific management and sustainable use of the sea following the establishment of the baselines at Huangyan Dao (Scarborough), and as a strong rebuttal to what he called baseless accusations from certain international actors regarding China’s environmental policy in the South China Sea. Ding further noted that China will enhance supervision and law enforcement under relevant domestic laws to ensure effective management of the Protected Area [9].

 

Similarly, scholar Chen Xiangyeu stressed that the government’s initiative is necessary to reinforce ecological protection across islands in the South China Sea. He particularly highlighted the Philippines’ politicization of fishing activities—such as dispatching vessels for illegal fishing—which, he argued, increases pressure on resources and further damages the already fragile ecosystem of Huangyan.However, many international scholars assess. China's unilateral establishment of the Protected Area as part of a strategy to "legalize" its claims, aimed at ignoring and undermining the 2016 Judgment.

 

Nevertheless, many international scholars claim China’s unilateral declaration of the nature reserve to be part of a strategy to legalize its claims and to weaken the 2016 award. American political analyst Gordon Chang characterized China’s statement as an “absurd” assertion of sovereignty [10]. Likewise, University of the Philippines professor Jay Batongbacal cautioned that the move represents an “underground effort” to reinforce China’s claims in disputed waters and could pave the way for more aggressive tactics – such as the potential arrest of Filipino fishermen at Scarborough Shoal under the pretext of environmental protection. Raymond Powell of Stanford University’s SeaLight Project argued that the decision is not about safeguarding the environment but rather a political maneuver aimed at occupying Scarborough Shoal and depriving Filipino fishermen of their livelihoods under the guise of conservation [12]. Collin Koh of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore described the measure as China’s latest escalation in its legal campaign to impose a new sovereign status quo in the South China Sea. Similarly, Ely Ratner, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, asserted that China’s actions amount to a predictable legal offensive at Scarborough Shoal – one that the Trump administration, along with allies and partners, must swiftly reject as destabilizing and unlawful [14].

 

 

Through its actions, the statements of Foreign Ministry spokespersons, and the assessments of Chinese scholars, it becomes evident that China’s unilateral declaration of a protected area at Scarborough Shoal serves several purposes.

 

First, China seeks to employ domestic legal measures to assert and consolidate its claims of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and de facto management, while gradually expanding control on the ground, deterring the United States and its allies, and increasing pressure on the Philippines. China views the Philippines’ military and security cooperation with Washington as a strategic threat and a source of regional tension. By designating Scarborough as a national reserve – located near the vital Luzon-Bashi Strait maritime route linking the Pacific Ocean to the South China Sea – China aims to secure this strategic chokepoint and limit U.S. involvement, particularly in the event of a Taiwan Strait crisis.

 

At the same time, the move exerts pressure on Manila, forcing the Philippines to weigh the military and economic costs of relying on U.S. support to challenge China’s claims, potentially compelling concessions in bilateral negotiations. Moreover, the establishment of the protected area represents an effort to undermine the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal ruling. Since asserting control over Scarborough by force in 2012, China has sought to accumulate evidence of “effective management” of the shoal. The sequence of actions – from announcing baselines to creating a protected area – reflects a broader strategy to negate the ruling, redefine Scarborough’s legal status as a territory with its own territorial waters, and restrict traditional fishing activities of Filipino fishermen and other regional actors [15].

 

Second, China seeks to cultivate and project the image of a “green power,” highlighting its leadership in sustainable development cooperation at sea while mitigating potential legal risks tied to marine environmental issues. Following its occupation, reclamation, and militarization of features in the South China Sea, China’s establishment of protected areas enables it to present itself a promoter of marine conservation, thereby rebutting accusations of harmful fishing practices, coral reef damage, and the depletion of marine vegetation. Moreover, the establishment of this protected zone provides China with a platform to conduct data collection, research, analysis, and the publication of environmental reports in the area. Such activities serve as a legal and scientific basis to preempt the Philippines from pursuing further litigation – specifically, from using environmental concerns as grounds to bring a second case against China before the Court of Arbitration [16].

 

 

Drawing on China’s legal bases and domestic regulations concerning nature reserves, marine reserves, and the 2021 Coast Guard Law, it is evident that the establishment of a national protected area at Scarborough Shoal may serve as a steppingstone for tightening field control. In turn, such control will be implemented through several measures.

 

First, China could implement core-buffer-experimental zoning, closing off the core area and permitting only approved scientific activities. At the same time, authorities may establish a protection perimeter around the reserve to heighten control, in line with Article 18 of the Regulations on Nature Reserves. This framework also allows restrictions on construction within the core and buffer zones (Article 32) and requires reporting and oversight of foreign entry into the protected area (Article 31) [17].

 

Second, this new nature reserve provides grounds for the Chinese Coast Guard to board vessels for inspection, detention, escort, or to order vessels to stop, divert or be towed away. It will also allow the Chinese Coast Guard to dismantle objects deemed unlawful or even establish a “temporary maritime security zone” to restrict or prohibit passage or presence of ships and individuals in the declared area under the guise of supporting conservation efforts [18].

 

Beyond these measures, the Chinese government could also plant markers, install buoys, signs, and protective equipment, delineate boundaries, and publish maps. It may introduce licensing regimes for research, surveys, and tourism, tighten or prohibit fishing and other harmful activities, and order the dismantling of “illegal” structures within the conservation zone. Additionally, China could also establish controlled eco-tourism zones to boost civilian presence, and – under the pretext of improved reserve management – push reclamation and construction acutivities of unauthorized infrastructure to maintain presence of law enforcement forces and scientific research personnels to support administrative control and scientific objectives.

 

 

China’s recent moves have significantly influenced developments in the South China Sea in several aspects.

 

Firstly, the establishment of a protected area directly reduces the available space for exploitation at traditional fishing grounds due to the core-buffer-experimental zoning mechanism. The core zone may be completely closed, while access to other zones requires prior approval. The designated reserve covers 3,523.67 hectares (core zone: 1,242.55 hectares; experimental zone: 2,281.12 hectares), ostensibly to protect coral ecosystems. In practice, however, this legalizes restrictions on foreign fishing vessels, severely impacting fishing and navigation rights of regional fishermen, particularly from the Philippines and Vietnam [19]. According to the published map, the entire northeastern ring of Scarborough Shoal falls within the protected area, and Article 18 of the Nature Reserve Charter can be invoked to prohibit foreign ships and vehicles from entering the core zone without authorization [20].

 

Secondly, this measure risks transforming disputes over access into sovereignty-related conflicts, as China intensifies arrests and legal penalties against Vietnamese fishermen and vessels accused of violating the protected area [21]. Such actions set a troubling precedent in contested waters, pressuring other claimants to either comply with China’s regulations or face the risk of confrontation at sea – even conflict – with a stronger adversary.

 

Thirdly, the move could serve as a precedent, providing a model for unilateral replication in other contested zones where China maintains presence and controll, particularly in the Paracels and several features of the Spratlys.

 

 

China’s unilateral declaration of the Huangyan National Nature Reserve at Scarborough Shoal is far more than an environmental initiative. It represents a strategic maneuver in the South China Sea dispute, using the guise of ecological conservation to reinforce sovereignty claims and create a soft instrument to counter pressure from the Philippines, the United States, and the broader international community. The implications extend beyond Scarborough, shaping the trajectory of regional disputes, international law, security dynamics, and the interests of multiple parties.

 

Moreover, the establishment of the reserve reflects a shift in China’s approach to asserting sovereignty – from reliance on physical control to a combination of legal, administrative, and environmental tools. These actions heighten the complexity of the dispute and pose serious challenges to regional cooperation mechanisms and the international legal order. Amid intensifying great-power competition, Scarborough Shoal is likely to remain a flashpoint, testing the ability of stakeholders to exercise restraint, foster dialogue, and maintain stability. In this context, ASEAN must encourage China to demonstrate genuine respect for international law and commitments, and to take substantive steps that promote stability and environmental stewardship in the South China Sea, rather than political maneuvers that exacerbate tensions.

 

Nguyen Khanh Trong, Nguyen Nhat Linh
South China Sea Institute, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam
The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors

(Translated by KN)

 

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/what-is-scarborough-shoal-what-is-china-planning-there-2025-09-11/

[2]https://dfa.gov.ph/dfa-news/statements-and-advisoriesupdate/37142-dfa-statement-on-china-s-recent-approval-of-the-establishment-of-a-nature-reserve-in-bajo-de-masinloc

[3] https://www.state.gov/releases/2025/09/on-scarborough-reef/

[4]https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1842952983246656932&wfr=spider&for=pc

[5] https://www.guancha.cn/WuShiCun/2025_09_21_790820.shtml

[6] https://www.takungpao.com/news/232108/2025/0911/1121125.html

[7]https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3325047/china-plans-nature-reserve-contested-scarborough-shoal

[8]https://export.shobserver.com/baijiahao/html/980572.html

[9]https://world.huanqiu.com/article/4OH0lfZZs4N

[10]https://x.com/GordonGChang/status/1965947063339987219

[11]https://www.reuters.com/world/china/philippines-slams-chinas-plan-nature-reserve-disputed-shoal-2025-09-11/

[12]https://x.com/GordianKnotRay/status/1965830024105439275

[13]https://x.com/CollinSLKoh/status/1965720905302282294

[14]https://x.com/elyratner/status/1965760406817005965

[15]https://www.reuters.com/world/china/philippines-slams-chinas-plan-nature-reserve-disputed-shoal-2025-09-11/

[16]https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/what-is-scarborough-shoal-what-is-china-planning-there-2025-09-11/

[17]https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/fgbz/xzfg/201805/t20180516_440442.shtml

[18]https://nghiencuubiendong.vn/vai-net-ve-luat-hai-canh-cua-trung-quoc.50805.ane

[19] https://docs.pca-cpa.org/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf

[20]https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/fgbz/xzfg/201805/t20180516_440442.shtml

[21]https://www.reuters.com/world/china/philippines-slams-chinas-plan-nature-reserve-disputed-shoal-2025-09-11/