Court halts Blue Bay project to protect bird habitats

Restoration vs degradation

Due to the complexity of the case and its involvement in the specialized field of migratory bird protection, it has undergone three pre-trial meetings. One of the contentious issues in the case is whether the project is beneficial or harmful to the ecology.

Li revealed that the defendant has consistently emphasized that the project is an ecological restoration project. The court's judgment indicated that the practices within the project, such as planting vegetation at the shore, clearing invasive species and purchasing artificial fish ponds from fishermen, were intended to create habitats for waterbirds. Both the plaintiff and the defendant acknowledged during the trial that the number of bird species in the area in question had not decreased, and had even increased.

To Li and He, some damage had already been done.

Mud was excavated from a section of the mudflat to create a foundation for the shore in the construction of a sandy beach, He said. As a result, certain areas of the mudflat were turned into ponds and pits, unsuitable for shorebirds to forage in.

"More ducks and egrets came to use the site," conceded Li."But waders avoided the construction site."

He said: "When it comes to ecological restoration, most people naturally assume it is beneficial to the ecology, and that the plaintiff must prove that it has actually caused ecological damage. This is the biggest challenge we face."

Many experts have reacted to January's ruling and are eager to see how the appeals develop.

"This is a significant advancement in environmental tort and environmental public interest civil case adjudication, further implementing the provisions of the Environmental Protection Law," Wang Canfa, an environmental law scholar and a long-term observer of the case, told Beijing News.

He believes the ruling serves as a warning to all environmental assessment units. If they intentionally falsify information, omit evaluation factors, fabricate data or draw false evaluation conclusions, they may not only be subject to administrative penalties, but also be liable for damages together with the construction unit.

Another positive aspect of the first-instance judgment is that the court acknowledged the "real risk of ecological damage" posed by the Blue Bay project.

The case is a rare preventative public interest lawsuit against the reclamation of coastal wetlands in China, He said.

She explained that generally, lawsuits are based on consequences and damages, whereas preventative litigation is based on risks."In the environmental field, it is always based on risks. The destruction of mudflats and the extinction of species are irreversible," He said.

Why appeal?

The court also concluded that the existing evidence could not prove that the completed parts of the project had caused ecological damage or posed an ecological risk. Therefore, the court did not support the plaintiff's requests for eliminating risks, ecological restoration, compensation for losses and an apology.

Cai Zhiyang, an assistant professor of environmental science at Duke Kunshan University in Suzhou, Jiangsu, who has long been concerned about the population of Asian dowitchers in the waters of Lianyungang, told Beijing News that researchers had attached satellite trackers to several dowitchers of the population migrating in the area.

The research results showed that after the construction of the project began, there were almost no Asian dowitchers landing in the semi-circular construction area. "In other words, the area is no longer suitable for them to forage," Cai said.

This research result was also submitted as evidence to the court by the plaintiff. However, the judgment stated that the number of dowitchers providing flight trajectory maps was too small to prove a significant decrease in the number of birds in the area.

Friends of Nature believes that the judgment only supporting a temporary halt to construction does not completely eliminate the significant risk of the project damaging the natural foraging grounds of waterbirds.

"Despite the developer's assurance to halt the embankment construction and sandy beach development, we believe the completed part of the project has already caused ecological harm, and thus, the developer is obligated to restore and compensate for the damage," He said.

The legal battle continues.