To continue, we are now on letter D,

China’s Construction Activities on Seven Reefs in the Spratly Islands

-In summary, the record shows that since the end of 2013, China has created on top
of the coral reefs approximately 12.8 million square metres of land, from millions
of tons of dredged corals, rocks and sand.

-The conclusions of the Tribunal-appointed independent experts stated that the more
recent construction activities, have “impacted reefs on a scale unprecedented in
the region.” They cite a 2016 study analysing satellite imagery that found up to 60
percent of the shallow reef habitat at the seven reefs has been directly destroyed.

according to the ferse report, one of the tribunal appointed expert,

-The Ferse Report states:
The effects of the mentioned impacts on the reefs, together with altered
hydrodynamics and released nutrients, are likely to have wide-ranging and long-
lasting ecological consequences for the affected reefs and the wider ecosystem of
the Spratly Islands, and possibly beyond.

they stated that

Rejuvenation of these areas is possible, but will take several decades, and it will
likely take centuries for large massive colonies to regrow.

The Tribunal accepts the conclusion in the Ferse Report that “China’s recent
construction activities have and will cause environmental harm to coral reefs in
the Spratly Islands. In contrast to chinas claim with regards to:
-Replenishment of nutrients and food organisms - can be replenished constantly:
-Timing of works of the construction activities - was timed “reasonably to avoid
spawn periods:
-Water quality - was maintained despite the dredging activities:
-Restoration and Transplantation of coral reef communities - can be done initially
in 5-10years:
-Impact on reef structure - was largely unaffected:
-Impact on reef health - neither affected the health of the ecosystems nor harmed
the coral reef ecosystems:
-Selection of sites containing dead coral - the construction sites contained dead
corals:
-Use of “nature simulation” method - land reclamation area will “produce positive
ecological effects
-and Recovery - is achievable with good results

-Based on the compelling evidence, expert reports, and critical assessment of

Chinese claims, the Tribunal has no doubt that China’s artificial island-building
activities on the seven reefs in the Spratly Islands have caused devastating and
long-lasting damage to the marine environment. The Tribunal accordingly finds that
through its construction activities, China has breached its obligation under
Article 192 to protect and preserve the marine environment, China has conducted
dredging in such a way as to pollute the marine environment with sediment in breach
of Article 194(1), and has violated its duty under Article 194(5) to take measures
necessary to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat
of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life.

-The Tribunal further notes that China’s construction activities at the seven coral
reefs have been met with protest from the Philippines and other neighbouring
States. China breached, Article 197 of the Convention which requires States to
cooperate on a regional basis to formulate standards and practices for the
protection and preservation of the marine environment.

-In relation to semi-enclosed seas, China breached Article 123 which states that
States shall endeavour to coordinate the implementation of their rights and duties
with respect to the protection and preservation of the marine environment.

-With respect to China’s island-building program, the Tribunal did not find
convincing evidence of China attempting to cooperate or coordinate with the other
States bordering the South China Sea.

-The Tribunal cannot make a definitive finding that China has prepared an
environmental impact assessment, but nor can it definitely find that it has failed
to do so in light of the repeated assertions by Chinese officials and scientists
that China has undertaken thorough studies. Such a finding, however, is not
necessary in order to find a breach of Article 206. To fulfil the obligations of
Article 206, a State must not only prepare an EIA but also must communicate it. The
Tribunal directly asked China for a copy of any EIA it had prepared; China did not
provide
one.