53.3 million hectares<\/p>
The total area of wetlands in China, representing about 10% of the global total<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
This case demonstrates how wetland restoration projects can, due to skewed philosophies and a lack of legal processes and standards, end up further damaging the ecosystems they are meant to protect. The problems do not stop there. China has long lacked legislation protecting its wetlands, leading to a mishmash of different regulations and approaches to wetland conservation across the country. Frequent problems have been seen in the identification of wetlands eligible for protection, and their restoration, as well as government transparency and public participation in such processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wetland ecosystems are complex, including land, water, wildlife and diverse vegetation over wide areas. Legislating for their protection is no easy task. In 2005, a draft statute for protecting wetlands was submitted to the State Council\u2019s Legislative Affairs Office, and rounds of consultations and hearings followed. However, these regulations never came into force, partly because of the need for action at a higher legislative level. There has been no regulatory movement since the National Forestry and Grassland Administration\u2019s Regulations on Conservation and Management of Wetlands<\/a> in 2018. These were low-ranking, ministry-level rules that did not put adequate mechanisms in place. Many key issues remained unresolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But on 24 December last year, the Standing Committee of the National People\u2019s Congress passed the Wetlands Protection Law<\/a>, which is set to come into force on 1 June this year and mark a new era for wetlands conservation in China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To date, Friends of Nature has filed six lawsuits over wetlands destruction. The first of these, which concerned a housing development in Beijing in 2015, was the city\u2019s first public interest environmental lawsuit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The development, in Changping district, was home to a 200 mu<\/em> (13.3 hectare) area of wetland. The developer and property management firm were dumping construction and excavation waste into a lake, damaging the ecosystem. Beijing has had wetland conservation rules in place since 2012, requiring a list of wetlands within the city limits to be produced. But at the time of the case, no such list had yet been published. This hampered efforts to ensure the urban wetland got the protection it was due.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Article 2 of the new law defines the areas it protects: \u201cNatural or artificial, year-round or seasonal waterlogged zones or bodies of water, including sea areas of less than 6 metres in depth at low tide, with significant ecological functions, but excluding paddy fields or artificial areas of water or shoals used for aquaculture.\u201d The same article states that China will operate a graded system of conservation, one that is based on lists of wetlands eligible for protection. The three grades will be wetlands of \u201cnational significance\u201d, \u201cprovincial significance\u201d and \u201cordinary significance\u201d. Lists will be produced at the corresponding level of government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The new law is not the first document to try to define and list wetlands. There has often been controversy over exactly what is protected, and how.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We believe that the letter of the law requires all wetlands, as defined in Article 2, to be protected \u2013 not just those featured on the graded lists. But the lists will provide a concrete enumeration, and the definition will complement them. The inclusion of wetlands on these lists can be used to override any lack of clarity arising from language such as \u201csignificant ecological function\u201d, providing government bodies with a clear basis on which to enforce the law. Meanwhile, the Article 2 definition can be used to ensure that protections are not restricted to areas on the lists, making up for any failures of coverage. However, we have observed different understandings of this: local law enforcement and judicial practice habitually focuses on lists, holding that anything not listed does not require protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWetlands to be defined and listed<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Birds](\"https:\/\/dialogue.earth\/content\/uploads\/2022\/03\/Birds-in-Shahe-reservoir-.jpeg\")
<\/div>