Turtle Power: How China Uses Scientific Research to Try to Bolster Territorial Claims

Analysts say an environmental survey in disputed waters is really meant to normalize Beijing’s presence there.

By Taejun Kang for RFA

When Chinese researchers recently announced the discovery of a large gathering of endangered hawksbill sea turtles around Scarborough Shoal, they may have had ulterior motives – experts told Radio Free Asia that scientific studies serve a broader strategic purpose by reinforcing China’s presence and authority in contested areas of the South China Sea.

Days earlier, Chinese state media had published extensive coverage of a scientific expedition around the shoal, highlighting coral reef surveys, ecological protection efforts and marine research.

While the findings are framed as scientific and environmental news, they are intended to reinforce Beijing’s claims of sovereignty over the entirety of the sea, Joseph Kristanto, a research analyst at Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, told RFA.

“I think these activities should be interpreted as China’s attempt to normalize its presence in the South China Sea and to confer a degree of legitimacy upon its actions,” he said.

The two reports are part of a growing stream of Chinese state media coverage focusing on scientific research, environmental conservation and biodiversity discoveries in disputed waters, particularly around Scarborough Shoal, which is also claimed by the Philippines.

“While the scientific and environmental dimensions of these activities are significant, given the considerable ecological pressures facing the South China Sea’s coral reefs and marine ecosystems, in the context of disputed features such as the Scarborough Shoal, it is evident that these actions primarily function as strategic signaling by Beijing,” Kristanto said.

Environmental steward?

The South China Sea is claimed in whole or in part by several governments, including China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei.

Scarborough Shoal has been a particular flashpoint between Beijing and Manila since Chinese vessels effectively gained control of access to the feature following a standoff in 2012.

But 10 years ago, the Permanent Court of Arbitration all but invalidated China’s historical claims that fall within its nine-dash line, which practically surrounds the entire sea.

Beijing has rejected the ruling, and its coast guard maintains constant presence there.

Chinese messaging still asserts that the shoal is part of its sovereign territory and that Beijing has security and maritime rights.

But recently, state media reports have begun to highlight marine ecology, conservation programs, scientific surveys and biodiversity protection.

Kristanto said such activities fit into a broader pattern in which states use environmental governance and scientific research to demonstrate effective administration over disputed territories.

“By framing its activities as scientific research, environmental protection, coral reef surveys, and biodiversity conservation, China positions itself as a responsible maritime governance actor rather than merely a claimant seeking control,” he said. “This strategy shifts the narrative from one of coercion, access denial, or territorial disputes to one centered on conservation, sustainability, and the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems.”

The approach offers Beijing a relatively inexpensive way to reinforce its presence while avoiding the more confrontational optics associated with military deployments or maritime standoffs.

“I do think that Beijing will seek to expand these activities in the future, as they provide a relatively low-cost and less confrontational means of justifying and asserting its presence in disputed areas,” Kristanto explained.

China is also able to suggest that it is the only authority capable of exercising governance over these regions, he said, adding that it also provides “a less militarized framework for responding to criticisms that its actions are destabilizing and coercive.”

Hybrid warfare?

Scientific research in disputed areas is more than just normalizing Chinese presence, they are an integrated part of Beijing’s broader hybrid warfare strategy, Sze-Fung Lee, an independent researcher specializing in Chinese hybrid warfare, told RFA.

“These activities should not be understood as genuine scientific or conservation efforts in isolation,” Lee said. “The research infrastructure itself is frequently dual-use – military and civil – with the ‘civil’ research functioning as plausible deniability.”

China has long used a combination of civilian, law enforcement and maritime assets to strengthen its position in disputed waters, a strategy often described by analysts as operating in the “gray zone” between peace and conflict.

Lee said scientific activities add another layer to that approach.

“Expect these activities to expand in the coming years,” Lee said. “They serve multiple functions simultaneously: normalizing presence in disputed waters, supporting gray zone operations, and feeding into broader influence operations. Beijing has every incentive to keep investing in this layer.”

Kristanto noted that other claimants also conduct marine research, environmental monitoring and fisheries protection activities in the South China Sea. The difference, he argued, lies in how closely such efforts are integrated into broader state policy and messaging.

“What distinguishes China’s approach is its scale, coordination, and political integration,” he said. “The narrative is not merely that China is studying or protecting the environment, but that it is doing so as the rightful authority over the feature.”

Kristanto noted there was also a possibility that conservation arguments could eventually be used to justify tighter controls over disputed waters.

“For instance, if a disputed area such as the Scarborough Shoal is designated as environmentally sensitive or in need of protection, China could argue that vessels or fishermen from certain countries should be excluded in the interest of ecological preservation.”

Edited by Eugene Whong.