In Depth: Ambiguous Reef Protection Laws Leave China’s Coral Sand Traders High and Dry

In December 2021, during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, Wu Xing, a small businessman dealing in coral sand, was unexpectedly detained by police at a quarantine site in Binzhou, Shandong province. Taken to his company’s warehouse, Wu discovered authorities had sealed the place and were scrutinizing a recent container shipment of 27.3 tons of coral sand. This material, made from limestone skeletal remains of marine organisms, is used in aquarium filters [para. 1][para. 2].

Wu was shocked to find that coral sand was considered a protected animal, rendering its trade illegal under national laws. He and four others were charged with illegal trade of endangered wildlife and their trial began in March 2024. Similar cases have resulted in severe penalties, exemplified by a man sentenced to two years in prison and a 120,000 yuan ($16,900) fine in 2023 [para. 4][para. 7]. This is a high-stakes issue given the lucrative nature of the aquarium filter market, projected to reach $1.5 billion globally by 2032, with China set to dominate this market due to increasing commercial fish farming activities [para. 8].

Coral reefs play a crucial role in marine environments, providing over $375 billion annually in goods and services and supporting over 500 million people globally. However, whether coral sand should legally be classified as "precious or endangered wild animals" remains contentious. In China, collecting coral sand can disrupt local ecosystems, affecting species such as sea turtles [para. 9][para. 10]. Defense attorney Li Erquan and other environmental advocates argue that coral sand is neither a living creature nor a protected species [para. 10][para. 13].

The classification debate is complicated by differing expert opinions. One key witness for the prosecution was an associate researcher in zoology without published research in corals. Defense experts from the Third Institute of Oceanography and Hainan Academy of Ocean and Fisheries Sciences found the coral sand samples did not meet the criteria for protected species. This dissonance points to inadequacies in legal frameworks governing wildlife protection [para. 20][para. 22].

Wu’s case highlights the interaction between traditional practices and modern legal standards. For decades, coral sand has been used in construction in areas like Hainan and Guangdong provinces, and it is a common practice among fish farmers [para. 36]. These conflicting uses and the ambiguity in laws have prompted scrutiny from governmental bodies. In April 2023, discussions held by the Fisheries and Fishery Administration Bureau leaned toward classifying and managing the use of stony corals based on context and laws, indicating a nuanced approach but lacking clear legal directives [para. 26][para. 27].

Ultimately, the situation underscores a broader issue: the need for clear regulations in wildlife protection laws that can reconcile environmental goals with traditional business practices. Wu's case continues without a verdict, reflecting the ongoing struggle to define and enforce environmental protections in a legally coherent and socially equitable manner [para. 30].