- BBNJ Agreement
Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction
2.1The Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (otherwise known as the BBNJ Agreement) was referred to the Committee on 24 June 2024.
2.2The Committee received 10 submissions. The Committee held two public hearings in Canberra, the first on 5 September 2024 and the second on 9 September 2024. A list of submissions can be found at Appendix A. The hearings and witnesses are listed at Appendix B. The transcripts of evidence from the public hearings can be accessed through the Committee’s website.
Overview
2.3The proposed treaty action (the Agreement) is an implementing agreement under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [1994] ATS 31 (UNCLOS). UNCLOS provides the legal framework in which all activities in the ocean and seas are carried out, including the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. This obligation applies to the water and seabed beyond national jurisdictions, with the Agreement not applying to areas within Australia’s national jurisdiction.
2.4The purpose of the Agreement is to close gaps in the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdictions. The Agreement addresses four areas in this respect – marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, environmental impact assessments and capacity building, including the transfer of marine technology. The Agreement enhances coordination and promotes coherence across global, regional, subregional and sectoral bodies.
2.5Ratifying the Agreement will enable Australia to take an active role in maintaining the health of marine environments outside of its jurisdiction. Maintaining ocean health supports Australia’s marine industries and is reflective of the government’s international environmental leadership and nature-positive agendas.
Justifications
2.6Australia is a supporter of the Agreement and its entry into force aligns with Australian interests, including ‘bolstering international rules-based order, enhancing domestic environmental action, improving scientific endeavours, and supporting foreign policy objectives’.
2.7Australia has advocated for the Agreement as a member of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), a group of nations committed at the highest political level to achieve ambitious outcomes for biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. As a HAC member, Australia has encouraged other countries to ratify the Agreement to achieve the 60 ratifications needed for it to enter into force before the 20 September 2025 deadline. Ratification will make Australia a Party to the Agreement and allows contributions to decision-making and the maintenance of the international rules-based order.
2.8The good health of marine ecosystems, biodiversity and resources provides cultural, social and economic value to Australia. Industries that operate in a regional and global context, such as tourism, fishing and aquaculture, rely on a healthy ocean and will benefit from the clear and level regulatory environment provided by the Agreement.
2.9With over 90 per cent of the ocean’s volume falling outside of areas of national jurisdiction, it is vital that Australia becomes Party to the Agreement so that it can contribute to the global rules that govern this space and ensure they align with national interests. Much of the seafloor of this area is yet to be mapped clearly and roughly two-thirds of the estimated 700,000 to 1 million species in the ocean have yet to be discovered or officially described. This seafloor extends beyond national jurisdiction and contains biodiversity that could contain material to improve human wellbeing. The Agreement contains a framework for the use of material gathered from unmapped seafloor and could stimulate the Australian research sector.
2.10The Agreement is complementary to existing domestic ocean conservation commitments made by Australia. Marine protected areas established by the Agreement could border with areas already protected within Australia’s jurisdiction, enhancing the conservation outcomes of both the domestic and adjacent protected areas and allowing for regional collaboration on marine protection.
2.11The Agreement is a priority for many nations within the Indo-Pacific region and being a Party to it could allow Australia to play a leading role in its implementation. This role could enable Australia to contribute to a secure, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific by conducting environmental impact assessments and establishing and managing marine protected areas.
2.12The Agreement is expected to raise the standards applied to existing international instruments, frameworks and bodies such as regional fisheries management organisations, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Seabed Authority. Institutions set up under the Agreement would cooperate and coordinate with these existing bodies, including information sharing, processes and non-binding recommendations relating to marine protected areas and environmental impact assessments.
2.13Article 5 of the Agreement provides that it shall be interpreted and applied in a manner that aligns and does not undermine existing legal instruments, frameworks and relevant bodies. This includes the Antarctic Treaty System, which currently provides a framework for the ‘conservation of marine biodiversity and comprehensively addresses the legal, political, and environmental considerations unique to that region’. It is proposed that Australia make a declaration in accordance with Article 71 highlighting that the Conference of the Parties must respect the competence of the Antarctic Treaty System.
Obligations
2.14The Agreement contains a range of mandatory and permissive obligations, with the majority falling under the four pillars of the Agreement: marine genetic resources; area-based management tools; environmental impact assessments; and capacity building and transfer of marine technology.
Marine genetic resources
2.15Marine genetic resources are defined in Article 1 as ‘any material of marine plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional units of heredity of actual or potential value’. The Agreement establishes obligations for subjects under Australia’s jurisdiction or control that regulate the collection and use of marine genetic resources and digital sequence information relating to these resources. Article 11 of the Agreement requires Parties that carry out activities with these resources and data in areas beyond national jurisdiction do so in accordance with the Agreement, to promote cooperation in such activities, and to carry them out exclusively for peaceful purposes.
2.16Article 12 requires that Parties provide information to the Clearing-House Mechanism (an open access information platform managed by a secretariat established by the Agreement), before and after collecting marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, as well as any material changes to that information. This information includes the research subject matter, its collection location, the timing of the collection, and its storage location. The same Article obliges Parties to ensure that samples of the collected resources and digital sequence information is identified as collected from areas beyond national jurisdiction in their repositories, and for those repositories to the extent practicable, to provide a biennial report to the access and benefit-sharing committee.
2.17Article 13 requires Parties to aim to ensure that traditional knowledge associated with marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, that is held by Indigenous Peoples and local communities, shall only be accessed with the free, prior and informed consent or approval and the involvement of such communities.
2.18If marine genetic resources and digital sequence information from areas beyond national jurisdiction is utilised for research or development (R&D), including commercially, relevant Parties are required to provide certain information to the Clearing-House Mechanism, including the results of the utilisation (such as publications and patents), how to access the relevant resource or data utilised, and information on sales (if marketed).
2.19The obligations relating to any benefits (both non-monetary and monetary) arising from marine genetic resources and digital sequence information from areas beyond national jurisdiction are stipulated by Article 14. Non-monetary benefit-sharing obligations include ensuring access to samples and providing opportunities for developing Party participation in relevant activities. Any resources or data that is the subject of R&D is to be kept in publicly available repositories within three years from the start of R&D.
2.20Monetary benefits are shared through a financial mechanism established under Article 52, with the general obligation requiring developed Parties (including Australia) to pay an additional 50 per cent of their individually assessed contribution into a ‘special fund’. Changes to this monetary benefit-sharing regime can only be made by agreeance of a three-fourths majority of Parties.
2.21Article 15 establishes an access and benefit-sharing committee, which addresses access and benefit-sharing issues and requires each Party to the Agreement to provide the committee with information on access and benefit-sharing and national focal points. Transparency and periodic reporting requirements are outlined by Article 16.
2.22It is proposed that Australia make an exception to Article 10(1), so that the Agreement does not apply to the utilisation of marine genetic resources and digital sequence information collected or generated prior to the Agreement coming into force as provided for by Article 70.
Area-based management tools
2.23The Agreement imposes obligations relating to ‘the establishment, implementation, and review of area-based management tools’. Marine protected areas are a highlighted area-based management tool due to their stronger conservation focus compared to other area-based management tools.
2.24Article 18 prevents Parties from submitting proposals for area-based management tools that relate to any areas within national jurisdiction and from relying on the establishment of tools as a basis for deciding on claims to sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction. The Conference of Parties will not consider a proposal that includes an area of national jurisdiction or one that can be interpreted as recognition or non-recognition of any claims to sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction.
2.25Article 19 requires proposals for area-based management tools to be submitted to the secretariat. These proposals must be considered by relevant stakeholders, use the best available science and traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (when relevant), and address certain criteria, including information relating to the geographical area and a draft management plan. After the proposal is reviewed by the Scientific and Technical Body, Article 20 requires for the proposal to be re-submitted to the secretariat who will then publish the proposal for consultation. Article 21 outlines this consultation process and specifies that proposals must be subject to targeted and proactive consultation with relevant States (including when a proposal affects areas entirely surrounded by exclusive economic zones (EEZs)), must take into consideration any contributions received throughout consultation, and revise as appropriate before re-submitting.
2.26When decisions relating to area-based management tools cannot be made by consensus, a three-fourths majority is satisfactory. Article 23 stipulates that decisions relating to these tools made by the Conference of Parties are binding on all parties and enter into force after 120 days. Parties may object to a decision within those 120 days but must provide an explanation to the secretariat on specified grounds. Objecting Parties have additional obligations, including that the Party adopt alternate measures to the extent practicable, that they not adopt measures that would undermine the effectiveness of the original decision, that they report to the Conference of Parties on their alternate measures, and that they renew and provide an explanation for their objection every three years. If a renewed objection is not made, then the objection is withdrawn and the original decision applies 120 days later.
2.27Parties are required by Article 25 to ensure that subjects within their jurisdiction or control act consistently with relevant area-based management tools. Parties are required to promote decisions made by the Conference of Parties in other appropriate international organisations and must encourage non-Parties to adopt similar measures and join the Agreement. Periodic reporting on the implementation of area-based management tools is required by Article 26.
Environmental impact assessments
2.28Article 28 of the Agreement imposes obligations on Parties to ensure that they assess, monitor and provide information for planned activities within their jurisdiction or control that may cause substantial pollution or damage to the marine environment beyond national jurisdiction.[60]
2.29Articles 30 and 31 outline the mandatory steps of these environmental impact assessments, including ‘an initial screening of the activity, scoping to identify key environmental and associated impacts, assessment and evaluation of impacts, and measures for the prevention, mitigation and management of potential impacts’. Consultations and opportunities to comment are to be provided throughout the assessment. The Clearing-House Mechanism and secretariat are to be notified of planned activities and proposing Parties must advise and consider any concerns raised if they determine that an assessment is not required.
2.30Article 32 requires that Parties planning activities must consider and respond to comments from other Parties and must publish comments and responses. Additional obligations apply to planned activities within high seas pockets (small areas of the high seas surrounded by EEZs), with the planned activity to be revised in accordance with comments provided by surrounding States. The proposing Party is required to provide access to all information relating to assessments and indicate where any information may have been redacted.
2.31Parties are required to provide an environmental impact assessment report with information that is specified in Article 33. The draft report must be made available during the consultation period so the Scientific and Technical Body can evaluate it, and the Party must consider the Scientific and Technical Body’s comments with the final report to be published through the Clearing-House Mechanism.
2.32Article 34 states that after considering the environmental impact assessment, the Party planning the activity is responsible for deciding whether the activity can proceed. The Agreement and Conference of Parties have no decision-making role, with Parties retaining their right to make decisions. The decision to proceed must only be made when the Party has determined it has made all reasonable efforts to prevent significant adverse impacts on the marine environment. The Party’s decision, including any conditions of approval or follow up requirements, must be published through the Clearing-House Mechanism, as must any future monitoring and reporting resulting from the activity, as required by Article 35 and 36.
2.33Article 37 requires Parties to review the impacts of their authorised activities, with the Conference of Parties to be notified of any unforeseen adverse impacts or impacts resulting from breaches of the conditions set out in the approval of the activity. Parties are required to review the authorising decision, put in place measures to mitigate the adverse impacts and/or halt the activity and evaluate such measures. The Party must keep adjacent coastal and other relevant States informed and publish reports on the review and any change of authorising decisions, including through the Clearing-House Mechanism.
2.34If a Party determines that an environmental impact assessment has been correctly conducted by one international organisation, then Article 29 provides that they do not have to do another one under this Agreement as long as the assessment is published through the Clearing-House Mechanism. Parties are obliged to promote the use of environmental impact assessments and the adoption of standards and/or guidelines in other international organisations that they are party to. Article 39 stipulates that Parties must consider conducting and taking into account strategic environmental assessments for plans that relate to activities under their jurisdiction or control but are in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Capacity-building
2.35Article 41 of the Agreement requires Parties to assist other Parties (particularly developing State Parties) to achieve the Agreement’s objectives through capacity-building and transfer of marine technology. While this cooperation must be all encompassing, Parties must recognise the special requirements of developing States and not condition capacity building and technology transfer on onerous reporting requirements. While the Agreement does not bind Parties to specific forms of capacity-building, as a developed State, Australia will be required to engage in capacity-building initiatives and to cooperate in transferring marine technology to developing States Parties.
2.36Parties are required to, within their capabilities, provide supporting resources and facilitate other sources of support to Parties that take into account the recipients’ national policies, priorities, plans and programs. Article 42 states that support must build upon existing programmes, be needs-based and guided by lessons learned, and maximise efficiency where possible. Efforts must be facilitated through the future capacity-building and transfer of marine technology committee and Clearing-House Mechanism.
2.37Transfers of marine technology are required to be mutually agreed upon by both Parties but are to take place on terms that are fair and most favourable for the recipient, as required by Article 43. Parties must promote economic and legal conditions that facilitate transfers, including the provision of incentives to enterprises and institutions. Modalities in the Agreement ensure that Parties are not forced to hand over technology and the rights of any technology handed over are respected. Parties are required by Article 45 to submit reports to the capacity building and transfer of marine technology committee.
Other obligations
2.38Articles 53 and 54 require Parties to take necessary legislative, administrative or policy measures to ensure the implementation of the Agreement and must monitor and report on the implementation of their obligations.
2.39While all Parties are obliged by Article 56 to cooperate to prevent disputes, those that are involved in disputes are required by Article 57 to settle them peacefully. Article 60 states that disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Agreement are to use the UNCLOS dispute settlement regime. While remediation takes place, Parties must ‘make every effort to enter provisional arrangements of a practical nature’, as required by Article 61.
2.40Article 7 stipulates that Parties must use the best available science and be guided by well-known environmental principles and approaches. Article 8 requires Parties to cooperate under the Agreement, including improving cooperation with other relevant international organisations and developing and sharing marine scientific research and technology.
Consultation
2.41Public consultation and stakeholder engagement on the Agreement began prior to the commencement of negotiations, with views being fed into a mandate that enabled the delegation to shape an Agreement to which Australia could become a Party. Stakeholders were in attendance for negotiations and a non-government representative was a part of Australia’s delegation during all formal negotiations.
2.42Stakeholders were also invited to participate in a Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) survey seeking views on the Agreement and its impacts. Invitations were sent to representatives from the fishing, shipping and cable industries, scientific and research centres, non-profit organisations, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, and academics, with the survey receiving 23 responses, all of which supported ratification, and 3,052 campaign emails from the public that ‘strongly supported ratification’. Australian states and territories were not directly consulted due to the extraterritorial nature of the Agreement.
Implementation
2.43As many of the obligations imposed by the Agreement require changes to policy and legislation, it is proposed that legislation be introduced to:
Regulate the use of marine genetic resources and digital sequencing information from marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction, require those under Australian jurisdiction or control to comply with future area-based management tools in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and establish a mandatory procedure to assess the environmental impacts of activities under Australian jurisdiction or control in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
2.44Australia’s engagement with the Agreement will be led by DCCEEW. With support from Australia’s overseas diplomatic network, DCCEEW will engage with the Agreement’s institutions to report necessary information to the Clearing-House Mechanism and will coordinate with relevant government departments to implement the Agreement’s obligations in other international organisations.
2.45Australia has already participated in regional capacity building workshops to raise awareness of the Agreement and provided funding to Pacific Island countries to support their ratification of the Agreement. Further capacity building will be informed by a needs assessment and the advice of developing States.
Costs
2.46Article 52 requires Parties to pay annual assessed contributions to fund the institutions established under the Agreement. Until a new monetary benefit sharing arrangement is agreed by the Conference of the Parties, Australia would be obliged to contribute an additional 50 per cent of its annual contribution to the special fund to account for the sharing obligations for marine genetic resources. There will be costs associated with becoming a Party to the Agreement, such as those required to attend meetings.
2.47While there may be costs resulting from decisions on environmental impact assessments to ensure that Australia is compliant with future area-based management tools, any costs are expected to be minimal due to the small number of activities within Australian jurisdiction or control. Similarly, the regulatory impact of ratification is expected to be minimal.
Future treaty action and withdrawal
2.48While Article 70 provides that no reservations or exceptions may be made unless expressly permitted, Article 71 allows declarations or statements when signing, ratifying, approving, accepting or acceding to the Agreement, provided they do not exclude or modify the Agreement’s legal effect.
2.49Article 72 permits Parties to propose amendments and annexes to the Agreement. Proposed amendments must be circulated and if half of the Parties have favourably responded, the Conference of Parties will consider and can adopt it if a two-thirds majority is present and votes in the affirmative. Parties then need to ratify, approve or accept the amendment, 30 days after which it will enter into force. Australia would be required to progress the amendment through the typical domestic treaty process.
2.50Article 74 permits the amendment of annexes, with proposed amendments to be circulated at least 150 days before the Conference of Parties meets to consider it. The Conference of Parties will decide on the amendment with a two-thirds majority present and voting and the amendment entering into force 180 days for all Parties except for those who object.
2.51Parties can denounce the Agreement without reason, as permitted by Article 73(1).
Issues
Timing of ratification
2.52In submissions to the inquiry and at the public hearings, the Committee heard about the importance of ratifying the Agreement before the United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC) that is scheduled to be held in June 2025. In its submission, World Wide Fund for Nature Australia (WWF-Australia) stated that ratification before UNOC was a ‘critical milestone’ in securing the 60 ratifications required by September 2025 for the Agreement to enter into force. Ocean Decade Australia (ODA) echoed this sentiment, stating that early ratification would allow Australia to ‘credibly advocate’ for other parties to ratify the Agreement and ensure the required number of ratifications was met.
2.53When appearing at a public hearing, Associate Professor Dr Fran Humphries emphasised the importance of early ratification, stating that ratifying and then participating in the first Conference of the Parties would provide Australia with influence over international policy on marine scientific research and would enable Australia to protect its interests on decisions about activities in the waters that surround Australia. ODA shared a similar view, stating that early ratification would put Australia in a position to influence how nations distribute and share resources found in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
2.54The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) stated that the fact that Australia was yet to ratify the Agreement was not a reflection of its commitment to the Agreement but was a result of Australia’s treaty processes and the required implementation of legislation before ratification.
2.55Early ratification’s effect on foreign relations was explored at the public hearings, with DCCEEW stating that Australia had been an influential participant in negotiating the Agreement and in encouraging other parties to ratify. DCCEEW highlighted that Australia is a Co-Chair of the Preparatory Commission for the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties and as a result, other parties would be looking to Australia to be an early ratifier of the Agreement. DCCEEW said that countries within the Pacific recognised that the Agreement was in their interests and were looking to Australia to ‘help them understand the full extent of the treaty and the implications for implementation’. DFAT also recognised Australia’s influence in the Pacific region, stating that Australia was working with Pacific nations through diplomatic channels to encourage their ratification of the Agreement.
2.56The High Seas Alliance (HSA) identified the Agreement as a strategic priority for Australia and that early ratification would be ‘pivotal in leading the charge’ towards reaching the required number of ratifications and in ‘fostering regional cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region’. Professor Donald Rothwell said that the Agreement promoted the interests of Small Island Developing States and archipelagic States and pointed to a communique issued after the August 2024 Pacific Islands Forum which reaffirmed the importance of the Agreement entering into force. Professor Rothwell said that early ratification would ‘send a clear message of Australia's support for its regional neighbours, who have actively sought to advance the Agreement in multilateral fora'.
Traditional owners and traditional knowledge
2.57The Committee inquired into the Agreement’s provisions relating to dispute resolution between nations and traditional owners. DCCEEW stated that each party engaged with the Agreement would be required to collaborate with their traditional owners and that the Agreement contains provisions that protect the rights of traditional owners and mandate targeted consultation. DFAT said that this consultation would occur when establishing area-based management tools and accessing traditional knowledge when searching for or using marine genetic resources.
2.58DFAT stated that there was not a formal mechanism for traditional owners to use the dispute resolution provisions provided by the Agreement as these mechanisms were provided to the signatories of the Agreement. DFAT highlighted that a mechanism available to the Conference of Parties was the ability to request an advisory opinion from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Traditional owners could work through the Conference of Parties to request an advisory opinion that while not binding on parties to the Agreement, would provide authoritative guidance on the dispute raised.
2.59In evidence provided to the Committee, Dr Humphries said that the Agreement’s approach to traditional knowledge was consistent with forthcoming changes to Australian intellectual property law. These changes will result in traditional knowledge being protected as a form of intellectual property, including traditional knowledge associated with marine genetic resources of Australian native biological resources.
Regulatory impact and transparency
2.60In their submission and in an appearance before the Committee, Shipping Australia raised concerns regarding the lack of definition around area-based management tools, their impact on the freedom of navigation and costs and emissions resulting from the increased distance ships would be required to travel. Shipping Australia said that while not opposed to the Agreement, they sought ongoing detailed consultation on its impacts.
2.61When discussing the potential for the Agreement creating an increased bureaucratic and regulatory burden, DCCEEW commented they were conscious of the issue and were designing the domestic legislation required to ratify the Agreement in a manner that ensured ‘no additional regulatory burden for small business and other entities’. DCCEEW said that the Agreement would not specifically exclude industries (such as shipping) from an area when establishing area-based management tools, but rather each proposed tool would consider what activities should and should not occur in the established area.
2.62In addition to their concerns around the lack of definition of area-based management tools, Shipping Australia raised issue with the transparency of information relating to these tools, stating that it was not well publicised or collated in a single location. Shipping Australia recommended that if these tools are to be utilised and a marine park established, that their locations and all applicable regulations and requirements should be published and updated free of financial charge and on an open access basis.
2.63While not specifically addressing area-based management tools the HSA described the Agreement has having ‘very strong transparency provisions’ that would assist Australia in gaining the required information from other parties. Similarly, when discussing the Agreement’s notification system in relation to marine genetic resources, Dr Humphries described it as having a ‘light touch approach’ and that complying with the system would not be onerous for Australian research institutions.
Interaction with Antarctic Treaty System
2.64Professor Donald Rothwell spoke to the interaction between the Agreement and the existing Antarctic Treaty System, which currently provides for the management, conservation and regulation of the Southern Ocean marine environment. Professor Rothwell referenced concerns raised relating to Australia’s pursuit of offshore sovereignty over Antarctica being incompatible with the Agreement.
2.65Professor Rothwell highlighted the Australian Government’s intention to make a declaration under Article 71 that the Agreement would act in accordance with the regional mechanisms established by the Antarctic Treaty System and that pre-existing regional instruments dealing with areas beyond national jurisdiction will remain in place. Professor Rothwell suggested that Australia could use an Article 71 declaration made by Chile, who have already ratified the Agreement, as a model for their declaration.
2.66DFAT shared these views, stating that the Agreement had been negotiated with the concerns of overlap in mind and existing regulations provided by the Antarctic Treaty System would not be affected. DFAT said that the Australian Government would ‘work with other members of the Antarctic Treaty System through the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting to ensure that those matters are managed through the [Antarctic Treaty System] and in a manner that's complementary to what [the Agreement] is trying to do’.
Economic impact
2.67The Committee explored the economic impact of the Agreement, to which the Business Council for Sustainable Development Australia (BCSDA) identified market opportunities in marine-derived products in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics as well as long-term productivity derived from sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. BSCDA highlighted the Agreement’s potential to stimulate the research and development sector and the subsequent economic benefits this stimulus would provide to nations that utilised the marine environment.
2.68Specific to Australia, BCSDA emphasised the significance that marine biodiversity offers to Australian tourism. BCSDA stated that the established of marine park areas beyond national jurisdiction would improve the marine biodiversity in areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and would enhance the appeal of Australia as a tourist destination as a result.
2.69HSA shared these views, stating that the Agreement would support Australia’s reliance upon marine resources that are ‘crucial to coastal communities and national interests’ and would ‘strengthen ocean resilience and foster sustainable use of marine resources for both present and future generations’. ODA said that in addition to assisting in the discovery and shared-use of these marine resources, the Agreement would protect them from the unsustainable collection by ‘rogue actors’ that is currently impacting Australian businesses. Professor Rothwell stated that the Agreement would provide a more robust framework for high seas fisheries that would address unregulated fishing in areas beyond the Australian EEZ, ultimately benefitting Australia.
2.70Costs resulting from ratifying the Agreement were examined at the public hearing. As outlined in the costs section, there will be costs to Australia resulting from annual contributions to fund institutions established under the Agreement and to the special fund to support the sharing obligations for marine genetic resources, as well as costs associated with becoming a Party to the Agreement and compliance with area-based management tools. BCSDA acknowledged these costs but stated they would help create a healthier marine ecosystem that could subsequently be utilised by industry over an extended time period. BCSDA stated that the costs resulting from the Agreement could be paid for by public-private partnerships, leveraging international grants, and national economic planning.
Benefits of targeted conservation
2.71The Committee heard evidence from multiple environmental not-for-profit groups that underlined the Agreement’s contribution to marine conservation efforts. WWF-Australia detailed blue corridors–the mapping of whale migratory routes–and how environmental impact assessments and area-based management tools could be used to protect the entirety of these corridors and improve whale conservation efforts.
2.72Greenpeace Australia spoke to the benefits of area-based management tools and stated the importance of using them to create a protected marine wildlife corridor in the Lord Howe Rise and South Tasman Sea region. Greenpeace stated that the area had rich biodiversity that supported local fish and bird populations that could be protected by using an area-based management tool. This protected area could be connected to Australia’s existing marine park network, protecting against overfishing and improving overall conservation outcomes.
Committee comment
2.73The Committee understands the significance of the Agreement and the contribution it will make towards conserving the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The Agreement achieves this through a variety of collaborative tools and by creating a framework to enhance coordination and cohesion between parties to the Agreement. Ratification of the Agreement will ensure that Australia is playing an active role in marine conservation and will support Australian industries and research bodies that are reliant upon this environment.
2.74As a member of the HAC, Australia has been a long-term advocate for the Agreement and its alignment with Australia’s nature-positive agenda. Australia has advocated for other nations to ratify so that the 60 ratifications needed for the Agreement to come into effect can be reached before the 20 September 2025 deadline. Being one of these 60 ratifiers will reinforce Australia’s reputation as a leader in the Indo-Pacific and will garner influence over conservation measures negotiated at Conference of Parties meetings.
2.75The Committee heard about the importance of early ratification, dispute resolution relating to traditional knowledge, the regulatory and economic implications of the Agreement, including its interactions with the existing Antarctic Treaty System, and the benefits of targeted conservation efforts using mechanisms provided by the Agreement.
2.76The Committee notes the need for Australia to make a declaration in accordance with Article 71, that the Conference of Parties respect the competence of the Antarctic Treaty System. The Committee recognises the benefits that a consolidated database of marine park boundaries and applicable regulations would provide to the shipping industry. The Committee is satisfied that the raised concerns were addressed but acknowledges that Australia will have an active and ongoing role to continue mitigating issues as a member of the Conference of Parties.
2.77The Committee supports the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.
Ms Lisa ChestersMP
Chair
3 October 2024