Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, to the Government; I used to work closely with him in opposition. I guarantee to him that if we can continue the co-operation that we had in trying to achieve the areas in climate change and energy that we often discussed, these Benches will be absolutely behind him. When he said he was going to resign from his seat at the next general election, I said to him that I was sure he would rebound back into this House, and here we are, so our congratulations from these Benches.

The Liberal Democrats and these Benches really welcome the Bill, and indeed the treaty, and it is always great to speak in the House when all sides of the House are pretty well at one. I just have a slight trepidation in that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is following me, has a reputation in this House for being quite combative. I will be interested to see what he has to say. I am still in some trepidation as to the unanimity of the House, but we will see. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, sounded positive, so that is something.

The way in which we judge this from these Benches—I have said this to Ministers before—is by looking at how ambitious the United Kingdom is, not just in ratifying this treaty but in making it work, do something and add to global biodiversity and the health of our planet. I am pleased that the Minister was very positive in that way. But like the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I read the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy, which was released last week, and there is just that one mention of the BBNJ in there. As she pointed out very well, it was mentioned only once in some 120 pages, on Bermuda and the Sargasso Sea. I will be very interested to hear from the Minister, when she responds to this debate, about other specific areas, such as the Falklands, particularly as regards the Argentinian connection. That is an excellent suggestion. Let us have an agenda there that works.

One area in particular is not really covered by this biodiversity treaty—and we have to remember the major frustration that we cannot amend the treaty, only the legislation. I am sure we would all have liked it to be stronger, but we cannot change it. Ironically, one of the areas it really leaves out is fisheries, which are the biggest threat to biodiversity and have been over time, maybe apart from climate change and acidification, which others have mentioned. We are a member of five so-called regional fisheries management organisations, which span those high seas: two tuna ones, one in the Indian Ocean, a salmon Atlantic one, and the north-east Atlantic and north-west Atlantic fishing organisations. Because of the enforcement problems that we know we have, those organisations have great intentions and are important but are not as strong as they need to be. My question to the Minister is: do we have an agenda, a wish and a determination, apart from just ratifying this treaty, to make those regional fisheries management organisations work better and to be more effective to, if you like, surf the wave further towards helping biodiversity?

I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned the UNCLOS treaty, because like her I was on the International Relations and Defence Committee when we looked at it. In a way it is the Achilles heel of this treaty, because its fundamental status is to say, from way back in history, that outside territorial waters and certainly outside EEZs on the high seas, you cannot intervene on other flagged vessels without going through a very long process. That is a particular problem because of the way in which flag states operate.

Noble Lords will know that the major nations with the biggest fleets and tonnage are Liberia, Panama and the Marshall Islands. The UK is 27th on that list. We have 1,000 vessels of over 100 tonnes. Panama has eight times that number. However, when it comes to tonnage, we have only 1/25th of the tonnage that Panama has because operators and state companies choose their own flag of convenience and are often not able to respond in the way that they do. Fundamentally, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pointed out, to make the enforceability and effectiveness of this treaty much better we have to try to tighten up on that situation. The report that we referred to asked the Government to look again at the 1986 UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships. That was some time ago. There have been only 17 ratifications; it needs 40 to come into force. I would love the United Kingdom to re-energise that treaty and try to get it implemented. It would make a huge difference in terms of enforceability for the Bill.

Moving on to the genetic and digital sequence side, we have mentioned the United States of America, which, under the Biden Administration, did sign this treaty but will never sign it during the Trump Administration. We might talk strongly to the United States, but there is no way that it will sign this treaty. The International Maritime Organization that we have talked about, working on the other side of the Thames, is really important. Two months ago, through intimidation, America stopped an international agreement on carbon emissions of vessels on the high seas that was about to be signed. That treaty was sunk by the United States through very aggressive activity. There is no chance whatever of the United States signing this one.

My question to the Minister is: what stops the excellent data sharing and sharing of scientific information for genetic material and digital sequence information? If British companies or British people wish to do that, what is to stop them offshoring that activity to the United States and carrying it out there without having to comply with this treaty? That is a difficult one. I would be interested to understand whether the Government have thought about that and what they might do.

Internationally, we need to look in the mirror. A number of noble Lords have said this. We are not perfect at looking after our biodiversity within our own waters and our own EEZ. Defra’s recent draft strategic look at fisheries and biodiversity has pointed out that the north-east Atlantic is one of the worst for depletion of fisheries and biodiversity. We have that in our own backyard. We need to get this right. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I have often called for remote electronic monitoring—of not just our own fleet but anybody that comes within our EEZ. The Government have a consultation out on that. It is one of two trials that have had very little reaction from the fisheries industry, but this would be good for it as well as for us. Let us do that.

These Benches welcome this treaty. We want to get it through quickly. We want it ratified. We want the United Kingdom to be positive, an implementer and one of the nations that ensures that this treaty, difficult though it is, is a real success for the high seas.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

1: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Prevention of avoidance by offshoring of activities(1) This section applies where—(a) a United Kingdom person (“P”) arranges for relevant research and development or commercialisation involving marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction, or digital sequence information on such resources, to be carried out wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and(b) the effect, or likely effect, of the arrangement is that utilisation which would otherwise fall within section 3(1) does not do so.(2) Where this section applies, the utilisation is to be treated, for the purposes of this Part, as if it were a utilisation project to which section 3 applies and were carried out in the United Kingdom by P.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision—(a) requiring United Kingdom persons to take reasonable steps to ensure that arrangements with non-United Kingdom persons for the collection or utilisation of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction, or digital sequence information on such resources, are not entered into for the purpose of avoiding, or frustrating the operation of, this Part;(b) requiring United Kingdom persons to keep, and to provide to the Secretary of State on request, such records and information as may be prescribed about such arrangements;(c) for the application, with or without modifications, of enforcement provisions made under section 9 to failures to comply with regulations under this section.(4) In this section, “United Kingdom person” and “relevant research and development” have the meanings given by section 20.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause is intended to prevent UK companies and other UK persons from avoiding the information-sharing and benefit-sharing obligations in Part 2 of the Act by offshoring marine genetic resource research and development or commercialisation to non-Parties to the BBNJ Agreement.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I was feeling quite confident that we would wholly outnumber the government Benches, but then I saw all the people at the back and thought maybe not. We will get good answers to our questions anyway, that is for sure.

As we all said at Second Reading, this is an important, good treaty, around which we need an implementing Bill. I will move Amendment 1 but will also speak to Amendments 11 and 20, to make matters easy for the Grand Committee.

Amendment 1 is very much a probing amendment. From our Benches, we very much welcome the information- sharing and benefit-sharing aspects of the treaty, particularly around marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. This principle covers the sharing of those physical, biological and information resources to all nations. That is important and something we would very much agree with.

However, a number of nations will not ratify this treaty. At the moment the non-ratifiers include the United Kingdom—I am pleased to say the Government are soon to put that right—China, India, Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, just to mention a few, and not least the USA. All those nations have signed the treaty, but the United States Administration have made it pretty clear that it they not going to ratify it, perhaps not surprisingly given that they have not even ratified UNCLOS. My concern is that there are ways of bypassing these provisions on information-sharing and benefit-sharing by offshoring, if I could use that phrase, to non-ratifying states, particularly the United States, which has a huge history and a good reputation on innovation, venture capital and all the other areas making sure that human progress moves forward.

My concern is that organisations or persons—whether companies or individuals—that would otherwise be British based will perhaps find a way to capture intellectual property and knowledge within other jurisdictions. My question is: have the Government thought about this and is there a way of approaching it? I am not saying that it is necessarily easy, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on how that might move forward.

My Amendments 11 and 20 are about flags of convenience. Let us look at some of the issues. I am concerned about enforceability. As noble Lords will be aware, 45% of total marine tonnage—vessels above 100 gross tonnes in weight—are registered to just three nations: Panama, the Marshall Islands and Liberia. All of them have already ratified the BBNJ treaty, so that gives me some consolation. However, as to enforceability, the irony of this treaty, in some ways, is that it relies on UNCLOS, one of the core values of which, throughout the history of marine commerce on the high seas, is that you cannot intervene on vessels with flags other than your own unless you have the permission of those flagged authorities. That is almost impossible to do, so enforcement on the high seas is extremely difficult. We may not be talking about supertankers or the big freighters in terms of biodiversity, but we are talking about research vessels, which are still subject to the same restrictions for intervention on the high seas. Those remain despite the treaty, unless there is a broader agreement, but I cannot see that the treaty allows for the boarding of vessels of other nations on the high seas.

One of the areas that came out a couple of years ago from the International Relations and Defence Committee was that the UK had not signed or ratified the UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships. I am not saying that that is an answer to everything, but it would be a great service if the United Kingdom, with its influence through the IMO and other organisations, were able to revive that treaty, which only has some 15 ratifications but needs 40 to come into effect. What I am looking at here is for the United Kingdom to take this forward. We are 27th in terms of internationally registered tonnage, so we are a small fleet despite being an international, global and maritime nation. Can the Minister say whether there is a way that we can start to repair this situation, because enforceability, under the current rules of UNCLOS and even under the BBNJ treaty, is going to be extremely difficult? I beg to move.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

I will speak to Amendment 3 in this group on the UK’s capacity to comply with Article 5 of the BBNJ, which is about capacity building—building the international capacity to understand the problems and issues and to develop solutions.

The UK is particularly well placed to do that because we have the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton and Liverpool, which is a centre of excellence, providing all sorts of leadership and national capabilities in ocean research. We have the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, which is leading in its field of marine science research and is recognised as a centre of international excellence in marine ecosystems. In Scotland, we have the Scottish Association for Marine Science and the excellent Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of St Andrews, which is the UK’s main centre for marine mammal science. I have not included an absolutely full list of all the centres, so it might be a bit invidious, because there are other places that do a lot of work in this area and are excellent—those are just three examples. We have a special responsibility to share our capacity with the geographical locations that will be making an effort to comply with the BBNJ treaty but do not have anything like the history and knowledge base that we have.

One example I could give would be the Sargasso Sea, which is 4 million square kilometres in area—when I read that, I thought it unlikely to be so large, but I double-checked and it is—with Bermuda at its heart. It would be hard to overstate the importance of the Sargasso Sea in biodiversity terms. It is globally significant and is threatened in lots of ways, particularly by overfishing, obviously, but also by mining. Bermuda, for which the sea is critical, has worked hard to achieve, for example, the Sargasso Sea Commission in 2014. As the treaty implementation gets under way, the UK has not only to help capacity-build the science there to start solving some of the Sargasso Sea’s issues but to set the agenda internationally, because although the treaty affects Bermuda so crucially, as an overseas territory it has no direct voice at the UN. We need to use our voice and scientific capability to help not just Bermuda but all those overseas territories that are so critical, given the fact that the ocean and its currents are global.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, this set of amendments relates to the operation and enforcement of the BBNJ agreement. This Bill establishes the core domestic legal framework required for the UK to be able to ratify and implement the treaty, while recognising that more detailed compliance and enforcement arrangements will be developed and set out over time—including through future international decisions taken by the BBNJ Conference of the Parties.

I turn to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which would require UK persons conducting research and development or commercialisation involving marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction outside of the UK to abide by the notification and other requirements of the Bill where they have arranged to carry out these activities outside the UK to evade such obligations. We think that this amendment is not necessary because we do not consider that seeking to regulate persons outside of the UK in this way is required to meet our treaty obligations; it may be a nice thing to be able to do, but we do not think that we can do it within the obligations of the treaty.

If the collection and utilisation activity does not fall under UK jurisdiction, the obligations set out in the Bill do not apply. We do not consider that the Bill should be extended to such activity, which would be beyond the treaty agreement. Where other countries have ratified the BBNJ agreement, they will, like the UK, have domestic obligations in this area; we encourage others to ratify where possible. Ultimately, the BBNJ Bill is about ensuring that the UK can fully meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to activity that falls under UK jurisdiction.

I turn to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on any threat that would arise from foreign state actors accessing samples of marine genetic resources from UK repositories. The report would have to be published within six months of the Act being passed and be laid before Parliament. The purposes of the BBNJ Bill are to enable the UK to comply with its obligations under the BBNJ agreement and, therefore, to allow the UK to ratify it. The requirements under this amendment would go beyond the intent of the Bill. Clause 7(1) of the Bill provides that access to repositories of marine genetic resources

“may be made subject to conditions consistent with paragraphs (a) to (d) of Article 14(4) of the”

BBNJ agreement. That article covers factors that may affect access, including preservation of materials, reasonable costs and other reasonable conditions, in line with the objectives of the agreement. Further details on reasonable conditions will be provided in guidance for repositories, including, if necessary, in relation to dealing with potential threats.

Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, would require

“the Secretary of State to create and publish a Strategy outlining the UK’s compliance with Part 5 of the BBNJ Agreement, relating to Capacity-Building and the Transfer of Marine Technology”.

This amendment is not necessary in this Bill because domestic legislation is not required for the UK to meet its obligations under Part V of the BBNJ agreement on capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology; those will be implemented through existing mechanisms, such as academic placements and working-level dialogues. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that a committee on capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology is established under the BBNJ agreement and will be constituted under the direction of the Conference of the Parties; the committee’s role will include monitoring and reviewing these activities.

Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the UK Government to have regard to economic and infrastructural consequences of regulations made to implement area-based management tool decisions of the BBNJ Conference of the Parties. It highlights specifically the impacts of such regulations on submarine communication cables and shipping lanes. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that consideration of such consequences and impacts would be required before a decision is made by the Conference of the Parties on an area-based management tool.

Article 19 in Part IV of the BBNJ agreement provides detail on what elements must be included in an area-based management tool proposal. This includes identifying human activities in the area, which would include details on shipping lanes, submarine cables and other infrastructure in the proposal area. Article 21 of the BBNJ agreement also ensures that consultation on the proposal is inclusive, transparent and open to all relevant stakeholders, states and other bodies. Through that consultation process—as well as through our role in the International Maritime Organization, which regulates shipping globally—the UK can directly express views on any economic and infrastructural consequences of the proposed area-based management tool. As a state party, the UK would also have the opportunity to express views on such impacts when the final proposal is being considered by the Conference of the Parties, including whether or not we could support it.

Furthermore, the BBNJ agreement provides that parties to the agreement should strengthen and enhance co-operation with relevant legal instruments, frameworks and bodies. The International Maritime Organization is already well aware of the BBNJ agreement and is increasingly devoting resources to considering how it will engage with the process of the agreement, including through active involvement at the current BBNJ preparatory commission meetings.

On Amendments 5 and 5A from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which concern shipping insurance, I can confirm that the BBNJ Bill is concerned with implementing the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement—I will repeat this point frequently throughout our considerations—and is not a vehicle for regulating shipping insurance or insurance markets more generally. In any event, UK ships are already required to carry appropriate insurance under existing domestic and international maritime frameworks. The issue that the amendment seeks to address is better dealt with through established merchant shipping legislation. For those reasons, we do not think that this amendment is necessary for this Bill.

I turn to Amendments 11 and 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Amendment 11 proposes a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to conduct, within six months—and to be repeated every Parliament, as well as reported to Parliament—a review on the use of flags of convenience, their impact on biodiversity and the UK’s enforcement against such ships. Amendment 20 is a consequential amendment that defines “flag of convenience”. Again, these amendments are not strictly necessary for the UK to meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement, but I can see why the noble Lord has tabled them.

The nationality of ships and the duties of flag states are covered, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, by Part VII of UNCLOS. This has a broader application than the BBNJ agreement; the BBNJ Bill is, therefore, not a suitable vehicle for addressing these issues. The UK’s recent International Maritime Organization audit, where it was rated as “excellent”, shows the importance to the UK of meeting its flag state obligations and responsibilities. However, this Bill is about meeting the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement, and these amendments are not required for that specific purpose.

Finally, Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament every two years on the effect and enforcement of the Act in relation to several areas: access to marine genetic resource samples and digital sequence information data; enforcement actions taken; the impact on business, scientific research and the fishing industry; and any regulatory changes made under the Act. As my ministerial colleague said when this same amendment was considered in the other place, the various reporting requirements included in this amendment are disproportionate to the value that they would provide. There is also a risk that they could duplicate existing processes, misalign with the international reporting cycle and increase the burden on entities providing the information for the reports. However, I can confirm that the Government already intend to conduct a post-implementation review within five years of the Act being passed, in order to assess its effectiveness.

The Bill provides for powers to make regulations on enforcement. When any such regulations are made in future, they will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consideration at that point. When they are introduced, regulations to establish an enforcement regime under Part 2 will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny without the need for additional statutory reporting. Subsection 2(d) of the proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Act

“on business, scientific research, and the fishing industry”.

The impact assessment published by the Government indicates that the likely effect of the Bill on business will be minimal; no significant impact on the fishing industry is expected. Fishing is exempt from the notification and other requirements in Part 2 on marine genetic resources.

In relation to Part 3, for activities such as fishing, we expect that measures relating to area-based management tools will be implemented by existing means. It is therefore unlikely that we will need to create new regulations under Clause 11 for this purpose.

Part 4 does not make express provision in relation to fishing activities. It provides for the legislative changes necessary to implement the provisions in Part IV of the BBNJ agreement regarding environmental impact assessments only as they apply to activities within the remit of a domestic marine licensing regime. Engagement with scientific stakeholders suggests that the notification and other requirements in Part 2 of the Bill are unlikely to impose a significant burden. The BBNJ agreement will benefit the scientific community by encouraging information sharing and by supporting scientific and technological development.

For these reasons, we do not think that these amendments are necessary.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding. I understand why the Minister and the Government do not want this fairly simple Bill to become a Christmas tree of legislation; most of the amendments are probing amendments and not things on which we are ever going to vote, so I think we all agree on that. However, I am somewhat disappointed that the Government’s view is to make the Bill incredibly narrow in just getting it to the point of ratification, whereas, at Second Reading, there was a general feeling that there be ambition here. I do not sense the ambition. Even if the Government and the Minister do not want to put anything in the Bill—I would probably agree with that—do they think that offshoring is going to be an issue? Have they even thought about it?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are cognisant of what the noble Lord is alerting the Committee to; we just do not think that this is the right Bill to consider those things. Additionally, it is difficult to think about how we would legislate here in the UK for activities that happen under another jurisdiction. The noble Lord knows what this Bill is about, but it is important to raise these things; the only way to get a debate is to table an amendment, and the noble Lord has used that tool effectively. It is good to raise this issue and remind us that this agreement is limited: it does not do everything that we might wish to do around the protection of the oceans. We should be open about that; the way in which the noble Lord has tabled and spoken to his amendment achieves that.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

With pleasure, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 8, 9 and 15. Amendments 8 and 9 would do a similar thing to my noble friend Lady Miller’s amendment, in that they would add to the licence conditions not just plastic—I agree entirely with my noble friend’s comments on that—but the proper protection of populations beyond national jurisdictions and the deep seabed. These amendments are the least probing ones to this clause. It would be very straight- forward to apply them to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. A lot has moved on over the years, but these three areas—plastic, fisheries and the deep seabed—are hugely relevant now. These amendments would save the Government having to amend the 2009 Act on another occasion.

My Amendment 15 is more probing. Having said that, I feel very strongly about how we manage fisheries on the high seas. That is a huge problem. It is estimated that something like 40% of all stocks on the high seas are currently overfished. We have huge problems with by-catch of non-target species. Then there is something I used to know as Klondiking, which is the transfer of fish from smaller vessels to large factory vessels in the open sea; it is a method usually employed by illegal, unreported and unregulated—IUU—fisheries. This is a big issue.

The irony is that anybody outside this area of knowledge would probably be surprised that fisheries do not really appear in the BBNJ. What does it do? In effect, it says that we are going to delegate this issue to the management regimes that are out there now—that is, the regional fisheries management organisations—and let them get on with it as they have done in previous years. We are a member of five of those organisations: two to do with tuna, two to do with the Atlantic and one to do with salmon.

That work is important. The fact that the organisations are there is good, but their processes are rather weak, certainly in terms of enforcement, by-catch and data, because they can deal only with single species, rather than the biosphere or ecological systems as a whole. On trans-shipment and the lack of observers, there are no rules for any species other than the specific ones on which nations are agreed. There is a real issue here. If we want this treaty to be successful, and if we want our high seas to reflect our slightly better management of fisheries in our own EEZs, this area needs to be improved.

How do we do that? We could do it through better-supported state control and flag state control, providing enforcement and expanding their remit. As a maritime nation, the UK has an obligation to try to make these organisations work hugely better, in the spirit of international agreements on biodiversity beyond national boundaries.

This is particularly the case with IUU. I was privileged to be a board member of the Marine Management Organisation over six years. I remember an IUU case to do with tuna off west Africa. Proving it and getting what you needed to bring it to court was so complicated and difficult—though I understand why—that the regulator, the MMO, just did not have the money to do it. The potential offenders had much deeper pockets than the enforcers and regulators. In the end, as so often happens with these things, it went to HMRC under money laundering regulations.

I have one question for the Minister. How many successful prosecutions of IUU have there been recently? She could come back to me in writing. This is a really important issue. We are all in favour of stopping illegal, unreported and irregular fisheries, but the resources to do so are difficult to get. I would be interested to hear what success we have had on that recently and how the UK might strengthen the work of at least the five regional fisheries management organisations that we are a member of.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I support Amendments 6, 8 and 10. I pay tribute to the Minister for the commitment that she is giving to the Bill. It is absolutely right that we align ourselves with the treaty and are able to be participants at the first Conference of the Parties. I thank her for the thoroughness with which she is going through it.

I do not want to repeat the excellent speeches that have been made, but on Amendments 6 and 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I think there is a role for the UK here in international thought leadership. I suspect that the Minister will resist these amendments, but I am keen to understand the Government’s ambition and what they want to see happen. If not within this Bill, where might areas, such as mineral extraction from the deep sea and plastics, play a part in their ambition to be a global leader on the environment?

On plastic pollution, we know that its durability means that it persists in the ocean. Noble Lords have mentioned seeing, on their holidays, bottles and other bits of marine plastic washed up on the shore. They take ages to break down, so it is vital that we prevent plastics going into river courses and oceans. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature, almost every species group in the ocean has encountered plastic pollution, with scientists observing negative effects in almost 90% of assessed species. It is vital that plastic pollution, because it is trans-boundary and moves within ocean currents, is included within international agreements, so what might His Majesty’s Government do to try to bring influence to that, so that the scourge of plastic pollution might be eliminated in our lifetimes?

Secondly, I speak in support of Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which looks at the deep seabeds and how they are protected through the use of marine licences. We need to remember that the deep sea is the oldest and largest biome on earth, and of crucial importance. We have to stop the irreversible damage before it is too late. It is full of remarkable biodiversity, much of it still unknown, uncharted and awaiting the wonder of discovery. The marine sediments lock up carbon; they are great carbon sinks that need to be protected as well. Where is the Government’s ambition around the prevention of damage to the deep seabeds, particularly with the demands for extracting materials? Where is the thought leadership that is going to be provided?

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, turning to the amendment on our own UK fishing industry, the Minister will be aware of our serious concerns about the Government’s decision in May this year to grant EU fishing vessels continued access to UK waters, which will further threaten the sustainability of our domestic fleet for the future. In this amendment, I am seeking to understand what assessment the Government have made of the impact of future MPAs under this treaty on the sustainability of our fishing sector. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have made any updated assessment of this, following their decision to extend EU fishing vessels’ access to UK waters? Does she accept that that decision, coupled with restrictions on fishing beyond our waters, will have an obvious impact on our national fishing fleet? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

As this is Committee, I very much welcome the amendment around the Chinese. It is not just the Chinese, as the noble Lord will know, since a lot of east Asian states have a real issue over this. On the deep-sea fisheries, all the Norwegian, UK and EU agreements are purely within EEZs, which this treaty does not cover. The sad thing is that, as far as I am aware, the UK has only one deep-sea fishing vessel. It operates out of Hull into the Barents Sea. That one vessel shows where we are these days in terms of our fishing ability as a nation.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his insight. The Committee benefits hugely from his knowledge and experience on this.

This group of amendments relates to environmental protection and the sustainable management of activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Let me start by restating that the BBNJ agreement represents a significant step forward in the conservation of the global ocean, enabling stronger protection for the two-thirds of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdiction. I accept everything that noble Lords said about what more could be done and what they would like the Government to consider. That is not what we are doing today, but that does not mean that the arguments being presented are wrong or even that the Government disagree with them.

The Government’s intention is to make sure that we get this legislation done as quickly as possible in order for us to be able to participate in the Conference of the Parties. We do not yet have a date for that, but it could happen very soon. Some of the issues being raised can be thrashed out in that context, and we think that that is the way to make more progress internationally. That does not mean that the things being raised, particularly on plastics, transshipments and all the rest of it, are not important. It is good that we raise them at every opportunity, but the Bill will play an important role in supporting delivery of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including the global target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030.

The Bill provides the domestic legal framework needed to implement fully the agreement in the UK. It includes provisions to support the designation and management of area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, establish robust environmental impact assessment requirements, and ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the collection and use of marine genetic resources. Taken together, these measures will strengthen environmental protection, promote the sustainable use of marine biodiversity and reinforce the UK’s leadership in the stewardship of the global ocean. I thought the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich about thought leadership were important. I do not know whether I will be able to assure him today about that, but I very much welcome what he had to say.

I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Jones, for Amendment 6, which would require the Secretary of State to publish—and, subsequently, to review and revise—a statement regarding the impact of plastic pollution on marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. We think that a separate plastic pollution statement would duplicate provisions already embedded in the BBNJ agreement, providing limited additional value while increasing legal complexity.

The impacts of plastic pollution are already considered under existing UK processes. For example, under Section 69(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009,

“the … licensing authority must have regard to … the need to protect the environment”

when considering marine licence applications. Preventing plastic pollution is an example of such an environmental consideration. In addition, under the IMO, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships is the main international convention covering the prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships. However, a separate process is under way to agree a global plastic pollution treaty.

Plastic pollution is a transboundary issue, and prevention at source is key. A treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics is what we need to address this issue. The UK fully supports the plastic pollution treaty having robust monitoring and assessment procedures, as well as collaboration between future parties to this instrument, to monitor and assess plastic pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Ultimately, the BBNJ agreement focuses on conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction; it is, therefore, not the best place to address plastic pollution across the life cycle.

I turn to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament, within six months of the BBNJ Act being passed, a report on the potential impact of the introduction of marine protected areas in parts of the Indian Ocean that are beyond national jurisdiction on marine biodiversity in the area around the Chagos Archipelago. The purposes of the BBNJ Bill are to enable the UK to comply fully with the legal obligations under the BBNJ agreement that require domestic implementation and, therefore, to allow us to ratify the agreement—noble Lords are going to get really fed up with me repeating that. The requirements under this clause go beyond the intent of the Bill. However, the UK and Mauritius attach great importance to the need to protect marine biodiversity across the Chagos Archipelago. Both have committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments.

The development of future marine protected areas under the BBNJ agreement is a matter for the BBNJ Conference of the Parties. This process has several steps—including initial proposal review, consultation and scientific review—before a proposal goes to the Conference of the Parties for a decision. These proposals will be developed by parties in collaboration and consultation with relevant states and stakeholders, as appropriate. They will be formulated based on the best available science and, where available, on relevant traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities. Once established, these MPAs will be monitored and periodically reviewed by the BBNJ’s scientific and technical body.

As a party to the Conference of the Parties, the UK will be part of the decision-making process and will be able to agree on measures including marine protected areas. We expect that the first area-based management tools will not be established until the second Conference of the Parties meeting at the very earliest, due to the need first to establish the BBNJ’s scientific and technical body, which will review proposals, and to allow for other important aspects of the process, such as consultation, to take place. For the reasons above, we think that this amendment is not necessary.

Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, are similar in intent. These amendments would require the licensing authority to have due regard to protecting the deep-sea seabed and sustainable fishing and to preventing plastic pollution when determining an application for a marine licence. These amendments are not necessary, because Section 69(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 already requires the licensing authority to have regard to the need to “protect the environment” and

“to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea”.

Protecting the deep-sea seabed and preventing plastic pollution are examples of environmental considerations to which licensing authorities would have due regard when considering marine licence applications. Sustainable fishing would be considered a legitimate use of the sea and would therefore be given due regard by licensing authorities when considering an application.

Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would require the Government to develop and regularly update a published strategy setting out how they will conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction in relation to fishing activities. Amendment 7A, from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of Royal Assent, a report on the impacts of Chinese industrial fishing on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction and the potential role of marine protected areas in addressing those impacts.

The requirements of these amendments go beyond the intent of the Bill. They are already covered elsewhere, or can be implemented via other appropriate means, and are therefore not necessary. The Fisheries Act 2020 governs UK fishing activities and provides the legal framework for licensing and regulating fishing and fishing-related activities. Preventing, deterring and eliminating illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing is addressed under the UK’s IUU control regulations. These regulations establish a framework for the monitoring, inspection and enforcement of fisheries, and ensure that seafood entering the UK is not linked to IUU fishing.

Furthermore, the UK is a party to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Parties to this agreement are required to ensure that the

“conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks”,

including in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Parties are required to collaborate to achieve these objectives, including via regional fisheries bodies, and must ensure that fisheries do not seriously threaten wider ecosystems and biodiversity.

The BBNJ agreement creates a stronger ocean governance framework that supports and encourages co-operation with other relevant legal instruments, frameworks and bodies. It provides that parties

“shall endeavour to promote … the objectives of this Agreement when participating in decision-making”

under such organisations. These include regional fisheries management organisations and the Agreement on Port State Measures, which directly target unsustainable fishing practices—including illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. We are working across departments to ensure a consistent UK position on interactions between the BBNJ agreement and relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies to which the UK is a member.

Amendment 18, from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within six months of the BBNJ Act being passed, on the potential impact of the introduction of marine protected areas under the BBNJ agreement on the UK fishing fleet. To require a report to be published six months after the BBNJ Act is passed is disproportionate. As I mentioned previously, we expect that the first area-based management tools will not be published until the second Conference of the Parties meeting at the very earliest.

Timings for the Conference of the Parties meetings are still to be decided but may be every one to two years. The first Conference of the Parties meeting must take place by 16 January 2027. Once it has ratified the BBNJ agreement, the UK, as well as relevant stakeholders, such as the fishing industry and regional fisheries management organisations, will have the opportunity to consider any impacts of a potential BBNJ marine protected area on fishing activities before any decision is made by the Conference of the Parties. Any impacts on the UK fishing fleet would be better raised through the process, rather than after a marine protected area has been established. The UK can also express views on such impacts when the final proposal is being considered by the Conference of the Parties, as well as whether we would support it. We will carefully consider any future proposals to understand any potential impacts on the UK fishing industry.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 19 from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. In the future, if required, the UK will give effect to decisions made by the future Conference of the Parties. Those decisions will reflect the principles and approaches in Article 7 of the BBNJ agreement. Individual decisions, such as those on marine licence applications, are not within the scope of the environmental principles duty, which applies only to Ministers of the Crown when making policy; that includes proposals for legislation but does not include an administrative decision taken in relation to a particular person or case. In any event, under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the Marine Management Organisation must not grant a licence to carry out any activity that is contrary to international law; the MMO applies the precautionary principle when determining licence applications. For these reasons, we do not think that this amendment is necessary.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate with the government amendments tabled in my name relating the role of devolved Governments in the implementation of the BBNJ agreement. As noble Lords will be aware, the BBNJ Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, apart from certain clauses which extend to Scotland only. Foreign affairs, including the negotiation and signature of international treaties, are a reserved matter under the devolution settlements. However, observation and implementation of obligations arising under treaties in domestic law are excepted from the foreign affairs reservation so far as those obligations relate to devolved matters. Working closely with Ministers and officials in the devolved Governments, we have agreed that the legislative consent motion process is engaged for Scotland and Northern Ireland, to varying extents, by Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill.

The Government have been in sustained discussions with both devolved Governments to seek consent for this Bill, and I can confirm to the House that Motions on consent will be debated shortly in both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Throughout these discussions, the Government have sought to ensure that devolved competencies are fully respected. That is why we have tabled amendments on Report to strengthen the role of the devolved Governments in the future implementation of the BBNJ agreement.

Clauses 9 and 11 confer powers on the Secretary of State to make regulations to implement the UK’s obligations under Parts II and III of the BBNJ agreement. Government Amendments 1, 2, 5 and 6 provide Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with concurrent powers to make regulations within devolved competence. In addition, Amendments 3 and 7 place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult Scotland and Northern Ireland before exercising the powers in Clauses 9 and 11 where regulations engage devolved matters. This approach will ensure that devolved Governments are engaged in advance of regulations being made and enable them to make their own provision on devolved aspects where they wish to do so, and it reflects their responsibilities while supporting timely and effective implementation of the agreement.

Government Amendments 10 and 11 ensure that Clause 23, which sets out procedures for the making of regulations under the Act, does not apply to regulations made under the new clauses introduced by government Amendments 1 and 5. Instead, the procedures for regulations set out in government Amendments 2 and 6 respectively will apply.

Finally, government Amendment 12 amends Clause 26 so that Clause 18 comes into force on such a day as the Secretary of State appoints by regulations, rather than upon Royal Assent. This change will ensure a consistent approach across the Bill with regards to the environmental impact assessment regulations that are being amended. I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for going through those technicalities. These Benches welcome the effectiveness of devolution for this sort of implementation legislation, as I am sure the whole House does. The one question I have for the Minister, although she does not have power over it, is whether she has been assured by the devolved Assemblies that the correct and needed authorities will be given, so that we can keep up the momentum and participate as a party that has ratified this agreement when the first Conference of the Parties takes place?

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill enables the Government to go ahead and ratify the treaty, which we signed when we were in government and we still support. We have discussed the treaty and the Bill at length in Committee, and we are pleased that the Government are continuing with this work to implement the treaty.

The amendments in this group seek to grant powers to the Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers that are broadly equivalent to those granted to the Secretary of State under the Bill. Although the content of these amendments is not especially concerning, it feels a little late for the Government to make substantive changes to their Bill. The Bill has progressed through all stages in the House of Commons and Committee in your Lordships’ House. By making amendments at this late stage, Peers are denied the opportunity of proper scrutiny in Committee. We believe that this is happening too often. We were clear when it happened under the previous Government that it was unacceptable, and it remains so under this Government. Can the Minister please explain why the Government have waited until Report in this House to make these changes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It is an extremely good amendment, and I urge the Minister to pick it up at some future date. This is such a good amendment that it should go into legislation somewhere.

In Committee, we heard at length and with real concern about the scale and persistence of plastic pollution in our oceans. Much of that discussion centred on consumable plastics and waste, but plastic pellets, flakes and powders are equally serious and often overlooked in legislation. These losses might be small in individual incidents, although some might be extremely large, but they are cumulative and, in effect, irretrievable and irreversible once they have happened.

We are looking ahead, apparently, to a global plastics treaty, which I am very excited about. That process is obviously welcome, but the urgency of the problem means that we should take every available opportunity to act now, particularly where there is already an international consensus on best practice.

What I welcome very much about this amendment is its practical focus. This would stop the plastic pellets getting into the sea in the first place instead of our trying to mop them up and recover them later which is, as I said, impossible.

I will also speak to my Amendment 9 on the exemptions in the Bill. Clause 18 seeks to strengthen confidence in how environmental impact assessments are applied. It worries me that there are so many exemptions. Again, I would very much appreciate it if the Minister took this issue up. My amendment is supported by WildFish, an organisation with extensive expertise in marine conservation, whose work highlights the importance of making sure that decisions to rely on exemptions are transparent, on a case-by-case basis, and ensure that there is an equivalence that meets Part IV of the BBNJ agreement and Article 206 of UNCLOS. This amendment would clearly set out that test. Where an appropriate authority determines that a formal environmental impact assessment is not required, that determination should rest on the existence of another assessment being in place that is equivalently robust.

The amendment would also ensure that the reasoning behind such decisions was recorded and published, with the idea to keep decisions transparent and uphold public trust. In particular, there are difficulties in relying on regional fisheries management organisations as a substitute for BBNJ-aligned environmental assessment. Although RFMOs play an important role in managing fishing effort and target stocks, their processes do not routinely deliver full assessment of cumulative impacts across sectors, of effects on food webs and non-target species, or of the full implications for migratory species that cross jurisdictional boundaries. I would be very happy to talk to the Minister in more detail about this and I hope to see it in a future Bill. I would like to have moved this amendment, but we are obviously in a hurry to complete the Bill, so I have held off, but it is incredibly important that we do not allow exemptions without understanding why they have happened and the fact that they have not been recorded properly.

As interest grows in new industries, such as open ocean aquaculture, the potential environmental impacts, ranging from disease and growth in parasites to genetic impacts from escapes and reliance on wild-caught fish, are even more important. We are seeing this in salmon farms at the moment: escaped fish covered in all sorts of rather nasty things spread to wild fish and cross-breed, which is deeply unhealthy for the wild fish. I would welcome the Minister putting on record how the Government intend to apply these equivalence criteria in practice, particularly in view of the regional fisheries management organisations. I would like reassurance that exemptions in any future legislation will be applied narrowly and cautiously; that equivalence will be actively tested and not just assumed; that reliance on regional organisations alone will not automatically justify exemption; and that future high-risk activities will be subject to BBNJ-aligned screening.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support the intent of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I hope the Minister will have a useful reply to it.

On plastics and the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Miller, one of the things that is clear is that, even in terms of human health and the food chain, plastics discarded anywhere, let alone in the ocean, are a huge issue for the future. I have one question for the Minister. One of the tragedies of last year was that the plastics treaty was not concluded, despite expectation. It is largely thought that that was because of the lobbying of the plastics industry. Certainly, the United States has not exactly been supportive of international agreements over the past 12 months. It would be great if, despite my pessimism about the future of that treaty, there was some feeling within her department that perhaps it is not dead, as it is supposed not to be, and there is still some mileage and hope that we might be able to find a conclusion to it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

8: Clause 14, page 10, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 69 (determination of applications), after subsection (1)(c) insert—“(d) the need to ensure the human rights of those at sea in areas beyond national jurisdiction,””

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, one of the core characteristics of the Bill is, obviously, a treaty that is about actions beyond national jurisdictions. In fact, we should celebrate it even more, because I suspect it will be one of the last of these treaties that we shall enjoy and be able to make over the next few years. I think that there will not be many that follow this.

One of the areas that has been left out of the treaty, but which is important, because this is beyond national jurisdiction, is around human rights—hence the amendment. I thank the Minister and her team for the conversations that we have had recently about this area. Human rights are, by definition, universal, but they are very differently applied, in practice, terrestrially from how they are on the high seas. The reason for that is that, terrestrially, they can be enforced; those who feel that their human rights are being threatened can go to authorities, normally. Their cases and instances can be pursued, whether it be through legal processes or whatever.

Out on the high seas, that is very different indeed. There is effectively a vacuum in terms of enforcement once the national boundaries at sea have been crossed. There is also an asymmetric situation in terms of power. Whether it be crew, passengers or researchers in this instance, once they are on the high seas, they have very little power in comparison to the skipper or captain, or what the owners might instruct the skipper or captain to do. For instance, unlike on land, there is no contact by mobile telephone; you cannot get in touch with authorities to pursue your case or ask for help or get protection. None of that is necessarily available.

That is compounded by flags of convenience, which we talked about in Committee. Often, those flag states, which would be the enforcement authority for a vessel on the high seas, do not have the capacity, the interest or the ability to be communicated with to enforce those human rights on that vessel; hence why I ask that we also include human rights in the terms of the licensing requirement. I noted, going through the coastal access Act, that human health was one of the considerations, but human rights are obviously much broader than that.

So, who are the sorts of people who might be the problem? I suspect it is not the researchers on a research vessel, but you still have crew beyond that. The problem is usually because they are either indentured employees, migrants who are unable to communicate easily with the ship owners or the authority of the port where they are, being unable to communicate in the same language. There is quite wide-scale abuse, mainly in the fishing industry, but there are also instances in the cruise industry and risks in this sector as well.

That is why I feel it is important that the licensing authorities are able to check, purely in the case of licences for research beyond national jurisdiction, and that they have to consider whether the boat owner, operator and licensee are able and have the will to protect the human rights of the persons on board those vessels. I beg to move.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his amendment. Of course, we share his desire to see the rights of those who are at sea beyond national jurisdiction protected. This is an important issue and I understand why he has tabled his amendment, but I am sure that even the noble Lord will probably accept that the Bill is possibly not the right vehicle for his concerns to be addressed.

The amendment would add an additional duty on marine licensing authorities to have regard to the need to ensure that the rights of those at sea beyond national jurisdiction are protected. Obviously, I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, and I am sure she can tell us what work her department has done to understand whether this new duty would be at all workable and how licensing authorities could go about assessing the necessary information to comply with any new duty. I am sure she will also tell us whether Ministers have considered any other possible approaches to ensure protection for those at sea beyond national jurisdiction. Ultimately, given that this is an issue relating by definition to issues and activities beyond national jurisdiction, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would consider that a multilateral approach, rather than the UK acting unilaterally on this, would probably have more luck in ensuring that his concerns are addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

Although I fully recognise the importance of the issue the noble Lord has raised—both to him and to the Government—it is more appropriately addressed through dedicated domestic legislation and established international maritime and labour frameworks than it would be through the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment. However, notwithstanding that, we keep these matters under constant review. We understand completely what he is getting at, and the difficulties with visibility, with enforcement and the protection of those working on the high seas. We thank him for using this opportunity to raise this.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the greatest delight is that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness actually agreed with each other; that seemed highly unusual, having sat through the previous debate. I have brought about a coming together of the two of them—at least that is positive.

I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that this issue should be dealt with multilaterally. That is clearly the case. However, I am a pessimist. Unfortunately, I do not think that is on the cards in the near future, in any way. This would be a way to address that, and perhaps the UK could once again show a lead to other nations and other signatories of the treaty.

However, I agree with much of what the Minister said. I hope that we can continue this conversation more productively, perhaps in other legislation, because this issue affects a significant number of people who trade, research and fish on the high seas. They need our support and our understanding that there can be some very difficult times for those people in those circumstances. However, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.