Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Energy Security & Net Zero

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts
Lord Bishop of Norwich Portrait The Lord Bishop of Norwich
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, I plan to speak in favour of the Bill before your Lordships’ House at Second Reading, but first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, on his maiden speech. My first recollection of Southampton was visiting the Royal Research Ship “Bransfield” before it departed for the Antarctic. As a 10 year-old, it was so exciting to explore that ship before it travelled to some of the harshest high seas on the planet.

The world’s oceans support biodiversity, regulate climate, store carbon, sustain global food webs, and provide critical genetic and biological resources. Protecting them is vital not only for ocean health but for the stability and well-being of the entire planet. I thus thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, for bringing this Bill and for seeking its speedy but well-scrutinised passage so that the UK can have a seat at the first Conference of the Parties to the UN BBNJ.

I start my observations with some medieval manuscripts. Many of the cathedral libraries of this nation contain wonderful collections and, over the years, I have been struck by the amount of graffiti in the margins of such documents—doodles by monks and scholars down through the centuries, which quite frequently are little drawings of scary sea-monsters. The leviathans jump out at you as you turn the vellum. These sea monsters and the mysteries of the recesses of the deep captured the imagination of our forebears.

The flood and Noah; the parting of the Red Sea; the exploits of Jonah in the belly of the whale; the trials of Job when he is asked:

“Have you entered into the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?”;


the sea journeys of St Paul, with his dramatic shipwreck; and the Book of Revelation’s glassy sea—all have been analysed and interpreted, and, yes, doodled. Long has been the respect for the sea and the oceans: this place of chaos beyond our taming, of mystery with depths beyond human reach, and with glimpses of its wonders reported back by adventurous travellers. Indeed, 32 of the 150 psalms refer to the sea. For example, the psalmist speaks of how:

“Some went down to the sea in ships, doing business on the mighty waters. They saw the deeds of the Lord, his wondrous works in the deep”.


Those wondrous works in the deep are under threat. We have lost respect for the high seas in favour of an exploitative attitude. Deep-sea mining, overfishing, pollution, ocean acidification, oil and gas extraction are all threats being faced. Our oceans provide diverse ecosystems, including hydrothermal vents and cold seeps, with many endemic species within a small area. Our oceans act as the largest carbon sinks on the planet, storing it in deep-sea sediments, reducing atmospheric CO2 and slowing global warming. Our oceans are nursery grounds for commercially important species and play an important role in the lifecycle of many others, including creatures great and small—known and yet unknown, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, outlined. Our oceans recycle nutrients that eventually resurface and support marine food webs. Our oceans are reserves of genetic and biological resources, including species with such unique adaptations that they can live in extreme pressure—in darkness and toxic chemical environments—all of which are potentially valuable in biotechnology, medicine and industry. The list goes on.

In ratifying the BBNJ agreement, though, we need to ensure that our own waters are conserved and well managed, particularly the biodiversity of our marine protected areas. That is why I urge His Majesty’s Government to publish their response to the consultation on bottom-trawling in marine protected areas. Can the Minister also update your Lordships on progress towards a complete ban on that seabed-damaging activity in these areas, as advised by the Environmental Audit Committee? Protecting our oceans is vital not only for ocean health, but for the stability of the entire planet and the flourishing of humanity. That is why the Government are right to bring forward the ratification of the high seas treaty, and I fully support them.

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Lord Bishop of Norwich

Main Page: Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops - Bishops)

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (LD)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.

Lord Bishop of Norwich Portrait The Lord Bishop of Norwich
- Hansard - -

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?

Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, Defra is attached to about 160 global treaties regarding various aspects of the environment, several of which have been discussed today. I want to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, regarding environmental principles. I am hoping the Minister will say that these will automatically apply—not regardless of whether the amendment happens, but because they are already in effect—because my interpretation of the Environment Act is that it should not matter where the policy is being applied. If it is UK government policy, then Ministers are supposed to be bound by the duties as set out. I cannot remember whether they were set out in 2022 or 2023.

I do not need to add anything to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said on her support for the MPA around the Chagos Islands and that territory. I recognise the importance, but it is worth thinking about some other issues that have been raised. Noble Lords may be rightly aware that multiple treaties already cover a number of these issues; they may be in place but not enforced as widely as we would like, particularly on EU fishing. They already extend to our international waters, not just what is within the economic zone.

One thing that may be helpful is a brief update on where we are with the plastics treaty, because the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, should be covered in that comprehensive new treaty. I know that negotiations got somewhat stalled in Geneva. I expect all parties are still trying to find a way forward, but it should deal in particular with disposal. With that, I hope that the Minister can give us assurances on a variety of issues.