The catastrophic conditions of the 2019/2020 fire season in Australia made global headlines. 1 The ocean conditions for marine biodiversity are no less alarming with marine heatwaves likened to those of wildfires. 2 Marine heatwaves form part of the ‘deadly trio’ of ocean change: ocean warming, deoxygenation and acidification. 3 Ocean change can result in rapid biodiversity loss, 4 ecosystem regime shifts, 5 and species’ migration. 6 In Australia, legislation responsive to the challenges of anthropogenically-forced ocean change is needed. 7 At the vanguard of adverse impacts from ocean change are vulnerable marine ecosystems and threatened marine species. Australian threatened ecosystems and species are governed as Matters of National Environmental Significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (epbc Act). 8 The current statutory review of the epbc Act is due in October 2020. 9 The statutory review evaluates the extent to which the epbc Act fulfils relevant international commitments and achieves the objects of the Act. 10 In the context of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030), 11 the epbc Act review is timely and presents an opportunity to examine state practice in Australia in regards to the emerging international norm for marine restoration under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (losc).
Part I International Obligations for Marine Ecosystem Restoration
The general obligation under Article 192, to protect and preserve the marine environment, establishes the framework within which the extensive powers and duties of the losc must operate. 12 Escalating threats to marine ecosystems from ocean change demand new solutions to meet the universal legal obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. In particular, measures to respond to duties under Article 194(5) “to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life”. 13 The Award of the South China Sea Arbitration informs the general obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment also with respect to fragile ecosystems and the habitat of species at risk (depleted, threatened or endangered) considered in the Arbitration. 14 The Award interpreted the nature of the obligation under Article 192 as follows: “This ‘general obligation’ extends both to ‘protection’ of the marine environment from future damage and ‘preservation’ in the sense of maintaining or improving its present condition.” 15 The Tribunal interpreted Article 192 as a positive legal duty requiring a State to continuously protect, maintain and or improve the condition of the marine environment. 16
The interpretation of Article 192 by the Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration suggests efforts ‘to improve’ the marine environment could arguably be considered inclusive of a duty to restore degraded marine environments. 17 A challenge of such an interpretation however lies in the potential adverse unintended consequences restoration activities could themselves pose to the protection and preservation of the marine environment. Currently, there are a spectrum of existing and potential interventions which operate at different scales to mitigate marine degradation. Interventions at the scale of the climate include solar geoengineering; at the regional scale weather modification or water mixing; and at more local scales interventions such as the introduction of physical refugia or assisted evolution via adaptive breeding, translocation or the introduction of genetically modified species. 18 In a rapidly changing climate, a due diligence standard for a duty to maintain or improve the marine environment would shift with advances in scientific or technical knowledge and is commensurate with the severity of the associated risk. 19 These attributes would set important limits on the conduct of states in meeting the obligations under Article 192. An emerging norm requiring States to restore the marine environment would also be read in light of the cardinal principles of international environmental law such as the ‘no harm principle’, ‘principle of cooperation’, ‘precautionary principle’ and the ‘ecosystem approach’. In practice, however, each scale of intervention involves a complex of regimes both public and private for which the relevant mechanisms of accountability, transparency and power dynamics may be poorly understood. 20 This reality does little to assuage concerns regarding the regulation of interventions and the potential for adverse unintended consequences. This challenging regulatory environment also presents a critical challenge for the urgent nature of decision-making for marine restoration. Under the LOSC, guidance is however provided on the relationship with other Conventions with respect to the general obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment, specifically that they “should be carried out in a manner consistent with the general principles and objectives of this Convention.” 21 The interpretation of Article 192 in the Award of the South China Sea Arbitration can therefore be considered of consequence for “obligations under other Conventions on the Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment” in accordance with Article 237 of the losc. 22
The losc, further stipulates restoration in relation to populations of fished species to levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield, and high seas populations of associated species above levels that seriously threaten reproduction. 23 These restoration duties are reflected explicitly in the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. 24 For Australia, international cooperation for restoration of fished and associated species forms part of regional obligations a signatory to the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement, 25 Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, 26 , 27 , 28 Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean, 29 and Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. 30
Existing international obligations for marine restoration are failing to address marine degradation. Since 1992, restoration of marine ecosystems has been an international duty for Australia and other Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (cbd) under Article 8(f), with specific targets for restoration established at cbd Conferences of the Parties. 31 Restoration of marine ecosystems is now also enshrined under ‘The Future We Want’: “We therefore commit to protect, and restore, the health, productivity and resilience of oceans and marine ecosystems, to maintain their biodiversity, enabling their conservation and sustainable use for present and future generations, and to effectively apply an ecosystem approach and the precautionary approach in the management, in accordance with international law, of activities having an impact on the marine environment, to deliver on all three dimensions of sustainable development” 32 and Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14 as a global target: “By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans.” 33 These international commitments contribute to the emerging norm for marine restoration under the law of the sea. However, in advance of the 2020 United Nations Conference to support the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 14 the UN Secretary General’s note on the preparatory process observed that “The state of marine and coastal ecosystems has continued to deteriorate.” 34 This is aligned with findings and projections of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 35 and Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment. 36 Recent forecasts under the 2019 ipcc report ‘The Ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate’ of existing climate change impacts to a range of marine ecosystems demonstrate the exigency of restoration to international obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment. 37
Part II National Marine Ecosystem Restoration Legislation
In Australia, formal mechanisms for marine restoration exist under the national epbc Act. The objectives of the epbc Act are to protect and conserve Australia’s biodiversity, including provisions to promote the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities, and identify and address threatening processes. 38 The epbc Act is recognised as the primary instrument to implement existing obligations under the cbd regarding marine restoration. Restoration lies at the heart of the epbc Act, with recovery plans mandated through a precautionary approach, that ensures the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations and the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity is fundamental to decision making. 39 The Act does however, limit its application to protection and restoration from activities impacting the environment after it came into force in 1999. 40 Reports on ‘State of the Marine Environment’ and forecasts on the ‘State of the Climate’ by national agencies highlight importance of the forthcoming United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) to prevent, halt, and reverse the degradation of ecosystems to Australia. 41
Existing implementation of marine restoration, under the epbc Act, is neither sufficient nor timely. The official listing ecological communities or species for protection requires advice from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee on their eligibility for listing and actions to support their restoration. 42 Yet, criticism is lodged against the lengthy process for listing at risk species and ecological communities, the paucity of recovery plans and threat abatement plans and the low number of ‘threatening processes’ officially listed under the EPBC Act that are directly relevant to the marine environment. 43 A Senate review of the ‘Effectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities’ protection in Australia’ recommends more timely assessments and listings, and transparent and measurable recovery targets consistent with international conservation commitments. 44 For marine species and ecosystems at risk, implementation of these recommendations are urgent and critical, the ipcc (2019) highlighting the importance of timely mitigation and adaptation responses, to the persistence of marine ecosystems. 45
Under the epbc Act, the Minister is required to establish a list of key threatening processes; the list for the marine environment is inadequate. 46 Of the twenty-one key threatening processes listed under the epbc Act only three threatening processes are relevant to the marine environment ‘Loss of climatic habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases’; ‘Injury and fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement in, harmful marine debris’; and ‘Novel biota and their impact on biodiversity’ only one, harmful marine debris, has a threat abatement plan. 47 The South China Sea Arbitration has clear implications for the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act is explicit as to the effect of its interpretation in regards to marine species and ecosystems at risk, it sets a due diligence standard to protect against and prevent harm directly and indirectly to their habitat. 48 There is little doubt, therefore, that to meet these due diligence standards, a much more complete range of threatening processes are needed to adequately inform recovery and threat abatement plans under the EPBC Act. The ipcc, for example, examined ocean warming, deoxygenation, acidification, changes in nutrients, particulate organic carbon flux and sea level rise. 49 As part of the epbc Act review effective consideration of potential novel anthropogenically-forced threats to marine ecosystems is needed. 50
Of interest for the epbc Act review, are the new draft provisions on international standards for the protection and preservation of the marine environment with regard to environmental harms and marine restoration. The draft text of the Intergovernmental Conference on an international legally binding instrument under the losc on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction found convergence among delegations in relation to relevant draft provisions:
The general approach:
Art 5(h) “An approach that builds ecosystem resilience to the adverse effects of climate change and ocean acidification and restores ecosystem integrity;”
And specific objective for area-based management:
Art 14 “[(e)Rehabilitate and restore biodiversity and ecosystems, including with a view to enhancing their productivity and health and building resilience to stressors, including those related to climate change, ocean acidification and marine pollution;]” 51
These draft provisions provide guidance for amendments to the epbc Act in relation to key threatening processes, marine restoration and the maintenance of ecosystem integrity.
There is general acknowledgement of the deficiencies to the losc in relation to species conservation and marine protection, in particular in a changing marine environment. 52 In Australia, recovery plans and threat abatement plans under the epbc Act for specific threatening processes require revision for the non-linear, cumulative 53 and synergistic 54 threatening processes associated with ocean change. 55 The ipcc science on climatic thresholds to marine ecosystems provide some of the first specific and measurable indicators toward the achievement of ecological integrity under the epbc Act. 56 Effective recovery and threat abatement plans would set legal boundaries on polluting and threatening activities based on scientifically defined thresholds for marine ecosystems. 57 Whilst prevention is the priority in the context of the latest ipcc marine projections of irreversible thresholds for species and ecosystems, 58 the epbc Act needs to reconceive mechanisms to value and restore ecosystem resilience and, where necessary, facilitate safe interventions for threat abatement. In conclusion, the current epbc Act review provides a timely opportunity for an accountable and transparent reflection on how Australia can meet the emerging international norm for marine restoration under the losc.
This research has been conducted with the support of the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and the University of Wollongong, Global Challenges Program.
Tracy D. Ainsworth, et al., How do we overcome abrupt degradation of marine ecosystems and meet the challenge of heat waves and climate extremes?. 26 Global Change Biology (February 2020), 343–354; Dan A. Smale, et al., Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services, 9(4) Nature Climate Change (2019): 306; Alan F. Pearce and Ming Feng, The rise and fall of the “marine heat wave” off Western Australia during the summer of 2010/2011, 111 Journal of Marine Systems (2013): 139–156.
Jelle Bijma, et al., Climate change and the oceans–What does the future hold?, 74 (2) Marine Pollution Bulletin (2013): 495–505.
Douglas J. McCauley, et al., Marine defaunation: animal loss in the global ocean, 347 (6219) Science (2015): 1255641.
Adriana Vergés, et al., The tropicalization of temperate marine ecosystems: climate-mediated changes in herbivory and community phase shifts, 281(1789) Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2014): 20140846; Terry P. Hughes, et al., Multiscale regime shifts and planetary boundaries, 28(7) Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2013): 389–395; Alessandra Conversi, et al., A holistic view of marine regime shifts, 370(1659) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2015): 20130279; Thomas Wernberg, et al., Climate-driven regime shift of a temperate marine ecosystem, 353(6295) Science (2016): 169–172; William F. Laurance, et al., The 10 Australian ecosystems most vulnerable to tipping points, 144(5) Biological Conservation (2011): 1472–1480; Carl Folke, et al., Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management, 35 Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics (2004): 557–581.
Gabriel Jorda, et al., Ocean warming compresses the three-dimensional habitat of marine life, 4(1) Nature Ecology & Evolution (2020): 109–114; Adriana Vergés, et al., Long-term empirical evidence of ocean warming leading to tropicalization of fish communities, increased herbivory, and loss of kelp, 113(48) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2016): 13791–13796; Derek P. Tittensor, et al., Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation in the global ocean, 5(11) Science Advances (2019): eaay9969; Michael T. Burrows, et al., The pace of shifting climate in marine and terrestrial ecosystems, 334(6056) Science (2011): 652–655, 653; CR Johnson, et al., Climate change cascades: shifts in oceanography, species’ ranges and subtidal marine community dynamics in eastern Tasmania 400 J Exp Mar Biol Ecol (2011):17−32; Phillip S. Levin and Christian Möllmann, Marine ecosystem regime shifts: challenges and opportunities for ecosystem-based management, 370 (1659) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2015): 20130275.
See generally, Davor Vidas, The Anthropocene and the international law of the sea, 369 (1938) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (2011): 909–925, 921–924; Afshin Akhtar-Khavari, and Anastasia Telesetsky, From protection to restoration: a challenge for environmental governance, in Douglas Fisher, (Ed.) Research Handbook on Fundamental Concepts of Environmental Law (Edward Elgar, 2016): 51, 59.
epbc Act, Article 3(1)(a).
Independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Terms of Reference, 29 October 2019, available at https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/terms-reference.
epbc Act, section 522A(1); Independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Terms of Reference, 29 October 2019, available at https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/terms-reference.
unga ‘United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030)’ UN Doc A/ res/73/284 (6 March 2019).
Detlef Chirop, Article 192, in Alexander Proelss (Ed.) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary (CH Beck/Hart/Nomos, Munich, Oxford and Baden-Baden, 2017), 1279; Alan E. Boyle, Marine pollution under the Law of the Sea Convention, 79(2) American Journal of International Law (1985): 347–372, 350.
losc, Art 194(5).
Permanent Court of Arbitration (pca), Award in the matter of the South China Sea Arbitration: pca Case No. 2013–19 before an Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under Annex vii to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China (12 July 2016) (Hereinafter, South China Sea Award), para. 956; Makane Moïse Mbengue, The South China Sea Arbitration: Innovations in Marine Environmental Fact-Finding and Due Diligence Obligations, 110 ajil Unbound (2016): 285–289, 286.
South China Sea Award, para. 941.
Ibid., James Harrison, The Protection of Species, Ecosystems and Biodiversity under unclos in Light of the South China Sea Arbitration: An Emergent Duty of Marine Ecosystem Restoration?, 2019/20 Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper (2019), 1–20, 4, 10.
Ibid., 1–20, 4, 10.
Ainsworth, et al., supra note 2, at 343–354; Karen Filbee-Dexter, and Anna Smajdor, Ethics of assisted evolution in marine conservation, 6 Frontiers in Marine Science (2019) 20; Stein Fredriksen, et al., Green gravel: a novel restoration tool to combat kelp forest decline, 10 (1) Scientific Reports (2020) 1–7; Jan McDonald, et al., Governing geoengineering research for the Great Barrier Reef, 19 (7) Climate Policy (2019) 801–811; Georgina, Wood, et al., Restoring subtidal marine macrophytes in the Anthropocene: trajectories and future-proofing, 70 (7) Marine and Freshwater Research (2019) 936–951; Jan McDonald, et al., Rethinking legal objectives for climate-adaptive conservation, 21 (2) Ecology and Society (2016).
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area (Request for advisory opinion submitted to the seabed disputes chamber) ITLOS Case No. 17 Advisory opinion of (1 February 2011), para. 117.
Frank Biermann and Ina Möller, Rich man’s solution? Climate engineering discourses and the marginalization of the Global South, 19 (2) International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics (2019) 151–167; McDonald, supra note 18, at 801–811; Aarti Gupta and Ina Möller, De facto governance: how authoritative assessments construct climate engineering as an object of governance, 28 (3) Environmental Politics (2019) 480–501; Jesse L. Reynolds, Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: a review of governance proposals, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 475, no. 2229 (2019) 20190255.
losc, Art 237(2).
South China Sea Award, para. 942.
losc, Art 61(3), 119(1)(b).
1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, adopted 4 December 1994, 2167 unts 3 (entered into force 11 December 2001), Art 5(b) ensure that such measures are based on the best scientific evidence available and are designed to maintain or restore stocks at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors, including the special requirements of developing States, and taking into account fishing patterns, the interdependence of stocks and any generally recommended international minimum standards, whether subregional, regional or global; Art 5(e) adopt, where necessary, conservation and management measures for species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target stocks, with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened; Art. 6(4) States shall take measures to ensure that, when reference points are approached, they will not be exceeded. In the event that they are exceeded, States shall, without delay, take the action determined under paragraph 3 (b) to restore the stocks.
Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement, unts 2835, concluded 7 July 2006, entry into force 21 June 2012. Art 4(d) the fishery resources shall be managed so that they are maintained at levels that are capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield, and depleted stocks of fishery resources are rebuilt to the said levels;
Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, unts 2275 concluded 5 September 2000 entry into force 19 June 2004. Art 6(3) Members of the Commission shall take measures to ensure that, when reference points are approached, they will not be exceeded. In the event they are exceeded, members of the Commission shall, without delay, take the action determined under paragraph 1(a) to restore the stocks.
Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific, Art 10(1)(c) adopt, where necessary, conservation and management measures and recommendations for nontarget species and species dependent on or associated with the target stocks, with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened.
Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific, 6(1)(c) develop data collection and research programmes to assess the impact of fishing on non-target and associated or dependent species and their environment, and adopt plans where necessary to ensure the conservation of such species and to protect habitats of special concern.
Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean, unts 2899, concluded 14 November 2009, entry into force 14 August 2012, Art 20 (1)(c) maintain or restore populations of non-target and associated or dependent species to above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened; and (d) protect the habitats and marine ecosystems in which fishery resources and non-target and associated or dependent species occur from the impacts of fishing, including measures to prevent significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems and precautionary measures where it cannot adequately be determined whether vulnerable marine ecosystems are present or whether fishing would cause significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems.
Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, 1329 unts 48; concluded 20 May 1980, entry into force 7 April 1982. Art ii3(b) maintenance of the ecological relationships between harvested, dependent and related populations of Antarctic marine living resources and the restoration of depleted populations to the levels defined in sub paragraph (a) above; and (c) prevention of changes or minimisation of the risk of changes in the marine ecosystem which are not potentially reversible over two or three decades, taking into account the state of available knowledge of the direct and indirect impact of harvesting, the effect of the introduction of alien species, the effects of associated activities on the marine ecosystem and of the effects of environmental changes, with the aim of making possible the sustained conservation of Antarctic marine living resources.
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (cbd), opened for signature 5 June 1992, 1760 unts 79, entered into force 29 December 1993, Art 8(f); cbd cop Decision X/2; cbd cop Decision xi/16 (2012); cbd cop Decision xiii/5 (2016).
See generally, General Assembly Resolution 66/288, The future we want, A/RES/66/288 (11 September 2012), at 4, 40, 154, 158.
General Assembly Resolution 70/1, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/res/70/1 (25 September 2015), at 23.
unsg note, Preparatory process of the 2020 United Nations Conference to Support the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development unga Seventy-fourth session Items 19 and 74(a) advance unedited version 2020, , available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/25379Advanced_uedited_version_SG_Background_Note_2020_OC.pdf.
Report of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on the work of its seventh session (2019), Addendum, Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, ipbes/7/10/Add.1 (29 May 2019).
unga, Summary of the first global integrated marine assessment, Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, unga 70th sess. UN Doc. A/70/112 (22 July 2015).
ipcc, 2019: Summary for Policymakers, in H.O. Pörtner, et al., (Eds.) ipcc Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. [In press].
epbc Act, Art (1)(a), (c); Art 2(e)(i),(iv).
epbc Act, Section 3A.
Department of Environment and Energy, Independent Review of the epbc Act, Discussion Paper, 21 November 2019, available at https://epbcactreview.environment.gov.au/resources/discussion-paper.
Commonwealth of Australia, State of the Marine Environment’, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy (2016), available at https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/overview#Executive_summary_Overview; Commonwealth of Australia, The State of the Climate 2018 (2018), available at http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/ (The Bureau of Meteorology and csiro); unga ‘United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030)’ UN Doc A/ res/73/284 (6 March 2019), .
epbc Act, Part 13, Sections 178–194.
Jeffrey A. Hutchings, et al., Marine Species at Risk Protection in Australia and Canada: Paper Promises, Paltry Progressions, 47(3) Ocean Development & International Law (2016): 233–254; Australian Panel of Experts on Environmental Law, Marine and Coastal Issues (Technical Paper 4, 2017), 19, available at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56401dfde4b090fd5510d622/t/58e600f76a496356f0261072/1491468557365/APEEL_marine_coastal_issues.pdf; Jan McDonald, et al., Rethinking legal objectives for climate-adaptive conservation, 21(2) Ecology and Society (2016).
Commonwealth of Australia, Effectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities’ protection in Australia (2013), available at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/threatenedspecies/report/index. Recommendations, 8, 9, 13, 23, 28 viii-xi.
N. L. Bindoff, et al., Changing Ocean, Marine Ecosystems, and Dependent Communities, in H.-O. Pörtner, et al., (Eds.), ipcc Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [In press], 450, available at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/09_SROCC_Ch05_FINAL-1.pdf.
EPBC Act, Section 183.
Australian Panel of Experts on Environmental Law, Marine and Coastal Issues (Technical Paper 4, 2017), 19 https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56401dfde4b090fd5510d622/t/58e600f76a496356f0261072/1491468557365/APEEL_marine_coastal_issues.pdf.
South China Sea Award, para. 959; Mbengue, supra note 14, 285–289, 286.
Bindoff, et al., supra note 45, at 450.
C. Drew Harvell, et al., Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota, 296 (5576) Science (2002): 2158–2162; G.M. Hallegraeff, et al., (Eds.) (2004) Manual on Harmful Marine Microalgae. 2nd revised edition. Paris, France, unesco. (Monographs on Oceanographic Methodology, 11); Roxanne Saul, Is climate change an unforeseen, irresistible and external factor–A force majeure in marine environmental law?, 113 (1–2) Marine Pollution Bulletin (2016): 25–35; Jeffrey McGee, et al.,. Geoengineering the oceans: an emerging frontier in international climate change governance. 10 (1) Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs (2018): 67–80; M. N. Moore, Do nanoparticles present ecotoxicological risks for the health of the aquatic environment?. 32 (8) Environment international (2006): 967–976.
unga, Revised draft text of an 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 (18 November 2019), A/conf.232/2020/3 (draft text). Art 5(h), Art 14[(e)].
Robin Churchill, The losc regime for protection of the marine environment–fit for the twenty-first century?, in Rosemary Rayfuse, (Ed.) Research Handbook on International Marine Environmental Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015), 30; Catherine Redgwell, Treaty Evolution, Adaptation and Change: Is the losc ‘Enough’ to Address Climate Change Impacts on the Marine Environment?, 34(3) The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (2019): 440–457.
Benjamin S Halpern, et al., Managing for cumulative impacts in ecosystem-based management through ocean zoning, 51 Ocean and Coastal Management (2008) 203, 205; A Ardron, Cumulative impact mapping: Advances, relevance and limitations to marine management and conservation, using Canada’s Pacific Waters as a case study, 34 Marine Policy (2010) 876, 883; John D Court, et al., Assessment of cumulative impacts and strategic assessment in environmental impact assessment (Commonwealth of Australia, 1994); Kees Bastmeijer, Ecological restoration in international biodiversity law: a promising strategy to address our failure to prevent?, in Research Handbook on Biodiversity and Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016) 402.
Caitlin Mullan Crain, et al., Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems, 11(12) Ecology Letters (2008): 1304–1315; Richard R. Kirby, et al., Synergistic effects of climate and fishing in a marine ecosystem, 12(4) Ecosystems (2009): 548–561; Christopher J. Brown, et al., Interactions between global and local stressors of ecosystems determine management effectiveness in cumulative impact mapping, 20(5) Diversity and Distributions (2014): 538–546; BP Harvey, Metaanalysis reveals complex marine biological responses to the interactive effects of ocean acidification and warming, 4 Ecol. Evol. (2013)1016–1030; Isabelle M. Côté, et al., Interactions among ecosystem stressors and their importance in conservation, 283 (1824) Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2016): 20152592.
Anna Grage, Marine Environmental Impact Assessment: Considering cumulative and synergistic impacts within the Australian legal framework (Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong, 2018), available at https://ro.uow.edu.au/theses1/603; Victor Galaz, et al., Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries—Emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity, 81 Ecological Economics (2012): 21–32; Bindoff, et al., supra note 45.
epbc Act, Art 3A(d).
See generally, P. Bridgewater, et al., Ecological Integrity: A Relevant Concept for International Environmental Law in the Anthropocene?, 25 (1) Yearbook of International Environmental Law (2015): 61–78, 72–75; R Kim, et al., Planetary Boundaries in Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals: Safeguarding Ecological Integrity as a Priority Goal and a Grund-norm of International Law (Discussion paper at the Planetary Boundaries Initiative 2013), 1.
Bindoff, et al., supra note 45.