Global Ocean Treaty

The hon. Member for Torbay said that our high seas have unique biodiversity, and he is absolutely right. Of course, we used to have lots of unique biodiversity; we did not have to look to the high seas and the oceans for it. On dry land, however, we have already seen the loss of so much of our critical biodiversity and I fear that it has probably gone forever. So this treaty is for all of us a second chance. Our oceans are the lungs of our planet and if we do not take the action necessary for the ratification of this treaty now, we risk treating the biodiversity of our high seas in the same way that we have treated the biodiversity on dry land, and we will all be poorer as a consequence.

The world and this Parliament are united in wanting to ensure that we take better care of our oceans, recognising how much the oceans have taken care of us and our planet for millennia, although we will never really properly compensate for some of the harm that we have done there.

However, the opportunity is now. That is why we have done the work in creating many marine conservation zones and marine protected areas, while continuing to try to strengthen the protections that exist, despite people like the European Union taking us to court on protecting areas such as the Dogger Bank—the extra controls that we have put in recently, to protect the sand eels that are the food for the puffins and kittiwakes. Those are the sorts of things that might not matter to every person in the street, whose greatest worries will understandably be about the cost of living and similar matters, but they are long-term strategic issues. That is why it is good to have such cross-party support and focus on tackling them.

It is less than a year ago that the final agreement was adopted in New York, back in June. When the treaty was opened up for signatures during the United Nations General Assembly on 20 September, it was my privilege to be alongside Lord Ahmad when he signed it formally on behalf of the UK Government. There was an interesting debate that day on whether the United States would sign it or not, so I was very pleased that President Biden gave the go-ahead because it matters that we have people sign up to these treaties. I will always give huge credit to the United States for a number of its activities, but they have never signed up to the convention on biodiversity. It is not a shame—they have done that for certain reasons—but the most powerful global treaty we have ever had is the Montreal protocol, signed back in 1987. The United States being a part of that really made a massive difference in ensuring that it was a priority for them in their activities around the world.

The threat to the ocean is so widespread, even from things like illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. That sort of harm is very difficult and challenging. In my time at DEFRA, I was proud of working to ensure that oceans became a very prominent part, while recognising the special relationship within Government, where the Foreign Office takes the lead on UN treaties and the like, and the importance of collective working. The creation of the blue planet fund is probably one of the most significant things we will have done on environmental improvement.

While we have been celebrating Earth Day this week, the focus was on plastics, because of the plastics treaty. The oceans have become a sink for carbon and all sorts of different things; they have literally become a sink for our rubbish. We need to continue to work on improving the state of our oceans. An amazing thing happened down in the south Atlantic when a marine protected area was established for the South Sandwich Islands. I recently took part in a debate here on penguins, and it might surprise people to know that through our overseas territories, the United Kingdom is responsible for 30% of the world’s penguins.

We must think about the impact on the building blocks of life itself and how the United Kingdom can, not with pride—pride comes before a fall, or a sin—but with determination lead by example. That is why so many parliamentarians and activists have been keen to ensure that we are leading the pack in getting the ratification done, given all the consequences that come as a result.

Will the Minister set out what primary legislation, secondary legislation and other agreements are needed? We want this to happen, and officials said that they should have it ready before the end of this calendar year. I wonder what, with a bit of a heave and a shove, good will and the wash-up, we can do to get it through so that we are not waiting for it. No disrespect to whoever forms the next Government, but quite often priorities change and things take time. We have been leading the pack—we have at least been co-leaders—so let us stay there and ensure this gets delivered properly.

If phytoplankton do not get eaten, they simply die and sink to the ocean floor where they lock away all the carbon that they have stored.

Known as the “biological pump”, billions of metric tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere are transferred to the bottom of the ocean every year, reducing the impact of global warming. Without the high seas shielding us, we would already be in a full-scale climate breakdown. Over 90% of the warming of the earth between 1971 and 2010 was directly absorbed by the oceans. If we increase the phytoplankton in our oceans by just 1%, it would have the same climate benefits as 2 billion mature trees.

Protection of the high seas is desperately needed for both ocean health and human wellbeing. Properly protecting 30% of the high seas would create havens for ocean wildlife that sustain and replenish the waters closer to shore. Importantly, it would enhance fish populations and food security. The high seas should be a global commons benefiting all of humanity. In fact, they are grossly abused. The result is that 80% of fisheries worldwide are fully or over-exploited, depleted or in a state of collapse. Continuing with the status quo and avoiding the necessary steps to curb overfishing and avert climate breakdown will lead to the comprehensive collapse of fisheries, and the lowest-income nations will suffer the most.

Research has shown that protecting more of the oceans will provide more fish to eat because we create the safe havens for fish to grow to maturity. Orange roughy can live for 200 years. They are not sexually mature until about 30. At full maturity, a female can produce almost a quarter of a million eggs. A female in her 30s might produce only 20,000. So it makes sense to create the marine protection zones that the global oceans treaty will facilitate.

The treaty allows for nations to establish marine-protected areas by a majority vote of ratifying members where they cannot reach consensus. That avoids the blocking stalemates and vetoes that would otherwise come into the political counting. It will ensure the sharing of marine genetic resources, providing equitable access to science and the benefits from ocean discoveries, with a benefit-sharing committee to oversee the treaty’s call for a standard batch ID to be added to genetic samples and subsequent patents on sales.

The treaty establishes the need for capacity building for developing nations to ensure that they can gain equitable access to science, technology and marine genetic resources, and it insists on environmental impact assessments for activities on the high seas that are expected to have a substantial impact. The treaty will not require new permits for research projects exploring the high seas, but it will create a science and technical committee to oversee regulations and react to changing conditions in the oceans. In the context of the last point, let me welcome in passing the UK Government’s announcement of a moratorium on deep-sea mining in October last year.

I am delighted that the UK was one of the first signatories to the treaty, but speedy ratification is vital if we are to reach the triggering number of 60 states that would bring the treaty into force. We have only six years before 2030. If we are to achieve 30% of high seas protection, we have to begin planning now, even before ratification.

Before the general election in 2010, I played a small role in lobbying for the UK to create what was then the largest marine-protected area on the planet, in the Indian ocean. Since then, the Conservative Government have developed their flagship blue belt programme for the establishment of MPAs in the UK overseas territories. I think it is perhaps their single greatest achievement, protecting over 4 million sq km of ocean habitat, accounting for 1% of the ocean’s entire surface.

The MPZ created by the Government of Tristan da Cunha, which was mentioned, is the fourth largest MPA in the world, providing critical habitat for tuna, penguins and the iconic Tristan lobster. In 2024, the waters around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands were officially protected by the Government, creating an MPA eight times the size of Wales. Those islands lie on important migration paths for birds travelling from the Antarctic to South America. The waters off their coasts are equally important for various marine species in the Southern ocean. The blue belt programme is a success, and I commend the Government for what they have done, but there have been challenges and disappointments on the way, and it is from those that I hope the Minister will seek to learn when coming to consider how best to implement the Global Ocean Treaty.

The very remoteness that fosters the strong biodiversity in the UK’s overseas territories also creates logistical challenges and capacity issues. While the Government have provided some technical and financial support to address those capacity issues, they know that support has not been sufficient, and it has caused problems with the roll-out of the blue belt priorities. It has also imposed considerable burdens on the already strained capacity of the overseas territories’ Governments.

The unique constitutional status of the OTs has also disqualified them from seeking outside financial support from organisations such as the Global Environment Facility and the United Nations Environment Programme. These capacity issues are often most apparent in the fight against IUU—illegal, unsustainable and unregulated —fishing.

Most of the overseas territories do not have access to cost-effective fisheries surveillance and monitoring systems. That makes it difficult to police the MPAs and ensure that they are not being violated. The UK should not restrict the amount of resource that the overseas territories are permitted to allocate to conservation efforts, which it does at the moment. The Government could also allow the territories to access funding pots already put aside for conservation efforts, such as the UK’s contribution to the UN decade on ecosystem restoration.

Territory Government Departments are unable to deliver all the top-down work programmes being recommended by blue belt agencies. More long-term, local staff are required if the programme is to achieve all its ambitions. These problems will be even greater when we think of establishing MPAs beyond the territorial jurisdiction of even our remotest territories.

The Minister will be aware that the Marine Conservation Society has recommended creating a UK Government-led MPA satellite surveillance system, sharing transparent metrics on enforcement in overseas territories’ waters, and also funding observer coverage on local fisheries. Will the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that, under the treaty, we are not simply drawing lines on an ocean map, but are creating robust and enforceable protected areas?

Finally, I support the call from a number of non-governmental organisations and agencies, and from Members today, urging the Government to begin the work of planning the development of these ocean sanctuaries, and not to wait until the treaty is ratified and enforced. Alliances with other coastal states are already there in embryonic form, such as with the Sargasso Sea Commission—of course, the Sargasso sea is also home of one of our overseas territories, Bermuda.

Bermuda’s deputy premier recently called for the Sargasso sea to be prioritised for protection under the new treaty. Can the Minister assure us that she is working with Bermuda and other countries in the region to jointly spearhead a proposal for an ocean sanctuary in the Sargasso sea that might be ready to present at the treaty’s first conference of the parties?

A quarter of all fish sold in Californian fish markets have plastic in their gut, according to some recent studies. There are four countries that dump more plastic in the sea than all other countries combined: China—which is by far the worst—Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. The Yangtze river pours more plastic into the ocean than any other river on the planet, and that cannot go on. I say to our friends in those countries—with a degree of humility, because our own record has not been perfect in the past—that that is an issue they need to get on top of.

What needs to be done to address those really serious problems? The UN high seas treaty was finalised in 2023, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for her role in that. It took 20 years of negotiation, and that is a very long time. I am proud that the UK was a member of the so-called High Ambition Coalition to get it done, and I join what every other Member has said about trying to get it ratified as quickly as possible, to provide a really important lead on this issue. The UK blue belt around UK overseas territories has protected an area of ocean larger than the size of India, which is to be welcomed. Closer to home, around England, we have three highly protected marine areas as well, which are also very much to be welcomed. We need to ratify the treaty as quickly as possible. We also need the closely related UN global plastics treaty to be created and finalised by the end of 2024. I am pleased that the UK is a member of High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, because those two issues are integrally connected.

Exploration can have a wide-ranging impact on marine life and ecosystems. The treaty is meant to limit those kinds of harms, so it is surprising that some policies seem to conflict with MPAs. Will the Minister comment on how that contradiction will be resolved? Questions ought to be raised about the place of MPAs in UK waters and the commitment to restore 70% of designated features to favourable conditions by 2042. It would be useful to know exactly what measures will be brought in to ensure that that is delivered.

We are short on time, so I will end on a positive note. The treaty is a step in the right direction, which has been decades in the making; we do not want to see more decades go by before we see the results. There are many reasons to be optimistic about where we are heading. The consensus that we have heard today is encouraging, but we have to be aware of wider Government policies. There is a lot of evidence that much more needs to be done to protect our seas—let alone the rest of the planet’s oceans. With 71% of the Earth covered by oceans, we have to pay as much attention to what is going on there as we do to dry land.

Last year, we saw record temperatures in the oceans. We cannot ignore the influence that has on the climate. The oceans absorb heat and carbon dioxide. Importantly, they drive weather patterns, the impact of which we are seeing regularly. Warming oceans also contribute to the increasing melting of ice, which causes sea levels to rise. Everything is connected. It is clear that with every passing year, the battle against climate change becomes a little harder to defeat. Protecting the oceans is a key part of that. Ultimately, it will determine whether we continue to survive as a species on this planet, which is why we really must get on and ensure that the treaty is delivered and begins to produce results.