Attention has recently been given to shortcomings and gaps in the governance regime for marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), especially with regard to the conservation of marine biodiversity. This paper provides a brief overview of existing ABNJ treaties and their associated governance bodies. Examples of the manner in which some gaps have been (or are in the process of being) filled are outlined. These examples suggest that given the political will, existing bodies could achieve significantly more. Additionally, greater involvement from those conservation conventions that have already proven themselves to be effective in areas under national jurisdiction, such as CITES and the World Heritage Convention, could likely be beneficial in ABNJ as well. However, the current arrangement of single-sector institutions poses difficulties when attempting comprehensive measures that require cooperation beyond individual sectors, particularly between sectoral and conservation bodies. Nevertheless, measures that would aid in the protection of biodiversity could, and should, be developed. To ensure their success, the active exploration and testing of new cooperative governance arrangement(s) will be necessary. Methods to inspire sectoral organizations to act may also need to be developed.

Geo-engineering and environmental modification techniques are increasingly being proposed as climate change mitigation strategies. Ocean fertilisation has been promoted as a simple solution to the problem of increasing atmospheric CO 2 levels. However, neither its environmental safety nor its efficacy has been adequately assessed. Th is article examines the legality of ocean fertilisation under the law of the sea and concludes that it is subject to regulation under the London Convention and London Protocol as its potential for harm is contrary to the aims of these agreements. Hence, the sale of carbon offsets to fund ocean fertilisation activities should be prohibited unless and until an adequate risk assessment based on independent peer-reviewed science has established that the benefits outweigh the potential for harm, and appropriate regulation is in place to ensure that real, measurable, long-term CO 2 sequestration can be independently verified. Th e initial uncertainties surrounding the appropriate regulatory regime for ocean fertilisation highlight the need for a comprehensive global regime for the prior assessment and on-going monitoring of existing, new and emerging high seas activities and uses to ensure they do not have adverse impacts on marine biodiversity and the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

No abstract

Intentional ocean fertilization and the commercial sale of associated carbon offsets raise a number of issues in international law. On the one hand, states are obliged to adopt adaptation and mitigation measures to prevent dangerous climate change. On the other hand, international law obliges states to protect and preserve the marine environment and to act in a precautionary manner in the face of scientific uncertainty. In this article, we examine the application of the international Law of the Sea to ocean fertilization, with particular reference to the law's dumping regime, which prohibits the dumping of wastes or other materials from vessels into the ocean. We then examine the application of the international legal regime on climate change to ocean fertilization and assess the international legal basis for the sale of carbon offsets or carbon credits associated with ocean fertilization. We conclude that ocean fertilization is governed by the dumping regime and that its commercialization is inconsistent with international law unless and until independent, internationally peerreviewed scientific research and assessment demonstrates that it is effective and that its benefits outweigh the risks to the marine environment.