A new international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) was adopted and subsequently opened for signature in September 2023. Yet on average, recent multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) have taken over four years to move from signature to entry into force, while ocean-focused MEAs have taken nearly twice as long. Rapid ratification of the BBNJ Agreement is crucial for multiple reasons, not least to achieve the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework target for 30% of the marine environment to be protected by 2030. It is also vital to fulfill the Agreement’s stated ambition to contribute to a just and equitable future for humankind, considering today’s unprecedented expansion of commercial activities into the ocean.

Australia is reforming its ineffective Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which currently allows the export of four threatened species listed under the Act along with additional species recognized as globally threatened. We propose three recommendations for the new legislation: (1) apply the same precautions to commercially harvested species as other threatened species; (2) mandate annual reviews of threatened species status; and (3) assess species listed on global conservation conventions.

Buckley and Cooper’s¹ estimates of surfing’s economic contributions via enhanced mental health were extrapolated from national park visitation. We extend their argument by distinguishing benefits from green and blue spaces, and the particularities of surfing, both as therapy and recreation. Personal Wellbeing Index scores reveal improved outcomes among Australian surfers, compared to the national population. These diverse well-being effects highlight the value of surfing as an ocean-based ecosystem service.

The deep ocean is increasingly featured in climate solution discussions. An emerging narrative suggests that marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) is essential to meet global climate targets. The argument made is similar to claims that deep-seabed mining (DSM) is necessary to enable widespread electrification, in that both are framed as helping to address climate change. We compare the structure and history of these narratives, highlighting that while potential negative impacts on marine life have emerged as a central feature in debates about DSM, environmental and social risks associated with mCDR are yet to receive similar recognition. In light of this comparison, we argue that potential harm needs to be further emphasized in considerations of deploying mCDR.

With ecosystem services (ES) vital for human wellbeing¹, the protection of nature is a human rights matter. We outline how recent advances in international human rights law should inform a revamp of how precaution is applied within environmental decision-making. Critically, precautionary decision-making must evolve to make use of best-available evidence, including novel ES research approaches, to assess ‘foreseeable’ harms to all aspects of human wellbeing that are protected as human rights.

A new international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) was adopted and subsequently opened for signature in September 2023. Yet on average, recent multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) have taken over four years to move from signature to entry into force, while ocean-focused MEAs have taken nearly twice as long. Rapid ratification of the BBNJ Agreement is crucial for multiple reasons, not least to achieve the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework target for 30% of the marine environment to be protected by 2030. It is also vital to fulfill the Agreement’s stated ambition to contribute to a just and equitable future for humankind, considering today’s unprecedented expansion of commercial activities into the ocean.

Restoration supports the recovery of ecological attributes such as cover, complexity, and diversity to slow the areal decline of natural ecosystems. Restoration activity is intensifying worldwide to combat persistent stressors that are driving global declines to the extent and resilience of coral reefs. However, restoration is disputed as a meaningful aid to reef ecological recovery, often as an expensive distraction to addressing the root causes of reef loss. We contend this dispute partly stems from inferences drawn from small-scale experimental restoration outcomes amplified by misconceptions around cost-based reasoning. Alongside aggressive emissions reductions, we advocate urgent investment in coral reef ecosystem restoration as part of the management toolbox to combat the destruction of reefs as we know them within decades.