Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 2 April 2026

Defra and the Scottish Government jointly consulted the public on the implementation of Part IV of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement concerning Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). The consultation launched on 21 November 2025, lasted 4 weeks and closed on 19 December 2025.

The consultation was hosted on the online platform Citizen Space, and responses were also collected via email.

The consultation gathered evidence on potential activities taking place in ABNJ and sought views on proposed amendments to the marine licensing regime under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCAA) and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 (MSA) to implement Part IV of the BBNJ Agreement on EIAs.

Defra used consultation responses to finalise the UK’s approach to regulating marine activities occurring in ABNJ for the purposes of implementing the UK’s obligations in relation to EIAs under the BBNJ Agreement. Defra shared all the consultation responses with the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government used the consultation responses with specific relevance to Scotland to formulate commensurate proposals and introduce a Scottish Statutory Instrument. The Scottish Government published its report on the Scottish Government website on 20 February 2026.

This consultation response relates to proposed changes to the marine licensing framework under MCAA only, provides a summary of the responses received and sets out the UK government response and proposed next steps.

DEFRA and the Scottish Government have worked closely in the development of policy approaches to ensure proportionate and clear regulation of licensable marine activity in ABNJ following the joint consultation. The report of the UK government response and the Scottish Government’s consultation summary report together make up the response to the joint consultation and should be read alongside each other.

Defra received 22 responses to the consultation in total, from industry, research organisations, eNGOs, independent consultants, consultancies, public bodies and Defra Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs).

A breakdown of consultation responses by organisation:

• Industry: 13
• Research Organisation: 1
• eNGOs: 3
• Independent consultants: 2
• Consultancy: 1
• Defra Arm’s Length Bodies: 1
• Public Bodies: 1

---

About this analysis of responses

Questions 1 and 2 covered the confidentiality of responses and whether respondents were happy to be contacted by Defra or Scottish Government on detail of responses if needed and as such were not analysed.

Of the 22 responses to the consultation, we received: 14 through the online survey hosted on Citizen Space and 12 via email (4 responses were submitted through both). The consultation included binary questions and open text box questions. The quantitative analysis tables in this summary of the response document include responses from the online survey and from email. The qualitative narrative analysis also includes all responses where comments were submitted through the online survey and email submissions.

Public consultations are not necessarily representative of the wider population. Since anyone can submit their views, individuals and organisations who are more able and willing to respond are more likely to participate. Because of this likelihood for self-selection, the approach of this analysis did not rely solely on counting how many respondents held a certain view. It also included thematic analysis of the additional comments provided to understand the range of key issues raised by respondents, differences in views and the reasons for them holding their view.    

To process and summarise all the ideas submitted in the open-text responses, Defra used inductive (open) coding, whereby themes were developed as they arose directly from the responses. Open coding involved reading each response line-by-line and capturing the points covered. The approach assigned the same level of specificity and importance to each point raised.

Each section of this publication summarises the most common views and reflects where the views of respondent types were similar or different. This summary of responses is not an exhaustive list of all ideas provided by respondents but summarises the most common concerns and opinions. Therefore, a range of qualitative terms are used, such as ‘many’, ‘some’, ‘most’ and ‘a few’. ‘Most’ refers to a majority, ‘many’ refers to when a substantial number of respondents have a similar view, ‘some’ refers to when there is a reasonable number of respondents with a similar view, and ‘a few’ refers to a small number of respondents.    

These terms relate to the number of responses to the relevant question, rather than the total number of responses, as not every respondent answered all the questions, and not every respondent who provided an answer to a closed question provided additional detail.

Summary of legislative changes

Following our consultation analysis Defra plan to take the following approaches, some of which will be dealt with in secondary legislation. The consultation responses and the justification for the chosen approach are summarised in Part 1 – Part 8.

• In line with the consultation responses, Defra will follow the approach set out in Option 1 which would extend the list of licensable marine activities in ABNJ in MCAA to include all those categories which are currently licensable only in UK waters, and exempt new activities whose impact would not meet the EIA and the De Minimis Thresholds. We will extend the licensing regime, in relation to both new and existing categories of activity in ABNJ, so that it applies to activities within UK control or jurisdiction. This means that licensing will apply to ABNJ activities undertaken or controlled by a UK person or carried on from a British vessel, aircraft or marine structure (including, in some cases, from floating containers controlled from such vessels/aircraft/structures).  

• In line with the consultation responses, Defra will maintain the current scope of exemptions where they extend to ABNJ in the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011 (the 2011 Exempted Activities Order).

• Defra will maintain the current cable laying and maintenance exemption in section 81 of MCAA. This is consistent with the majority of consultation responses. Based on the consultation responses Defra will also develop a new exemption for cable removals in ABNJ which mirrors the cable laying and maintenance exemption.

• At this time Defra will not take forward an exemption for research undertaken by UK government research vessels but will keep this aspect under review and consider for future exemptions.

• Defra will proceed with the proposed approach to spacecraft deposits, where the MMO will be able to defer the EIA to the Space Industry Act 2018 (SIA) Assessment of Environmental Impacts (AEE) where that has been undertaken for spaceflight activities in ABNJ.

• Defra will proceed with the proposed approach to fees, where MMO will charge Band 3 rates for determining licence applications and screening activities in ABNJ.

• Defra will proceed with the proposed approach to screening activities in ABNJ but will make minor amends to the De Minimis Self-determination screening as a result of the consultation responses. Defra will develop guidance for applicants in consideration with the consultation responses.

Part 1 – Overall approach

We consulted on four options for extending licensing into ABNJ:

Option 1 (Preferred approach): EIA Threshold exemption

Option 1 would extend the list of licensable marine activities in ABNJ in MCAA and MSA to include all those categories which are currently licensable only in UK waters. However, any such new activity whose impact would not meet the EIA Threshold, or which is not within UK control or jurisdiction, would be exempt from marine licensing. This would enable the appropriate licensing authority to extend licensing to all such activities in ABNJ which are in scope of the BBNJ Agreement, with appropriate carve-outs.

Option 2: De Minimis Threshold exemption

Add new licensable marine activities in ABNJ to the lists of licensable activities under MCAA and MSA as for Option 1. Any activity on the list whose impact is above the De Minimis Threshold would require a licence. Any activity whose impact falls below the De Minimis Threshold would be exempt from a marine licence.

Option 3: Licensing extended to specific activities

Extend marine licensing only to certain new activities in ABNJ which we have identified are above, or expected to be above, the De Minimis Threshold. This option would specify activities whose impacts meet the De Minimis Threshold and only these activities would require an EIA screening and a marine licence in ABNJ.

Option 4: Licensing extended to all activities

Extend the list of licensable marine activities in ABNJ in MCAA and MSA to include all those categories which are currently licensable only in UK waters. All licensable marine activities require an EIA screening and a marine licence.

Summary of responses to question 3 – overall approach:

There were 22 responses, 17 of which supported the proposed option for licensing in ABNJ and 2 opposed it. 2 respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed and 1 did not provide an answer.

Most of the responses agreed that the preferred approach (Option 1) would work effectively for regulating activities in ABNJ while remaining proportionate and able to adapt to future needs. Respondents considered that the preferred approach would be more proportionate than the other the options considered (Option 2, 3 and 4).

A few respondents expressed the view that Option 1 is not precautionary enough, as fewer activities would require a marine licence. A few also pointed out that their support for this approach is conditional on exemptions and reliance on other regimes being constrained. One respondent raised concerns on whether new and emerging technologies in ABNJ would be adequately captured within the proposed categories of licensable activities.

A few respondents raised concerns around the practicality of controlling activities within UK “control or jurisdiction”. Concerns focused on the circumstances in which a UK person could be deemed to control an activity and when they would need to apply a licence, noting that activities can involve actors and crew from multiple different states.

Some respondents mentioned that their support was conditional on cable activity being exempted.

Government response

The government notes that there are differing views on the appropriate level of precaution in the overall regulatory approach. Having considered the balance of feedback, we conclude that Option 1, an EIA Threshold exemption is the most appropriate and proportionate approach, and we will proceed with implementing this approach.

It aligns with BBNJ Agreement requirements by regulating all necessary activities, based on impact, but it will reduce levels of regulatory burden which we consider disproportionate to the potential risk. In this context, we consider that proportionate refers to ensuring that regulation in ABNJ is aligned with the nature of activities taking place and their potential environmental impact. As the current MCAA licensing categories are well-established and proven in domestic waters we consider that extending these activities to ABNJ would ensure that activities in ABNJ are effectively captured by the marine licensing regime.  

The approach to exemptions is explained in Part 2 of this response and the approach to the screening process is clarified in Part 8 of this response.

UK control or jurisdiction

We recognise the risk that multinational organisation activities and joint enterprises may require approvals from UK and other BBNJ State party regulators, depending on how other BBNJ State parties regulate activities in ABNJ and what they consider to be under their “control or jurisdiction”. It is the UK’s position that activities carried on from British vessels, aircraft or structures and activities carried on or controlled by UK persons are within the UK’s control or jurisdiction for BBNJ purposes. If the BBNJ Conference of the Parties (CoP) provides guidance on what activities are to be treated as falling under a BBNJ State Party’s ‘control or jurisdiction’ or on multinational activities or joint enterprises, we will consider if we need to implement any changes to our approach.

Our proposed new licensable activities include a number of “UK person” activities where that person is responsible for a licensable activity. In guidance, we will provide examples of when a UK person is considered to carry on or ‘control’ (i.e. cause or permit another person to carry on) a licensable activity in ABNJ and therefore is responsible for applying for a licence. To fully meet BBNJ requirements the proposed licensing changes will also extend licensing to existing ABNJ activities (deposits, scuttling and incineration) where they will be carried on or controlled by UK persons. This ensures that BBNJ requirements are met and that licensing is consistent across categories where relevant.

Summary of responses to question 4 – self-determination screening

There were 22 responses, 8 of which supported a self-determination screening approach and 2 opposed it. 11 neither agreed nor disagreed and 1 did not provide an answer.

Most respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with whether a self-determination screening could be used to determine if an activity meets the De Minimis Threshold. Some responses raised that there is a lack of clarity on the screening processes which make it difficult to provide a substantive comment.

Concerns were raised about the De Minimis Threshold criteria and the risk of cumulative impacts, which is addressed in Part 9 of this response.

Respondents asked for clarity on several points, including:

• Why De Minimis Terminology has been used when it is not in the BBNJ Agreement text?

• Why there is a two-tiered process, why both screenings are required, how these work and when in the process an activity is exempted?

• Who makes the De Minimis determination?
• Why is the approach different for current licensable categories (deposits, scuttling and incineration) which will always require a marine licence to new licensable categories which may not always require a marine licence in ABNJ?

Government response

The government acknowledges that the consultation did not provide complete information on the proposed screening process which makes it difficult to provide early views. We intended that information and evidence from the consultation would be used to finalise and complete the screening approaches. We have provided further information on the process below. The BBNJ Scientific and Technical Body may also provide additional standards or guidelines in future on the threshold for screening.

 We therefore intend to proceed with the self-determination process approach.

Terminology definitions:

• “When a planned activity may have more than a minor or transitory effect on the marine environment, or the effects of the activity are unknown or poorly understood”: This is the threshold for determining whether an EIA screening needs to be carried out. The BBNJ Agreement text does not have an explicit title for this definition, so we have referred to it as the ‘De Minimis Threshold’ in the consultation to clearly differentiate it from the below ‘EIA Threshold’.
• “When an activity may cause substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment”: This is the threshold for determining whether a full EIA need to be carried out. We have referred to this as the ‘EIA Threshold’. T is the same as the threshold found in Article 206 of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Two-tiered screening process

Under the BBNJ Agreement, if an activity meets the De Minimis Threshold, it requires an EIA screening in ABNJ. If it meets the EIA threshold then an EIA is required. The two thresholds create the two-tier system for Option 1. We believe it would be disproportionate for all activities taking place in ABNJ to require an EIA screening, even when they may be low impact, which is why we are introducing the De Minimis Screening.

De Minimis Threshold process

The self-determination process involves using a self-service system for determining whether the De Minimis Threshold is met. Using an automated self-determination system would mean that the MMO do not have to consider an application for very low impact activities, and an applicant would not be charged for this process. We believe this is proportionate for a very low impact activity taking place (such as removal of lost cargo) and it would not increase regulatory burden for MMO. It would also be faster and more streamlined for users. 

More information on the process and guidance is provided in Part 9.

Difference in approach to current licensable categories and new licensable categories

The current licensable activities (deposits, scuttling and incineration) currently always require a marine licence in ABNJ; however new licensable activities (removals, construction, dredging and explosives) will only require a marine licence if they require an EIA. The existing marine license requirements were designed for different policy contexts and wider regulatory purposes. By comparison, the extension of licensing to the new categories is being undertaken solely to meet BBNJ requirements. We do not consider that it would be proportionate for all activities in ABNJ to require a marine licence. This is why we have developed a different marine licence requirement for new licensable categories. However, the new screening approach will be the same for all categories of licensable activity.

Part 2 – Exemptions, and UK/Scotland division of licensing responsibilities

We consulted on the option of maintaining the existing scope of exemptions until such a time as further standards or guidance is provided by the Conference of the Parties or there is more evidence on impacts. The current marine licensing exemptions for certain activities are set out in the 2011 Exempted Activities Order; they include, for example, a deposit of tracer or reagent. These exemptions apply where an activity is considered to be low risk, where there is dual regulation in UK waters; or in certain cases where urgent action is required. However, only current exemptions which do not have a geographic restriction will apply in ABNJ. Current exemptions which do not already apply to activities in ABNJ will not be extended. Any changes to existing exemptions or new exemptions will automatically apply in ABNJ unless otherwise provided.

We also consulted on the proposal to update the division of responsibilities between the UK Government and Scottish Government for licensing marine activities in ABNJ, including existing activities. We proposed that Scottish Ministers will be the responsible licensing authority for activities in ABNJ that fall within devolved competence and the MMO will remain responsible for licensing all other activities in ABNJ.

Summary of responses to question 7 – scope of exemptions

There were 22 responses, 17 respondents supported the proposal and 2 were opposed. 1 respondent neither agreed nor disagreed and 2 did not answer.

Most respondents supported maintaining the existing scope of exemptions until further guidance provided by the Conference of the Parties (CoP) or further evidence on impacts indicate that changes are needed. For example, one respondent who agreed, noted that changes to exemptions by the UK Government at this stage could be pre-emptive. They also highlighted the need to align with international partners and wait for BBNJ guidance. One respondent thought that the exemption should go further for Marine Scientific Research and that specific exemption should be given that respects UNCLOS freedom of the high seas. Another respondent suggested that the approach should be consistent internationally and in line with the BBNJ Scientific and Technical Body and the BBNJ CoP.

A few responses disagreed that current domestic exemptions should automatically apply in ABNJ and considered that they should be subject to further assessment. A few also raised that waiting until new evidence emerges on environmental impacts is difficult as generating new evidence in the deep sea is constrained by costs and technological challenges.

A few respondents requested greater clarity on regulation of certain activities such as: aggregate or mineral dredging, oil/gas exploration and extraction, carbon capture and storage, equipment to control oil and pollution and marine chemical and oil treatment substances. One respondent recommended that the aquaculture exemption be reconsidered, as open-ocean finfish aquaculture is associated with adverse environmental impacts and are unlikely to be below the De Minimis Threshold.

One respondent argued that the exemption should not apply to activities regulated under other regulation such as fishing activities regulated through Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO).

Views on proposals in relation to Scottish Marine licensing

Several respondents raised that there is a need to avoid divergent approaches between Scottish Government and the rest of the UK. One respondent raised that one UK regime that manages BBNJ EIAs would be simpler for actors in ABNJ. One respondent raised concerns around using ‘Scottish vessel’ and ‘Scottish marine structure’ as definitions for what is in Scottish control or jurisdiction. They strongly opposed the use of Scottish vessels or marine structures as these concepts do not exist in law and would potentially conflict with the UK Ship Registry and Marine and Coastguard Agency (MCA) jurisdiction, which could create significant legal and operational uncertainty for the shipping industry. It was suggested that keeping all vessels classed as only British vessels or British marine structures would be most acceptable.

Government response

Overall exemptions

The government notes that, while the majority were supportive of keeping existing exemptions, a few stakeholders raised concerns that domestic exemptions have not been tested in ABNJ. However, the activities listed in the 2011 Exempted Activities Order have already been identified in a domestic context as low risk, required for emergency situation, or are covered by other regulation domestically. We believe it would be disproportionate to take a stricter approach in ABNJ without additional evidence. We asked for evidence during this consultation and we have considered the specific exemptions raised in responses below but decided there is no need to change any of the exemptions.

We will therefore maintain the current scope of exemptions where they apply to ABNJ. If the BBNJ CoP adopts standards or guidance relating to BBNJ EIA obligations or if new evidence is produced, we will update the exemptions as necessary.

Marine Scientific Research

For government views on the marine scientific research exemptions please see Part 5.

Aquaculture and fishing

The Scottish Government are updating their aquaculture exemption so it would not apply beyond 12 nautical miles. Something similar is not required for activities regulated by the MMO, as the aquaculture exemption under the 2011 Exempted Activities Order has a more limited scope and only exempts shellfish aquaculture. Shellfish aquaculture is unlikely to take place in ABNJ as it is typically limited to nearer the shore. The exemption does not exempt wider finfish aquaculture. Given this, we do not consider that this aquaculture exemption needs updating.

Fishing activities are not under the remit of marine licensing and the extension of current exemptions only extends to activities included in the 2011 Exempted Activities Order. The reasons why fishing is not captured under marine licensing in ABNJ is addressed in Part 3.

Oil and gas/carbon capture and storage regulation

The oil and gas/carbon capture and storage exemption set out in s77 MCAA applies to activities which are regulated under other domestic petroleum and energy legislation the effect of which is that the exemption applies only to those activities when carried on in the UK marine area. Any licensable marine activities undertaken as part of an oil and gas or carbon capture and storage activity in ABNJ would require a marine licence from the MMO. The UK does not currently have any plans to carry out oil and gas or carbon capture and storage activities in ABNJ. If such activities become relevant in the future, other regulatory measures may be developed at that time.

Scottish marine licensing

We recognise the importance of taking a consistent approach between licensing regimes where possible and we are taking steps to ensure this, including through shared guidance.

Scottish Government have updated their approach to address concerns relating to using ‘Scottish vessel’ or ‘Scottish marine structure’ as a qualifying connection to Scotland for BBNJ purposes. The Scottish Government therefore intends not to use these connectors.

To avoid overlap between the Scottish and UK Government marine licensing regimes, we will exempt any activities loaded in, or towed or propelled from, Scotland/the Scottish marine area from being regulated under MCAA. The Scottish Government will exempt any activities loaded elsewhere in the UK/UK marine area from regulation under the MSA. Where an activity does not involve loading, it will be licensed under the Scottish marine licensing regime if undertaken by a “Scottish person”, and by the MMO if undertaken by any other UK person. The MMO will also license any activity carried on from a British vessel if there is no Scottish loading connector and it is not undertaken by a Scottish person.

Part 3 – Potential activities taking place in ABNJ

We consulted on what activities are likely to take place in ABNJ and what their environmental impact might be. We provided a range of activities and projects which may occur in ABNJ, including ones which have a low likelihood of occurrence. These are listed below:

• marine geoengineering for climate and biodiversity (for example, carbon dioxide removal, solar radiation management)
• carbon capture and storage and exploration and production of oil and gas
• activities related to energy generation (for example, offshore floating wind turbines, wave energy, floating solar, Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion)
• cable laying and cable maintenance
• cable removal
• activities related to Marine Scientific Research (MSR)
• rocket launches/debris
• aquaculture (for example, finfish, shellfish, crustaceans, algae)
• plastic/litter removal techniques
• construction
• dredging
• dumping of waste and other matter
• marine restoration
• archaeological Salvage
• pipelines

Summary of responses to question 11 – list of activities

There were 22 responses, 6 responded ‘Yes’, 12 responded ‘No’, and 4 respondents did not answer.

In questions 11 to 14, respondents were asked about activities likely to take place in ABNJ and about the potential environmental impacts of activities. The aim was to understand what activities are or could be taking place, so we can develop appropriate and suitable regulation.

One respondent noted that it is difficult to collate evidence on activities taking place in ABNJ given that activities are carried out by non-UK flagged ships and non-UK registered companies. However, respondents mentioned the following activities which were not included in the consultation ABNJ activity list:

• DSM
• Bio - Prospecting
• Cooling stations for data centres
• Shipping
• Fishing

Evidence of activity/would they meet BBNJ thresholds

In Question 13, respondents were asked for evidence on the environmental impacts of an activity and whether it would meet BBNJ thresholds. One respondent highlighted that the environmental impacts need to be considered in line with International Maritime Organisation (IMO) regulations, and it would not be appropriate to exceed IMO environmental protections standards. Other responses noted that some activities in ABNJ are unlikely to be below the De Minimis Threshold when cumulative and transboundary impacts are considered.

Respondents also provided examples of activities where impacts are poorly understood or harmful, these include Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (mCDR) technologies, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), deep-sea mining, sea-based rocket launches and offshore wind energy generation (including impacts on cetaceans). Evidence was provided on some of the activities listed and on plastic litter removal activity.

The responses which relate to cable activity and spacecraft deposits are addressed in Part 4 and Part 6 respectively.

Actors in ABNJ

Limited evidence was provided on actors carrying our activities in ABNJ. A few respondents raised that some ABNJ activities are owned, financed and operated by international consortia, often comprising of multiple individuals from different jurisdictions. This could make it difficult to identify who should be applying for consent and who the appropriate authority is regulate, assess and consent to ABNJ activity.

Government response

Marine licensable activities in ABNJ

The government notes that some activities identified by respondents as likely to occur in ABNJ are not in scope of marine licensing or the BBNJ Part IV requirements to carry out an EIA or EIA screening. The focus of the consultation is on changes to the marine licensing regime to meet the UK’s obligations under Part IV BBNJ as they relate to activities within the remit of marine licensing. Activities such as fishing, shipping and deep-sea mining (DSM) are not in scope of marine licensing and have been considered separately.

Article 29(4) of the BBNJ Agreement sets out circumstances where is not necessary to conduct a screening or an EIA of a planned activity in ABNJ under BBNJ requirements. These are based on the potential impacts of the planned activity having been assessed in accordance with the requirements of other relevant legal instruments or frameworks or by relevant global, regional, subregional or sectoral bodies. Many activities in ABNJ are already regulated under existing instruments, frameworks or bodies with mechanisms for assessing, preventing, mitigating or managing environmental impacts. Activities such as fishing, shipping and DSM are regulated under existing UK legislation, such as the Fisheries Act 2020, the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and the Deep-Sea Mining Act 1981.

Bioprospecting activities are exempt from the marine licensing regime under Article 17A (samples for testing or analysis) in the 2011 Exempted Activities Order if removing small amounts of material from the seabed, or Article 12 (fishing operations) of that Order if removing or taking fish. Other activities (which are not already subject to an exemption under Article 29(4) of the BBNJ Agreement) may require a screening and possibly a marine licence and an EIA. Part II of the BBNJ Agreement establishes the framework for accessing and sharing benefits from Marine Genetic Resources in ABNJ and the UK’s Marine Genetic Resources regime is established in Part 2 of the BBNJ Act. 

The interaction between BBNJ regulation and other regulations is addressed in Part 8. The cumulative and transboundary impacts of activities in ABNJ are also addressed in Part 8.

Activities whose impacts were referred to as poorly understood or potentially damaging such as mCDR and CCS may require a marine licence and an EIA depending on the nature of the activity. Similarly, the construction of cooling stations for data centres would be a licensable marine activity.  

The removal of marine litter using a vehicle or a vessel is licensable only if the litter is on the seabed, the removal of floating marine litter does not require a marine licence. Some of the marine litter exemptions specified in the Exempted Activities Order 2011 are not applicable in ABNJ and therefore the activity would be considered on a case-by-case basis where the impacts and benefits can be considered. If marine restoration activities do not fit the existing scientific research exemption, the activity would be licensable and require a screening.

Part 4 – Regulatory approach to cable activity in ABNJ

We consulted on maintaining the exemption for cable laying and maintenance in ABNJ and explored a specific exemption for cable removals in ABNJ.

Marine licensing requirements under MCAA currently do not apply to things done in the course of laying and maintaining the offshore stretch of “exempt” cables beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea - see section 81 MCAA ^{[footnote 1]}. Cable removals, however, are not currently exempt under MCAA and MSA.

Summary of responses to question 15 and 16

There were 22 responses to question 15: 15 responded ‘Yes’, 2 responded ‘No’, 2 respondents neither agreed nor disagreed and 3 respondents did not answer. 11 of the respondents who responded ‘Yes’ were from the cables sector.

There were 22 responses to question 16: 13 responded ‘Yes’, 4 responded ‘No’, 2 respondents neither agreed nor disagreed and 3 respondents did not answer. 11 of the respondents who responded ‘Yes’ were from the cables sector.

In questions 15 to 17, respondents were asked to provide any views or evidence on cable activity regulation in ABNJ. The aim was to understand whether a specific exemption for cable activity could be developed due to the low environmental impact of the activity.

Cable laying/maintenance exemption

Most respondents, most of which were from the cable industry, supported maintaining the existing exemption for cable laying and maintenance in ABNJ. Many respondents argued that the environmental impacts are well known and due to the low environmental impact of cable activity an exemption would be proportionate.

The responses cited evidence on the environmental impacts of cable activity including from OSPAR background document on subsea cables (2023) and UNEP-WCMC Report (2025). While there are environmental impacts associated with cable laying, including seabed disturbance, respondents argued that cable laying in ABNJ overall has minimal, short-term and localised environmental impacts.

Responses from industry also raised that the current cable laying and maintaining exemption in MCAA is consistent with UNCLOS provisions and in their view must be maintained. The importance of sub-sea cable activity in ABNJ was also raised.

A recurring theme was the need for consistency for cable regulation between i) the two marine licensing regimes (MCAA and MSA) and ii) UK waters and ABNJ.

Greater clarity was also requested on jurisdiction over submarine cabling activities in ABNJ and under which circumstances the existing cable laying exemption might be disapplied in ABNJ.

A few respondents disagreed with maintaining the exemption due to environmental impact concerns including concerns that the activity will result in disturbance, habitat loss and adversely impact species. A respondent also disagreed with the approach due to insufficient evidence of cable impacts in ABNJ.

One respondent flagged that the current exemption would only be a concern if it’s likely to cause an obstruction or danger to navigation.

Cable removal exemption

Similar to cable laying and maintenance, most respondents supported an exemption for cable removals in ABNJ, again most of which were from the cable industry. Respondents argued that evidence shows that cable removals also have short term impacts with minimal physical disturbance and the impacts are less than laying. And that as the low environmental impacts are also understood for cable removals an exemption would be proportionate.

Respondents provided evidence on the environmental impacts of cable removals; for example, an academic paper by Clare et al (2025) which discusses environmental considerations in subsea cable decommissioning.

A few respondents were unsupportive of the approach and one respondent added that consideration of cable removals should take place on a case-by-case basis and that an exemption for removals should not be the default. They suggested that a case-by-case assessment could be used to weigh the environmental risks and benefits of cable removal based on site-specific factors.

Emergency repairs

Responses also asked for confirmation that emergency repairs will not require screening or licensing, to avoid any operational delay, and that low impact geotechnical and geophysical surveys are kept exempt in ABNJ.

Government response

Overall approach to cable activity

The government notes that the majority of respondents were supportive of the exemption of cable activity, but there were still concerns from some respondents about the environmental impacts of cable activity in ABNJ. We consider that the cable related activity which would take place in ABNJ (such as surface laid telecommunication cables) would be of sufficiently low impact to fall below the De Minimis Threshold. Given the importance of this activity, and its low environmental impact we intend at this stage to maintain the current cabling exemption and to make a new exemption for cable removals in ABNJ.

Power cables which are more likely to have a greater environmental impact (including greater impacts from electromagnetic frequency) are not planned or likely in ABNJ (for example, the world’s longest subsea power cable is Viking Link, which spans 765 km between the UK and Denmark) therefore it is highly unlikely a power cable will span oceans as telecommunication cables do. We consider it is proportionate to maintain the current exemption, but we will consider any further evidence to see if changes are required if and when power cables activity takes place in ABNJ.  

The current evidence and consultation responses provided on telecommunications removals suggest that the environmental impacts are often minor and less than laying. We therefore consider it is a proportionate approach to include in our secondary legislation a new exemption for cable removals which will mirror the current exemption for cable laying and maintenance for consistency, except in relation to use of explosives.

Low impact geophysical and geotechnical surveys are currently exempt and will remain exempt in ABNJ. Similarly, activities currently exempted for the emergency inspection or repair of a cable by the 2011 Exempted Activities Order will remain exempt in ABNJ.

If the BBNJ CoP provides additional standards or guidance on cabling activities in ABNJ in future then we will consider whether any changes to our approach on cabling are necessary.

Navigation

Cabling activities are unlikely to cause an obstruction or danger to navigation due to the depth they are laid in ABNJ. There are only concerns regarding cable depth in Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) when cable or cable protection reduced depth by 5% or more, which will not be a concern in deeper ABNJ waters.

Link to the self-determination criteria

We recognise that some cable activity could meet criteria set out in the self-determination process. However, the criteria for the self-determination process are deliberately precautionary to ensure that no activities requiring an EIA screening are overlooked. This is necessary given the range of activities that might take place in ABNJ, and the diverse ecosystems present in marine environments which may be impacted. However, we consider that we sufficiently understand how cable activity is likely to take place and the impacts it will have to determine that the De Minimis Threshold is not met and to provide the specific exemptions for cabling covered in this section.

---

Part 5 – Regulatory approach to Marine Scientific Research in ABNJ

We consulted on the option of a specific exemption for MSR undertaken from certain government research vessels if they have appropriate EIA processes in place. This would be in addition to marine scientific research activities currently exempt under the Exempted Activities Order 2011.

Summary of responses to question 18

There were 22 responses: 16 supported the proposal, and 1 opposed it. 3 respondents neither agreed nor disagreed and 2 did not answer.

Most respondents supported a new exemption for vessels operated and controlled by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), or the Scottish Government. A few respondents wanted a broader exemption to apply for MSR, for example for research activity carried out on the behalf of private bodies. Similarly, one respondent wanted the exemption to be extended to all looking to undertake scientific surveys offshore (for example, to test and calibrate survey equipment) and not just limited to Government research projects.

Other respondents have suggested greater clarity is needed, as respondents felt it is not clear what the process would be for all organisations who want to undertake marine scientific research.

Other respondents were concerned that that the marine scientific research could be used as a cover for other activities. Other respondents highlighted risks from MSR such as noise, pollution, physical disturbance and habitat damage.

Government response

The government notes that stakeholders were supportive of the approach to exempt MSR from government vessels. However, we consider following further consideration that this exemption is unsuitable until such time as the BBNJ EIA processes of relevant government research organisations are tested and any necessary enforcement mechanisms are confirmed. As government research organisations have not yet established a fully BBNJ-compliant EIA process and such EIAs are voluntary so there are no regulatory means to ensure compliance, we consider that it would be pre-emptive to exempt any activity until appropriate mechanisms are in place.

We therefore will not take forward a specific exemption for MSR from government vessels. We would revisit in future if appropriate mechanisms are in place.

The deferral power in the Marine Works EIA Regulations, as amended by the BBNJ Act, allows the MMO to use another body’s EIA in its licensing decision. This would still enable the MMO to defer an EIA to a research organisation if an activity reaches the EIA threshold and a BBNJ-compliant EIA has been undertaken. However, the activity would still require a marine licence.

Existing exemptions for marine scientific research activities set out in the 2011 Exempted Activities Order which do not have a geographic restriction would remain available to ensure we are taking a proportionate approach. These include deposit of scientific instruments that meet certain conditions, deposits of certain tracers and reagents, and the removal of up to 1 cubic metre of material for the purpose of taking a sample for testing or analysis.

Part 6 – Regulatory approach to Spacecraft Activity Deposits in ABNJ

We consulted on the option of spaceflight operators being able to defer their EIA for activities in ABNJ to the Space Industry Act 2018 (SIA) Assessment of Environmental Impacts (AEE).

Summary of responses to question 21

There were 22 responses: 6 supported the proposal and no-one opposed it. 11 neither agreed nor disagreed and 5 did not answer.

The respondents who supported the approach welcomed the proportionate approach for UK based launches. Respondents also raised that the marine and transboundary assessments undertaken within the UK space industry have shown no significant impact from returning space components in UK waters or international waters.

A few respondents noted that is difficult to provide views when the guidelines have not been produced. One respondent raised that there needs to be confidence that the AEE is a suitable alternative and meets the necessary requirements. They also added that the impacts of spaceflight deposits on cetaceans are poorly understood and wanted to know whether the AEE consider impacts from underwater noise.

Government response

The government has assessed AEE required by the SIA for launch operators and is satisfied that the AEE requirement exceeds that of the EIA required by the BBNJ Agreement. The space launch and Spaceport operator guidance will be updated to ensure that the relevant documents are also published on the BBNJ Clearing House Mechanism. If an AEE is not carried out by either a launch or Spaceport operator UK control or jurisdiction the deposit may require an EIA screening by the MMO.

Noise is a mandatory environmental consideration in the AEE, but the guidance does not list specific categories of noise. If the launch involved noise in the marine environment the AEE would consider it.

Part 7 – Approach to marine licensing fees for activities in ABNJ

We consulted on the proposal for MMO to charge Band 3 rates for screening activities in ABNJ for the EIA Threshold Screening. This is in line with the current approach for licensable marine activities in ABNJ. The MMO would charge for their work carrying out the EIA screening, as well as any subsequent marine licence that may be required if an activity requires an EIA. However, activities which are listed on the pre-determined exemption list, or which are determined to be below the De Minimis Threshold by the self-determination screening, would not be charged for the De Minimis screening if needed.

Summary of responses to question 23

There were 22 responses to question 23, 3 supported the approach and 8 opposed it. 7 neither agreed nor disagreed and 4 did not provide an answer.

A few respondents supported an increase in hourly rate for licensing ABNJ activities, and some suggestions were made including that an increase in fees must come with an increase in resource within the MMO. It was also raised that as it’s unclear what activities may take place in ABNJ fees must be kept under review. One response suggested that a nominal self-service fee would not be excessive for self-determination screening.

Other respondents who opposed mentioned that that the De Minimis Screening should not be charged either for Scottish Government or for the MMO. Also, that fees should be more proportionate and transparent.

One respondent wanted to discourage fees for Marine Scientific Research.

Government response

The government acknowledges that respondents were unsupportive of the approach to fees. We, however, consider that the proposed approach to fees is proportionate as it will allow the MMO to charge for the work that they carry out, but the De Minimis self-determination screening will mean that we will not charge for screening low impact exempt activities.

We will therefore proceed with the approach of charging Band 3 rates for activities in ABNJ.

The fee process will be made transparent as updated guidance on regulation in ABNJ will include information on how MMO will charge for screening activities. The overall fee process will work the same as they do domestically.

We will periodically review resource and fee structure for regulating ABNJ activities to determine if adjustments or changes are needed. Future changes to licensing to implement BBNJ CoP standards or guidelines on EIA may also mean that the fees need to be revisited.

Part 8 – Screening approach for activities in ABNJ and guidance

We consulted on using a self-determination screening for the De Minimis Threshold in which the applicant can receive an automatic exemption notice if the screening determines the proposed activity is below the De Minimis Threshold. We also consulted on the proposed criteria used for the De Minimis Threshold screening and shared a risk assessment matrix the licensing authority would use when screening an activity.

Summary of responses to question 26

There were 22 responses to question 26, 10 supported the proposed self-determination screening criteria and 4 opposed it. 5 neither agreed nor disagreed and 3 did not provide an answer.

In question 26, respondents were asked to provide views on the De Minimis screening process and guidance for applicants. The aim was to understand whether any changes to our screening approach were needed, and to identify gaps or improvements.

Some respondents supported the self-determination screening approach, and it was noted that the screening approach incorporates well-considered components. Other respondents disagreed with the De Minimis criteria as they felt it was too stringent.

Other respondents who opposed noted that taking a self-determination approach is risky for some environmental activities and is open to abuse. One respondent noted there is a risk that some activities are not captured by the De Minimis screening process.

A number of themes emerged regarding the clarity of the screening process, including the need for greater clarity on the different stages (covered in Part 1) and on the screening risk matrix, including how it relates to De Minimis screening. Many respondents indicated a need for further guidance on the screening process and on the criteria for meeting the De Minimis Threshold.

Some stakeholders provided recommendations for the screening process including considerations on the project’s characteristics, location and potential impact. One respondent noted that the criteria should also include spatial footprint, duration, reversibility, seabed disturbance intensity, pollutant release, and the degree to which impacts are known. It was also suggested that change in seawater properties should consider both chemical and physical properties.

Stakeholders also raised that cumulative effects need to be considered. While multiple small-scale projects could individually fall below the De Minimis or EIA Threshold, these impacts may collectively result in significant environmental impacts. It was also raised that the assessment of environmental impacts cannot be made if activities are exempt from marine licensing. Robust guidance on the number of activities which can take place within a certain timescale in an area was recommended.

Government response

We intend to proceed with the self-determination process, but we will make minor amends to the self-determination criteria based on the consultation responses. These changes are outlined below. In the future, if new evidence is presented on environmental impacts or if novel technologies are used in ABNJ we will amend the guidance as required.

De Minimis risk

We note that there were concerns that the self-determination De Minimis screening may be misused and carries greater risk than an activity being regulated by the MMO. We will ensure that criteria are robust and well-developed to mitigate the risk of inappropriate use by applicants. Marine licensing monitoring and enforcement practices will also mitigate the risk of misuse. 

Cumulative impacts

The government acknowledges the concern around cumulative impacts from activities taking place in ABNJ. We will continue to base our approaches on the evidence base and make necessary changes when new evidence is presented. We intend to work with other countries to understand cumulative impacts. The BBNJ Scientific and Technical Body shall develop standards and guidelines around assessing cumulative impacts.

Changes we are making

We will use recommendations made in the responses to develop the screening criteria and guidance, including changes to the De Minimis Threshold screening tool. We will apply changes to include additional wording to make the criteria less stringent. For example, we will update the first criteria ‘Will the activity physically interact with the seabed’ to ‘Will the activity physically interact with the seabed in a way that will result in a greater than minor or transitory impact’. The inclusion of consideration of ‘minor and transitory’ at this point would mean that not every physical interaction would result in needing an EIA screening, but the approach remains balanced for activities whose impacts are unknown in line with the BBNJ Agreement and the precautionary principle. We will provide guidance alongside the BBNJ De Minimis Screening Threshold to help the applicant understand when an activity interacting with the seabed may have a greater than minor or transitory impact. Guidance will also support the applicant to understand how to answer the other De Minimis Threshold screening criteria questions.

How the matrix relates to the De Minimis Threshold

Once the De Minimis Threshold screening criteria are fully developed, we will apply them through the self-determination screening process, where users assess their project against those criteria. Once the self-assessment is complete, the applicant will receive an automated determination indicating whether their project is exempt or requires an EIA screening. The risk matrix we are developing will then be used by the MMO in the EIA screening to determine whether the activity requires an EIA and a marine licence or not.

Next steps

The UK government will bring forward secondary legislation to implement the changes described above. The changes made through secondary legislation will come into force at the same time the UK’s international obligations under the BBNJ Agreement come into force. Guidance will also be produced on GOV.UK to explain the new marine licensing changes for applicants on before the changes come into effect.

Full list of consultation questions

The purpose of the consultation was to seek views on the proposed approach to extend marine licensing to include more activities in ABNJ, as well as to seek evidence on the activities occurring in ABNJ and their impact. For certain activities we proposed a bespoke approach to regulation in ABNJ. The full list of consultation questions is included below:

1. Would you like your response to be confidential?
2. Would you be happy to be contacted by Defra or Scottish Government on detail of responses if needed?
3. Do you agree that the preferred approach (Option 1) would work effectively for regulating activities in ABNJ while remaining proportionate and able to adapt to future needs?
4. Do you agree that a self-determination screening could be used to determine if an activity meets the De Minimis Threshold?
5. Do you have any comments on the other options considered (Option 2, 3 and 4)?
6. Do you have any further comments you wish to make on this proposal or the above questions, including any views on potential economic impacts?
7. Do you agree with maintaining the existing scope of exemptions until such a time as further guidance is provided by the Conference of Parties or there is more evidence on impacts?
8. Do you have any views on the implementation of these proposals in relation to Scottish marine licensing or on the proposed update to the division of responsibilities for licensing marine activities in ABNJ?
9. Do you have any evidence indicating that any of the current exemptions should not apply in ABNJ? If so, please provide this evidence including relevant data.
10. Do you have any further comments you wish to make on this proposal or the above questions, including any views on potential economic impacts?
11. Do you believe any activities that occur or could potentially occur in ABNJ are not included in this list? If so, please provide details.
12. Do you have any evidence on the likelihood of the listed activities occurring in ABNJ. If so, please provide this evidence including relevant data.
13. Do you have any evidence on the potential environmental impacts of the listed activities in ABNJ or any non-listed activities, including whether they would meet the BBNJ De Minimis Threshold? If so, please provide this evidence including relevant data.
14. Do you have evidence on the types of companies, institutions or persons are likely to carry out activities in ABNJ and where are they likely to be registered or based? Page 41 of 41
15. Do you agree with the proposed approach to keep cable laying and maintenance exempt in ABNJ? Please provide any evidence on the environmental impacts of cable laying and maintenance to support your response.
16. Would you support a specific exemption for cable removals in ABNJ? Please provide any evidence on the environmental impacts of cable removal to support your response, in particular on if cable removals would meet the De Minimis Threshold.
17. Do you have any further comments you wish to make on this proposal or the above questions?
18. Do you agree with our proposed approach to Marine Scientific Research?
19. If you are aware of any, please provide the names of any other UK research vessels which could carry out their own EIA which the exemption could apply to?
20. Do you have any further comments you wish to make on this proposal or the above questions?
21. Do you agree with our proposed approach to rocket launch deposits?
22. Do you have any further comments you wish to make on this proposal?
23. Do you agree with the proposed approach to fees?
24. Do you have any other comments you wish to make on this proposal, including any views on potential economic impacts?
25. What information or criteria should be considered when deciding whether an activity meets the De Minimis Threshold?
26. Do you agree with the criteria used by the Self-determination screening?
27. What other information would be helpful for applicants to understand the regulatory process in ABNJ?
28. Do you have any further comments you wish to make on this proposal

1. A cable is “exempt” unless it is constructed/used in connection with the activities listed in section 81(5) MCAA: exploration of the UK sector of the continental shelf or exploitation of its natural resources, operation of artificial islands, installations etc. under UK jurisdiction, or prevention etc. of pollution from pipelines ↩