University of Queensland (UQ) researchers are advocating for comprehensive reforms to Australia’s environmental legislation, emphasizing the need for stricter regulations on the export of threatened fish species. Despite being listed under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, several species of fish continue to be legally exported, raising concerns over the efficacy of current protections.
The research, led by UQ PhD candidate Rosa Mar Dominguez-Martinez, highlights four key species that are listed under the EPBC Act but are still being exported from Australia. These species include the orange roughy, blue warehou, school shark, and southern bluefin tuna. Despite their threatened status, these species have continued to be traded internationally, sparking calls for urgent legislative changes. Ms. Dominguez-Martinez pointed out that since the EPBC Act’s inception, approximately 107 kilotons, or 10% of all Australian seafood exports, have consisted of these four threatened species. “While people may believe there are plenty more fish in the sea, the reality is that these species are in significant danger,” she stated. The fact that these species are still being exported, despite their precarious status, underscores serious gaps in Australia’s environmental protection laws.
Further exacerbating the issue, Australia’s Threatened Species Scientific Committee, which provides expert advice on species listings and recovery strategies, has found that these species meet the criteria for even higher threat levels. For instance, the blue warehou and southern bluefin tuna qualify for the “Critically Endangered” category, while the school shark and orange roughy are eligible for the “Endangered” category. Despite this, these species remain underregulated, leaving them vulnerable to overexploitation. The researchers have identified a significant loophole in the EPBC Act that allows this situation to persist. According to Ms. Dominguez-Martinez, the legislation includes a unique category called “Conservation Dependent,” which applies exclusively to marine fish species. Terrestrial species, in contrast, are not eligible for this classification. This loophole has allowed eight marine species, all of which are commercially fished, to be listed under this category.
Although the “Conservation Dependent” classification requires that these species have legally enforced management plans aimed at halting their decline, the results have been largely ineffective. “Except for the southern bluefin tuna, the conservation status of these species has not improved. Many remain overfished or have yet to be properly assessed,” Ms. Dominguez-Martinez explained. This category effectively exempts these species from the more stringent regulations that apply to species listed under standard threat categories such as “Vulnerable,” “Endangered,” or “Critically Endangered.”
One of the most concerning aspects of the current law is that fish listed as “Conservation Dependent” are not subject to the same export restrictions as other threatened species. While other native species require special permits for export when listed under the EPBC Act, those in the “Conservation Dependent” category are exempt from this requirement. This regulatory gap allows for the continued legal export of threatened fish, even when their populations are in decline.
As the EPBC Act is currently undergoing federal review, the researchers are urging lawmakers to revise the legislation to ensure that commercially harvested threatened species are treated with the same level of protection as other threatened species. They believe that closing the loophole would be a critical step in preventing further harm to Australia’s marine biodiversity. In addition to addressing the “Conservation Dependent” loophole, the research team, led by Senior Author Associate Professor Carissa Klein, has put forward two additional recommendations to strengthen Australia’s environmental laws. First, they propose that the new legislation mandate regular reviews of the conservation status of all threatened species. “If more frequent reviews were conducted, species like the southern bluefin tuna, which is no longer assessed as overfished, could be delisted from the EPBC Act more swiftly,” Dr. Klein suggested.
Secondly, the researchers advocate for Australia’s new environmental laws to incorporate international assessments into domestic legislation. They argue that species recognized as threatened under international frameworks, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List or other global conventions, should automatically be considered for inclusion in Australia’s threatened species list. These proposed reforms are seen as essential to protecting Australia’s marine biodiversity and preventing the further decline of its threatened fish species. Without such changes, the researchers warn that Australia risks exacerbating the extinction crisis in its waters.
