Research report: The governance of Antarctic krill: exploring the interaction between CCAMLR and the BBNJ Agreement

A comparative legal analysis concludes that Antarctic krill is governed through overlapping international rules: the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources manages the fishery and protects the species, while the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement addresses access to, and benefits from, marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. The study finds that the legal classification of krill is decisive. Harvesting krill as a commodity generally remains within a BBNJ exception for fishing and fishing-related activities, whereas research and development on its genetic or biochemical composition can trigger notification and benefit-sharing obligations.

It identifies non-monetary cooperation through CCAMLR’s scientific observation, monitoring and capacity-building mechanisms as the most practical near-term route to complementarity, while noting unresolved definitions, unequal treaty membership and disconnected data systems as risks to implementation. The analysis by Amelia Westmoreland, Kristine Elfrida Dalaker and Thomas Vanagt combines comparative legal analysis with a review of scientific literature on Antarctic krill biology and commercial use. It is not a field experiment or a new assessment of krill abundance.

Instead, it examines treaty texts and scholarship to determine how the two regimes may operate in the same waters. The authors treat much of the Southern Ocean covered by CCAMLR as an area beyond national jurisdiction for purposes of their analysis, despite the unresolved status of Antarctic sovereignty claims. Under that premise, BBNJ can apply alongside CCAMLR rather than replacing it: CCAMLR continues to govern conservation and rational use of marine living resources, while BBNJ Part II applies when activities involve marine genetic resources or their associated digital sequence information.

Because the study is an interpretation of legal obligations, its proposals for institutional coordination are recommendations rather than demonstrated environmental outcomes. Antarctic krill, Euphausia superba, is a keystone species and primary consumer in the Southern Ocean food web, directly supporting predators such as whales, seals and penguins. Its commercial value has also diversified.

Alongside bulk harvests for food, bait and feed, krill is processed into high-value products including nutraceutical oils, aquaculture-feed hydrolysates and ingredients used in cosmetics. Oil extraction and product development depend on research into compounds such as omega-3 fatty acids and astaxanthin, while research into potential enzymes, bioactive peptides and other biochemical properties has opened additional avenues for commercialization. That expansion creates a legal test: the same organism may be both a harvested living resource within CCAMLR’s conservation mandate and the source of genetic material used in research and development governed by BBNJ.

That dual identity becomes especially complicated when a sample serves several purposes. Krill fishing can involve scientific sampling beyond the immediate harvest, while stock-assessment cruises and scientific observers may collect tissue, stomach contents and DNA to study population structure, recruitment, adaptive capacity and ecosystem relationships. Modern stock assessments use size-structured models and integrated ecosystem data, while genomic and transcriptomic studies examine genetic differentiation among CCAMLR subareas.

Samples collected for stock management or conservation could remain within the BBNJ exception for fishing-related activities, but later storage or repurposing for commercial biotechnology, genomic analysis or product development could change their treatment. The unresolved boundary is between routine activity undertaken to manage the fishery or handle the catch and research focused on the genetic or biochemical composition of krill. The study does not establish a single definitive interpretation of that boundary; it identifies it as an issue that BBNJ Parties will need to clarify during implementation.

Notification requirements may differ according to how krill enters the commercial or research value chain. When krill is deliberately collected in situ in an area beyond national jurisdiction for research into its genetic properties, the study describes the full sequence of pre- and post-collection notification duties as applicable. If krill is instead taken first as a fishery commodity and only later repurposed for biotechnology, an assigned BBNJ batch identifier may not exist at the collection stage, although Article 12 still requires a notification when the material is utilized, accompanied by the identifier if available.

These rules could affect vessel operators, research institutions, processors and companies developing derivatives. Domestic implementation already illustrates how differently the overlap may be handled. Australia’s High Seas Biodiversity Act 2026 defines regulated fishing activities to include fishing and activities carried out solely in support of, or preparation for, fishing.

The law excludes an activity from the category of utilization when it is a regulated fishing activity or when marine genetic resources collected during that activity are used for the activity itself. At the same time, the statute excludes the application of BBNJ’s marine-genetic-resource provisions within the Antarctic Treaty area and the CCAMLR Convention Area. The authors describe this as an expansive interpretation of the duty not to undermine existing instruments for fisheries, frameworks and bodies.

It is one national implementation model, not a settled international interpretation, and it illustrates that the practical reach of BBNJ in Antarctic waters may depend partly on how individual Parties implement their obligations. Unequal membership poses another problem for consistent oversight. CCAMLR has 27 members, including major fishing states such as the United States, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea.

By April 2026, the BBNJ Agreement had more than 93 ratifications but did not include all of those major fishing countries. States that are parties to CCAMLR but not BBNJ are bound by CCAMLR conservation measures without necessarily owing the same access-and-benefit-sharing duties for genetic-resource utilization. Non-parties to either treaty can also remain active in krill markets through private companies and other actors.

The resulting patchwork could complicate uniform reporting, equitable benefit sharing and the application of precautionary measures. CCAMLR cannot impose Part II duties on states outside BBNJ, although it could voluntarily align some of its data and conservation practices with BBNJ standards. The study also considers port-state documentation requirements and supply-chain due diligence as possible ways to extend compliance in practice where direct jurisdiction is unavailable.

The study finds that the regimes do not currently create duplication of monetary benefit-sharing payments. CCAMLR is financed through annual member contributions and catch-related contributions from members that fish in the Convention Area, and those funds support conservation and fisheries management. CCAMLR has no mechanism for sharing benefits generated through the utilization of krill genetic material.

BBNJ’s benefit-sharing framework has a different purpose and institutional structure, with notifications handled through the Clearing-House Mechanism and monetary benefits directed through the financial mechanism established under Article 52 of the underlying UNCLOS agreement. At present, the only monetary modality in force is a decoupled annual contribution by developed Parties. The immediate opportunity for coordination is therefore in non-monetary benefits, including scientific collaboration, capacity building, access to samples and collections, and transfer of marine technology.

Several CCAMLR mechanisms already resemble benefits contemplated by BBNJ. Under the Scheme of International Scientific Observation, observers aboard krill vessels generate standardized biological and operational data for the Secretariat and Scientific Committee. The Ecosystem Monitoring Program provides long-running datasets used in collaborative research, while the Scientific Scholarship Scheme enables scientists from members with developing research programs to participate in CCAMLR’s scientific bodies.

The authors propose that qualifying contributions from these programs could be recognized as non-monetary benefit sharing and reported through the BBNJ Clearing-House Mechanism. This would not make compliance automatic. CCAMLR’s data architecture is designed for stock assessment and ecosystem management rather than for genetic resources, and it does not require the public deposit of genetic material or digital sequence information that BBNJ contemplates.

The two institutions also regulate different actors and stages of the value chain: CCAMLR focuses on members and harvesting within its Convention Area, whereas BBNJ can reach downstream research by companies and other entities under a Party’s jurisdiction or control. The proposed pathway is consequently one of coordination rather than institutional merger. Complementarity could involve formal liaison between the BBNJ Conference of the Parties and the CCAMLR Commission, memoranda covering data sharing, interoperable systems linking CCAMLR datasets with the BBNJ Clearing-House, common definitions of fishing-related activities and utilization, and mutual recognition of relevant conservation measures and environmental assessments.

The authors also suggest reciprocal observer status, shared protocols for scientific sampling, joint programs on krill genomics, climate effects and ecosystem resilience, and a defined route for access to biological samples. The analysis does not evaluate whether such measures would reduce duplicate reporting, improve compliance or produce better conservation outcomes. It instead concludes that Antarctic krill offers a practical test case for how a global biodiversity agreement and a regional fisheries regime can coexist amid overlapping competence, incomplete membership and expanding biotechnology.

Clarifying legal terms, strengthening data coordination and building direct institutional contact are identified as the necessary next steps rather than waiting for every unresolved question to be settled first.

Subject of Research: Legal governance of Antarctic krill under overlapping CCAMLR and BBNJ regimes

Article Title: The governance of Antarctic krill: exploring the interaction between CCAMLR and the BBNJ Agreement

Article References: Westmoreland, A., Dalaker, K. E., & Vanagt, T. (2026). The governance of Antarctic krill: exploring the interaction between CCAMLR and the BBNJ Agreement. Frontiers in Marine Science, 13, Article 1973403. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2026.1973403

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2026.1973403

Keywords: Antarctic krill, CCAMLR, BBNJ Agreement, marine genetic resources, Southern Ocean, benefit sharing, ocean governance, fisheries management, biodiversity policy, Antarctic Treaty System, governance, Antarctic