Who Really Controls Australian Wild Caught Seafood

UN biodiversity deals, sovereignty concerns and the shrinking supply of local seafood

In 2022 Australia agreed to one of the most far-reaching global conservation targets ever created. It passed quietly, yet it is already changing the future of Australian wild caught seafood, the working access of commercial fishers, and the sovereignty we believe we still hold over our own waters.

The target is known as 30 by 30. Through the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, countries committed to protect 30 per cent of land, inland waters and marine areas by 2030. Australia backed the target politically in mid 2022 and then formally adopted it through the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in December 2022.

This global pledge now drives zoning decisions and domestic policy that directly affect Australian seafood availability.

How 30 by 30 threatens Australian wild caught seafood

The Federal Government reports that 52 per cent of our marine waters are inside some form of protected area. This sounds impressive, but the true impact lies in the details.

Only about 24 per cent of the ocean is currently highly protected, which means no commercial fishing.

In June 2025 the Environment Minister confirmed that 30 per cent of Australia’s marine environment will be highly protected by 2030. This is the first time a government has linked the global 30 by 30 targets to a domestic no take quota.

Using the Government’s own spatial data:

• Australia will need to close around 450,000 square kilometres

• This is about 45 million hectares of working water

• This area is larger than half of New South Wales

Those closures will not be based on stock depletion. They are driven by the need to meet a global percentage, not by local ecological conditions.

This dramatically reduces the future supply of Australian wild caught seafood.

A quiet sovereignty problem nobody voted on

Australia remains sovereign. No UN body can directly shut a fishery. The concern lies in the way these global commitments shape domestic policy.

Once the government signs a legally binding convention:

• It must report progress to the UN

• National Park expansions and marine closures become part of international compliance

• Local fishing grounds become a numeric requirement rather than a local decision

• Government agencies prioritise hitting global targets over local food security

The question becomes simple. Are decisions about Australian waters being made for Australian communities, or to satisfy the expectations of international agreements.

A food security issue with real consequences

Australia already imports 60 to 70 per cent of the seafood we eat. The majority comes from:

• China

• Thailand

• Vietnam

• Indonesia

These nations also signed the same UN agreement as Australia. Many of them rank poorly for:

• Overfishing risk

• Environmental performance

• Labour exploitation

• Illegal fishing

If Australia reduces its own catch to meet global conservation percentages, the resulting gap will be filled by imports from countries whose oversight is far weaker than ours.

That means less Australian wild caught seafood and greater reliance on foreign industrial fleets. This undermines food security and shifts control of our protein supply offshore.

Consumers will notice this as:

• Higher prices for local species

• Greater presence of imported seafood

• Less transparency about how and where food is caught

• Fewer choices for sustainably harvested Australian seafood

This is the opposite of resilience.

A pattern Australians are only beginning to see

The cycle looks like this:

1. A global target is set

2. Australia adopts it

3. Domestic maps are redrawn

4. Fishing access shrinks

5. Australian seafood supply declines

6. Imports rise

7. Australia reports progress back to the UN

This delivers good numbers to international reports but reduces our ability to supply Australian wild caught seafood to the Australian public.

Australia has some of the most sustainable and scientifically managed fisheries in the world. Yet we are closing millions of hectares of productive waters to meet a global quota while importing more seafood from countries that do not meet our standards.

The question we need to ask

Australia has the coastline, the fish stocks and the management systems to feed itself with clean, sustainable, wild caught seafood.

But if we continue closing productive waters simply to meet global conservation percentages, then we must ask:

Who should decide which waters feed Australian families Australians themselves, or international targets that were never debated by the public

The future of Australian wild caught seafood will be shaped by how we answer this question.