Purdon, JeanSomers, Michael J.Shabangu, Fannie WelcomeDoh, Y.Scheun, J.2026-01-282026-01-282025-11-24Purdon, J., Somers, M.J., Shabangu, F.W., Doh, Y. & Scheun, J. (2025) Comparing seismic survey mitigation regulations: lessons for South Africa from international frameworks, African Journal of Marine Science, 47:3, 211-218, DOI: 10.2989/1814232X.2025.2570313.1814-232X (print)1814-2338 (online)10.2989/1814232X.2025.2570313http://hdl.handle.net/2263/107628Underwater seismic surveys generate high-intensity, low-frequency noise that can negatively affect a range of marine fauna. As a result, countries have implemented mitigation regulations to reduce the potential impacts of this activity. This study examines seismic survey mitigation regulations from Australia, the United States, Brazil, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom, and compares them with the current regulations in South Africa. We focused on setting the radii of exclusion zones, ‘soft-start’ procedures, passive acoustic monitoring, marine mammal observer qualifications and standards, and regulatory oversight. Of the six countries reviewed, Australia and New Zealand have implemented the most robust mitigation measures. Furthermore, Australia stands out for its independent regulatory authority overseeing offshore environmental compliance. We recommend the establishment of an independent regulatory board in South Africa to oversee the development of environmental impact assessment guidelines and mitigation protocols. By adopting these measures and aligning with international best practice, South Africa could become a regional, if not global, leader in science-based environmental regulation and the protection of marine fauna from seismic surveys.en© 2025 The Author(s). This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.Environmental complianceEnvironmental impact assessmentInternational best practiceMarine faunaMarine mammal observersPassive acoustic monitoringArticle