Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (High Seas Treaty) (2023) — Treaty Brief

Overview

The Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), commonly known as the High Seas Treaty, is a landmark international legal instrument adopted in 2023 under the United Nations framework. It aims to fill a critical governance gap by establishing a comprehensive regime for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), which comprise the high seas and the deep seabed outside exclusive economic zones (EEZs). The treaty complements existing frameworks such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) by providing specific rules on marine genetic resources (MGRs), area-based management tools (including marine protected areas), environmental impact assessments (EIAs), and capacity-building and technology transfer. Its objective is to ensure that the biodiversity of the vast and ecologically significant high seas is preserved for current and future generations, balancing conservation goals with sustainable use and equitable benefit-sharing.

Key Obligations

• Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs) and Benefit-Sharing: States must cooperate in the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of MGRs found in ABNJ, including through monetary and non-monetary benefits such as scientific knowledge and technology transfer (Articles 10–16).

• Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs): States are required to establish and implement ABMTs, including marine protected areas (MPAs), to conserve biodiversity in ABNJ. This involves scientific assessments, stakeholder consultations, and periodic review of management measures (Articles 18–22).

• Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs): Prior to authorizing activities that may have significant adverse effects on marine biodiversity in ABNJ, states must conduct EIAs and share the results with relevant bodies. There is also an obligation to apply the precautionary approach where scientific information is insufficient (Articles 24–28).

• Institutional Arrangements: States must participate in a Conference of the Parties (COP), a Scientific and Technical Body, and a Secretariat established by the treaty to oversee implementation, compliance, and cooperation (Articles 30–38).

• Capacity-Building and Technology Transfer: Developed states have an obligation to support developing states through capacity-building initiatives and technology transfer to enable their effective participation in conservation and sustainable use efforts (Articles 43–46).

• Cooperation with Existing Bodies: The treaty requires cooperation and coordination with existing sectoral and regional organizations managing activities in ABNJ to avoid duplication and enhance coherence (Article 4).

Signatories and Status

The treaty has garnered broad international support, with major maritime powers such as the United States, the European Union member states, China, Japan, and Russia among its signatories or expressing strong support. The European Union, acting on behalf of its member states, has been particularly active in pushing for the treaty’s adoption and implementation. Many developing countries and small island developing states (SIDS), which have a vested interest in marine biodiversity and equitable benefit-sharing, have also ratified or endorsed the treaty.

However, some notable maritime states have been cautious or delayed ratification, reflecting concerns about sovereignty, access to marine genetic resources, and the treaty’s impact on existing maritime industries. While no major high-profile withdrawals have occurred, the pace of ratification varies significantly, with developed countries generally leading in ratification and developing countries working to build capacity to meet treaty obligations.

Major Controversies

• Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) Regime: One of the most contentious issues throughout the treaty negotiations was the mechanism for access to MGRs and the sharing of benefits. Some states, particularly those with advanced biotechnology sectors, favored open access to MGRs, while others, especially developing countries, demanded a robust benefit-sharing framework to address historical inequities. The treaty’s compromise approach has left some ambiguity in implementation, raising questions about how benefit-sharing will be monitored and enforced (Articles 10–16).

• Sovereignty Concerns: Some states have expressed concerns that the treaty’s provisions might infringe on their sovereign rights or interfere with existing rights under UNCLOS, particularly regarding freedom of navigation and the exploitation of marine resources. The treaty attempts to clarify that it does not alter existing rights but tensions remain over interpretation.

• Enforcement and Compliance: The treaty establishes institutional mechanisms but lacks strong enforcement powers. Critics argue that without binding dispute resolution or sanctions, compliance may depend heavily on political will and peer pressure, which could limit effectiveness in preventing harmful activities in ABNJ.

• Overlap with Regional and Sectoral Bodies: The treaty requires coordination with existing organizations such as Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) and the International Seabed Authority (ISA). However, the potential for jurisdictional overlap and conflicting mandates has raised concerns about regulatory fragmentation and enforcement gaps.

Recent Developments

Since its adoption in 2023, the treaty has entered a critical phase of ratification and implementation. The first Conference of the Parties (COP) is anticipated to convene soon to establish detailed rules of procedure and begin operationalizing the treaty’s provisions. Several states and regional groups have initiated national processes to align domestic legislation with treaty obligations, particularly concerning EIAs and ABMTs.

There has been increased engagement by civil society and scientific communities advocating for ambitious marine protected areas and transparent benefit-sharing mechanisms. Simultaneously, discussions continue on how to integrate the treaty’s provisions with existing sectoral frameworks, including fisheries and deep-seabed mining governance.

Why It Matters Now

The High Seas Treaty represents a crucial step toward addressing the accelerating biodiversity crisis in the world’s oceans, particularly in areas beyond national jurisdiction that have long been underregulated. As climate change, overfishing, and industrial activities threaten marine ecosystems, effective global governance is essential to safeguard ocean health and ensure equitable use of marine genetic resources. The treaty’s implementation will shape international ocean law and conservation efforts for decades to come, making it a pivotal issue for policymakers, researchers, and international negotiators today.