Turning Point in High Seas Governance: The Entry into Force of the UN Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement and the Future of Global Ocean Conservation
19/01/2026
On January 17, 2026, a seemingly ordinary Saturday may become one of the most significant days in the history of global marine conservation. On this day, the United Nations Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity (BBNJ Agreement, commonly known as the High Seas Treaty), after nearly two decades of marathon negotiations, officially came into effect. This legally binding international instrument establishes, for the first time, a systematic protection framework for the international high seas, which cover nearly half of the Earth's surface area and have long existed in a legal vacuum. From the Emperor Seamount Chain in the North Pacific to the Sargasso Sea in the South Atlantic, from the Salas y Gómez and Nazca Ridges off the coast of South America to the upwelling zones along the West African coast, the vast blue wilderness has finally welcomed its own governance rules.
However, the entry into force of the treaty is not the endpoint, but rather the starting point of a more complex and challenging implementation process. As Jan Mees, Director of the Belgian Marine Institute, stated: "I am highly optimistic about this, yet I also approach it with a degree of caution." This statement accurately captures the opportunities and dilemmas currently facing global ocean governance: a historic legal framework has been established, but the true test lies in how to translate the commitments on paper into tangible protection in the depths of the ocean.
From "Legal Vacuum" to "Governance Framework": The Core Breakthrough of the Treaty
For a long time, the high seas areas beyond national jurisdiction—specifically, waters more than 200 nautical miles from the coast—have been a gray zone in global governance. This vast expanse, which accounts for two-thirds of the global ocean area and nearly half of the Earth's surface, is often described by many observers as the "Wild West" of the oceans due to its legal status of belonging to no one. Here, there is a lack of unified rules to regulate fishing activities, control pollution, standardize emerging deep-sea mining, let alone systematic ecological protection. Currently, only about 1% of the high seas area is under some form of protection, which stands in stark contrast to the coverage of protected areas on land and in coastal waters.
The entry into force of the High Seas Treaty fundamentally changes this situation. As a crucial supplement to the existing United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), this treaty establishes, for the first time, a comprehensive legal framework applicable to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Its core breakthrough is reflected in three interconnected pillars:
First, a legal pathway has been established for creating marine protected areas on the high seas. This is the most landmark achievement of the treaty. In the past, due to a lack of international consensus and legal mechanisms, designating protected areas on the high seas was nearly an impossible task. Once the treaty takes effect, state parties can propose and vote on establishing marine protected areas through the newly established Conference of the Parties (COP). This provides a crucial tool for achieving the 30x30 goal of protecting 30% of the global ocean by 2030. Given that the high seas constitute the vast majority of the global ocean, without effective protection for them, this global goal is destined to remain unattainable.
Second, a mandatory environmental impact assessment system was introduced. The treaty stipulates that any activity planned by a Contracting Party in the high seas that may have a significant impact on the marine environment must undergo an environmental impact assessment that complies with the treaty's standards, and relevant information must be made public. This clause brings commercial fishing, bioprospecting, potential future deep-sea mining, and even scientific research activities under the purview of environmental regulation, aiming to prevent irreversible ecological damage based on the precautionary principle.
Third, it establishes a benefit-sharing mechanism for genetic resources and obligations for capacity building. The high seas contain an extremely rich abundance of marine genetic resources, which hold significant commercial potential in fields such as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. For the first time, the treaty requires countries that exploit and utilize these resources to notify other nations and share research outcomes and benefits, while also mandating assistance to developing countries in strengthening their marine scientific research and management capabilities. This seeks to establish a new balance between conservation and sustainable use, as well as between developed and developing countries.
The Blue Game on the Geopolitical Chessboard: Who Leads, Who Watches?
The success or failure of any global treaty ultimately depends on the level of participation and political will of major countries. The ratification process of the High Seas Treaty itself paints a vivid picture of global geopolitics.
As of the effective date of the treaty, 83 countries have completed the ratification process, far exceeding the threshold of 60 required for the treaty to take effect. The list includes key players: China, a major maritime power with the world's largest distant-water fishing fleet, completed its ratification on December 16, 2025; Japan, an important distant-water fishing nation and a leader in deep-sea technology, also ratified on the same day; regional powers and maritime nations such as Brazil, France, Germany, and Norway have all joined. EU countries have shown overall enthusiasm, with nations like Belgium positioning themselves as blue leaders and competing to host the treaty's permanent secretariat in their capitals.
However, the absences on the list are equally striking. The United States, as one of the world's largest ocean economies, has signed but not yet ratified the treaty. Under the current domestic political climate, the prospects for ratification in the short term remain unclear. Former President Trump publicly stated that international deep-sea mining should be permitted as soon as possible—a stance that creates tension with the treaty's cautious conservation spirit. Nevertheless, under international law, signatory states are still obligated to act in good faith and refrain from actions contrary to the treaty's objectives. The United States will participate in subsequent processes as an observer but without voting rights.
More confrontational is Russia's stance. Russia has neither signed nor ratified the treaty, publicly justifying its position by the need to maintain existing governance mechanisms and ensure freedom of navigation in international waters. This statement reflects its inherent wariness toward any multilateral framework that could potentially restrict its freedom of action in international waters. Furthermore, countries such as India have completed domestic procedures but have not yet finalized ratification, while the United Kingdom's ratification process is still under parliamentary consideration.
Analysis indicates that the participation of major maritime nations has infused the treaty with substantial enforceability. However, the absence or reserved stance of key players such as the United States and Russia has also sown potential challenges for future specific implementation—particularly in areas of enforcement and dispute resolution. The ultimate success of the treaty relies on the political and normative pressure generated by a sufficiently broad coalition of ratifying states.
From Text to Reality: Key Challenges and Potential Conflicts in the Next Three Years
The treaty's entry into force is not a one-time solution; on the contrary, the most challenging work has just begun. Over the next one to three years, a series of technical, political, and operational difficulties will gradually emerge, determining whether the treaty becomes an effective protection tool or ends up as another international document left gathering dust on the shelf.
The primary challenge lies in institutional development and rule refinement. According to the treaty provisions, the first Conference of the Parties (COP1) will be convened within one year of the treaty's entry into force. This meeting will decide a series of core operational details: the final location of the treaty secretariat (with Belgium and Chile as the main contenders), the composition and functions of the scientific and technical body, the funding contribution ratios for each country, and the nomination and approval processes for marine protected areas, among others. These seemingly technical discussions are, in reality, filled with political maneuvering. For instance, the membership composition of the scientific body will directly influence which sea areas can be designated as protected zones in the future.
Secondly, the specific delineation of marine protected areas will trigger intense competition. Environmental organizations such as Greenpeace have already proposed a list of five priority candidate protected areas: the Salas y Gómez and Nazca Ridges, the Sargasso Sea, the Canary Current and Guinea Current confluence zone, the Emperor Seamount Chain, and the Lord Howe Rise and South Tasman Sea. These regions are all globally recognized biodiversity hotspots. However, designating protected areas is far from a simple scientific determination. Each candidate area involves complex entanglements of interests:
- Sargasso Sea is an important fishing ground, involving the fisheries interests of multiple countries;
- Gulf of Guinea Upwelling Zone is a vital food and economic source for West African countries;
- Emperor Haishan Chain and other areas may contain mineral resources of interest for future deep-sea mining.
Jan Mees pointed out that in addition to ecological value, factors such as the shipping activity level in a region, existing human activity impacts, the potential to connect with existing protected areas, and the attitudes of surrounding coastal countries will all become key factors in determining whether and how it can be protected. It is estimated that the first batch of protected areas may not be approved until the second Conference of the Parties, expected in 2027 or 2028 at the earliest.
The most severe challenge may lie in enforcement and monitoring. The ultimate effectiveness of marine protected areas under the treaty entirely depends on the power that national governments grant them. Megan Rand, the political lead for Greenpeace's global ocean campaign, stated bluntly. On the vast high seas, how can illegal fishing be monitored? How can prohibited scientific research or mining activities be stopped? By satellite? Through multinational joint patrols? Or by relying on existing institutions like the International Maritime Organization for coordinated oversight? These specific plans remain blank to this day. Enforcement on the high seas is costly and responsibility is ambiguous. Whether a credible, effective compliance and enforcement system can be established is the biggest question mark facing the treaty.
Unfinished Agenda: The Realistic Gap Between Deep-Sea Mining and the "Twofold" Goal
Although the High Seas Treaty is highly anticipated, it is not a panacea for all ocean issues. Two prominent limitations define the boundaries of its effectiveness.
The first limitation is the limited jurisdiction over deep-sea mining. This is one of the greatest concerns for environmental groups. Although the treaty requires signatory states to promote its conservation objectives in other international forums (such as the International Seabed Authority, ISA), the authority to directly regulate deep-sea mining activities remains in the hands of the International Seabed Authority. The ISA is currently formulating regulations for deep-sea mining, and some treaty signatories like Japan and Norway are also actively promoting exploration for deep-sea mining. Sophia Tsenikli of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition warns: Governments cannot credibly commit to protecting marine biodiversity while allowing an industry that would irreversibly destroy life we do not yet fully understand to advance. The coordination and checks and balances between the treaty and the ISA mechanism will become a core point of contention in future ocean governance.
The second limitation is the urgency of time and scale. The global goal is to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030. Currently, the total protected area of the global ocean is approximately 8%, with the vast majority located in nearshore waters within national jurisdiction. Achieving a leap of 22 percentage points in the remaining less than five years by establishing new protected areas on the high seas is an extremely challenging task. Even if the procedures proceed smoothly, it takes several years from proposing a protected area, completing the scientific assessment, to its review and adoption by the Conference of the Parties. Not to mention, the quality of protected areas (whether they are paper parks or areas that truly prohibit destructive activities) is more important than mere quantity.
Additionally, as Dr. Enric Sala, the founder of Pristine Seas, reminds us, the protection of waters within national jurisdiction should not be neglected either. Most fishing activities and coastal pollution occur here. If we focus solely on the high seas while overlooking coastal areas, the overall health of the ocean still cannot be guaranteed.
The entry into force of the "High Seas Treaty" undoubtedly shines a rare beam of light amid the backdrop of global geopolitical tensions and the setbacks faced by multilateralism. It demonstrates that international cooperation can still prevail over political divisions when it comes to protecting nature and global commons. As Megan Lands said: The ocean connects all of us.
However, the moment of celebration must coexist with a sober awareness. This treaty is not an automatically effective umbrella, but a set of tools that need to be fully implemented, activated, and utilized. Its historical significance will be entirely defined by the concrete actions in the coming years: Can countries reach practical and feasible detailed rules at COP? Can they withstand industry pressure and establish truly binding protected areas in key ecological regions? Can they establish a supervision and enforcement mechanism that does not let violators escape consequences? And can they properly handle the relationship with emerging activities such as deep-sea mining?
The ocean's clock is ticking. The pressures of climate change, acidification, and pollution are mounting day by day. For us living on this blue planet Earth, the entry into force of the "High Seas Treaty" marks a hopeful beginning, but the long voyage to save the ocean has only just set sail from the harbor.
Reference materials
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-18/high-seas-treaty-marine-protection-in-effect/106241974
https://nos.nl/artikel/2598513-oceaanverdrag-van-kracht-moet-30-procent-van-de-zee-beschermen
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/things-high-seas-treaty-takes-effect-129304046
https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/uno-abkommen-zum-schutz-der-meere-in-kraft-getreten-100.html
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/high-seas-treaty-agreement-ratified-122743518.html