Shared responsibility for the high seas

After entering into force early this year, the BBNJ Agreement needs collective action to turn law into ocean protection

The Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement), which entered into force in January, has yet to transform ocean conditions or create a new marine protected area through its own procedures. Yet the agreement, also known as the High Seas Treaty, has begun to influence state conduct: Parties have been asked to designate national focal points; the interim secretariat has established channels for formal notifications; preparatory negotiations have advanced rules for the future Conference of the Parties and its subsidiary bodies; and the first pre-collection notification concerning marine genetic resources has been submitted under the new framework.

As the agreement moves toward an operating system for international cooperation, the decisive question is whether and how parties, signatories and other maritime actors will convert this momentum into coordinated protection and sustainable use of the high seas.

The high seas have long stood at the center of a paradox. They extend beyond any single country’s jurisdiction but support ecosystems essential to climate regulation, fisheries, scientific discovery and planetary resilience. Yet their governance has remained fragmented with regulation through different institutions, each with its own mandate, geographic scope and enforcement capacity.

The BBNJ Agreement strengthens cooperation by creating common rules and procedures for marine genetic resources and benefit-sharing, area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments, and capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology. Its success, therefore, requires parties to implement their obligations, signatories to complete domestic ratification processes, non-parties to consider accession and relevant international organizations to coordinate their mandates.

The first priority should be institutional alignment at the national level. Implementation will require coordination among agencies responsible for marine ecology, natural resources, fisheries, scientific research, foreign affairs, shipping and environmental assessment. Every party should establish clear procedures for environmental review, data submission, scientific sampling, marine genetic resource management and participation in international decision-making.

As a major maritime country, a leading developing country and an active participant in deep-sea research, China can use the agreement to strengthen domestic coordination and improve the transparency and predictability of its activities beyond national jurisdiction. However, China is just one contributor among many. The same standard should apply to other major maritime powers. Shared rules will gain credibility only when the states with the greatest capabilities also accept the greatest implementation responsibilities.

Second, countries should build a shared scientific foundation for high seas protection. Effective conservation depends on long-term monitoring, biodiversity mapping, ecological modeling, genetic information, ocean observation and transparent assessment of cumulative impacts. Scientific data should be interoperable, accessible through agreed mechanisms and accompanied by appropriate safeguards for legitimate interests, intellectual property and the rights of knowledge holders. Cooperation among national research institutions, regional seas organizations, universities and international scientific programs will be essential.

Countries with advanced research fleets, satellite systems, laboratories and digital monitoring technologies should treat these capacities as potential global public goods. China, the European Union, the United States, Japan and other scientifically capable actors can contribute data, expertise, training and observation tools through multilateral channels, while other developing countries should participate not only as recipients of information, but also as research partners. A scientific research system that draws on diverse regions and knowledge traditions will be more legitimate and more capable of identifying ecological change.

Third, parties should participate constructively in the design of area-based management tools, including marine protected areas. High seas conservation measures must be ecologically meaningful, legally sound, equitably governed and practically enforceable. They must also coordinate with existing bodies responsible for fisheries, shipping and seabed activities, so that different institutions reinforce rather than undermine one another.

This task is closely linked to the global “30 by 30” target under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which calls for at least 30 percent of terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine areas to be effectively conserved and managed by 2030.

Areas beyond national jurisdiction have historically lacked a comprehensive mechanism for proposing and coordinating marine protected areas. The BBNJ Agreement helps close that institutional gap. Its parties should now identify ecologically significant areas, assemble credible scientific evidence, consult affected stakeholders and ensure that management measures are accompanied by monitoring, compliance and periodic review. The objective should be a connected and effective global ocean protection network.

Fourth, environmental impact assessment should become a central tool for responsible high seas activity. As human activities move further offshore and deeper into the ocean, the risk of ecological disturbance and cumulative harm grows. The agreement provides a pathway for more systematic assessment of activities that may significantly affect marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. Parties should work toward rigorous, transparent and science-based procedures, including clear thresholds, public notification, access to relevant information, consideration of cumulative and transboundary effects, and follow-up monitoring.

Consistent assessment standards would protect ecosystems while also providing greater predictability for enterprises, research institutions and public authorities. The credibility of the regime will depend on whether similar risks are assessed according to comparable standards, regardless of the nationality of the actor involved.

Fifth, implementation must make capacity-building and marine technology transfer practical. Equity is a condition for effective ocean governance. Many developing countries have strong interests in the high seas but limited scientific, technological and financial capacity to participate fully in research, monitoring, benefit-sharing and decision-making. If implementation is dominated by states with advanced fleets, laboratories and databases, the agreement will lose both legitimacy and effectiveness.

Developed countries and capable developing countries should therefore support training, joint research, regional scientific networks, shared observation platforms, access to data and participation in BBNJ institutions. Existing initiatives, including the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, can help connect national programs with the agreement’s implementation needs. China can make a useful contribution through South-South cooperation, research partnerships and marine technology platforms. Similar contributions from other capable states and institutions should form a diversified system of support.

The agreement’s first months also reveal what remains unfinished. The permanent secretariat, clearing-house mechanism, scientific and technical bodies, financial arrangements and detailed procedures of the Conference of the Parties must become fully operational. Parties will need to provide predictable funding, select qualified and geographically representative experts, define transparent participation procedures and build cooperation with existing global, regional and sectoral organizations.

China can contribute long-term planning, marine science capacity, digital monitoring technologies and ecological governance experience, and support developing countries’ participation while working within collectively agreed institutions and standards. The same balance of contribution and restraint is required from every major maritime power.

The BBNJ Agreement provides a legal platform for ocean protection linked to food security, climate stability, technological innovation, biodiversity conservation and the future of the blue economy. Measurable ecological results will depend on whether countries align domestic institutions, share credible knowledge, establish and manage protected areas, assess environmental risks, finance implementation and enable all regions to participate.

The ocean has long connected civilizations and ecosystems. In the age of climate change and biodiversity loss, it also connects responsibilities. The entry into force of the BBNJ Agreement marked the beginning of a new chapter in global ocean governance. Its promise will be fulfilled only when countries act together to conserve and sustainably use the deep ocean as a shared ecological foundation for present and future generations.

The author is a professor of ecology at Beijing Normal University.

The author contributed this article to China Watch, a think tank powered by China Daily. The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

Contact the editor at editor@chinawatch.cn.