The High Seas Treaty, formally known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement, will come into force in January 2026.

Background of BBNJ Agreement

• The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982 did not adequately address biodiversity protection beyond national boundaries.
• To bridge this gap, the UN General Assembly created an ad hoc working group in 2004.
• Between 2018 and 2023, four rounds of Intergovernmental Conferences negotiated the treaty, which was adopted in June 2023.

About the High Seas Treaty (BBNJ Agreement)

• Purpose: To establish a comprehensive framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (the “high seas”).
• Legal Basis: It is an international treaty under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). 
  • It is the first legally-binding international agreement safeguarding marine life in the High Seas.

Signing & Ratification

• Implementation: The treaty would become international law 120 days after at least 60 countries submit their formal ratification documents
• Global Status: As of 1st November 2025, 145 countries have signed the High Seas Treaty.
• Ratification: So far,75 countries have ratified it.
• India’s Position: India signed the treaty in 2024, but has not yet ratified it.

Pillars of the High Seas Treaty

• Marine Protected Areas (MPAs): 
  • Legal framework for creating MPAs; previously only 1.45% of high seas were protected.
  • Key mechanism for achieving the “30×30” goal of protecting 30% of oceans by 2030.
• Marine Genetic Resources (MGR), including the fair & Equitable Sharing of Benefits
  • Treaty governs MGRs in international waters, including Digital Sequence Information (DSI).
  • Benefit-sharing includes monetary contributions (based on national income) and non-monetary transfers like technology sharing, capacity building, and joint research.
• Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs): 
  • Comprehensive EIAs required for activities with potential significant impact in international waters.
  • The process covers screening, scoping, assessment, public notification, and monitoring.
  • Applies to national and international activities affecting high seas.
  • Integrates Indigenous and traditional knowledge with scientific methods.
• Capacity Building & Technology Transfer: 
  • Establishes training programs, research fellowships, and institutional partnerships.
  • Develops regional hubs for marine technology, fostering collaboration and local capacity.
  • Ensures developing nations can participate meaningfully in high-seas governance.

Key Challenges

• Ambiguity Between “Common Heritage” and “Freedom of the High Seas”
  • The treaty attempts to balance two contradictory principles:
    • Common Heritage of Humankind: All nations should have equitable access and share benefits from marine resources.
    • Freedom of the High Seas: States enjoy unrestricted rights for navigation, research, and resource use.
  • The partial application of the common heritage principle to MGRs reflects a compromise rather than a resolution, creating uncertainty in research rights and profit-sharing.
• Governance and Benefit-Sharing of Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs)
  • Earlier, the governance of MGRs was undefined, raising fears of biopiracy and monopolisation by developed nations.
  • While the treaty proposes a framework for monetary and non-monetary benefit-sharing, it lacks clarity on:
    • How benefits will be calculated and distributed.
    • The mechanism for monitoring compliance.
  • Developing countries fear being excluded from scientific and commercial gains, continuing global inequities.
• Limited Participation of Major Powers
  • The non-ratification by the United States, China, and Russia—three key maritime powers—poses a major risk to the treaty’s success.
  • Without their participation, enforcement, funding, and monitoring mechanisms may remain weak.
  • Their absence also reduces geopolitical legitimacy, undermining collective governance of global commons
• Overlap with Existing Multilateral Institutions
  • The BBNJ framework must coexist with other international organisations such as: 
    • International Seabed Authority (ISA) – regulates mineral resources.
    • Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) – oversee fisheries.
  • The challenge lies in avoiding jurisdictional overlap and ensuring policy coherence, as multiple regimes could lead to fragmentation of ocean governance and legal disputes.
• Implementation and Monitoring Difficulties
  • Establishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) on the high seas requires global coordination, monitoring, and enforcement, which is logistically complex and costly.
  • Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) depend on scientific data-sharing, which many countries may lack the capacity or willingness to provide.
  • Dynamic ocean management is required, as marine ecosystems evolve due to climate change, demanding continuous review mechanisms.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Way Forward

• Clarify Legal Ambiguities: The treaty must clearly define benefit-sharing mechanisms, jurisdictional overlaps, and liability provisions.
• Encourage Universal Ratification: Diplomatic efforts should focus on bringing major powers into the framework.
• Build Institutional Synergy: Strengthen coordination with UNCLOS, ISA, RFMOs, and other UN agencies.
• Enhance Scientific Capacity: Support developing nations with technology transfer, data-sharing, and marine research funding.
• Adopt Adaptive Management: Implement real-time monitoring and dynamic MPAs to respond to changing oceanic conditions.

DOWNLOAD PDF