On January 17, 2026, the BBNJ Agreement of the United Nations (Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction) entered into force. For the first time, it provides a binding global legal framework for protecting marine biodiversity in international waters, including sensitive polar regions. The agreement complements existing regional regulations, such as the Antarctic Treaty System or environmental rules in the Arctic, without replacing them.
Until now, the regulation of the high seas was highly fragmented: fisheries, shipping, and submarine cables were managed by separate organizations, with no overarching framework to protect ecosystems. A key deficiency was the lack of consideration for cumulative effects of human activities. The BBNJ Agreement provides the opportunity to systematically protect high seas ecosystems before irreversible damage occurs.
What Are the High Seas and What Does the BBNJ Agreement Stand For?
The high seas begin beyond the 200-nautical-mile zones of coastal states and are considered a “common heritage of mankind.” Their use is generally permitted but must be conducted responsibly. In the polar regions, the high seas include areas such as the central Arctic Basin north of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of Canada, Russia, Norway, or the United States, while coastal seas like the Barents Sea remain under national jurisdiction. Similarly, large areas of the Southern Ocean lie beyond national waters, hosting particularly sensitive ecosystems such as krill populations and whale migration corridors. The BBNJ Agreement complements the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and, for the first time, establishes concrete tools to systematically protect biodiversity in these international waters.
Key Components
- Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs): These assessments require that potential environmental impacts of activities such as deep-sea mining, new shipping routes, or research expeditions be evaluated in advance. This tool is particularly important for polar regions: as sea ice declines, new shipping routes open in the central Arctic, often beyond national jurisdictions. These changes increase underwater noise, collision risks for whales, and disturbances to sensitive food webs. Under the BBNJ Agreement, cumulative effects—such as the interaction of shipping, climate change, fisheries, and ice loss—must also be considered. While EIAs do not automatically halt projects, systematically disclosing these risks provides a critical basis for potential mitigation measures.
- Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs): For the first time, the use of marine genetic resources is regulated. The principle of Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) aims for fairer access to genetic resources and the equitable distribution of benefits. Capacity-building and technology transfer support countries with limited resources to participate actively. In the Arctic, for example, microorganisms from sea ice or cold deep waters are studied, with enzymes that remain stable at extremely low temperatures. These enzymes are valuable for industrial biotechnology, medical applications, and food processing. Previously, such samples could be collected, sequenced, and patented by research vessels from industrialized countries without international reporting obligations. Under the BBNJ Agreement, their use and sequence data must now be registered and shared. This does not automatically redistribute financial benefits but provides access to knowledge rather than exclusion.
- Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM): While EIAs assess the direct environmental impact of individual projects, EBM considers entire ecosystems in their interconnectedness. Fisheries, shipping, climate change, ice loss, and other human pressures are analyzed together to identify cumulative effects. The unresolved tensions of the BBNJ Agreement become most apparent where scientific opportunities, economic interests, and ecological vulnerability intersect.
Why Did It Take Over 20 Years to Reach an Agreement?
Negotiations for the BBNJ Agreement began in 2002 but were blocked for many years due to a fundamental global environmental policy conflict: the management of marine genetic resources in the high seas. These resources are the genetic building blocks of organisms such as microalgae, krill, fish, or microbes, which are valuable for research, medicine, biotechnology, and industry. While scientifically and economically important, they are also part of international waters that lacked unified rules for a long time.
Developing and emerging countries called for clear rules on benefit-sharing and stronger protection measures, emphasizing that the use of these resources should also benefit states with limited scientific and technological capacities. Industrialized countries, on the other hand, emphasized research freedom and warned that overly strict rules could hinder scientific work in remote marine regions.
After more than two decades, a political compromise was finally reached, bringing these differing interests together within a common framework. While the BBNJ Agreement does not completely resolve all conflicts, it makes them internationally negotiable for the first time and establishes rules that balance the interests of both developing and industrialized countries.
How Will the Agreement Be Implemented?
The BBNJ Agreement establishes a permanent secretariat and scientific and technical bodies to advise states and prepare decision-making processes. A central role is played by the Conference of the Parties (COP Ocean). At its first meeting, expected at the end of 2026, concrete procedures will be established, including for the designation and management of protected areas, environmental impact assessments, and the management of marine genetic resources.
At the time of entry into force, approximately 83 states were legally bound, while around 145 states had signed the agreement. This demonstrates broad international support for the agreement’s goals. However, not all key maritime actors are participating: Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have not yet ratified the agreement and are therefore not legally obliged to implement measures. Many other states, including Norway, Canada, New Zealand, and Chile, are actively engaged, both scientifically and politically, particularly in sensitive areas like the Arctic or the Southern Ocean.
The effectiveness of the BBNJ Agreement will therefore depend less on its institutional structures and more on the quality of governance and the participation of as many states as possible. Without an independent enforcement body, the framework relies on cooperation, transparency, and scientific monitoring.
Criticism and Limitations
Despite its historic nature, the BBNJ Agreement has clear limits:
- Protected areas are not automatic: Each proposal must be negotiated and approved by the states individually. This process can take years, while high seas ecosystems rapidly change due to climate change, shipping, and industrial use—especially in polar regions, where ice loss opens new shipping routes and puts ecosystems under pressure.
- Only applies to ratifying states: While around 145 states signed the agreement, only 83 were legally bound at the time of entry into force. Major maritime powers, such as the USA, the UK, and Russia, are not yet included, leaving parts of the high seas where these countries are active largely unregulated.
- Limited scope: The agreement covers the water column, not the seabed. Activities like high seas fisheries or deep-sea mining remain primarily regulated by specialized organizations. There is no overarching authority to enforce control over all high seas activities.
- Limits of EIAs: Environmental impact assessments are mandatory but do not automatically prevent new projects. Decisions often rely on incomplete data, particularly in remote polar regions where many high seas ecosystems remain poorly studied. Assessing cumulative effects from fisheries, shipping, ice loss, and climate change is challenging.
Conclusion: The agreement creates a framework for governance and protection, not protection itself. Its effectiveness depends on implementation, political cooperation among states, and comprehensive scientific monitoring—especially in ecologically sensitive areas like the Arctic and the Southern Ocean.
A Cautious Turning Point
The BBNJ Agreement does not mark an immediate breakthrough but establishes the institutional and legal foundations to systematically advance high seas protection. It offers the opportunity to include especially vulnerable habitats, such as whale migration corridors in the Southern Ocean or seabird feeding grounds, in coordinated protection measures before human activities or climate impacts cause irreparable damage.
Through tools such as marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments, and ecosystem-based management, the agreement allows for transparent evaluation of human interventions and their cumulative effects. This is a crucial step toward developing and implementing effective conservation measures.
At the same time, the BBNJ Agreement demonstrates that international cooperation is possible even in complex and contested areas, such as marine genetic resources or deep-sea activities. The agreement is an important step toward sustainably protecting the oceans and achieving the goals of the ‘30×30’ initiative: 30% of the world’s oceans under protection. Without coordinated global action, this target would be nearly impossible to reach.
Lisa Scherk, PolarJournal