Entry into force of the High Seas Treaty (BBNJ): A (mainly) symbolic step forward in the wake of the environmental emergency

17 January 2026

Today, on 17 January 2026, the treaty relative to the protection of the high seas, often referred to by its acronym BBNJ (Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction), enters into force. According to UN rules, this entry into force comes 120 days after reaching the threshold of 60 ratifications by Member States on 19 September, following ratifications by Morocco and Sierra Leone. Adopted in June 2023 after five years of tough negotiations that concluded nearly 20 years of international discussions, the BBNJ treaty aims to protect biodiversity in the high seas, i.e., the ocean beyond exclusive economic zones and outside the jurisdiction of coastal states. In other words, the BBNJ treaty provides the international legislative framework for protecting biodiversity in these maritime regions, which, due to their status as ‘no man’s seas’, have traditionally been subject to significant regulatory uncertainty, particularly regarding the issues of marine protected areas and the regulation of the equitable sharing of genetic resources. However, this treaty’s effectiveness remains extremely limited as it does not include the regulation of fishing, the leading cause of marine biodiversity destruction. 

Following the third United Nations Conference (UNOC3) in Nice in June 2025, Olivier Poivre d’Arvor, French government spokesperson and French President’s special envoy for the ocean, declared that obtaining 51 ratifications of the BBNJ treaty was one of the main achievements of UNOC3. Organised by the Macron government to showcase France as a global champion of ocean protection, the Conference ultimately resulted in the embarrassing preservation of the status quo and a barrage of lies. Even the meagre success of reaching 51 ratifications (still several short of the 60 needed to launch the treaty’s entry into force process) was presented as a major victory for the French government, or at least that is how it had to be sold to the general public so as not to return home empty-handed and with wounded pride.  

While the entry into force of the BBNJ may seem to be excellent news at first glance, the reality is much more complex, and the BBNJ will certainly not act as a silver bullet for the ills afflicting our oceans. This treaty alone will not be enough to fully protect the high seas. The BBNJ treaty’s powers overlap and interact with a set of pre-existing international instruments. For example, the BBNJ treaty will not include the management of seabed mineral resources (and therefore the potential ban on deep-sea mining), the exploitation of which is regulated by the International Seabed Authority. Similarly, the governance of high seas fisheries is and will remain under the mandate of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and various regional fisheries management organizations,1  such as the highly dysfunctional Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). Waters located on the ‘high seas’, but which sit outside the management framework of one of the regional fisheries management organisations, represent only 1.35% of the ocean’s surface. However, 99% of bottom trawler catches are made in national waters, while more than 90% of fish catches come from exclusive economic zones (EEZs). Given that fishing is historically the primary cause of marine biodiversity degradation, a treaty that cannot effectively ban fishing, particularly industrial fishing, clearly has rather limited effectiveness. 

>> Read our full Factsheet on the BBNJ treaty << 

In addition to this, there is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), various international and regional conventions and organisations, and the international organisation regulating maritime transport, further reducing the scope of the BBNJ treaty. If a subject is already covered by another legal instrument, it is effectively excluded from the scope of the BBNJ treaty. 

Beyond this limited scope, as a UN treaty, the BBNJ does not impose any real legal constraints on the states that have ratified it, nor does it set clear or quantified protection targets or a specific timetable for the development of a network of marine protected areas on the high seas. More importantly, states that have not ratified the treaty are not bound to comply with it. While 81 UN parties have ratified it to date (including the European Union), there are many notable absentees. Australia, Canada, India, and Russia have not yet ratified the treaty, nor, unsurprisingly, has the United States, the world’s leading maritime power and, as such, one of the most important players in the management of international waters. Following the recent withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organisations, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and Donald Trump’s declarations that he “does not need international law”, we can be certain that ratification of the BBNJ treaty by the United States is unlikely to come in the near future. In addition, any state can file a formal objection to the creation of a marine protected area on the high seas, thereby avoiding any protection constraints imposed on other states.  

Beyond the problems relating to the states that have ratified the agreement, there also remain crucial issues relating to how the entry into force of the treaty will interact with the sharing of wealth linked to genetic resources and marine protected areas, among other matters. What protection status should be given to marine protected areas on the high seas? How should they be coordinated with existing international instruments? What activities should be authorised or prescribed, and what human and financial resources are needed to ensure compliance with these standards? In a context where the issue of equity in the financing of multilateral mechanisms is particularly sensitive, what distribution key should be adopted for the redistribution of funds intended for the protection of marine genetic resources and the transfer of scientific knowledge and technologies associated with these resources?  

To make a comparison, the BBNJ risks being the maritime equivalent of what the Paris Agreement was for the climate. Its goal of limiting global warming to +1.5°C, despite being enshrined in UN agreements, is far from being met. 

Lastly, it is crucial to note that a very significant proportion of marine biodiversity is not found on the high seas, but in coastal regions, in shallower waters under the jurisdiction of states. To truly protect the oceans and their inhabitants, states must establish genuine marine protected areas in their national waters, remove subsidies that are harmful to marine biodiversity, and commit to the transition of the fishing industry. This is compounded by the urgent need to take action on an international treaty on the non-proliferation of fossil fuels, or the unilateral adoption of a moratorium on deep-sea mining.