Context

• India’s recent signing of the High Seas Treaty, formally known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement, marks a significant step in global ocean governance.
• Celebrated as a landmark multilateral effort under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the treaty aims to conserve marine biodiversity, promote equitable sharing of marine genetic resources, and regulate environmental impacts of human activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
• While the treaty’s ambitious scope has drawn praise, it also faces considerable scepticism due to structural complexities, geopolitical tensions, and enforcement challenges.

A Detailed Analysis of Structural Gaps in the Treaty’s Design and Implementation Framework

• Ratification Hurdles
  • One of the most glaring challenges is the treaty's ratification process.
  • To come into force, the treaty requires ratification by at least 60 of its 104 signatories, yet only 14 nations have ratified it so far.
  • This slow progress reflects a lack of global consensus, stemming from deep-seated geopolitical and economic concerns.
  • Many states are hesitant to ratify the treaty due to disputes over maritime territories, particularly in politically sensitive regions like the South China Sea.
  • In such areas, overlapping territorial claims not only complicate the creation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) but also worsens existing geopolitical tensions, stalling the treaty's progress.
• Geopolitical Complexities
  • The establishment of MPAs, a cornerstone of the treaty, is a particularly contentious issue.
  • High-seas MPAs are designed to protect marine biodiversity by restricting harmful activities in designated areas.
  • However, their implementation is fraught with complications; for example, coastal states worry that these international conservation zones might inadvertently affect their territorial sovereignty or economic interests.
  • Southeast Asian nations, for instance, remain divided over the potential implications of MPAs on territorial claims and coastal community livelihoods.
  • Similarly, states bordering the Bay of Bengal fear that MPAs could limit access to vital marine resources, further highlighting the tension between conservation goals and economic priorities.
• Lack of Clarity in Implementation
  • Another significant gap lies in the treaty’s lack of a clear roadmap for implementation.
  • While it sets out broad objectives, it provides little guidance on how these goals should be achieved in practice.
  • This absence of specificity creates room for interpretation, which could lead to inconsistent application across nations.
  • For instance, the treaty mandates environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for harmful activities on the high seas but does not specify how these assessments should be conducted, reviewed, or enforced.
  • This lack of detail could undermine the treaty’s effectiveness, particularly in regions with limited institutional capacity to carry out comprehensive EIAs.
• Equity and Accountability Challenges
  • The treaty’s provisions on marine genetic resources further illustrate its structural weaknesses.
  • These resources, derived from organisms found in the high seas, hold immense potential for pharmaceutical, agricultural, and industrial applications.
  • The treaty mandates that profits from their exploitation be shared through a global fund to promote equity.
  • However, without robust accountability mechanisms, there is a significant risk that wealthier nations might underreport their activities or monopolise benefits.
  • This inequity could marginalise smaller and less-developed states, exacerbating existing disparities in maritime governance and access to resources.
• Fragmentation and Overlap with Existing Frameworks
  • The BBNJ Agreement also risks creating conflicts with existing international frameworks, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
  • Overlapping jurisdictions and mandates could lead to fragmentation in ocean governance, making it difficult to establish cohesive and effective enforcement mechanisms.
  • Smaller states could find themselves caught between competing legal regimes, further complicating their ability to comply with international norms.
• The Role of Capacity-Building
  • A major gap in the treaty is its approach to capacity-building and technology transfer.
  • While the agreement emphasises the need for equitable partnerships in ocean science, it does not provide enforceable mechanisms to ensure that less capable nations receive the support they need.
  • This omission threatens to perpetuate inequalities, as low- and middle-income countries may lack the resources and expertise to fully participate in the treaty’s initiatives.
  • Without concrete commitments from wealthier nations to provide technical and financial assistance, the benefits of the treaty are unlikely to be equitably distributed. 

Some Other Gaps in the High Seas Treaty

• Overlooked Interconnections of Marin Ecosystems
  • The treaty’s exclusive focus on the high seas neglects the interconnectedness of marine ecosystems, where activities in Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) often impact international waters.
  • Pollution, overfishing, and habitat destruction originating in EEZs cannot be isolated from high-seas governance.
  • By failing to address these linkages, the treaty risks being ineffective in its broader conservation goals.
• Limited Provisions for EIAs
  • Additionally, the treaty’s provisions for EIAs are limited and while it mandates assessments for planned activities, it remains silent on ongoing harms from oil and gas exploration, a significant economic activity for many states.
  • The reluctance of coastal states to accept international reviews of their EIAs further weakens the treaty’s enforcement framework.
  • This gap is particularly problematic in regions with limited institutional capacity and conflicting domestic and international legal standards.

The Path Forward Towards Integrated Maritime Governance

• Addressing Structural Gaps
  • For the High Seas Treaty to succeed, its structural and political limitations must be addressed through a more cohesive maritime governance framework.
  • Integrating high-seas and coastal regulations is essential to reflect the interconnectedness of marine ecosystems.
  • Coastal states, particularly in the Global South, require incentives to align their domestic laws with international norms, while wealthier nations must commit to providing technical and financial support to ensure equitable implementation.
• A Collective Collaboration at the International Level
  • Achieving the treaty’s objectives also necessitates a collective political commitment among nations.
  • This includes developing consensus on contentious issues like MPAs and marine genetic resources while ensuring enforceable mechanisms for compliance.
  • Without these measures, the BBNJ risks becoming an ineffective instrument, unable to meet the growing challenges facing the world’s oceans.

Conclusion

• The High Seas Treaty represents an ambitious effort to safeguard the oceans as a shared global resource.
• However, its potential hinges on bridging the gap between ambition and action and overcoming structural, geopolitical, and enforcement challenges is imperative to ensure its success.
• In a time when marine ecosystems are under immense stress, the treaty’s success will depend on creating global cooperation and a shared responsibility to protect the oceans for future generations.