January 17, 2026 marks the day the BBNJ Agreement ( officially takes effect. While environmental groups celebrate this “historic” ocean protection treaty, the more interesting story lies in what’s not being discussed: the fundamental tensions that could make this agreement either meaningless or genuinely transformative.
The Reality Behind the Celebration
The high seas—waters beyond any country’s jurisdiction—cover nearly half our planet. They’ve operated under a legal Wild West system where anyone can do almost anything. The BBNJ Agreement attempts to change this by creating tools for establishing marine protected areas and regulating activities in international waters.
But here’s what most coverage misses: this treaty doesn’t necessary ban anything. It creates a framework for potentially doing something later.
This distinction matters enormously.
The Hidden Assumption Everyone’s Making
The dominant narrative assumes that governance structures and enforcement mechanisms will naturally follow from good intentions. This assumption ignores a basic reality: the high seas generate enormous economic value—from shipping routes to fisheries to potential deep-sea mining—and powerful interests have spent decades operating freely there.
Creating marine protected areas in international waters requires navigating a maze of existing treaties, organizations, and jurisdictions. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) controls shipping. Regional fisheries management organizations control fishing. The International Seabed Authority governs seabed mining. The BBNJ Agreement doesn’t supersede any of these bodies—it must somehow coordinate with them.
This is where the real challenge emerges: coordination between UN agencies has historically been weak to nonexistent. These bodies have different memberships, different mandates, and often contradictory priorities. Expecting them to suddenly align requires ignoring decades of evidence.
The Economics No One Wants to Discuss
Here’s an uncomfortable truth: the activities harming the high seas are not externalities—they’re core features of the global economy.
Shipping: Over 80% of global trade moves by sea. Slowing ships down or rerouting them (as proposed for whale protection) directly increases costs and delivery times. Who pays? Ultimately consumers, or companies accept lower profits. Neither option is popular.
Bottom trawling: This fishing method is destructive, yes, but it’s also how many fishing nations operate their fleets. A complete ban, as some advocate, would require massive fleet restructuring and retraining. Which countries will fund this transition for developing nations whose economies depend on these fisheries?
Black carbon and shipping emissions: The shipping industry represents about 3% of global CO2 emissions. Cleaning this up requires either expensive new fuels and technology, or operational changes that make shipping slower and costlier. The IMO’s net-zero framework is voluntary and has no enforcement mechanism.
The Data Problem Nobody Mentions
The call for “transparent, accessible data to inform decisions and track compliance” sounds reasonable until you ask: Who collects this data? Who verifies it? Who enforces consequences when data reveals violations?
The high seas have no police force. Satellite monitoring can track some activities, but enforcement requires countries to take action against their own vessels or citizens. History shows they rarely do this voluntarily, especially when economic interests are at stake.
What’s Actually at Stake
The BBNJ Agreement forces a question the international community has avoided:
- Do we believe the high seas are a global commons that should be protected for all humanity,
- or are they a resource to be exploited by whoever has the technology and capital to do so?
The answer isn’t obvious. Developing nations argue they shouldn’t be locked out of resources that developed nations have been exploiting for decades. Wealthy nations who built their economies through unrestricted resource use now advocate for protection—a position that looks suspiciously self-serving to countries still industrializing.
The Real Test
The treaty creates mechanisms for “marine genetic resources” (basically, potentially valuable biological material from deep-sea organisms) to be shared, with benefits distributed equitably. This is the agreement’s most innovative feature.
Why? Because it requires countries and companies that discover valuable resources to voluntarily share them and their profits. The system relies on good faith compliance with no enforcement mechanism. If a major pharmaceutical company develops a billion-dollar drug from deep-sea organisms, what incentive do they have to share profits with nations who contributed nothing to the discovery?
What Would Actually Matter
Instead of asking whether the treaty is “historic,” we should ask:
- What specific, measurable changes will occur in the next two years?
Real implementation would look like:
Designated marine protected areas with defined boundaries and specific prohibited activities—not just framework documents about how to maybe create such areas someday.
Actual coordination agreements between the BBNJ Secretariat and IMO, with specific protocols for information sharing and joint decision-making.
Funding commitments from wealthy nations to help developing countries transition fishing fleets and participate meaningfully in treaty implementation.
Transparent compliance mechanisms where any nation or organization can see which countries are following the rules and which aren’t.
Consequences for non-compliance that go beyond diplomatic letters expressing concern.
Without these concrete elements, the BBNJ Agreement becomes another well-intentioned document that changes nothing.
The Question No One’s Asking
If you’ve read this far, you’re probably thinking more critically about the BBNJ Agreement than most headlines allow. Here are the questions that should keep us honest as implementation unfolds:
- Which five countries have the largest high seas fishing fleets, and have they ratified the BBNJ Agreement?
- If not, what does that tell us about who’s actually committed to change?
- What happens when a ship flagged to a non-party nation violates a marine protected area? Who arrests them?
- How many staff members will the BBNJ Secretariat actually have, and what’s their annual budget compared to the IMO or major fishing industry lobbying groups?
- When the treaty talks about “equitable benefit sharing” from marine genetic resources, what’s the proposed percentage split? Who decides? Who audits?
- Can the BBNJ Agreement override existing seabed mining exploration contracts issued by the International Seabed Authority? If not, what stops mining companies from operating in designated protected areas?
- What specific marine protected areas will be proposed in 2026? By whom? What’s the approval process and realistic timeline?
- When will the first compliance report be published showing which nations are following the agreement and which aren’t?
- What’s the mechanism for citizens or NGOs to report suspected violations, and what happens to those reports.
Perhaps the most important unstated assumption is that international treaties can address problems created by the fundamental structure of the global economy. The high seas are degrading because our economic system treats them as infinite resources and free waste dumps.
Real protection might require something more radical: recognition that some economic activities simply cannot continue if we want functioning ocean ecosystems. That would mean accepting real costs—more expensive goods, less fish, slower shipping, economic disruption.
- Are we prepared for that conversation? Because everything else is just paperwork.
The Question SaveOCEAN Is Asking:
“Two years from now, what will be measurably different in the high seas because the BBNJ Agreement came into force?”
If we can’t answer that question with specific, verifiable facts, we’ll know the treaty was just another piece of paper. Your readers deserve to know whether their hope is justified or misplaced. The only way to find out is to watch what actually happens, not what’s supposed to happen.
The high seas don’t need more promises. They need accountability. That’s the story worth following.
#Saveocean
SaveOCEAN 