On 17 January 2026, a historic turning point for our blue planet was marked. The High Seas Treaty (HST), formally known as The Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement), officially entered into force. While the maritime community, particularly littoral states, celebrates this victory, a critical question looms: What happens next for the world’s ocean? The High Seas, comprising nearly two-thirds of the world’s oceans, have long existed without a uniform coordinated regulation, as is the case in national waters.
While the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provided a framework for ocean governance, the BBNJ Agreement is the missing piece of the puzzle designed to protect marine life in international waters while equitably sharing benefits for all. These waters comprise the maritime zones lying beyond the jurisdiction of any single state. However, history is replete with maritime initiatives that failed to bridge the gap between policy and practice. This article explores the origin of the HST, its complex legal relationship with UNCLOS and the work of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), while providing a cautionary analysis of past failures to ensure that, on this occasion, we turn the tide toward true ocean sustainability.
The Dawn of a New Era
The health of the ocean is inextricably linked to life on land and the well-being of the populations that inhabit it. The right balance of the activities of microscopic plankton, majestic whales, underwater mountains, deep ocean plains, trenches and polar waters ensures that the ocean remains capable of sustaining humanity. In particular, the ocean regulates the climate, absorbs heat and carbon, dictates the weather patterns and supports fisheries and livelihoods.
Decoding the BBNJ: What is the High Seas Treaty all about?
The BBNJ Agreement is an international treaty woven to safeguard marine health in areas beyond national jurisdictions (the high seas plus the Area – the ocean floor). These waters cover nearly half of the Earth’s surface. The treaty has seventy-six (76) articles, structured in twelve (12) parts and two (2) annexes. It establishes fundamental institutions, including the Conference of the Parties (COP), Scientific and Technical Body (STB), a Secretariat, the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) and the Global Environment Facility. Furthermore, the Agreement establishes subject matter Committees, such as Access and Benefit-Sharing, Capacity Building and Transfer of Marine Technology, Finance and Compliance and Implementation.
The operational modalities for these bodies will be determined at the inaugural COP meeting, which must be convened within one year of the Treaty’s entry into force (latest by January 17, 2027). The meeting is expected to be called up by the Secretary General of the United Nations, with administrative support provided by the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS).
The treaty seeks to achieve four objectives, centred on safeguarding the health of the ocean and enhancing the well-being of all humanity, both now and in the future.
The first objective of the BBNJ Agreement concerns Marine Genetic Resource (MGR) exploitation and preservation. The Agreement aims to establish a robust framework for the equitable sharing of benefits—both financial and non-financial—arising from marine discoveries. Genetic materials sourced from the high seas, including corals, bacteria, deep-sea sponges and whales, are essential to the field of medicine, cosmetics, food security and biotechnology. These organisms offer the potential for significant breakthroughs in human health and global welfare. The Access and Benefit-Sharing Committee, composed of 15 members nominated by Member States and elected by the Conference ofthe Parties, shall distribute the benefits, largely through technology transfer, research assistance and capacity building opportunities.
The second pillar of the agreement hinges on Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs). For the first time, through enhanced international cooperation, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as a principal ABMT can be established in international waters. MPAs help to designate a critical marine area, especially those rich in biodiversity, as protected areas restricting activities of mankind such as fishing, shipping, mining and pollution. For an area to be created as an MPA requires thorough consultation backed by sound scientific evidence. Some MPAs already exist but constitute approximately 1% of the entire high seas. Notable examples include the six MPAs created in the Northeast Atlantic in 2010 and the Ross Sea MPAs in the Southern Ocean, established in 2016.
The third pillar of the Treaty focuses on Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). The Agreement mandates that any industrial activity on the high seas must be preceded by an evaluation of its ecological footprint. As various commercial entities and governments propose intervention– such as marine carbon dioxide removal (MCDR) technologies– the High Seas Treaty establishes a standardised procedure for conducting a transparent assessment that mirrors international best practice.
Finally, the fourth pillar focuses on Capacity Building and Transfer of Marine Technology. The BBNJ Agreement mandates knowledge sharing and technology transfer, particularly to the Small Island Developing States, Coastal African States, Archipelagic States, and other developing countries requiring support to champion sustainable ocean conservation. The Treaty seeks to ensure that developing littoral states have the tools and knowledge to participate meaningfully in high-seas governance. For these objectives to be met, international cooperation will be crucial. To operationalise this objective, a capacity-building and transfer of marine technology Committee is hereby established.
Maritime Zones
The Long Road: Historic Antecedents
The journey toward High Seas governance commenced some 20 years ago, beginning in 2004 with an Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group. This was followed by a formal preparatory committee, and finally, high-stakes Intergovernmental Conferences (IGC). The primary obstacle was the tension between the Common Heritage of Mankind– advocated by the Global South, and the Freedom of the High Seas– championed by industrialised fishing and mining Nations. The outcome is a delicate compromise between these two ideologies of international law. The final text of the treaty was agreed upon in March 2023 and entered into force on 17 January 2026, following the 60th instrument of ratification.
While Palau was first to ratify the Treaty, Sierra Leone and Morocco jointly deposited the 60th and the 61st instruments of ratification, effectively bringing the Agreement to fruition. As of 3 February 2026, the HST recorded 145 signatories and 85 ratifications. Ghana signed the Agreement on 20 September 2023 and completed its ratification on 14 January 2026.
BBNJ, UNCLOS, and the IMO
Understanding how the BBNJ Agreement fits into the existing legal architecture of ocean governance is of utmost importance to the maritime community, international law aficionados and all persons who care about the oceans.
The HST is an Implementing Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It does not replace UNCLOS; it fills the “governance gaps” that the 1982 Convention left unresolved. Notably, this constitutes the third Implementing Agreement under UNCLOS, following the 1994 Part XI Deep Seabed Mining Agreement and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. For those outside of maritime law, implementing agreements are special legal instruments that provide clarity, introduce modifications, or address gaps in a primary law, allowing for effective and practical application of its principles.
On the score of the relationship that exists between the International Maritime Organisation and the United Nations, this is where the maritime industry must pay close attention. The IMO remains the primary regulator for international shipping. The BBNJ Agreement specifically states that it will not undermine existing bodies (Article 5(2)). However, a relationship of concurrency must now exist.
For instance, should a Marine Protected Area (MPA) be established under the Treaty, the IMO must enact corresponding shipping measures, such as “no-go” zones or speed restrictions, to ensure the conservation objectives are met. This paradigm is not entirely novel; the IMO employs similar mechanisms, such as particularly sensitive sea areas (PSSA), which are often declared as Areas to be avoided (ATBA) and recorded on nautical charts for the purposes of navigation.
Regarding the fisheries sector, the HST will not regulate fisheries management; it will touch on fishing activities in the areas beyond national jurisdiction. The treaty will influence environmental standards to which the sector must adhere and encourage a more integrated, ecosystem-based approach to the management of ocean resources. This will require close coordination between Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and new institutions established under the BBNJ Agreement, along with robust data sharing and scientific input.
Lessons from the Past: Why Previous Initiatives Faltered
History issues a stern warning. We have seen maritime initiatives, such as the London Convention on Dumping and certain Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), struggle to achieve their goals. This can be attributed to the following:
Lack of Enforcement – It is one thing to have the law in place, and it is another thing to have the law doing what it was meant to do. Without a global navy or satellite-based monitoring, rules on the high seas are often treated as suggestions.
Flags of Convenience – Some ships are miles away from the states whose flag they are flying. These vessels often hide behind the jurisdiction of states with weak oversight to circumvent marine environmental laws.
Institutional Silos – If it took cooperation to birth the HST, it would take cooperation and collaboration to see it grow to meet its objectives. When the IMO, the International Seabed Authority (ISA), Maritime Administrations, the scientific community (academia) and environmental bodies do not work together by disseminating information among themselves, the ocean suffers.
The Way Forward: Strategy for Successful Implementation of the BBNJ Agreement in Ghana and Beyond
The BBNJ is not a silver bullet. As seen above, history is littered with maritime initiatives that failed because they could not bridge the gap between policy and practice. To ensure that the High Seas Treaty does not become another paper park (a protected area with no actual protection), the international maritime community must prioritise four strategic areas:
- Institutional Integration and Policy Coherence
We must dismantle the institutional silos that hinder ocean health. In Ghana, for instance, the Foreign Ministry, Ghana Maritime Authority, Fisheries Commission, relevant scientific bodies and Environmental Protection Authority must synchronise their efforts. National legislation must be updated to ensure local enforcement agencies have explicit legal backing and policy support to act on BBNJ mandates. This brings home the need to continue with the momentum in developing a comprehensive Ghana National Maritime Policy (GNMP) as a standalone national document clearly delineating our maritime future.
- Digital Oceans: AI and Satellite Surveillance
We cannot police two-thirds of the ocean with patrol boats alone. The way forward must be digital. In addition to the BBNJ Standardised Batch Identifier, we must leverage Artificial Intelligence (AI) and satellite-based tracking systems like Global Fishing Watch to monitor High Seas MPAs in real-time. Ghana should position itself as a regional hub for this maritime domain awareness, providing a model for West Africa and beyond.
- Financial Architecture and the Global Ocean Fund (GOF)
Conservation is expensive. Developing a robust GOF is essential to help littoral states in the Global South monitor their adjacent high-seas corridors. We must move from the Common Heritage of Mankind as a slogan to a reality where financial resources are shared to protect shared waters. While the BBNJ Agreement provides special funds to support developing countries in managing the high seas, states can only benefit if they demonstrate a clear course of action backed by appropriate legal, administrative, and policy frameworks.
- Developing Blue Human Capital
We must train a new generation of Blue Managers. This includes maritime lawyers, marine biologists, and data scientists who understand the BBNJ framework. Capacity building is not just about receiving equipment; it is about sharing the intellectual tools to lead international negotiations and scientific research.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
The BBNJ Agreement has arrived, but that is not the end of high seas management. For the maritime world, the challenge is no longer legal, but operational. We must move past the excitement of entry into force and move into the rigours of enforcement and cooperation. If we fail this time, we are not just failing a treaty; we are failing the life-support system of our planet.
The tide has turned. Now, we must have the courage to swim in the direction of a sustainable, equitable, and protected ocean. The eyes of future generations are upon us, and the blue pulse of the planet depends on our next move.
–
Bismark Owoahene Acheampong
[Programs Analyst, Global Futures Institute]
Maritime Administrative Officer, Ghana Maritime Authority
Sasakawa Fellow
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source: www.myjoyonline.com