The United Nations high seas treaty opened a new chapter for global ocean conservation when it entered into force at the beginning of the year.
It is the first international agreement focused on those two-thirds of the ocean that are not controlled by any country. Also known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction agreement, it aims to protect and share the benefits of ocean life found there.
Surangel Whipps Jr, president of Palau and co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition for the high seas treaty (Image: Sipa US / Alamy)
Now representatives from around the world must agree on the treaty’s rules when they meet for a final round of preparatory talks at the end of the month.
The past is prologue. What they accomplish at the PrepCom3 meeting could determine whether the treaty lives up to the high ambitions the world set for it through years of hard-fought negotiations.
Countries must also begin preparing the legal and administrative processes necessary to establish sustainable ocean management on the high seas, including marine protected areas. Many nations, particularly developing island nations and coastal states, have been working for years to identify and map biological hotspots where such protection will yield significant conservation and social benefits.
But it is difficult for income-constrained parties to commit to action while the delivery of the support previously pledged from partners remains in doubt. To that end, the European Union, Palau and Seychelles are co-chairing the High Ambition Coalition. This state-led initiative is made up of more than 40 diverse countries working to support the treaty’s implementation.
First and foremost, as we have learned with UN climate change negotiations, finance cannot be an afterthought if we want to realise the high seas treaty’s full potential.
To raise money, the agreement has set up three funds. One relies on donations to support representatives of developing countries to attend meetings. Another is managed by the Global Environment Facility, an existing multilateral fund for environmental action. The final “special fund” will draw on mandatory contributions from developed countries, as well as potential revenue from marine genetic resources and donations from public and private sources.
With the treaty now in force, financial obligations are no longer hypothetical
The latter two funds are for capacity building, assisting developing states to implement the treaty, supporting Indigenous and locally led programmes, and other projects. Into the special fund developed countries will be required to pay an amount equal to 50% of the contribution they make to the treaty’s overall budget. This top-up is designed to build confidence in the system and finance rapid implementation.
Yet with the treaty’s inaugural Conference of the Parties (COP1) fast approaching, key financial decisions are still outstanding. Countries have not agreed on the size of the first budget to be adopted; whether contributions should be based on the UN scale of assessments; if limits on individual contributions are needed; or how to address the special circumstances of small island developing states and least developed countries.
A fund without predictable, assessed contributions risks becoming symbolic rather than functional, particularly for countries that rely on it to build capacity, access technology and participate meaningfully in implementation. With the treaty now in force, financial obligations are no longer hypothetical. They will take effect as soon as the first budget is adopted.
There is also the practical problem of what entities will hold and manage the money. Without interim financial arrangements, even early contributions could be delayed, undermining trust when it is most needed. Finally, coherence is essential. The special fund must work in close coordination with the other mechanisms and the Global Environment Facility to be effective.
Beyond financing, other crucial institutional arrangements must be agreed at PrepCom3 and adopted at COP1. For the treaty to work in practice, its institutions must function together.
Establishing marine protected areas, for example, requires a functional Scientific and Technical Body to assess proposals and a digital clearing-house to share data and decisions transparently. Similarly, the treaty’s provision for Environmental Impact Assessments demands clear standards and guidelines. Without them, implementation is likely to be fragmented, contested and far too slow.
At its core, successful implementation of the high seas treaty will come down to collaboration. Its institutions will need to work closely with the existing laws, agreements, organisations and financial systems that already govern the world’s oceans.
It is a heavy lift and time is short. But the swift ratification of the treaty shows that global cooperation is still possible. Now the world needs to turn words on paper into action on the water.
Without financing that is accessible and adequate from day one, the countries on the frontlines of the global ocean crisis, and the ones we need most to bring the treaty to life, will be shut out of the process.
The decisions taken at PrepCom3 and COP1 will determine whether the agreement delivers the benefits of a restored ocean system equitably to all global citizens – or quietly slips into obsolescence.