On 17 January 2026, the United Nations High Seas Treaty—formally the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (often called the “BBNJ Agreement”)—entered into force. It did so under the rule set out in Article 68: 120 days after the deposit of the 60th instrument of ratification, approval, acceptance or accession, as recorded by the UN depositary.
For the first time, the high seas and the seabed beyond national jurisdiction have a single, cross-cutting legal framework dedicated to marine biodiversity—an area that many official summaries describe as encompassing roughly two thirds of the ocean and about half the planet’s surface. IMO on BBNJ entry into force The challenge now shifts from negotiation to implementation: building institutions, agreeing procedures, and turning broad obligations into operational decisions that influence shipping, fisheries management, research, and conservation.
What entered into force on 17 January 2026
The BBNJ Agreement is the third implementing agreement under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), designed to strengthen ocean governance in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). In treaty language, ABNJ is the space where the high seas (water column beyond national jurisdiction) and “the Area” (the seabed and ocean floor beyond national jurisdiction) coincide.
The timeline matters because it explains why entry into force is not the same as immediate new protected areas on the chart. Governments adopted the text in New York on 19 June 2023; it opened for signature on 20 September 2023 and remained open for two years. UN Treaty Collection status page The Agreement then passed its key threshold on 19 September 2025, when the 60th instrument was deposited—triggering the 120‑day countdown to 17 January 2026.
Several states have framed this moment as a test of multilateralism. France, for example, has presented entry into force as a “major success” and points to preparations for the first Conference of the Parties (COP) within the year, where Parties must agree on the operational machinery that will determine real-world outcomes. French foreign ministry statement (17 January 2026)
Why the high seas matter: scale, freedoms, and the governance gap
Under UNCLOS, the high seas are those parts of the sea not included in a State’s territorial sea, internal waters, archipelagic waters, or Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). In practical terms, they are the vast spaces where no single coastal State exercises sovereignty or sovereign rights comparable to those enjoyed in an EEZ. The result is a familiar paradox: the ocean is a single physical system, but regulation at sea has long been fragmented by activity (shipping, fishing, seabed resources, science), geography (regional seas), and mandate (sectoral organisations).
A second reason the high seas matter is ecological: ABNJ hosts migratory species, deep‑sea ecosystems, and oceanographic processes that link coastal seas to the open ocean. Yet conservation measures have been comparatively sparse, partly because sectoral bodies focus on a narrow set of pressures. The BBNJ Agreement is designed to fill that gap not by replacing existing organisations, but by creating a platform for conservation and sustainable use that can—at least in principle—coordinate across sectors without “undermining” their mandates, a concept repeatedly emphasised in the treaty text and in states’ declarations.
This ambition raises an immediate implementation question: coordination is easier to endorse than to practise. Shipping is regulated globally through the International Maritime Organization (IMO); fisheries are governed largely through Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) and related arrangements; seabed minerals are managed under the International Seabed Authority (ISA). The BBNJ institutions will have to produce conservation decisions that are coherent with those bodies—or risk becoming a parallel process with limited practical traction.
The treaty’s core tools: protected areas, impact assessments, and capacity
The Agreement is widely described—by the IMO, among others—as structured around four pillars: marine genetic resources and benefit-sharing; area-based management tools (ABMTs), including marine protected areas (MPAs); environmental impact assessments (EIAs); and capacity building and the transfer of marine technology.
Marine Protected Areas: a route to “30 by 30” in ABNJ
The headline political promise is that the Agreement enables MPAs in ABNJ—something that previously required piecemeal arrangements, often limited to a region or a single pressure. The “30 by 30” target (protecting at least 30% of the ocean by 2030) is not created by the BBNJ Agreement, but the treaty is repeatedly presented as one of the tools that can help make that target feasible on the high seas.
The practical question is how quickly MPAs can move from aspiration to designation. The Agreement establishes a COP empowered to adopt decisions and recommendations, supported by scientific and technical inputs and transparency requirements for meetings and documents. However, creating MPAs on the high seas will also require engagement with sectoral bodies whose measures may be decisive for enforcement in practice—for example, fisheries closures or shipping routeing measures.
Environmental Impact Assessments: a procedural spine for new activities
EIAs are the treaty’s procedural backbone: a requirement to assess potential significant adverse impacts on marine biodiversity before authorising certain activities in ABNJ. The Agreement’s framing emphasises transparency and information-sharing, reflecting an assumption that a common evidentiary base is necessary when decisions are taken collectively.
For maritime stakeholders, the point is not that the Agreement rewrites sectoral rules overnight. Rather, it creates a standard-setting and review culture around environmental risk in ABNJ. That culture could become consequential when novel activities emerge (including research programmes, new extraction proposals, or high-intensity industrial operations), or where cumulative impacts—across sectors and regions—become central to decisions.
Capacity building and technology transfer: credibility for a global regime
A governance regime covering the global commons is only as legitimate as its ability to include developing States in practice. The Agreement therefore embeds capacity building and the transfer of marine technology, supported by a financial mechanism and institutional arrangements that the COP will have to operationalise.
In operational terms, this pillar could shape who can participate in high-seas science, who can access data and samples, and who can contribute to monitoring and compliance. It also intersects with maritime security and safety indirectly: improved ocean observation, better access to technology, and more transparent reporting can support a more complete picture of activity patterns on the high seas.
Marine genetic resources: benefit-sharing and the “blue economy” question
Marine genetic resources (MGR) have been one of the most politically sensitive components of the BBNJ negotiations because they sit at the intersection of science, intellectual property, and commercial value. The Agreement states that activities with respect to MGR and associated digital sequence information may be carried out by Parties and by persons under their jurisdiction, but it also aims to ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits, with a mix of non-monetary and monetary elements routed through an agreed mechanism.
The text also draws sharp boundaries. Notably, it excludes “fishing regulated under relevant international law and fishing-related activities” from the application of Part II on MGR. BBNJ Agreement text (PDF) That clause reflects a longstanding concern that genetic resource governance should not become a backdoor fisheries regime.
For research institutions and biotechnology firms, the practical shift will likely be procedural and documentary rather than immediate restrictions on access: notifications, information-sharing, and benefit-sharing expectations that the COP will specify in greater detail. This is one reason the first COP will matter: it is where Parties will transform general treaty obligations into workable compliance pathways that do not deter legitimate science yet still deliver the equity objectives that made agreement possible.
What it could mean for shipping and fisheries
Shipping: interaction with existing IMO rules
The shipping sector is regulated through a dense body of IMO instruments that already apply globally, including on the high seas—covering safety, security, pollution prevention, and liability, among other areas. The IMO has explicitly welcomed the Agreement’s entry into force and positioned itself as a partner for implementation “within IMO’s sphere of expertise”, underscoring that BBNJ is intended to be complementary rather than duplicative.
In practice, shipping could be affected most where BBNJ decisions translate into spatial measures (MPAs or other ABMTs) that require traffic management, or where EIAs become relevant to new kinds of activity in ABNJ that intersect with shipping lanes (for instance, major scientific operations, large-scale infrastructure projects, or emergency response operations). Any such impacts will depend on how the COP designs processes for consultation, evidence, and coordination with the IMO.
Fisheries: complementing RFMOs without replacing them
Fisheries governance in ABNJ is primarily exercised through RFMOs and related arrangements, which set quotas, technical measures, and closures for particular species or areas. The BBNJ Agreement does not abolish that architecture; rather, it creates a broader biodiversity framework that can encourage Parties to pursue conservation goals when they participate in decision-making in other bodies.
The key implementation test will be whether BBNJ area-based measures and EIA expectations can be reconciled with RFMO processes in ways that strengthen protection rather than create jurisdictional disputes. If MPAs are proposed in regions where fishing pressures are high, alignment with RFMO conservation measures will be crucial. Conversely, if BBNJ decisions are perceived as attempts to override RFMO competence, resistance is likely and outcomes may be weakened.
Enforcement and credibility: the hard work begins
Entry into force activates legal obligations for Parties, but the Agreement’s effectiveness will be decided by institutions and practice. The treaty establishes a COP, transparency obligations, and a range of mechanisms—from information-sharing to financial support—that must be put into effect through rules of procedure, subsidiary bodies, and agreed standards.
The early political calendar is therefore central. France has pointed to ongoing preparatory work and the expectation that the first COP will be convened within a year of entry into force. French foreign ministry statement The European Commission has similarly framed the next phase as institutional and operational, not merely symbolic.
Monitoring and compliance on the high seas will, in reality, rely on tools and authorities that already exist: flag State control, port State measures, satellite surveillance, scientific observation, and cooperation among enforcement agencies. The BBNJ Agreement’s contribution is to provide a legitimacy and coordination framework so that conservation decisions in ABNJ can be made transparently, supported scientifically, and translated—through Parties—into action in relevant sectoral bodies.
A second credibility issue is boundary management with the deep seabed mining regime. The Agreement applies to ABNJ biodiversity where the high seas and the Area coincide, but the regulation of mineral resources in the Area remains under the ISA’s mandate. This delineation is frequently highlighted in public explanations of the treaty. IMO background on BBNJ implementation context The practical implication is that BBNJ will be influential to the extent it shapes environmental norms and expectations—especially EIAs and area-based management—without formally taking over the seabed mining file.
In short, the High Seas Treaty’s entry into force is a legal milestone, but the operational milestone will be the first COP decisions: rules for proposing and adopting MPAs, agreed EIA standards, and mechanisms that make benefit-sharing and capacity building real rather than rhetorical.
