Getting the BBNJ Agreement enter into force at the UN Ocean Conference will be an ambitious task: Nichola Clark
Two years after countries adopted the Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) or the high seas treaty on June 19, 2023, delegates have gathered at the first session of the Preparatory Commission or PrepCom meeting in New York between April 14 and 25, 2025, to develop rules needed to implement the agreement and set the stage for the first Conference of Parties (COP1).
The high seas are areas beyond 200 nautical miles from the exclusive economic zones of coastal countries. The treaty aims to increase the percentage of marine protected areas (MPA) on the high seas. Despite covering more than two-thirds of the global ocean, only 1.44 per cent of the high seas are protected. It will also ensure that profits from marine genetic resources (MGR) — materials of plant, animal or microbes — are shared equitably and fairly. These resources find applications in medicine and pharmaceuticals. Additionally, the treaty provides ground rules for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), which deal with identifying and evaluating the potential impacts an activity could have on the ocean. Carbon sequestration activities or deep-sea mining, for example, will have to do EIA. So far, 21 countries have ratified the treaty. The BBNJ will “enter into force” when at least 60 countries ratify it.
Down To Earth caught up with Nichola Clark, a senior officer who leads The Pew Charitable Trusts’ high seas work, to understand why the PrepCom meeting is important for the effective implementation and its progress so far.
Rohini Krishnamurthy (RK): Why are the PrepCom meetings important and how important it is to get the rules to be discussed at these meetings right?
Nichola Clark (NC): The BBNJ agreement itself lays out institutions and different bodies that will be responsible for carrying out BBNJ work. It sets out broad functions. For example, it spells out the responsibilities of the scientific and technical body, provides advice to the conference of parties and reviews marine protected area proposals. But what the agreement does not do is get into the specific details of what those bodies will look like or how they will work.
For example, the agreement does not say how many people or members should serve on the scientific and technical body. It indicates that they should have suitable qualifications but does not say what those qualifications are. It does not talk about how they will be elected to the office or what their terms are. The treaty talks about being able to tap into external expertise, and for the scientific and technical bodies to specifically seek external expertise. But again, it doesn’t outline the specific mechanics for how that works. PrepCom will focus on the mechanics of how this all will work in practice.
But then, it is good that the agreement didn’t spell out too much detail because you want to ensure the BBNJ has the flexibility it needs to adapt with the current circumstances and technology. So, leaving the mechanics to a later stage is good. This PrepCom will allow countries and delegates to think in a more detailed way about what the agreement should look like.
It is important to get the rules right. One of the goals of the agreement is to establish MPAs. Another goal is evaluating the environmental impacts of the human activities taking place. It is also important to ensure that the members on the scientific body have the appropriate expertise, the skill set and knowledge that they need to evaluate and assess any proposal for an MPA or evaluate and assess any EIA. These bodies will be largely responsible for a well-functioning agreement. So, designing them well is really important to enabling the agreement to be successful.
RK: What has the progress been over the last two weeks?
NC: I have been impressed with the progress that has been made. All the different governments and delegates are engaging with each other. The co-chairs have done a great job of preparing some documents in advance that enabled countries and delegates to really go ahead and start engaging. It could take a while for countries and delegates to adjust and figure out what this new chapter looks like for the BBNJ.
RK: Do you expect any outcome from the first PrepCom? Have any sticky issues emerged?
NC: It is important to note that this is PrepCom session one of three. We will have two more two-week sessions after this one. I am not expecting any grand resolution.
The goal is to try and ensure that the group has covered and discussed some of the key topics. The co-chairs organised a fireside chat at a BBNJ Symposium back in February. They articulated what their goals and expectations were for the first PrepCom. They said they hoped that by the end of the PrepCom, delegates should walk away with a clear sense of what the key issues are and what are the key pieces of work that delegates and observers need to dig into a little bit inter-sessionally. These two weeks have done a good job of giving delegates a chance to share some initial positions.
At this PrepCom, discussions have been at a slightly higher level and we have seen a broad agreement. The challenges, for example, will come when discussions become more specific. The devil is always in the details. Going back to the scientific and technical body, there is broad agreement from a lot of countries that they want the scientific and technical body to be the right size — not too big, not too small. And everyone agrees that they do not want it to be so big that it becomes unwieldy and difficult to get things done. They also don’t want it to be too small because there’s a lot of expertise that needs to be covered. The challenge will come when delegates have to define what specific number is not too big and not too small. Is it 15? Is it 35? Is it 50? I do not think such specific details will be discussed until PrepCom 2 or possibly even later.
At the moment, we’re still looking at the big picture, figuring out where the alignment is. More sticky issues will come as we try to start nail down the details.
RK: At this PrepCom, delegates have discussed financial arrangements. What does it look like now and where will it be used?
NC: There are different financial arrangements and mechanisms that are that are identified within the agreement itself. The specific details are definitely still being worked out. One of the discussions was on the agreement’s relationship with the Global Environmental Fund (GEF) — a multilateral fund established to help tackle our planet’s most pressing environmental problems — and what its role would be. The purpose of financing is to support the implementation of the agreement itself.
For example, the agreement will have a secretariat. The secretariat will include people who work there and have salaries that have to be paid for. That is one real financial cost. Then, there are costs incurred in the capacity building and technology transfer provisions. Financing will be needed to support developing countries through capacity building and technology transfer and to support them in coming up with proposals for MPAs as well as implementing them, including monitoring and surveillance. This question will be worked out almost evolutionarily at COP (which is expected to be held late 2026).
Another part of the financial mechanism is the special fund. The marine genetic resources were a key part of the negotiations. One of the big victories for a number of countries was the inclusion of sharing of monetary benefits of such resources. Countries have to figure out exactly how they are going to do that, and it is not a question for this PrepCom. This will be decided by a whole committee called the access and benefit sharing committee, which will figure out the logistics of how they tie financial benefits to the individual marine genetic resources. In the meantime, there will be a special fund that requires developed countries to contribute a set amount of money through annual dues. So, developed countries will pay 50 per cent above their annual assessment into the special fund. This could used to help with capacity building and technology transfer provisions. The annual assessment is tailored. Belgium will not pay the same as Senegal. It is common for countries that join agreements to have an annual assessment for keeping the lights on.
RK: What are your expectations from United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC) 3 to be held in France in June, and do you expect the event to catalyse nations into ratifying the BBNJ?
NC: There is a lot of enthusiasm for BBNJ within the UNOC. France has been working hard to get the 60th ratification needed for BBNJ to enter into force.
However, this is an ambitious ask. At the moment, only 21 countries have ratified the BBNJ agreement. They could have all the ambition and political will, but sometimes these processes take a certain amount of time, and you cannot rush them. Even if we don’t see the payoff of that effort at UNOC itself, I think it will still help us reach that 60th ratification much sooner than we otherwise would have.