A lot has been made in the non-specialised media and in online forums about the adoption of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement).
The agreement does mark a historic milestone in global ocean governance as a landmark treaty to address critical gaps in the conservation and sustainable utilisation of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), more commonly known as the High Seas or International Waters.
In fact, I was recently asked to work on a paper examining the potential of MCS (Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance) mechanism over Marine Protected Areas in the High Seas, which is one of the tools the agreement provides for.
Yet I see many images associated with the news (fish, fishing boats, whales, etc.), suggesting that the agreement would be a solution to the woes of fisheries and that there are no tools or organisations at present dealing with any of it…. Which, of course, is not the case.
So I thought I would have a go at a blog that tries to summarise what it can do and what it does not do… and I emphasise the “can do” because having an agreement adopted is surely great, but implementation is the challenge… The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is over 40 years old now… and we are still struggling to get flag states to implement and comply with what they agreed to do.
If you want a deep dive into the topic, check out this excellent publication by FAO Fisheries and the BBNJ Agreement – A guide. They do publish GOOD stuff, so it should be your first stop for most issues you want to understand. (One of the proudest days of my life was when my 1st FAO-commissioned book was published, and there have been a couple more since then, here and here.)
So for me, the 1st thing to get clear is that the BBNJ Agreement does not specify fisheries management measures, yet it introduces new processes and obligations that intersect with the mandates and operations of Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs). And these interactions present both challenges and opportunities for RFMOs to contribute to and benefit from the evolving framework of ocean governance.
RFMOs are intergovernmental organisations established to manage fish stocks and promote sustainable fishing practices within specific regions of the high seas. They possess decades of expertise in science-based decision-making, stock assessments, spatial management, and compliance measures. It is crucial to emphasise once again that RFMOs are the entities responsible for managing fisheries in the high seas and are particularly well-equipped to support the objectives of the BBNJ Agreement, not the other way around.
This blog will explore the interactions between RFMOs and the BBNJ Agreement, emphasising how RFMOs can (and will) play a vital role in shaping and benefiting from the evolving framework of ocean governance.
But first:
Understanding the BBNJ Agreement and Its Objectives
The BBNJ Agreement was adopted in 2023 after nearly twenty years of negotiations. It establishes a global framework to conserve and sustainably manage marine biodiversity in ABNJ, which accounts for almost two-thirds of the world’s oceans. The Agreement highlights four main focus areas.
Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs), including marine protected areas (MPAs).
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for activities that may cause significant environmental harm.
Capacity Building and Transfer of Marine Technology (CBTMT) to support equitable participation in biodiversity governance.
Marine Genetic Resources (MGR) and benefit-sharing mechanisms.
These focus areas aim to promote collaboration across sectors and integrated management, providing RFMOs with opportunities to further align their fisheries governance with biodiversity conservation objectives and vice versa.
The Role of RFMOs in ABNJ Governance
RFMOs are “the” essential entities in governing fisheries in ABNJ.
They are intergovernmental organisations established by international agreements to manage fish stocks and promote sustainable fishing practices in specific high-seas regions and the EEZs of member coastal countries.
They are found in nearly every ocean basin worldwide… other than the Southwest Atlantic. (which, in my opinion, goes a long way in explaining why that area is the fishing mess that it is)
The BBNJ Agreement explicitly recognises the importance of collaboration with relevant legal instruments, frameworks, and bodies, including RFMOs, which are classified as "relevant instruments, frameworks, and bodies" (IFBs). This recognition ensures that RFMO mandates are upheld and not compromised by the new biodiversity governance framework.
However, the Agreement also introduces new processes, such as area-based management tools (ABMTs), environmental impact assessments (EIAs), capacity building and transfer of marine technology (CBTMT), and marine genetic resource (MGR) benefit-sharing, which will require active involvement from RFMOs to promote coherence and mutual supportiveness between fisheries governance and biodiversity conservation.
Institutional and Implementation Framework
The BBNJ Agreement establishes several institutional bodies and tools to support its implementation, including the Conference of the Parties (COP), the Scientific and Technical Body (STB), the Implementation and Compliance Committee (ICC), and the Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM).
RFMOs will need to engage with these bodies to ensure that fisheries science, data, and governance experience inform biodiversity decisions and processes, and this is not a small issue… This means that they will need more resources and staff with the right experience and qualifications.
The STB, as a central advisory body, will offer expert guidance on science and technology, including EIAs, ABMTs, and MGRs. RFMOs can provide data, conduct peer reviews, and facilitate knowledge exchange to ensure that fisheries science and traditional knowledge are integrated into broader biodiversity governance.
The ICC will encourage adherence to BBNJ Agreement obligations through dialogue, transparency, and support. RFMOs can share their experiences with compliance tools and challenges to help shape fair, practically feasible compliance mechanisms. And here is a study I contributed to on how to MCS the MPA in the ABNJ, if it is of interest.
The CHM will act as a central platform for information sharing, promoting transparency, coordination, and data accessibility. RFMOs can participate in developing the CHM to ensure fisheries data is shared securely and fairly, with clear guidelines and mutual trust.
Interactions Between RFMOs and the BBNJ Agreement
Supporting Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs)
ABMTs are spatially explicit regulatory or management measures designed to oversee human activities within defined marine areas to support biodiversity conservation, sustainable resource use, and conflict mitigation.
The BBNJ Agreement sets out a process for identifying, designating, and managing ABMTs, including marine protected areas (MPAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). While ABMTs under the BBNJ Agreement are not specifically intended for fisheries management, they may impact fisheries, particularly in regions where no RFMO or other fisheries organisation exists. (Yet, in my opinion, this absence of RFMOS presents a catch-22 situation… under which forum are you going to agree to HS MPA if there is no RFMO or IRBs)
RFMOs have historically applied spatial management tools, such as:
Fisheries closures to protect spawning grounds and nursery areas.
Protections for vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) to safeguard habitats from destructive fishing practices.
Seasonal or gear restrictions to minimise environmental impacts.
These measures align with the ecosystem approach to fisheries and promote biodiversity conservation.
As such, RFMOs can share their expertise in spatial planning and enforcement to support the design and implementation of ABMTs under the BBNJ Agreement. They can also provide data on ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) and other spatial management tools that reinforce biodiversity conservation objectives.
By leading the development of ABMT provisions, RFMOs can ensure these tools are evidence-based, practical, and complementary to existing fisheries management frameworks.
Contributing to Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs)
EIAs are essential for evaluating and managing the environmental impacts of large-scale activities in ABNJ. The BBNJ Agreement requires EIAs for activities that could cause significant adverse effects, in accordance with the precautionary principle and UNCLOS commitments. While EIA responsibilities do not extend to activities overseen by RFMOs, the Agreement recognises comparable procedures under other relevant frameworks.
Many RFMOs already conduct risk-based impact assessments for new or expanding fisheries, which adhere to EIA principles. These assessments evaluate cumulative and transboundary impacts and rely on the best available science.
RFMOs can bring that expertise when developing BBNJ EIA standards and procedures, ensuring consistency with existing fisheries frameworks and emphasising the importance of their monitoring and risk assessment systems.
By participating in EIA processes, RFMOs can influence cross-sectoral coordination and ensure that the effects of non-fisheries activities, such as shipping, dumping, etc., on marine ecosystems supporting fisheries are properly assessed. This collaboration can safeguard fisheries' interests while also supporting wider biodiversity conservation.
Promoting Capacity Building and Technology Transfer
The BBNJ Agreement emphasises the significance of capacity building and technology transfer in promoting fair participation in marine biodiversity governance, particularly for developing countries, small island developing states (SIDS), and least developed countries (LDCs).
RFMOs generally have a dual role in capacity development and technology transfer.
As providers, they can offer training, tools, and expertise in fisheries management, ecosystem-based monitoring, and risk assessment.
As beneficiaries, they can access support for institutional development, data systems, and scientific research.
By engaging in capacity-building initiatives, RFMOs can help strengthen states' ability to participate in BBNJ processes while also enhancing their own capacity to adapt to emerging biodiversity governance frameworks.
Advancing Marine Genetic Resource (MGR) Governance
Marine genetic resources, including genetic or biological material of marine origin found in ABNJ, are subject to benefit-sharing obligations under the BBNJ Agreement. While fishing and fishing-related activities are excluded from these provisions, RFMOs can still contribute by:
Being involved in developing access protocols for genetic material collected during fisheries research.
Ensuring traceability and transparency in the use of marine genetic resources.
Promoting policy coherence between fisheries governance and MGR frameworks.
RFMOs can also assist in integrating fisheries-related genetic data into global biodiversity governance, ensuring their practices align with the principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol.
Enhancing Cross-Sectoral Cooperation
The BBNJ Agreement emphasises collaboration among relevant legal instruments, frameworks, and bodies.
RFMOs work through collaboration; any of the chairs and leads in RFMO meetings can make sure that parties:
Collaborate with other sectors, such as shipping, mining, and conservation organisations, to align actions and avoid duplication.
Participate in joint workshops, shared working groups, and liaison roles to foster effective cross-sectoral collaboration.
Promote mutual recognition of equivalent measures to ensure coherence between fisheries governance and biodiversity conservation.
So yeah... I believe that RFMOs, overall, can greatly support the functioning of the BBNJ Agreement, as they possess extensive experience in this area, having negotiated agreements across a wide range of issues over a long period. Personally, I think that while some non-specialist groups may perceive the BBNJ agreement as a way to influence fisheries and RFMOs, the opposite is more likely.