The Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement), which came into force on Jan 17, is a landmark agreement formulated under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The agreement sets the stage for the first comprehensive, legally binding international framework aimed at conserving and sustainably using marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, which account for nearly two-thirds of the world's oceans.
However, the true value of a treaty is not determined by the applause it receives when it comes into force but by how effectively it is implemented. For China, a key test will be how well the BBNJ Agreement can be translated from paper to practice in high seas fisheries governance.
This is challenging, given the complex overlap between the agreement and the mandates of existing regional fisheries management organizations and arrangements (RFMOs and RFMAs).
The BBNJ Agreement is designed to complement, not replace, these existing bodies. Article 5 explicitly states that the agreement should not undermine existing frameworks and bodies, Article 10 excludes fishing and fishing-related activities regulated under international law from the agreement's marine genetic resources regime and Article 22 stipulates that when the Conference of the Parties makes decisions on area-based management tools, it must respect the mandates of existing legal instruments, frameworks and bodies.
These provisions underscore that the implementation of the BBNJ Agreement must integrate the role of RFMOs and RFMAs in governing high seas fisheries.
Yet, "not undermining" existing institutions does not mean staying out of the process. ABMTs are where the BBNJ Agreement interacts most directly with RFMOs and RFMAs. Articles 19 and 21 require proponents of ABMTs to consult relevant organizations, Article 22 outlines different decision-making procedures for the COP depending on whether a proposed measure falls within or beyond the mandates of existing bodies and Article 26 invites RFMOs to report to the COP on measures they have taken to contribute to the objectives of ABMTs.
The intention is clear: procedural coordination aims to ensure institutional compatibility. However, whether consultation leads to meaningful participation or becomes a mere formality will depend on the implementation mechanisms.
Environmental impact assessments present another challenge. The BBNJ Agreement allows parties to avoid duplicating assessments when an RFMO or RFMA has already implemented EIA standards. However, not all such organizations have established systematic EIA requirements. Existing requirements mainly address new or exploratory bottom-fishing activities that may affect vulnerable marine ecosystems, rather than establishing comprehensive standards comparable to those set by the BBNJ Agreement.
If "equivalence" is interpreted too broadly, the agreement's EIA regime could be rendered ineffective in the very area where it overlaps most closely with existing fisheries governance. Conversely, if interpreted too narrowly, it could create additional regulatory uncertainty for established fisheries that have already been authorized.
As a major high seas fishing nation, China played a constructive role in the negotiations of the BBNJ Agreement and was among its first signatories. At the same time, it is deeply involved in the governance practices of eight RFMOs and two RFMAs, positioning it as a bridge between the two systems.
China has also shown its commitment to conservation responsibilities beyond existing RFMO and RFMA frameworks by implementing voluntary fishing moratoriums in high seas areas not covered by these organizations and establishing a vessel-position monitoring system for all Chinese distant-water fishing vessels. These efforts enhance its credibility as a potential bridge-builder.
China can facilitate the establishment of practical information-sharing mechanisms during consultations on ABMT proposals. It can also encourage the BBNJ Agreement's Scientific and Technical Body to fully utilize existing fisheries stock assessments and ecosystem data from RFMOs and RFMAs when evaluating proposals. This would help balance conservation objectives with the practical realities of fisheries management.
On EIAs, a pragmatic approach would be for China to contribute data and methodologies developed through fisheries resource and environmental surveys and electronic monitoring as the Scientific and Technical Body develops EIA guidelines. Such contributions could help ensure that equivalence standards are both ecologically rigorous and compatible with the continuity and practical requirements of fisheries management.
Xiamen's bid to host the BBNJ Agreement Secretariat could provide an important institutional platform for this coordination.
Beyond administrative and conference services, the Secretariat is responsible for operating the clearing-house mechanism and providing coordination support to the COP, the Scientific and Technical Body and other subsidiary bodies.
Xiamen has nearly 5,000 marine researchers and 30 marine science and technology research platforms. Institutions such as Xiamen University and the Third Institute of Oceanography under China's Ministry of Natural Resources have extensive experience in marine biology, marine ecological and environmental research. The city has also hosted 20 consecutive editions of the Xiamen International Ocean Week as of 2025, while the secretariat of the Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia Network of Local Governments is based there. These initiatives have equipped Xiamen with experience in supporting international institutional operations.
If the Secretariat is established in Xiamen, the city's institutional resources, combined with China's extensive participation in RFMOs and RFMAs, could provide additional support for dialogue and coordination between the BBNJ Agreement's scientific and technical bodies and those of existing fisheries organizations. Xiamen could also host regional technical consultations on ABMT proposals, reducing the coordination and participation costs for developing coastal countries.
Ultimately, the significance of the BBNJ Agreement for high seas fisheries governance lies in whether it can integrate biodiversity conservation objectives into fisheries management decisions without undermining the scientific foundations and legal certainty on which the latter depend.
China's contribution to implementation should focus on transforming the "not undermining" principle from a defensive safeguard of institutional mandates into a basis for active institutional cooperation. Its voluntary conservation practices can build credibility, its data and technical capabilities can provide public goods, and Xiamen's bid to host the Secretariat offers an opportunity to establish a platform for coordination.
When every proposed high seas protected area is supported by traceable evidence from fisheries science, and every determination of EIA equivalence is based on transparent and comparable standards, the BBNJ Agreement will make the transition from legal text to effective ocean governance.
The author is a professor at the College of Marine Living Resource Sciences and Management, Shanghai Ocean University.
The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.
