Photo by Nik Shuliahin

The third and final preparatory commission for the High Seas Treaty concluded on 2 April at the United Nations headquarters in New York, wrapping up two weeks of intensive negotiations that the High Seas Alliance described as delivering meaningful progress, but also leaving several significant issues unresolved ahead of the treaty’s first Conference of the Parties in January 2027.

What was agreed

Discussions under co-chairs Ambassador Janine Felson and Mr Adam McCarthy advanced several key institutional building blocks: the structure and functioning of most subsidiary bodies, financial documentation, the establishment process for the future BBNJ Secretariat, and a prototype for the Clearing-House Mechanism, the treaty’s central data-sharing portal. These foundations are essential if the agreement, which formally entered into force on 17 January 2026, is to function in practice.

Momentum stalled towards the end of the session, however, as political divisions – in the High Seas Alliance’s words, “unrelated to ocean conservation” – threatened to derail several key decisions. A late push by the co-chairs salvaged some, but not all. Fiji, speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States in closing remarks, captured the mood: “This is the beginning of a long journey.”

Delays and the 30×30 clock

A notable failure was the inability to agree an early nomination process for members of the treaty’s subsidiary bodies – the technical and advisory groups essential to supporting implementation. The High Seas Alliance warned that as a result those bodies will not be fully established at COP1, “risking potentially up to a year of delay in implementation across the Agreement.” With the 30×30 target to protect 30% of the global ocean by 2030 dependent on the creation of high seas MPAs, that delay has direct conservation consequences.

The RFMO question

The most contested issue was the relationship between the treaty and regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) – the multilateral bodies that govern commercial fishing on the high seas. According to Mongabay, five major RFMOs jointly proposed changes to the draft rules that would enshrine their authority within the treaty’s decision-making processes, and the rules that emerged accommodated those proposals.

Conservation observers were critical. Gabrielle Carmine, a postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown University who researches governance gaps in RFMOs, told Mongabay: “The BBNJ agreement was intended to be this overarching agreement to protect all high seas biodiversity because that protection is fragmented, because it is inefficient. I have felt like saying, ‘Does everyone remember why we’re here? It’s not because the existing frameworks and bodies are so functional and effective.'” Megan Randles, global political lead for oceans at Greenpeace, warned that the draft text “would dramatically weaken the ability to protect the ocean.” The High Seas Alliance similarly cautioned that the RFMO-related provisions risk “creating unnecessary barriers, delays, or dependencies that hinder timely implementation, especially with regard to the much needed establishment of Marine Protected Areas.”

RFMO leaders rejected those concerns. Dominic Vallieres, executive secretary of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, told Mongabay that “any suggestion that the proposed text reflects anything beyond a desire for efficient collaboration and smooth implementation is simply baseless.”

The road to COP1

Rules on observer participation – covering civil society, Indigenous Peoples and NGOs – were also contested, with a compromise reached that allows states to object to individual observers, deferring final decisions to the COP. The High Seas Alliance cautioned this “introduces uncertainty” for less well-resourced observers. Daniel Kachelriess, Cross-Cutting Coordinator of the High Seas Alliance, concluded: “The sooner these systems are in place, the sooner the Treaty can deliver on ocean equity and conservation, urgently needed to address the planetary crisis.” All outstanding questions now pass to COP1, scheduled for January 2027 in New York.