As President Joe Bidens administration moves to restore U.S. global leadership on the environment, it cannot afford to ignore the health of oceans. It must spearhead the successful conclusion of negotiations on aU.N. high seas biodiversity convention, which are currently adrift. To bring this treaty into port, the United States will need to forge global agreement on several contentious issues. It will also need to temperits neuralgic opposition to legally binding multilateral commitments, recognizing that the treaty poses no threat to U.S. sovereignty and is deeply in American interests.

More From Our Experts

Although not entirely lawless, the high seas are poorly governed bya fragmentary patchwork of regulatory schemescovering everything from migratory birds and regional fisheries to deep-sea mining and pollution from ships. The biggest gap in oceans governance is the absence of a comprehensive agreement to conserve and sustainably manage marine living resources and ecosystems on the high seas, which are experiencing catastrophic declines as technological advances permit their unprecedented exploitation. Already, some 40 percent of the worlds oceans have beenseverely altered by human activity; only 3 percent can beconsidered pristine.

More on:

Global Governance

Oceans and Seas

Treaties and Agreements

International Law

Joe Biden

A proposed high seas pactformally, the Internationally Legally Binding Instrument on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, or so-called BBNJ treatywould plug this gaping hole. It woulddramatically enhance environmental stewardshipover a vast commons thatencompasses 43 percent of Earths surface, contains 90 percent of the oceans biomass, and constitutes the greatest repository of planetary biodiversity. The BBNJ treaty would bean implementing agreementunder theU.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea, the closest approximation to a constitution for the worlds oceans.

The World This Week

A weekly digest of the latestfrom CFR on the biggest foreign policy stories of the week, featuring briefs, opinions, and explainers. Every Friday.

Formalintergovernmental negotiations on the BBNJopened in September 2018. Unfortunately, the treaty is nowstuck in the doldrums. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, parties were slated to hold their fourth (and ostensibly final) negotiating session in March 2020. Bad timing. The postponed talks are scheduled to resume in August, though this date could slip. More worrisome,international divisions persist on core issuesat the heart of the treaty, including the multilateral rules that should govern marine genetic resources, area-based management tools, environmental impact assessments and capacity-building. Underlying many specific disagreements isa broader philosophical divide: Developing nations insist that the high seas and their resources constitute the common heritage of mankind, whereas developed nations, including the U.S., tend to invoke the freedom of the seas and resist being bound by international obligations.

The topic ofmarine genetic resourcesis especially divisive. While there is consensus that all nations should benefit from their exploitation, the actual details of any global regime remain elusivesuch as whether benefit-sharing should be voluntary or mandatory, or whether it should apply only to specimens collected in situ or also todigital sequence information(or genetic sequence data) subsequently derived from those specimens. Generally speaking, poorer nations insist on maximal benefit-sharing, whereas wealthy ones seek toprotect the intellectual property rights of companiesseeking to profit from their investments.

More From Our Experts

Countries are similarly divided on the principles and rules that should govern the collective management of fragile, biodiverse zones, including through the designation of marine protected areas and other arrangements. The high seas containmany ecologically sensitive regions, such as theEmperor Seamount Chainstretching from the Aleutian to the Hawaiian Islands. Nations have yet to agree on the authorities and mechanisms whereby the world will identify, establish, regulate and monitor such zones. Reaching agreement on such matters is a precondition forachieving the 30 by 30 goalof protecting 30 percent of Earths marine and terrestrial surface by 2030,a target Biden recently endorsed.

The BBNJ negotiations reveal that there is broad multilateral consensus for states toconduct environmental impact assessmentsbefore undertaking major activities on the high seas. But there is scant agreement on thethreshold that should trigger such assessments, the technical standards that should inform them, and whether they should be mandated and/or reviewed by a treaty body. There is also disagreement on how best to build the capacities of developing countries to participate in the conservation and sustainable use of the high seas, including how to assess their needs and whether technology transfers should be mandatory or voluntary.

More on:

Global Governance

Oceans and Seas

Treaties and Agreements

International Law

Joe Biden

Beyond resolving these core issues, the final negotiations are supposed to determine any enduring institutional arrangements that will implement the treaty, which could include a secretariat and a standing conference of parties, as well mechanisms to resolve disputes among and monitor compliance by its parties. A huge bone of contention is whether such a governance structure should take precedence over existing sectoral bodies, notably the International Seabed Authority, as well as regional fisheries management organizations.

The Biden administration has a historic opportunity to help break these logjams. To credibly lead the world, however, the U.S. will need toabandon its long-standing reluctance to enter into legally binding environmental treaties, which it too often perceives as infringements on its ability to do what it wantsrather than as useful mechanisms to secure valued outcomes.

Such insistence on absolute freedom of action has frequently been shortsighted, but it is increasingly counterproductive today, as other nations and corporations dramatically expand their activities on and exploitation of the high seas, with disastrous consequences for the marine environment. In the absence of a high seas biodiversity treaty, for instance, there is little to stop a nation or private actor operating under a flag of convenience fromundertaking ecologically destructive mining operations on a deep seabed, launching freelance climate remediation efforts at sea, or even creating floating cities mid-ocean, heedless of the impacts on marine life.

It is deeply within the U.S. national interest to voluntarily accept some international constraints on its own behavior, if, by so doing, it can prevent others from degrading the ocean commons. This is particularly true given Americas generally high regulatory standards. Historically, private U.S. corporations seeking to extract resources from the high seas have had to comply with American law, namely the National Environmental Policy Act, to ensure that they do not cause grievous harm to the ocean. While the Trump administration rolled back these procedural requirements, the Biden administration will surely reinstate them, raising an obvious question: If U.S. corporations are already subject to stringent environmental regulations, why should Washington oppose internationalizing them?

As a matter of course, the U.S. already routinely cedes freedom of action on the high seas, like when it enters into regional fisheries management organizations or accepts shipping lanes defined by the International Maritime Organization. Ratifying the BBNJ would entail similar self-limitations, but the payoff would be huge: helping topreserve the future of lifeon nearly half of the planet.

Read more:

Bringing the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty Into Port - Council on Foreign Relations