The High Seas Treaty (BBNJ) and What It Means for Canada

A large portion of the ocean lies beyond national jurisdiction. These areas, often referred to as the high seas, sit outside the legal control of any one country. They cover nearly half the surface of the planet and include ecosystems that are connected to coastal waters, fisheries, and climate systems.

For most of modern history, these areas have been governed in a limited way. Existing frameworks, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, established broad rules around navigation, resource use, and national rights. They did not fully address how biodiversity in these areas would be protected, or how the cumulative effects of activity would be managed.

Activity in the high seas has expanded considerably across recent decades. Fishing, shipping, resource exploration, and scientific research all operate in areas distant from any single country but connected to many. The absence of a coordinated approach to biodiversity has been a persistent gap within the broader system of ocean governance.

The agreement commonly referred to as the High Seas Treaty, or BBNJ (Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction), is intended to address that gap.

The agreement builds on a longer process within the United Nations system. Discussions around biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction have been underway for years, reflecting a recognition that existing frameworks did not fully account for how ocean ecosystems function or how pressures accumulate across regions. Negotiations formally began in 2018 and concluded in 2023, following multiple rounds of discussion between countries with different interests and priorities. Coastal states, fishing nations, and countries with emerging interests in marine genetic resources all approached the negotiations from different starting points. The agreement entered into force in January 2026.

The result is a framework that sits alongside existing ocean agreements rather than replacing them. It introduces new tools and expectations focused on biodiversity, while relying on national governments and international bodies for implementation. The agreement is structured around four main areas.

The first concerns marine genetic resources. This part of the agreement addresses how genetic material from marine organisms in the high seas can be accessed and used. Advances in biotechnology have made it possible to identify and apply genetic traits from deep-sea organisms in areas such as medicine and industrial processes. The agreement introduces expectations around how these resources are shared, including the distribution of benefits arising from their use.

The second area covers what the agreement calls area-based management tools. This includes mechanisms such as marine protected areas. The agreement creates a process for identifying and designating areas of ecological importance in the high seas, with the aim of conserving biodiversity and managing human activity within those areas.

The third area requires environmental impact assessments for certain activities before they proceed. The intent is to introduce a more consistent approach to understanding and managing the effects of activities that may affect marine ecosystems.

The fourth area focuses on capacity building and technology transfer. This includes provisions to support developing countries in accessing scientific knowledge, tools, and technology related to ocean research and management.

The agreement introduces a more structured approach to how activity in the high seas is considered. Areas that were previously governed in a fragmented way now sit within a more coordinated framework, particularly where biodiversity is concerned. Activities that may affect marine ecosystems are more likely to require assessment, and areas of ecological importance may be subject to additional protections. The expectation of coordination across jurisdictions increases, even where enforcement remains uneven. The agreement relies on national governments, regional bodies, and existing institutions to implement its provisions, which means the pace and consistency of change will vary. Participation levels, domestic priorities, and regulatory approaches differ across countries, and that will affect how quickly its provisions take effect.

For Canada, the implications sit across several areas. Canada is already active in ocean governance through its participation in international agreements, its domestic regulatory frameworks, and its role in Arctic and coastal management. The BBNJ agreement adds another layer to that structure, particularly in areas that extend beyond national jurisdiction but remain connected to Canadian interests.

In practice, this affects how Canadian institutions approach activities linked to the high seas, including fisheries management, shipping, offshore development, and scientific research. Environmental assessment processes may expand in scope, and expectations around biodiversity protection may become more explicit. These responsibilities sit across federal departments, regulators, and publicly funded institutions, with coordination required between them. The agreement also increases the need for Canada to coordinate with other countries, particularly in areas where ecosystems cross boundaries or where activity in one region affects another. Scientific capacity becomes more important, as does the ability to integrate that information into planning and decision-making.

These changes carry financial implications. As expectations around biodiversity, environmental assessment, and area-based management evolve, they begin to influence how projects are evaluated and financed. Activities that intersect with high seas ecosystems may face additional scrutiny, longer timelines, or different risk profiles. Existing lending, investment, and public funding frameworks continue to operate, but the scope of what is considered within those frameworks is expanding, particularly in relation to environmental risk and long-term impacts. For Canada, this shows up in how capital is directed across ocean-related sectors. Projects connected to shipping, resource development, fisheries, and marine infrastructure are increasingly assessed within a broader environmental context.

The BBNJ agreement does not determine these outcomes on its own. It is one part of a larger shift in how ocean systems are governed and how their use is managed.