Executive Summary

This report analyzes the complexities of integrating fisheries management into the 2023 Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement, a critical instrument for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 14 (Life Below Water). The historical separation of fisheries from broader marine conservation has created a fragmented governance landscape, posing significant challenges to the BBNJ Agreement’s objectives. Based on qualitative analysis of stakeholder interviews and statements during the BBNJ negotiations, this report identifies key tensions—spatial, technological, institutional, and philosophical—that hinder a unified approach. Divergent perspectives between conservation-focused and use-focused stakeholders, especially concerning the economic and food security roles of fisheries, reflect a core conflict in implementing the 2030 Agenda. These divisions, particularly between developed nations and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), threaten to undermine progress on SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The report concludes that for the BBNJ Agreement to be effective, these divides must be bridged through equitable, inclusive, and coherent governance models that align with the integrated nature of the SDGs.

Introduction: The BBNJ Agreement and the Sustainable Development Agenda

Context of Global Ocean Governance and SDG 14

International ocean governance has historically prioritized the management of commercially valuable fisheries, a focus reflected in frameworks like the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA). While vital for national economies and food security (contributing to SDG 2: Zero Hunger and SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth), this emphasis has led to a governance structure where fisheries are managed separately from broader environmental concerns. The expansion of industrial fishing into the High Seas, driven by declining coastal stocks and climate change, has exposed the limitations of this fragmented approach. The adoption of the BBNJ Agreement in 2023 represents a landmark effort to create a more holistic framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). This treaty is a cornerstone for achieving multiple targets under SDG 14 (Life Below Water), including:

• Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems.
• Target 14.5: Conserve at least 10 percent of coastal and marine areas.
• Target 14.c: Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources.

The Central Challenge: Integrating Fisheries to Achieve Coherent Governance

Despite its ambitious scope, the BBNJ Agreement confronts a deep-seated institutional and conceptual divide between fisheries management and marine biodiversity conservation. This tension was starkly captured by a delegate from a Pacific Small Island Developing State (PSIDS) who stated, “Our fish are not your marine biodiversity!” This sentiment underscores a fundamental conflict: whether to treat fish primarily as a resource governed by existing use-oriented frameworks or as an integral component of marine biodiversity subject to new conservation objectives. This divide complicates the BBNJ’s mission to advance an integrated ecosystem approach as envisioned by the SDGs. Failure to reconcile these perspectives threatens to perpetuate the fragmented governance that has hampered progress on SDG 14 and undermines the spirit of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), which calls for coherent and multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Analysis of Stakeholder Perspectives on Fisheries and Marine Biodiversity

Divergent Perceptions and Implications for SDG Implementation

A survey of stakeholders involved in the BBNJ negotiations revealed deeply divergent views on the relationship between fisheries and marine biodiversity. While biologically inseparable, they are often treated as conceptually and politically distinct. Analysis of delegate statements showed a clear pattern where fisheries were framed as a resource for sustainable use, while marine biodiversity was framed as an entity for conservation. This distinction was prominent in statements from distant-water fishing nations (OECD countries, China), SIDS, and international organizations.

Key findings include:

1. Conceptual Separation: Many stakeholders, particularly those from fisheries-dependent nations, perceive fisheries management as a distinct domain focused on socio-economic outcomes (SDG 2, SDG 8), separate from the ecological preservation goals of biodiversity conservation (SDG 14).
2. Shift in Perspective: While some stakeholders initially equated fish with marine biodiversity, they later qualified this by emphasizing fish as a “critical component” but not the entirety, highlighting the nuanced and often conflicted understanding.
3. Fisheries as a Central Issue: Fisheries were a contentious topic across all elements of the BBNJ package, including Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs), Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs), and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), indicating their cross-cutting importance and the difficulty of their integration.

The Role of International Bodies in Bridging Governance Gaps

International bodies like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) played a significant role in the negotiations, often reinforcing the existing sectoral divide. The FAO consistently positioned fisheries as a central element in all discussions, yet advocated for maintaining the authority of existing fisheries frameworks like the UNFSA. This stance highlights a major challenge for SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): how to foster cooperation and coherence without undermining established mandates. While the FAO acknowledged that sustainable fisheries depend on healthy ecosystems, its interventions prioritized protecting existing management regimes from being superseded by the BBNJ’s broader conservation mandate, thereby institutionalizing the fragmentation the BBNJ seeks to address.

Key Tensions Impeding Progress on Sustainable Development Goals

Spatial and Jurisdictional Tensions: Coastal States, the High Seas, and SDG 10

The ecological connectivity between coastal waters (EEZs) and the High Seas was a major point of contention. SIDS and other coastal states argued that activities in ABNJ directly impact their fisheries, livelihoods, and food security, which are central to their achievement of SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). They framed the High Seas as an extension of their socio-ecological systems. However, this perspective clashed with the principle of the High Seas as a global commons, with landlocked states expressing concern that such framing could grant coastal states preferential rights, thereby exacerbating inequalities and undermining SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). This tension reveals a conflict between recognizing ecological realities and upholding the legal principle of juridical equality for all states.

Conservation Tools (MPAs and EIAs) and the Balance Between SDG 14 and SDG 8

The implementation of ABMTs, including Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), and EIAs exposed the conflict between conservation and sustainable use.

• Differing Objectives: Fisheries management bodies use spatial tools like closures to rebuild stocks for future exploitation (supporting SDG 8), whereas MPAs under the BBNJ are often perceived as permanent, no-take zones focused on long-term conservation (supporting SDG 14.5).
• Socio-Economic Concerns: Fisheries-dependent states expressed fears that new MPAs established under the BBNJ could restrict access to vital fishing grounds, negatively impacting their economies and livelihoods.
• Inclusive EIAs: Coastal states advocated for their active involvement in EIA processes for ABNJ activities, arguing that impacts on migratory stocks could have severe socio-economic consequences for their communities.

Striking a balance is essential for ensuring that conservation measures do not disproportionately burden developing nations, a key consideration for achieving SDG 10.

Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs): A Nexus of Opportunity and Inequality (SDG 10 & SDG 17)

The debate over MGRs was a focal point of tension, particularly regarding whether fish should be subject to the BBNJ’s benefit-sharing provisions. This issue highlights a critical challenge for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). Developing states worried that classifying fish as MGRs could restrict their access to food resources, while technologically advanced nations feared new regulations would hinder research and commercialization. The vast disparity in technological capacity to exploit MGRs means that without a robust and equitable benefit-sharing mechanism and effective technology transfer (a key target of SDG 17), the BBNJ could widen the gap between developed and developing nations, allowing wealthier countries to profit from both traditional fishing and new biotechnological opportunities.

Institutional Fragmentation vs. SDG 16 and SDG 17

A core principle of the BBNJ negotiations was that the new agreement should not “undermine” existing bodies like RFMOs. This created a significant institutional tension. While RFMOs are the primary regulators of High Seas fishing, their mandates are often limited to specific species and do not encompass the ecosystem-wide approach required by SDG 14. This fragmentation poses a direct challenge to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which calls for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The BBNJ Agreement has the potential to provide a more integrated framework, but its effectiveness depends on establishing cooperative mechanisms with RFMOs. This requires a commitment to genuine partnership under SDG 17, moving beyond siloed management to a coordinated governance system for the global commons.

Discussion and Recommendations for an SDG-Aligned Implementation

Reconciling Conservation and Sustainable Use for SDG 14

The philosophical divide between conservation for its own sake and sustainable use for human benefit is a primary obstacle. To align with the integrated nature of the SDGs, the BBNJ implementation must move beyond this binary. Fisheries management cannot be successful without healthy ecosystems, and conservation efforts must account for human needs. A way forward involves developing adaptive spatial tools that incorporate both ecological and socio-economic data, allowing for varying levels of protection and use. This approach would better reflect the dual mandate of SDG 14 to both conserve and sustainably use marine resources.

Addressing Power Asymmetries and Promoting Equity (SDG 10 & SDG 16)

The BBNJ Agreement’s success hinges on its ability to address global inequalities. Implementation must prioritize procedural and distributional equity to ensure that SIDS and other developing nations can participate meaningfully in decision-making and share in the benefits derived from marine resources, including MGRs. This requires:

• Procedural Equity: Guaranteeing representation and funding for developing states in BBNJ bodies, such as the Scientific and Technical Body, to ensure their voices are heard, in line with SDG 16.7 (responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making).
• Distributional Equity: Establishing a fair and transparent benefit-sharing mechanism for MGRs and promoting capacity-building and technology transfer, directly addressing targets under SDG 10 and SDG 17.

A Hybrid Governance Model for Effective Partnerships (SDG 17)

To overcome institutional fragmentation, a hybrid governance model is recommended. In this model, BBNJ institutions would set broad, cross-sectoral conservation norms and objectives aligned with SDG 14, while RFMOs would use their sectoral expertise and legal authority to implement and enforce fisheries-related measures. This collaborative approach would respect the “not undermining” principle while embedding fisheries management within a more holistic, ecosystem-based framework. Such a partnership is essential for building the coherent global governance architecture required by SDG 17.

Conclusion: The Path Forward for the BBNJ Agreement and the 2030 Agenda

The tensions surrounding the integration of fisheries into the BBNJ Agreement are a microcosm of the broader challenges facing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. While fisheries are biologically part of marine biodiversity, they are governed by distinct institutions with different priorities, creating conflicts that disproportionately affect developing nations dependent on these resources for food and economic security. The successful implementation of the BBNJ Agreement—and its contribution to SDG 14 and other related goals—will depend on the international community’s ability to bridge this divide. This requires moving beyond entrenched positions to forge a new, integrated approach to ocean governance that is equitable, inclusive, and recognizes the profound interconnectedness of ecological health and human well-being.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues that are directly and indirectly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals. The primary focus is on marine conservation and governance, but it also touches upon equity, international cooperation, and food security.

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Explanation: This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire text revolves around the “conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ),” which is the core objective of SDG 14. The article details the challenges of managing fisheries, protecting ecosystems through Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), and the overall governance of the High Seas under the BBNJ Agreement. It explicitly mentions key concerns of SDG 14, such as overfishing, biodiversity loss, and the implementation of international marine law (UNCLOS).
2. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Explanation: The article highlights the complexities of international cooperation in ocean governance. It describes the BBNJ negotiation process, involving multiple stakeholders like government delegates, Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), and conservationists. A key theme is the need for “coherent and integrated framework” and ensuring the new BBNJ Agreement does not “undermine” existing institutions, which directly relates to enhancing policy coherence (Target 17.14) and strengthening global partnerships (Target 17.16). The discussion on “Capacity-Building and the Transfer of Marine Technology (CB&TMT)” also aligns with this goal.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Explanation: The article emphasizes the tensions and differing interests between various groups of nations. It points out the divide between “industrialised fishing nations” (often OECD members) and “developing coastal states, especially small island developing states (SIDS).” Issues of “equity, access, benefit distribution, and intergenerational equity” are central to the debate, particularly regarding the management of fisheries and the sharing of benefits from Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs). The article also notes the inclusion of “landlocked developing states” asserting their interests, highlighting the goal of promoting political and economic inclusion for all.
4. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Explanation: The article connects marine resources directly to food security. It states that fisheries are a central issue due to their “economic and food security significance” and that coastal communities, particularly in SIDS, depend on fisheries for “food security, employment, and cultural identity.” The tension between conserving marine biodiversity and ensuring access to fish as a “staple food resource” is a recurring theme, linking ocean governance directly to the goal of ending hunger.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

The article’s detailed discussion allows for the identification of several specific SDG targets.

1. Under SDG 14 (Life Below Water):
   • Target 14.4: By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible.
     • Explanation: The article is centered on the management of fisheries, mentioning “declining fish stocks due to rising demand,” the expansion of fishing into the High Seas, and the role of RFMOs in managing “highly migratory, and transboundary species.” The entire debate on integrating fisheries into the BBNJ framework is an effort to better regulate harvesting.
   • Target 14.5: By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information.
     • Explanation: The article extensively discusses the use of “area-based management tools (ABMTs),” specifically “Marine Protected Areas (MPAs),” as a key component of the BBNJ Agreement. It highlights the debate around their implementation, purpose (conservation vs. sustainable use), and potential impact on fishing activities.
   • Target 14.c: Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
     • Explanation: The BBNJ Agreement is explicitly described as an “Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).” The article analyzes how this new legally binding instrument aims to address gaps in UNCLOS to better conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in ABNJ.
   • Target 14.a: Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries.
     • Explanation: The article discusses “Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs)” and “bioprospecting,” which rely on scientific research. It also highlights the “disparities in technological capacity” between nations and mentions “Capacity-Building and the Transfer of Marine Technology (CB&TMT)” as one of the four key package elements of the BBNJ negotiations.
2. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals):
   • Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development.
     • Explanation: A central theme of the article is the “fragmented ocean governance system” and the “institutional and conceptual divide” between fisheries management and biodiversity conservation. The entire analysis focuses on the challenge of creating a coherent policy that integrates these two domains without undermining existing bodies like RFMOs.
   • Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships.
     • Explanation: The article describes the BBNJ negotiations as a multi-stakeholder process involving “delegates, fisheries managers, and conservationists,” as well as various state groups (OECD, SIDS, landlocked nations) and international bodies (FAO, RFMOs), all contributing to a global agreement.
3. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.b: Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries.
     • Explanation: The article discusses the unique vulnerabilities and dependence of SIDS on marine resources. It mentions the need for “funding to support involvement in negotiations” and “enhancing capacity-building” for these states, which aligns with directing financial flows and assistance to where it is most needed. The debate over fair and equitable “benefit distribution” from MGRs also relates to this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article, being qualitative, primarily provides descriptive and implied indicators rather than quantitative data points. However, these are crucial for understanding progress.

1. Indicator for Target 14.4 (Regulating Overfishing):
   • Implied Indicator: The state of fish stocks. The article mentions “declining fish stocks” as a driver for the BBNJ agreement. Progress would be measured by a reversal of this trend and the successful implementation of management plans by RFMOs and under the BBNJ framework to ensure stocks are within biologically sustainable levels.
2. Indicator for Target 14.5 (Marine Protected Areas):
   • Direct Indicator: The establishment and effective management of MPAs and ABMTs in ABNJ. The article discusses the proposal and negotiation of these tools. The number, size, and level of protection (e.g., “no-take zones”) of MPAs established under the BBNJ agreement would be a direct indicator of progress.
3. Indicator for Target 14.c (Implementing UNCLOS):
   • Direct Indicator: The adoption and ratification of the BBNJ Agreement. The article states the agreement was adopted in “June 2023.” The number of countries that sign and ratify the treaty is a clear indicator of progress in implementing international law for the oceans.
4. Indicator for Target 17.14 (Policy Coherence):
   • Qualitative Indicator: The level of integration and cooperation between the BBNJ framework and existing bodies like RFMOs. The article highlights the “not undermining” clause and the “fragmented governance” as the key challenge. An indicator of progress would be the development of cooperative mechanisms, joint management measures, or Memoranda of Understanding between these institutions, moving away from the “sectoral divide.”
5. Indicator for Target 14.a / 10.b (Capacity Building & Equity):
   • Qualitative Indicator: The implementation of mechanisms for benefit-sharing and technology transfer. The article points to the debates around MGRs and CB&TMT. The establishment of a functional and equitable benefit-sharing fund from MGRs and concrete programs for technology transfer to developing states would be key indicators of progress. The level of participation and influence of SIDS and LDCs in the new BBNJ bodies would also serve as an indicator of procedural equity.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nature.com