As the High Seas Treaty enters implementation, Mediterranean countries face a strategic choice: shape the rules from the outset or remain on the sidelines. In a region defined by ecological interdependence and fragmented governance, participation in implementing the Treaty is a strategic necessity.
After decades of negotiations, the High Seas Treaty finally entered into force in January 2026. The question is no longer whether the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) matters, but who will shape how it works in practice.
In January 2027, governments will gather for the Agreement’s first Conference of the Parties (COP1).
The decisions expected to be adopted will not be procedural housekeeping. Early decisions on governance arrangements, subsidiary bodies, implementation mechanisms and cooperation processes will help determine whether the Agreement becomes an effective tool for ocean governance or a weaker framework constrained by institutional caution.
For the Mediterranean, this matters more than many might think.
The region is sometimes treated as peripheral to the BBNJ conversation, associated more with complex maritime jurisdictional questions than with high seas governance. We believe that framing misses the point.
The Mediterranean is one of the world’s most ecologically interconnected and politically complex marine regions. It represents less than 1% of the global ocean, yet hosts an estimated 18% of known marine species. At the same time, it faces intense cumulative pressures from overfishing, shipping, pollution, climate change, offshore development and habitat degradation. Today less than 10% of the Mediterranean Sea is protected.
The regional governance landscape is equally complex. The Mediterranean benefits from an unusually dense network of institutions and legal frameworks, from the Barcelona Convention system and the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) to the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS), International Maritime Organization (IMO) and, for EU Member States, extensive European environmental legislation. Yet this institutional density has not automatically translated into coherent governance.
Marine biodiversity conservation, fisheries management, shipping regulation and pollution control continue to operate largely through sector-specific mandates. Ecosystems, species movements and cumulative human pressures do not respect those institutional boundaries. The result is a governance gap that no single existing framework can fully address on its own. This is precisely where the BBNJ Agreement becomes relevant.
The treaty is not simply about establishing marine protected areas in distant ocean spaces. It also provides a framework for stronger international cooperation, environmental governance and more coherent conservation planning across ecologically connected marine areas. This includes opportunities to support better-connected networks of area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, across jurisdictional boundaries where ecological continuity demands greater cooperation.
For the Mediterranean, three dimensions are particularly important.
First, cooperation: The treaty creates formal processes to strengthen cooperation with existing global, regional and sectoral bodies. In a region where biodiversity outcomes often depend on better coordination between institutions rather than the absence of institutions altogether, this matters significantly.
The Mediterranean does not need another competing governance architecture. It needs stronger coherence between existing ones.
Second, environmental governance: The region’s environmental pressures are increasingly cumulative and transboundary. Shipping routes, offshore infrastructure, climate-driven ecosystem shifts and pollution impacts do not stop at maritime boundaries. Yet environmental assessments often remain fragmented, uneven and focused on individual activities rather than broader ecosystem interactions.
The BBNJ framework creates an opportunity to strengthen approaches to environmental assessment, transparency, and cooperation, while supporting more ecosystem-based approaches in marine governance.
Third, future conservation ambition: The treaty creates a global framework through which Parties can propose and adopt area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This is particularly relevant in a region where countries have already committed to ambitious biodiversity goals, including the global and regional 30×30 targets, but where implementation remains uneven.
The political question is therefore straightforward: who will shape these developments?
This is where gaps in the participation of Mediterranean countries, which will not have ratified before COP1, becomes a strategic concern. While the treaty has already entered into force globally, participation across the Mediterranean remains incomplete, with only 12 countries plus the EU having ratified the Agreement. Several Mediterranean countries are still not Parties to the Agreement. This matters because implementation is now moving from legal text to institutional practice.
Parties will shape the decisions taken at COP1 and beyond. They will influence governance design, institutional priorities, implementation guidance and cooperation mechanisms. Non-Parties may observe these discussions, but they will not shape them in the same way.
For Mediterranean countries still outside the Agreement, this is not simply a legal technicality. It is a strategic choice about influence.
For countries already Party to the treaty, ratification is only the starting point. Active engagement now matters far more than symbolic participation.
The Mediterranean’s ecological realities, governance complexity and political sensitivities are distinctive. If they are not reflected in early implementation discussions, the treaty risks evolving in ways less responsive to regional needs.
This is also a geopolitical question.
The Mediterranean remains a region marked by fragmentation, competing priorities and unresolved tensions. The BBNJ Agreement will not solve these dynamics. But it does offer something increasingly rare: a multilateral framework through which countries can cooperate around shared marine interests, scientific evidence and practical governance needs.
That opportunity should not be underestimated.
The first phase of implementation will shape the treaty’s ambition and operational direction for years to come.
The Mediterranean can either help define that future, or adjust to decisions shaped without it.
Promoted by WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative
