Imagine a future not far off, where the label on a tuna can in your local supermarket provides more than just the species or the catch area. Picture a QR code, or even an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) or any disruptive Next-Gen Data Capture Technology, linked to an AI-driven tracking system, offering insights into the fleet, the vessel, the captain, fishing techniques, and even the precise date and location of the catch. Advanced market players might go a step further, certifying that their tuna adheres to the BBNJ Agreement’s standards for biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. This is not just a possibility— it is a glimpse into the imminent future of tuna sustainability that could eventually become a legal requirement.

As countries like France rally for the Agreement’s activation by the UN Ocean Conference in June 2025, the urgency to bridge the existing divide in awareness and action amongst tuna RFMOs (t-RFMOs) and their stakeholders becomes evident. This lack of interest is remarkable, as well as surprising, because the new Agreement will require important adjustment of some of the policies at the RFMO level, such as a broadened scope of data collection in the scientific committees and a recalibration of policies at the RFMO level. This underlines the need for added resources and a fresh perspective on their global role in ocean management.

So, what is this treaty about, what does it stipulate and how will it affect sustainability governance in the tuna value chain?

The BBNJ Agreement, rooted in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), seeks to address the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction— areas previously left in a regulatory void. Its adoption is a testament to a collective realization: to achieve our global climate change and biodiversity conservation goals, a robust legal framework governing the high seas is indispensable. As a result, in 2004, the UN started the negotiations to address the conservation and sustainable use of marine Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). After long and often complicated discussions, the BBNJ Agreement was finally agreed on 4 March 2023 by eighty-eight countries at the UN headquarters in New York. The treaty is now waiting for a minimum of sixty countries to ratify in order to move into the implementation phase.

The treaty’s implementation will introduce mechanisms like area-based management tools (ABMTs) and marine protected areas (MPAs), alongside mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for potentially harmful activities. This represents a paradigm shift in how sustainable fisheries management is conceptualized and operationalized.

It is a fundamental legal toolkit that is needed to accomplish the important international agreements on climate change, sustainable development goals and, most importantly, the so-called Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to protect 30% of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030. This not only has to do with the enormous size of high seas (two-thirds of the ocean’s surface counting for about half of the Earth), but also with the vital role that healthy oceans play in global ecology and biodiversity, as well as climate change and CO2 storage. Without a framework for the governance of the high seas provided for in the BBNJ Agreement, all these other treaties will turn into paper tigers.

Part of the BBNJ’s toolkit will inevitably affect the way in which the management of sustainable fisheries will work in the future. The treaty, and more specifically, the Conference of the State Parties (CoP) that functions as the executive governing body, has the mandate to designate large parts of the high seas as a protected area with so called area-based management tools (ABMTs), including marine protected areas (MPAs)1. The difference between ABMTs and MPAs is a matter of their objectives. ABMTs range from single-sector tools that manage only one type of activity, to multi-sector tools that more comprehensively manage a wide breadth of activities. MPAs serve a specific long-term biological diversity conservation objective (as defined in the Convention of Biological Diversity) via multi-sector protections including for cumulative impacts from different human activities and climate change2.

To prevent harmful activities in protected areas, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) will be conducted by the States with jurisdiction over these activities3. These EIAs screen new activities that may have irreversible impacts on the marine environment and that will need to be managed to avoid, mitigate, or manage potential significant adverse effects.

The convergence of BBNJ Agreement-protected areas and regions under RFMO jurisdiction highlights the critical intersection of global conservation efforts and regional fishery management. Researchers have mapped4 those areas that are considered to have priority regarding at least 30% of the targets for conservation of biodiversity. Part of those areas were excluded because they were highly fished. Also, a selection was mapped of ten sites with a high concentration of conservation features that might be considered as the first candidates for Marine Protected Areas under the BBNJ Agreement.

With large parts of the high seas involved, the treaty will inevitably include areas under the authority and management of the tuna RFMOs (see map on the previous page). During the negotiations, the industrial fishing sector had already expressed its concerns about the possibility that the treaty might overrule their fishery management policies. “We believe that high seas fishing is already well-managed by the RFMOs, and we do not need any other institution to regulate it’, stated Javier Garat, president of the powerful association of European Union fishing enterprises Europêche and vice chair of the ICFA, the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations. He warned that the treaty, with its focus on fishing outside the national EEZs, should not give rise to duplications in fishery management matters5.

The issue of possible conflicting interests and decision-making powers between the BBNJ Agreement and existing international bodies was a much-discussed issue during the negotiations6. Despite initial resistance from the industrial fishing sector (which feared regulatory duplication), a consensus emerged: the BBNJ Agreement complements, rather than overrules, existing frameworks. It fosters collaboration and consultation, inviting RFMOs to contribute to decision-making processes, particularly regarding MPAs.

It was agreed that the treaty will be applied in a manner that “does not undermine relevant legal instruments and frameworks”{BBNJ Article 22(2)} of the existing regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and the International Seabed Authority (ISA)7. The provisions of the BBNJ on genetic marine resources would also not be applied on the fisheries under RFMO competence.

But it was clear that the result did not take away the fear held by the industrial fisheries sector that the treaty could be used to overpower RFMOs and be counterproductive to fisheries management. “We ask the international community, relevant stakeholders, and environmental NGOs to focus on the challenges identified by the treaty, namely unregulated marine activities and unregulated marine areas”, Europêche president Javier Garat warned with obvious directness. “Wasting energy and effort in reinterpreting or distorting the BBNJ Agreement to try to overrule a robust fisheries management regime, would only serve as a deterrent and an excuse for its non-ratification”8.

Although the BBNJ will not directly impose procedures and management measures on RFMOs, this does not mean that its policy decisions; for example, regarding the establishment of an MPA, would have no consequences at RFMO level. As a general rule, the BBNJ provides for its State parties to cooperate with RFMOs and to promote the treaty’s objectives when participating in decision-making within them, including adopting relevant measures to support the MPAs {BBNJ Article 8(2)}. So, the primary responsibility lies with the States that are the parties to both the RFMO and the Agreement. These States are obliged to fulfil their obligations arising from both instruments. While the new governance framework respects the sovereignty of decision-making in both bodies, it remains to be seen how this crucial and controversial provision will work out in practice9.

The BBNJ-RFMO collaboration extends beyond these reciprocal duties, particularly in establishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The BBNJ framework mandates a streamlined MPA management plan, incorporating feedback not just from its stakeholders and scientific committees but also from RFMOs. These organizations are called upon to provide insights on proposals, share scientific data, report on existing area-specific measures, and suggest optimal practices to achieve MPA goals. The scope and procedure of these consultations, set by the BBNJ’s Conference of Parties, underline the necessity for transparent and coordinated interaction, and allowing RFMOs to offer strategic advice {BBNJ Art. 22(1)}. Effective MPA implementation hinges on engaging state fisheries managers and integrating the insights of RFMO stakeholders, including fisheries and the broader market, thus ensuring a comprehensive approach to ocean conservation.

With regard to the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), there is a provision that creates the possibility for impact assessment conducted by RFMOs to be used instead of an EIA procedure under BBNJ. A Party to the Agreement may decide to not undertake an EIA when provisions for managing planned activities are already addressed in the assessment of an RFMO (BBNJ Art. 29). An alternative for this assessment comprises RFMO regulations or standards that are designed to prevent, mitigate, or manage potential impacts below a threshold. When developing or updating standards or guidelines for the conduct of EIAs, the CoP is to develop mechanisms for its Scientific and Technical body to collaborate with the RFMO in order to regulate activities for protection {BBNJ, Art 29 (2)}. The overall obligation to perform an EIA is that Parties are to ensure that the potential impacts on the marine environment of planned activities under their authority or control, result in protection of the marine environment (BBNJ Art. 28).

To date, the great fears held by the industrial distant-water fleets have not materialized: the BBNJ as such is not “another institution” that can effectively “undermine” the existing relevant legal instruments and frameworks of the RFMOs or imply duplications in fishery management matters. Instead, the new governance framework interacts in a more complementary fashion: through procedures for collaboration and consultation, the RFMOs will participate in the decisions related to the BBNJ Agreement. The treaty’s approach—encouraging partnership and shared responsibility—ensures that fisheries management and biodiversity conservation go hand in hand. This, in turn, requires courageous and decisive involvement on the part of fisheries governance bodies and all the actors that make up the classic fisheries management framework10.

10) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00908320.2024.2333893

Instead of being perceived as a threat, the introduction of the broader context of biodiversity within RFMO management might even create an interesting incentive for new opportunities like developing ecosystembased fisheries management (EBFM). While traditional fisheries management looks at one species, EBFM accounts for the fact that each fish is part of an ecological system. It works as a strategy to improve the stock status of commercial species other than the target species. By using the EBFM principles in harvest strategies, the RFMOs also set “management objectives for target and non-target species that consider the whole ecosystem, like protecting a critical habitat”, accounting for the target species’ role in the marine food web, setting a cap on bycatch, or taking into account wider consideration of climate change. In that sense, it works as a complementary commitment for the BBNJ Agreement to sustainably manage and protect marine ecosystems in line with the objectives of the MPAs11.

11) https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2023/09/two-tools-can-help-makeecosystem-based-fisheries-management-a-global-reality

For the tuna market, this evolving governance landscape presents new marketing opportunities, enhancing sustainability claims with a focus on biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. As technological advancements refine tracking and observer systems, stakeholders can more credibly guarantee that their products meet these elevated standards, potentially redefining sustainability certifications in the process. It will add new characteristics to the current concepts and standards of sustainability, like respecting the management of MPAs. This might even improve the image of sustainability claims for tuna products with the consumers.

Currently the claims refer to tuna in the can caught and managed in a way that guarantees healthy stock for future generations, but this is in many ways, a complex concept that is difficult to handle for the average consumer. Tuna caught respecting the role that healthy oceans play in global ecology, biodiversity and climate change can count on instant understanding and is therefore interesting as a marketing tool. The current fast development of new observer systems and tracking tools in the market chain make it possible that traders and retailers also can guarantee that the products in their cans effectively meet these new standards of biodiversity.

As the BBNJ Agreement transitions from ratification to implementation, the onus is on tuna RFMOs to adapt their organizational and policy frameworks to this new global conservation ethos. The road ahead will demand concerted efforts from fishery managers, the fishing industry, and market stakeholders to integrate biodiversity considerations into ocean management. This not only promises to redefine sustainable tuna fishing but also to open new vistas for market differentiation and consumer engagement in the sustainability narrative. The collaboration and coordination with RFMOs will be instrumental for the effective application of the BBNJ Treaty and the high seas MPAs in the years to come. The introduction of the broader context of biodiversity as part of the management of the oceans thus will open the door for new, exciting opportunities and challenges for the markets that want to offer sustainably caught tuna to their customers.