The Politics Beneath the Technicalities: Reflections on BBNJ PrepCom3

It has now been a few weeks since the third and final session of the BBNJ Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) ended. With some distance from the intensity of the two-week negotiations, it is easier to take stock of what was achieved, where they fell short, and the broader dynamics that shaped the discussions.

The BBNJ Agreement (commonly known as the High Seas Treaty) is widely regarded as a landmark, once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform how marine biodiversity is conserved in areas beyond national jurisdiction and adopting it required compromises from all sides. As discussions move towards implementing the Treaty, it is therefore essential that the process remains anchored in this fundamental purpose. This requires voices in the room that consistently bring the focus back to the protection of marine life, even as negotiations inevitably engage with complex political considerations far removed from the realities at sea.

The Agreement left many institutional details to be resolved later. States therefore established the BBNJ PrepCom process, including three meetings, with the final recommendations to be agreed at its final meeting and then decided on at the first Conference of the Parties (CoP1). While PrepCom1 and 2 have sometimes been called dry and technical, the final meeting marked the transition — or return — to a more political modus operandi to be expected at the first and future CoPs. This provides an opportunity to reflect on the role of politics and what “political” means within the BBNJ process and to underline that such dynamics should never detract from the overarching objective of protecting marine life.

PrepCom3 made meaningful progress on the technical discussions that are essential to bringing the BBNJ Agreement to life, not least due to the impressive navigation by the Co-Chairs Ambassador Janine Coye-Felson of Belize and Mr. Adam McCarthy of Australia. At the same time, it also brought into focus a quieter dynamic: the presence of political and, at times, geopolitical considerations. While much of the work remained technical in nature, questions of institutional design and procedure increasingly revealed underlying questions of influence and control.

We often hear that something is “getting political” or “geopolitical”. But it is worth pausing to ask what that actually means. We understand something to be “political” when it stops being about navigating the redline positions of countries to arrive at the best feasible common outcome, i.e. make the cake bigger for everyone, and starts being about narrow interests, outside influence beyond the forum in question, and losing sight of the greater goal and purpose of the negotiation. It is when discussions revolve around who benefits, who decides, and whose priorities are reflected. It becomes “geopolitical” when these same dynamics are seen in the wider geopolitical and security context, in how states relate to one another, how they position themselves within global governance and international security, and how they seek to advance their standing in the international system at the cost of the objectives of the actual negotiations at hand.

A shared interest and responsibility for marine biodiversity beneath the politics

Although ocean governance is, by its nature, not solely about protecting the marine environment, the BBNJ process was never intended to serve as a stage for external bargaining. The purpose of the Agreement is clear: the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and by extension, the health of the entire global ocean as one shared body of water. In other words, the BBNJ process is about providing a framework for countries to fulfil this shared responsibility for a system that no single state can govern alone.

When process meets politicking

Yet the final PrepCom session foreshadowed that this shared commitment could come under strain. Long-standing political and geopolitical sensitivities, which the negotiation process had often managed to contain or navigate, became more visible (again) at PrepCom3, e.g. in the context of  the modalities for Indigenous Peoples’ self-representation; how Regional Economic Integration Organizations like the EU can participate in decision making; and the broader imperatives of financial discipline and administrative efficiency afflicting multilateralism more broadly. Less explicit, but still impactful, considerations on data sovereignty and security and the location of infrastructure crept into discussions on the Clearing-House Mechanism (Cl-HM). Procedural debates increasingly reflected underlying broader political positions. In doing so, they risked allowing the Agreement’s political dimensions — questions of institutional control, balance, and design — to come into sharper focus at the expense of its conservation purpose.

The question of the seat of the BBNJ Secretariat illustrates how political considerations become directly embedded in the process, including institutional choices such as where the Secretariat, and potentially satellite offices or infrastructure relating to the Secretariat will be based. While the decision on where the BBNJ Agreement will be hosted may appear, to the outside observer, largely administrative or even trivial in nature, it in fact carries unavoidable political weight. Even where Secretariats manage to operate neutrally and are not influenced by host countries, such arrangements shape perceptions of balance, influence, and ownership over the process, and are therefore far from neutral in their implications.

From a political science perspective, this is not surprising; international environmental regimes are rarely insulated from broader power dynamics. Even when the subject matter is technical or scientific, institutions and legal frameworks like the BBNJ Agreement remain embedded in a wider international system shaped by asymmetries of power, trust deficits, and strategic behaviour in bargaining. Therefore, over time, procedural discussions can become proxies for substantive disagreement, particularly when states are cautious about how institutional design may affect future influence.

Keeping the balance in implementation

This raises a vital question: What safeguards can ensure the BBNJ process remains guided by a shared commitment to the ocean and multilateralism rather than external interests? There is a delicate balance to be struck. It is neither realistic nor desirable to ignore the implications of procedure, structure, and hosting arrangements. On the other hand, over-politicisation of these issues risks drawing attention away from the substantive urgency that motivated the Agreement in the first place, and the need to urgently safeguard our shared ocean in the light of the climate and biodiversity crises.

The challenge, therefore, is not to depoliticise BBNJ entirely — an impossible task in any multilateral setting — but to continue to prevent geopolitics from becoming the dominant frame through which the Agreement is understood and operationalised. An endeavour that both PrepCom Co-Chairs have masterfully navigated thus far. The risk is subtle, but the consequences would be dire: that the regime slowly shifts from being an instrument for biodiversity protection into another arena for political and geopolitical positioning and grandstanding.

As implementation begins to take shape, the measure of success will not only be the elegance of procedural and political compromise, but whether the Agreement and its bodies remain anchored in delivering real improvement to marine life. In a fragmented political environment, anchoring will not happen automatically. It will require compromise, collaboration and focus on a common goal: protecting our shared ocean for generations to come.