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, commonly known as the ‘High Seas Agreement’, officially entered into force on 17 January 2026. This legal milestone was not merely a diplomatic formality, but rather the result of exceptional international momentum, given the difficulties currently facing environmental negotiations. Despite this historic achievement, the actual implementation of the Agreement continues to face technical and administrative challenges that require diplomatic wisdom. Discussions at the third meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the Implementation of the Agreement, held in New York from 23 March to 3 April, focused on institutionalising the work by establishing the rules of procedure for the Conference of the Parties and defining the tasks of the Scientific and Technical Body (STB).
With agreement reached on some issues, the question of financing has become the greatest challenge, as negotiators have sought to secure a financial balance that ensures the flow of resources through the Global Environment Facility and the activation of the convention’s Special Fund, to ensure that the Convention’s obligations do not become a financial burden that prevents developing countries from meeting their reporting and transparency requirements. As for the Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM), concerns were raised about creating additional burdens on countries, given that the preparation of national reports for other conventions – particularly those relating to desertification, climate change, and biodiversity – has become a technical and financial burden on developing countries, including Arab states, which now face a dual strategic dilemma: on the one hand, their commitment to the Convention requires them to strengthen their technical and financial capacities to avoid the ‘reporting fatigue’ that has weighed heavily on them in other environmental conventions; on the other hand, the absence of clear and accessible financing mechanisms poses a real threat to their ability to meet transparency requirements without depleting their limited resources.
At the conclusion of its third meeting, the Preparatory Committee recommended that the first Conference of the Parties (scheduled for January 2027) consider a number of key approaches aimed at alleviating the burden on States Parties. The recommendations included: striking a balance between transparency, accountability, and confidentiality on the one hand, and minimizing the excessive burden on States in terms of costs and time on the other; developing simplified and standardised reporting requirements that avoid duplication with reporting frameworks under other conventions; the possibility of aligning reporting periods with the sessions of the Conference of the Parties and its subsidiary bodies; the use of user-friendly, multilingual electronic submission mechanisms, whilst retaining the option to submit in other formats; and allowing developing countries to indicate data gaps or capacity gaps in their reports. The recommendations also emphasised the role of subsidiary bodies, the Secretariat, and the CHM in the processes of report preparation, follow-up, and dissemination, in an attempt to address the ‘reporting fatigue’ experienced by many Parties under other environmental conventions.
The ‘reporting fatigue’ discussed in the context of the preparatory committee meetings are not divorced from the global environmental landscape; the Sixth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD SBI 6) reflected growing international concern regarding this issue, highlighting a significant implementation gap, with only four countries having submitted their seventh national reports by the requisite deadline. Delegates attributed this to a lack of funding and technical constraints, emphasising the need to strengthen synergies between different international conventions to improve efficiency and reduce the administrative burden on states. Consequently, the outcomes of the UNCBD SBI 6 served as an early warning to negotiators involved in the High Seas Treaty regarding the need to standardise data collection mechanisms, and ensuring the smooth flow of financial resources before imposing new reporting requirements, to ensure the continuity of national commitments and the protection of the oceans without depleting states’ limited capacities.
