The adoption of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement in 2023 was widely hailed as a landmark moment for ocean governance. But from where I sat—at the back of conference rooms, in side events, over hurried coffees with delegates, it was clear that something deeper and more unsettled was unfolding.
In our new article, “Our fish are not your marine biodiversity”: Tensions in integrating fisheries into the BBNJ Agreement, co-authored with Eylem Elma and Katherine Sammler, we unpack the persistent fault lines that emerged when negotiators tried to reconcile marine biodiversity conservation with the political and economic weight of fisheries.
As someone who attended the BBNJ negotiations in multiple roles (observer, analyst, and at times informal adviser) I had a unique vantage point. I watched how language was carefully crafted (or avoided), how certain terms triggered resistance, and how the very concept of “marine biodiversity” became contested territory. Fisheries, while central to biodiversity outcomes, were largely kept at arm’s length, treated as both too politically sensitive and too institutionally protected to be fully integrated into the agreement.
Our research draws on dozens of interviews and informal conversations with delegates, fisheries managers, and conservation advocates. What emerges is not a simple opposition of good vs. bad governance, but a tangled web of mandates, fears, and philosophical differences about what the ocean is for, and who it’s for.
This article is as much an academic contribution as it is a reflection on what global ocean diplomacy reveals about the world we’re trying to build. Or preserve.
Solomon Sebuliba 
Leave a comment