The oceans cover more than 70% of our planet, yet the vast parts of it lie beyond national jurisdiction, a realm often described as the “global commons.” These Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) are critical reservoirs of marine life yet they exist in a legal and conceptual grey zone. The new Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement is hailed as a breakthrough for ocean governance. But as promising as it is, a closer look reveals deep-seated ambiguities and fragmentation.
In our recent article, we explore how biodiversity—seemingly a clear target for protection—becomes surprisingly slippery when framed as an object of governance. The BBNJ Agreement negotiates between competing interests, from commercial exploitation of Marine Genetic Resources to systemic conservation of marine ecosystems. In trying to accommodate these perspectives, the treaty leans on strategic ambiguity. It doesn’t precisely define “biodiversity,” leaving room for consensus—but also for hidden disagreements about what is being governed, and for whom.
This raises provocative questions: Can we govern what we do not fully understand—or do not fully agree on? When policymakers, scientists, and negotiators think they are talking about the same “biodiversity,” hidden assumptions and differing values often lurk beneath the surface. One group emphasizes resource extraction and benefit-sharing, while another is thinking about ecological relationships and long-term resilience. Without surfacing these differences, the risk is that governance mechanisms serve some interests while sidelining others, reinforcing legal fragmentation instead of addressing systemic ecological challenges.
Our research combines legal analysis, treaty interpretation, and ethnographic observation, highlighting how biodiversity has been parsed across spatial, legal, and epistemic boundaries to make it “governable.” The result is a delicate balancing act: preserving institutional stability while leaving critical ecological and ethical questions unresolved.
The BBNJ Agreement marks a significant step toward international biodiversity governance—but it also illuminates a broader dilemma: how do we create rules for something so vast, interconnected, and contested that even its definition remains unsettled? The answer may lie not in seeking total clarity, but in embracing approaches that are inclusive, adaptive, and ecologically attuned—approaches that recognize the hidden complexities we often fail to see.
Read the full article here: Governing biodiversity: ambiguity and fragmentation in the BBNJ Agreement
Solomon Sebuliba 
Leave a comment