In late March, China’s deputy foreign minister, Hua Chunying, led a sizeable delegation on a rare single-purpose trip to the UN headquarters in New York.
She was there to persuade other countries to back China’s bid to establish the headquarters of the high seas treaty in the coastal city of Xiamen. A successful bid would create the first UN-affiliated office in China.
Beijing’s high-level push has drawn attention to what would otherwise be a fairly low-profile decision, of a treaty little-discussed outside of environmental and ocean circles.
Countries spent 20 years negotiating the high seas treaty. It governs the use and protection of biodiversity on the high seas: those areas of the ocean beyond the jurisdiction of any country. The treaty is also known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) agreement.
Long established industries, such as distant-water fisheries, and emerging new ones including genetic prospecting and seabed mining, make the high seas a contentious zone of many competing interests. Hailed as an historic agreement, the treaty has been designed to ensure cooperation in protecting this blue commons.
Now that the treaty has entered into force, the inaugural conference of the parties to the agreement (COP1) can take place, in January. One of the first tasks for those parties will be deciding the location of the secretariat’s headquarters.
In competition with China are Chile, pushing its port city of Valparaíso, and the Belgian capital Brussels. The contest will demonstrate whether the world is willing to shift marine governance away from its traditional centres of power, such as Europe and North America. With the US pulling away from multilateralism in general, this juncture is particularly pertinent.
Why does this matter?
A treaty secretariat is an administrative body that assists member states with implementation. It arranges meetings, prepares documents and circulates information – the day-to-day work that can shape how agreements are ultimately carried out.
The Kyoto Protocol
Superseded by the 2015 Paris Agreement, this international pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions came into force in 2005
A 2011 comparative study of treaty secretariats by Pallavi Kishore indicates the power these bodies can have. Kishore, an international law professor at the OP Jindal Global University in north-west India, studied secretariats including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). She assessed its role in shaping talks on the operational rules of the Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto negotiations collapsed at the UNFCCC’s COP6, in 2000. When they resumed the following year, the secretariat put forward a revised text to negotiate with, which offered solutions to several problems. This contributed to the eventual consensus and adoption of the rules, formally known as the Marrakesh Accords.
The UNFCCC secretariat was highly involved in these negotations – Kishore quotes one of its staff members: “No meeting ever succeeded because the logistics were great. But if the logistics are bad, the negotiations can fail.”
Host states do not control secretariats. Any member state can nominate a secretary general, which becomes a vote if there are multiple candidates. Other staff are usually selected through typical hiring processes.
A host state could, in theory, pressure secretariat staff of the same nationality in an attempt to influence negotiations, Kishore says. But she tells Dialogue Earth that geopolitically and economically powerful states also exercise their influence, regardless of a secretariat’s location.
If we say that we want to locate everythingPallavi Kishore, international law professor, OP Jindal Global University
in the same legal political culture, then we are just refusing to accept the diversity that exists in this world.
In his 2009 article, Green room politics and the WTO’s crisis of representation, the international trade expert Kent Jones describes how the World Trade Organization had been holding exclusive, pre-negotiation discussions since the 1970s. These served as a way for larger and more powerful countries to maintain some level of agenda control. Kishore says the WTO has since improved representation in its negotiations, but adds that “these kind of things can happen” in international talks.
In selecting the location of a secretariat, countries place significant weight on logistical factors: internet access, office facilities, visa arrangements and access to scientific expertise that can support the treaty’s operations.
Kishore tells Dialogue Earth that, as more nations step up to host, the world will have to become more comfortable placing HQs in regions with different political and legal systems: “If we say that we want to locate everything in the same legal political culture, then we are just refusing to accept the diversity that exists in this world.”
The rival bids
Chile was first to enter this race, announcing its candidacy in 2023. The nation has prided itself on leading the drive for marine conservation for many years. Under the 2022-2026 Boric administration, Chile set a domestic example by protecting half of its territorial waters from most human activities. Internationally, it led a global campaign to speed up the creation of high-quality reserves on the high seas.
However, the far-right Kast administration that took over in March has suspended dozens of environmental measures approved under Boric. That has included withdrawing the decree that created these protected areas. It is also looking at rolling back Chile’s Lafkenche Law, which established the legal basis for some Indigenous-led marine protection initiatives. President Kast says the law is holding back salmon farming. This suggests Chile’s long-term approach to marine conservation may change, although the government remains committed to the Valparaíso bid.
Chile currently hosts several UN regional offices but winning the high seas HQ would bring the first global UN body to Latin America. This, the Chilean government says, could dramatically strengthen the Global South’s voice in ocean governance.
Belgium has campaigned on being a safe pair of hands. Brussels may be landlocked but it is already home to over 40 international organisations and much of the government of the European Union.
China has been emphasising its commitment to multilateralism, as well as the symbolic meaning of establishing the first UN organisation headquartered in the Asia Pacific region. China has offered to provide office premises and accommodation in Xiamen for free, Hua says, and to cover the first five years of utility costs. This would save the body at least USD 70 million across five years. China has also made a “first pledge” of USD 3 million to the BBNJ trust fund, to be used in supporting delegates from developing countries.
China has made the largest financial proposal of the three. Belgium has also offered to cover office costs for the first five years, and to contribute USD 70,000 to the BBNJ trust fund; Chile says it would provide an office “at its own expense” but has not specified for how long, while its own BBNJ fund pledge does not include a figure.
China’s bid attracts scrutiny
Most ocean governance organisations are based in the Global North: the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) is headquartered in the US, in New York; the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is in Hamburg, Germany; global shipping regulator the International Maritime Organization is based in London, England. Jamaica’s International Seabed Authority in Kingston is a rare exception.
Dialogue Earth has spoken to multiple advocates and researchers who have worked on marine issues in China. They all see China’s attempt to play a larger role in ocean governance as positive, and that giving such a role to the largest fisheries nation on Earth may encourage China to be more ambitious on ocean protection.
China’s bid has also attracted scrutiny. Li Shuo, who directs the Asia Society Policy Institute’s China Climate Hub, says there was scepticism hovering over Hua Chunying’s visit to the UN in March. Li says this might be due to China’s mixed ocean governance reputation on the world stage.
China owns the world’s largest distant-water fishing fleet. It often generates concerns over sustainability, legality, regulations and oversight. Its resistance to the creation of new marine protected areas in Antarctica, under the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, has also raised doubts over China’s commitment to conservation.
Some ocean advocates have described their worries over China’s political influence to Dialogue Earth. Chime Youdon, a blue economy researcher at the National Maritime Foundation, a think-tank based in Delhi, says China’s authoritarian governance system could undermine the treaty’s stated values of institutional transparency and significant civil society input.
Many NGOs are staying publicly neutral on the secretariat’s location but issues of neutrality, impartiality and transparency are key concerns.
After the Chinese presentation at March’s BBNJ meeting in New York, Ilka Wagner took the floor to remind those present that the treaty promotes transparent decision-making. The German representative asked how China would ensure the participation of all delegates, experts and civil society members. Hua responded: “Please rest assured we welcome delegates from all countries at all levels, including NGOs.”
“China is very confident in its bids,” Li says. But he hopes the outcome will not require a contentious vote at COP1 in January. Instead, candidate countries could coordinate an arrangement between them, sending a message of unity in ocean governance: China could offer the secretariat’s hardware (venues and supporting infrastructure) but then allow professionals with expertise in operations and diplomacy from Chile and the European Union to head it up, Li suggests – “a more politically sophisticated outcome”.
“Behind this secretariat lies a fundamental question,” Li says. “Can China’s actions dispel international concerns, and can it meet global expectations?”
With less than a year to go before a decision has to be made, the politicking continues.
