Introduction
Now that the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement has officially entered into force in January 2026, attention is turning to its implementation. One question that simply cannot be avoided is how environmental impact assessment standards should be set—and who should set them. The 44 mining standards published by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) in July 2025 happen to invite an obvious comparison: could BBNJ just use those? This article takes a stab at that question.
01 A Question
In July 2025, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) released a list—44 standards and guidelines accompanying the regulations on mineral resource development in the “Area.” They cover everything from environmental impact assessment to baseline data collection, from noise monitoring to closure plans—the full lifecycle of deep-sea mining Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
So someone asked: BBNJ is supposed to develop EIA standards too, right? ISA has done 44 of them. Can BBNJ just use them?
My answer: probably not.
But the more interesting question is—what kind of international standards does BBNJ actually need?
02 First, Let’s Be Clear About Who’s Responsible for BBNJ’s Standards
To answer that, we first need to sort out one thing: who actually develops the standards and guidelines under the BBNJ Agreement?
The Agreement establishes a new body—the Scientific and Technical Body (STB). Under Article 49, one of its core functions is to develop relevant standards and guidelines for the Agreement. In other words, the STB is the body responsible for standards and guidelines work under BBNJ.
Specifically in the area of environmental impact assessment, Article 38 explicitly authorizes the STB to develop seven categories of standards and guidelines, including:
- Criteria for determining screening and EIA thresholds
- Guidelines for cumulative impact assessment
- Guidelines for assessing the impacts of activities in ABNJ on areas within national jurisdiction (AWNJ)
- Guidelines for notification and consultation procedures
- Guidelines on the content of EIA reports
- Standards for monitoring and reporting
- Guidelines for strategic environmental assessment
In addition, paragraph 2 of the same article gives the STB two optional tasks:
- Developing a list of activities that require—or do not require—an EIA
- Guidelines for conducting EIAs in areas requiring protection or special attention
But look closely at all of this—it’s entirely framework and procedure.
The STB will not go so far as to specify “how large an assessment area should be,” “which biological sampling equipment should be used,” “what pollutant emission concentration is appropriate,” or “when noise monitoring should be conducted.” In my view, that’s not the STB’s job, and the Agreement never asked it to do that.
One thing to note, though: the STB doesn’t work in a vacuum when developing standards. Article 29, paragraph 3 requires the STB, when developing EIA standards, to collaborate as appropriate with relevant legal instruments and frameworks as well as relevant global, regional, subregional, and sectoral bodies (IFBs). Article 49, paragraph 3 also allows the STB to draw on the views of other IFBs, scientists, and experts. This means the STB can “borrow strength”—but it’s building a framework, not getting down in the weeds on technical details.
This is probably not an oversight—it’s deliberate. BBNJ is meant to govern all activities on the high seas—fishing, shipping, scientific research, mining. It’s a cross-sectoral, comprehensive framework. It can’t possibly do what ISA did and write a painstakingly detailed technical manual for deep-sea mining alone. Moreover, the Agreement explicitly leaves EIA decision-making to states—which means the choice of technical methods and standards naturally falls to states as well.
So my view is: the STB’s job is to build the procedural framework, not to write a technical manual.
03 But the Agreement Does Need One Thing—”Best Available Science”
Article 7 of the Agreement explicitly requires that Parties be guided by the principle of “best available science and scientific information.” In my view, this is precisely a key institutional interface—it points to an open, dynamic body of scientific knowledge, not to any particular standards document.
As long as a technical method is scientifically sound and internationally recognized by peers, it can be part of “best available science.” BBNJ doesn’t need to “designate” whose standards apply—it only needs to “recognize” what counts as best.
This leaves clear room for the international standards system to step in.
04 ISA’s Standards Aren’t “The Answer,” But ISA’s Experience Is Worth Looking At
Many of ISA’s 44 standards are essentially technical method standards: What methods to use for biological surveys? How to collect environmental data? What indicators to use for noise monitoring? ISA spent nearly a decade standardizing these technical methods. From a technical standpoint, it did a great deal of solid work.
But here’s the problem: ISA’s standards serve a single industry—deep-sea mining. BBNJ governs all activities on the high seas. To use an analogy, ISA wrote a deep-sea mining engineering manual, while BBNJ needs a set of general procedural rules applicable to all high-seas industries. These are two different things—you can’t just transplant one onto the other.
That said, ISA’s experience offers an important insight: technical methods can be standardized, and once standardized, they’re easier for states to use and the data becomes more comparable.
05 Who Develops the Technical Details?
So who develops the specific technical standards that BBNJ needs in practice? In my view, this can be left to: an open international network of marine science and technology standards.
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) already has mature working mechanisms in marine technology. ICES (the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) has long-standing expertise in marine survey methods. IOC (the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission) collects and recommends advanced methods globally through its “Ocean Best Practices System.” ISA’s 44 standards are also part of this network. In addition, IMO (the International Maritime Organization), FAO (the Food and Agriculture Organization), and other IFBs have their own technical norms and guidelines in their respective fields.
The BBNJ Agreement itself leaves room for this kind of collaboration—Article 29, paragraph 3 requires the STB, when developing EIA standards, to collaborate “as appropriate” with relevant IFBs. These bodies don’t need to be “adopted” by BBNJ—they simply need to serve as providers of “best available scientific information and practice.”
As long as these standards are scientifically sound and internationally recognized by peers, they will naturally become reference points for states in fulfilling their BBNJ obligations. When developing guidelines, the STB can fully recommend recognized international standards as examples of what qualifies as “best available science.”
06 A Three-Tier Division of Labor
ISA’s 44 standards, ISO’s technical standards, ICES’s survey protocols, IOC’s “Ocean Best Practices”—in my view, they all play the same role: tools in a technical toolbox.
What BBNJ needs is an open technical toolbox—the more tools in it, the better. States can choose what to use based on their own circumstances when conducting EIAs.
The STB’s job is not to make the tools, but to set the rules of the toolbox—what tools can be used, how to use them, and how to report after using them. And when setting those rules, the STB can “borrow strength” from other IFBs and experts—but it’s building a framework, not making tools.
The three-tier relationship is clear:
- STB: Sets the procedural framework—what to do
- Open international network of marine science and technology standards (ISO, ICES, IOC, ISA, and other IFBs): Provides the technical toolbox—what to do it with
- Individual Parties: Choose autonomously—whether to use them, and which ones
07 One-Sentence Summary
In my view, BBNJ doesn’t need to develop its own painstakingly detailed set of technical standards—but it does need an open international technical toolbox to support the implementation of “best available science.”
ISA’s 44 standards, ISO’s technical standards, ICES’s survey protocols, IOC’s best practices—they can all become tools in this toolbox. For these organizations, there’s no need to chase “being adopted by BBNJ”—that’s a political decision with a very high threshold. The more pragmatic path is: make your standards recognized as “best available scientific information and practice,” have the STB recommend them as examples when developing guidelines, and have states voluntarily use them when implementing EIAs.
The STB builds the framework, the toolbox provides the tools, and states choose what to use. Framework is framework, tools are tools—you need both, but neither can replace the other.
