As the world marks World Environment Day on 5 June, it is worth reflecting on a landmark development in international environmental governance that entered into force earlier this year: 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 (BBNJ Agreement). Adopted in June 2023 after nearly two decades of negotiations, the Agreement entered into force on 17 January 2026 and has been celebrated as the most significant development in ocean governance since the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The treaty seeks to strengthen the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), the high seas that fall outside the control of any individual State yet remain integral in the planetary systems. While much attention has focused on the Agreement’s provisions relating to marine genetic resources, environmental impact assessments, marine protected areas and capacity-building, one of its most significant features has received comparatively less attention, i.e. its recognition of traditional knowledge. At first glance, the inclusion of traditional knowledge may appear to be a technical addition to a conservation treaty. In reality, it raises a more profound question: whose knowledge counts in governing the global commons?
International environmental law has historically relied on scientific expertise as the primary foundation for environmental decision-making. This approach is rooted in a dominant Euro-Western understanding of the relationship between humans and the natural world, one that often conceives of nature as external to human society and available for management, conservation or exploitation. Within this framework, expert-led and technical governance structures have become the primary mechanisms through which environmental policies are formulated and implemented. At present, one cannot negate the value of scientific knowledge in understanding biodiversity loss and ecological change, especially given the multifaceted challenges present today. However, it is vital to remember that it is not the only way of knowing and relating to the environment.
According to World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Fikret Berkes who has written extensively on traditional ecological knowledge, conceptualises traditional knowledge broadly as the knowledge, practices, beliefs and skills developed and transmitted across generations through communities’ long-standing interactions with their environments. Such knowledge is often place-based and relational. They can be obscured and are adaptive. It encompasses not only observations about ecosystems and species but also cultural understandings of coexistence, stewardship and responsibility.
It is in this context that the BBNJ Agreement emerges particularly significant. Traditional knowledge is woven throughout the treaty rather than confined to a single provision. Article 7 recognises the importance of respecting and considering traditional knowledge in the implementation of the Agreement. Article 13 addresses traditional knowledge associated with marine genetic resources and requires States Parties to take measures to ensure that access to such knowledge occurs with the free, prior and informed consent, or approval and involvement, of Indigenous Peoples and local communities who hold that knowledge. Other provisions relating to marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments, scientific adviceF and capacity-building similarly acknowledge the relevance of traditional knowledge to biodiversity governance. Taken together, these provisions signal an important shift in international ocean governance. They recognise that the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity cannot rely exclusively on scientific expertise and that Indigenous Peoples and local communities possess valuable knowledge relevant to understanding and protecting marine ecosystems.
However, it is vital to note that recognition alone does not necessarily dismantle the hierarchies of knowledge that have historically shaped environmental governance. Decolonial scholars such as Aníbal Quijano and Walter Mignolo have argued that colonialism established enduring systems of power that continue to influence whose knowledge is regarded as authoritative and whose knowledge is marginalised. This is termed coloniality of power. Environmental governance has often reflected these dynamics, privileging scientific expertise as universal while treating Indigenous and local knowledge systems as supplementary or anecdotal. Viewed through this lens, the BBNJ Agreement’s recognition of traditional knowledge represents more than an exercise in participation. It can be understood as a challenge, however modest, to the longstanding assumption that environmental governance should be based on a single epistemological framework.
Moving towards the “pluriverse” envisions a world where many worlds are possible. Arturo Escobar, who explores the concept comprehensively, argues that contemporary environmental crises cannot be addressed through a single universal worldview. Instead, he advocates for a world in which multiple ways of knowing, being and relating to nature coexist and are recognised as legitimate. An important caveat is that the pluriversal approach does not reject science. What is challenged is the assumption that scientific knowledge alone should determine how environmental governance is designed and implemented.
This perspective has important implications for ocean governance, particularly in the context of implementing the BBNJ agreement. For many States and other institutions, the ocean is understood primarily as a space to be managed, regulated and utilised largely in light of the euro-western dichotomous thinking. Yet for many Indigenous Peoples and local communities, such as communities who have generationally lived along the coast, artisanal fishers, Indigenous groups as well as island inhabitants, the ocean is also a source of identity, spirituality, livelihood and reciprocal relationships linking humans and non-human species. These are not merely different perspectives on the same reality as they often represent fundamentally different ways of understanding the place of humans within the natural world.
For Indian Ocean States, especially Sri Lanka, coastal fishing communities have long relied on intergenerational knowledge of monsoon cycles, ocean currents, fish migration patterns and marine ecosystems. Such knowledge has enabled communities to navigate and adapt to changing environmental conditions for generations. Yet these forms of knowledge rarely occupy a central place in contemporary ocean governance. For instance, evidence shows that Indigenous knowledge relating to fisheries in Sri Lanka, including non-codified community norms governing fishing restrictions, spawning seasons, fish behaviour,and marine ecosystems have been overlooked by authorities in the past. Continuing to overlook such knowledge can contribute to a disconnect between communities and authorities. Thus, even in implementing the BBNJ agreement, the challenge will be to ensure that local ecological knowledge is recognised as knowledge embodying distinct understandings of stewardship and sustainability. A key question that will (and ought to) recurr is whether and how such knowledge can meaningfully shape the institutions and practices that emerge during implementation. This requires moving beyond symbolic recognition towards genuine participation, equitable governance and respect for the rights of knowledge holders.
The significance of the BBNJ Agreement therefore lies not only in its potential to protect biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction but also in the vision of governance it makes possible. The present planetary crises raises deeper, more critical questions about power, justice and the understanding of human-nature relationships. As we observe World Environment Day, the treaty offers an important reminder that environmental governance can recognise diverse ways in which people relate to the oceans and more broadly the environment. For policymakers and practitioners alike, responding to contemporary environmental challenges requires a willingness to question the assumptions upon which systems are built. As Escobar reminds us, responding to ecological crises may require embracing a pluriverse, a world where many worlds fit. Thus, future of ocean governance may ultimately depend not only on what we choose to protect, but also on whose knowledge we choose to value.
Further Reading on E-International Relations
