Marine Biological Diversity Requires Higher-Dimensional Management

The Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) is now in force, but regulators continue to use two-dimensional maps to manage a three-dimensional ocean, according to a June 11, 2026, report in Science. This reliance on planar zoning creates gaps in environmental assessments and licensing that threaten global food production and marine conservation.

Current marine spatial planning ignores the distribution of ecological risk and economic use through depth and time. While the BBNJ Agreement provides a legal framework for protecting biodiversity in the high seas, the tools used to implement it remain limited to 2D coordinates. This disconnect prevents regulators from effectively managing the vertical layers of the ocean.

The Science report highlights a growing disparity between where industrial activity occurs and where protection is enforced. Industrial fisheries are increasingly extending operations into deeper waters to maintain yields. Meanwhile, marine protection zones remain concentrated in shallower waters.

Why is 2D mapping insufficient for ocean management?

Two-dimensional maps treat the ocean as a flat surface, which fails to account for the complex vertical ecology of the sea. According to the report, both economic exploitation and ecological vulnerabilities vary significantly by depth. A 2D zone may protect the surface of a region while allowing destructive activities to occur on the seabed directly beneath it.

This mapping failure creates a blind spot for environmental assessments. Regulators cannot accurately measure the impact of a project if they only consider the surface area it occupies. The report states that ecological risk is distributed through depth and time, meaning a protected area at one depth may be useless if the species it protects migrate vertically or rely on deep-sea nutrients.

The lack of 3D zoning also complicates the licensing process. When multiple industries claim the same 2D coordinates, it creates artificial conflict. In reality, a transport lane at the surface, a mid-water fishery, and a seabed mining operation can occupy the same latitude and longitude without physically overlapping.

How does deep-sea industrial fishing impact food security?

The shift of industrial fisheries into deeper waters is a direct response to the depletion of shallow-water stocks. This movement puts pressure on deep-sea ecosystems that are often slower to recover from disturbance. According to the Science analysis, the failure to implement 3D protection zones means these deeper habitats remain vulnerable even within areas designated for conservation.

This trend poses a risk to long-term food security. Deep-sea species often have longer lifespans and slower reproduction rates than shallow-water fish. If industrial fishing continues to expand downward without depth-specific regulations, the risk of permanent stock collapse increases.

The current system of planar zoning does not allow for the “temporal” management mentioned in the report. Some areas are only ecologically sensitive during specific seasons or times of day. 2D maps cannot integrate these time-based variables, leading to protection that is either too restrictive or entirely ineffective.

What are the risks of seabed extraction and energy competition?

Regulators face increasing competition among energy production, food production, transport, and seabed extraction. As the demand for critical minerals grows, seabed mining targets the deepest parts of the ocean. Without 3D spatial planning, these activities may interfere with the biological pumps that regulate global carbon and nutrient cycles.

The report argues that moving beyond planar zoning is the only way to manage this competition. By adopting a 3D approach, regulators can designate specific depth layers for different uses. This would allow for the coexistence of conservation zones and industrial activity without compromising the health of the marine environment.

The BBNJ Agreement represents a global commitment to biodiversity, but the Science report suggests the technical implementation is lagging. Until licensing and environmental assessments incorporate depth and time, the treaty’s goal of protecting high-seas biodiversity remains at risk.

The transition to 3D governance would require a shift in how data is collected and processed. It would necessitate the use of volumetric mapping and real-time monitoring of deep-sea activity to ensure that conservation zones are not bypassed by industrial actors moving into the depths.