Or why the High Seas Treaty may fail in a world of eight billion people – and what cultivated meat has to do with it:

With the so-called High Seas Treaty (BBNJ Agreement), the international community took a historic step in 2023. For the first time, the high seas beyond national jurisdictions —around two thirds of the world’s oceans— are to receive stronger legal protection. Marine protected areas, environmental impact assessments and rules governing genetic resources have since been presented as a source of hope for the threatened high seas.

Would saving Believer Meats, the pioneer of cell-based meat, have been more effective in protecting the oceans than another international treaty? Image: Believer Meats/agfundernews

Yet the central question remains unanswered: Can a regulatory agreement truly save the oceans in a world of eight billion people?

An agreement addressing symptoms, not causes

The High Seas Treaty intervenes where a legal vacuum previously existed. It can slow overexploitation, improve transparency and close regulatory gaps. What it does not do, however, is reduce the global pressure on the oceans.

The treaty regulates, but it does not replace. Every protection status depends on political will, monitoring capacity and the willingness of flag states to enforce compliance. The agreement has no independent enforcement authority.

In a world shaped by multiple crises —geopolitical, economic and demographic— selective implementation is more realistic than consistent protection.

The causes of the collapse of marine ecosystems are well known:

-rising demand for protein

-industrial fishing

-the intensive use of the oceans as sources of food, transport and raw materials

Eight billion people: an ecological equation that does not add up

The uncomfortable truth is that even perfectly protected high seas areas cannot save the oceans as long as global demand for animal protein continues to grow.

More than 30 percent of global fish stocks are already considered overfished. Many coastal regions depend directly or indirectly on fishing. The High Seas Treaty can regulate fishing methods —but it cannot provide a substitute for fish as a food source.

It is here that an alternative emerges which has received far less political attention than international treaties: cultivated meat.

Believer Meats: an underestimated lever

The US-Israeli company Believer Meats was long regarded as one of the most promising projects in the field of cell-based meat. Its goal was to produce real animal protein without livestock farming, without overfishing and with dramatically reduced resource use.

The ecological logic is compelling:

-less land use

-significantly lower water consumption

-no bycatch, no destruction of marine ecosystems

-the potential for substantial relief of ocean pressure

While states invest billions in negotiations on marine protection, Believer Meats has recently struggled with financing, scaling and political support.

The provocative question: misplaced priorities?

Comparing the underlying logic of both approaches raises an uncomfortable question:

Would rescuing and consistently supporting Believer Meats have been more effective for protecting the oceans than yet another international regulatory framework?

The High Seas Treaty slows damage without reducing demand.
Cultivated meat, by contrast, could have structurally replaced demand.

A functioning market for cell-based protein could have:

-reduced pressure on wild fish stocks

-eased the burden on aquaculture

-indirectly protected coastal ecosystems

-In short, it would have addressed causes rather than symptoms.

Political reality instead of technological opportunity

That governments prefer signing treaties to transforming production systems is no coincidence. International agreements are politically visible, while technological transitions are risky, costly and conflict-laden.

But in a world of eight billion people, symbolic policy is no longer sufficient.

Conclusion

The High Seas Treaty is necessary, but not sufficient. It can buy time, limit damage and provide legal clarity. The real rescue of the oceans, however, will not be decided at conferences, but where the global demand for protein is fundamentally rethought.

The insolvency or stagnation of projects like Believer Meats is therefore more than an economic failure —it is an ecological one.

Anyone serious about protecting the oceans must not only regulate how much is taken, but also what replaces what we currently extract from the sea.

By Okay Altinisik | 18-1-2026, 00:42:58