Ajoy Datta draws five lessons from an analysis of how an international membership organisation influenced the 2023 High Seas Treaty. This article draws on material produced for an internal evaluation of policy influence work, and details of the organisations involved have been anonymised.
How do international organisations influence major policy outcomes in an increasingly fragmented world? And what internal shifts are needed to make external influence possible? This post draws on a study of a long-running UN negotiation process to protect marine life and biodiversity in the high seas, areas beyond national jurisdiction, which resulted in the UN High Seas Treaty, signed in 2023. Here, I share five lessons about the relationship between governance, strategy, and influence.
At the heart of this story is an international membership organisation that operates as a complex, decentralised network. It’s a platform for governments, civil society, scientists and experts to collaborate in influencing environmental change. Its engagement in the High Seas Treaty process offers a window into how internal governance structures, leadership dynamics, and ways of working shape an organisation’s ability to influence the world beyond its boundaries.
1. Legitimacy comes through participatory processes – but has a cost
This organisation’s credibility came from its members: thousands of them, across sectors and regions, who agree policy positions through participatory resolution-making. When it speaks, it does so with a mandate. It’s not just another actor pushing its own agenda.
This legitimacy mattered in the High Seas negotiations. But internal processes take time. Once agreed, policy positions were often broad, leaving room for interpretation by the delegation. Specific positions required further consultation, up the hierarchy, across regional hubs, and sometimes with external partners.
Such consultation served a purpose: improving the quality of proposals and ensuring alignment. But it also hindered agility. The organisation sometimes struggled to respond quickly when political windows opened.
2. Influence is about relationships, as well as technical expertise
During treaty negotiations, internal tensions emerged as not all members supported the treaty’s more ambitious provisions, forcing the organisation’s delegation to tread carefully. Unlike advocacy groups, the organisation had to balance the interests of its government members with its more activist-oriented constituencies. The organisation therefore pursued an ‘inside track’ strategy: working behind the scenes, building relationships with negotiators and sharing technical expertise. Shouting from the rooftops would likely annoy members who did not necessarily agree with the approach taken by the organisation’s delegates.
Relationships within the network were also important as differences between members sometimes created tensions, requiring time and effort to maintain cohesion. For example, as part of a coalition advocating for stronger ocean protections, the organisation faced a challenge when some coalition leaders pushed for a public “name and shame” campaign targeting obstructive countries. The organisation disagreed, fearing damage to its diplomatic strategy. A split was narrowly avoided.
At the centre of this work were ‘policy entrepreneurs’: individuals who combined deep subject expertise with political nous. They understood both the formal negotiations and the informal dynamics. They were persuasive storytellers, network builders, and strategic thinkers. Their success depended on collaboration with colleagues across disciplines and regions, and with external actors.
But coordinating this work wasn’t easy. The policy teams brought together people with different specialisms, cultures, and institutional affiliations. Trust and shared purpose didn’t emerge overnight, they had to be built over time, through repeated interaction and mutual recognition.
3. Who’s in the room shapes the story
At first, the organisation framed the High Seas Treaty as a conservation issue. The emphasis was on marine biodiversity, reserves, and legal protection. This perspective resonated in scientific and environmental policy circles, but it fell short in broader political debates.
This may have reflected the identity of policy experts representing the organisation, who were largely white, science-based, and located in the Global North.
But for many governments in the Global South, especially small island states, the High Seas represented economic opportunity, food security, and climate resilience. Conservation alone wasn’t enough: livelihoods were on the line. So, as the negotiations reached a critical point, the organisation adapted. It commissioned a short film that centred voices from the Global South and supported Indigenous representatives to attend. These actions helped shift the narrative toward development, equity, and justice.
The shift in strategy coincided with the inclusion of a legal expert and a youth delegate from an affected region, an important, albeit belated, step. While initially met with some resistance, their presence enhanced the organisation’s credibility with negotiators from small island states.
4. Support at the centre matters
As negotiations intensified, the organisation’s headquarters took a more hands-on role. It strengthened project management, allocated resources and helped coordinate inputs from across the network. Some tensions emerged: expert groups needed autonomy too, but a pragmatic balance was found.
External communications became crucial. The organisation’s realised its quiet, technical, “insider” approach needed to be complemented by external influencing comprising clear, compelling messages, working with and through prominent media houses. This was not just about visibility, but also about shaping the public narrative, winning allies, and meeting funder expectations.
Communications professionals worked closely with scientists and policy leads to develop content that was accessible without being simplistic. It was about finding the human stories inside the data and using those to connect with broader audiences.
Senior leaders (such as heads of programmes, based in headquarters) also played a vital role. They showed up at the right meetings, opened doors with ministers and funders, and helped resolve internal bottlenecks. Their presence made a difference, symbolically as well as strategically.
5. Money shapes strategy, for better and worse
Early in the process, much of the organisation’s policy work was fuelled by voluntary effort. Academics contributed their time, often supported by university funding (which tends to favour experts in the Global North). But as negotiations progressed, this model hit its limits.
Influencing at high levels requires dedicated staff, long-term planning, and sustained coordination. That means funding. So the organisation sought support from governments, philanthropies, and institutional partners. This brought new challenges.
Funders often had their own priorities. Some were cautious about supporting policy work that might be politically sensitive or slow to show results. Others demanded outputs that didn’t fit the organisation’s strategic focus. In some cases, funders were also parties to the negotiations, raising the risk of conflicts of interest.
Securing funds took time and skill. Policy teams had to write proposals, cultivate relationships, meet reporting requirements, and still do the influencing work.
The risk to the organisation as it gathered funding was that it was becoming more like a consultant than an influencer. At the same time, lack of funding meant missing key opportunities, or leaning too heavily on unpaid labour. Striking the right balance was hard, but essential.
Conclusion: governance as strategy
This network organisation’s engagement with the High Seas Treaty shows how an organisation’s internal structures shape what it can achieve externally, and also how external pressures often force internal change.
For any organisation working to influence policy, the lesson is clear: governance isn’t just about internal rules and processes, it’s about getting the internal set-up right for positioning, influence and strategy.
So, next time you think about how to influence the external world, ask yourself: how does your internal world need to shift to make that possible?
Ajoy Datta is a UK-based consultant and researcher supporting leaders to work more effectively in complex political and organisational environments. He has over 20 years’ experience in the international development and humanitarian sectors and offers services in organisational and leadership development and influencing policy and practice. He is currently pursuing a professional doctorate at the Tavistock Centre in organisational consulting.
This blog is adapted from a post on the LSE’s new Activism, Influence and Change blog, run by FP2P’s Blogger Emeritus Duncan Green. Sign up for the latest posts from it here.