Governance Solutions to the Tragedy of the Commons That Marine Plastics Have Become

Abstract

Plastic pollution has become the new millennium's tragedy of the commons. This is particularly true with the marine debris plastic pollution issue, which has seen significant global interest recently. There is long-standing acknowledgment of the difficulty in managing the commons, with regulations, economic and market based instruments and community-based solutions all having a role to play. We review the global plastic pollution issue in the context of governance and policy, providing examples of successes, opportunities and levers for change. We discuss the role of regulation, public perception and social license to operate (SLO) in managing waste that enters the ocean. We argue that while plastic pollution is a tragedy, there are many opportunities for reduction, management, and changes to the global community's relationship with plastic.

Full text

POLICY AND PRACTICE REVIEWS
published: 19 June 2018
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00214
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 1June 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 214
Edited by:
Francois Galgani,
Institut Français de Recherche pour
l’Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER),
France
Reviewed by:
Thomais Vlachogianni,
Mediterranean Information Office for
Environment Culture and Sustainable
Development, Greece
Christos Ioakeimidis,
United Nations Environment
Programme Mediterranean Action
Plan, Greece
*Correspondence:
Britta D. Hardesty
denise.hardesty@csiro.au
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Marine Pollution,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Marine Science
Received: 27 March 2018
Accepted: 30 May 2018
Published: 19 June 2018
Citation:
Vince J and Hardesty BD (2018)
Governance Solutions to the Tragedy
of the Commons That Marine Plastics
Have Become. Front. Mar. Sci. 5:214.
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00214
Governance Solutions to the Tragedy
of the Commons That Marine
Plastics Have Become
Joanna Vince 1and Britta D. Hardesty 2
*
1School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Launceston, TAS, Australia, 2Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Plastic pollution has become the new millennium’s tragedy of the commons. This is
particularly true with the marine debris plastic pollution issue, which has seen significant
global interest recently. There is long-standing acknowledgment of the difficulty in
managing the commons, with regulations, economic and market based instruments
and community-based solutions all having a role to play. We review the global plastic
pollution issue in the context of governance and policy, providing examples of successes,
opportunities and levers for change. We discuss the role of regulation, public perception
and social license to operate (SLO) in managing waste that enters the ocean. We argue
that while plastic pollution is a tragedy, there are many opportunities for reduction,
management, and changes to the global community’s relationship with plastic.
Keywords: marine debris, microplastic, plastic pollution, social license, tragedy of the commons, waste
mismanagement
INTRODUCTION
Since Hardin (1968) published his seminal piece outlining the difficulties with managing the
commons, the oceans have been identified as a common pool resource that are susceptible to
degradation and over exploitation. In our modern “plastic era” plastic debris in the marine
environment has become as much a “commons” and a “tragedy” as is the ocean itself. It is now
estimated that 8,300 metric tons of plastic have been produced by humans since the 1950s and
if these rates continue, 12,000 metric tons will be in the natural environment by 2050 (Geyer
et al., 2017). Plastics have been found in even the most remote parts of the Arctic and Antarctic
oceans and microplastics in particular (particles ≤5 mm in size, see Masura et al., 2015) have been
identified in every marine habitat (Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2014).
Plastic pollution, and indeed, littering is not a new phenomenon. Plastics have been used since
World War II (Joyner and Frew, 1991), with plastic production growing exponentially for an array
of polymer types since the 1950s (Andrady and Neal, 2009). However, plastic pollution did not
become a concern to the global community until the 1960s. Similarly to other pollutant problems
of the time, it has become increasingly recognized as a potential significant detriment to the health
of ocean; similarly to how DDT was identified by Rachel Carson in “Silent Spring” (Carson, 2002;
Worm, 2015).
Marine litter has been defined by the United Nations Environment as “any persistent,
manufactured or processed solid material discarded, disposed of or abandoned in the marine
and coastal environment. Marine litter consists of items that have been made or used by people
and deliberately discarded into the sea or rivers or on beaches; brought indirectly to the sea with
rivers, sewage, storm water or winds; accidentally lost, including material lost at sea in bad weather
(fishing gear, cargo); or deliberately left by people on beaches and shores)” (Jeftic et al., 2009).

Vince and Hardesty Marine Debris Tragedy of the Commons
Litter, much of which is plastic, is found in the marine
environment and ranges from large industrial containers to
plastic bags, drink containers, cigarette butts, plastic fragments,
manufactured plastic pellets (often called nurdles) (see Ogata
et al., 2009) and numerous other consumer items. This
anthropogenic litter, interacts not only with marine megafauna
such as seabirds (Spear et al., 1995; Wilcox et al., 2016,
others), turtles (Schuyler et al., 2014 and references therein),
marine mammals and fish (Davison and Asch, 2011; Choy and
Drazen, 2013; Rochman et al., 2015 and others), but also with
bivalves, lugworms, oysters and corals (Hall et al., 2015; Van
Cauwenberghe et al., 2015). To date, the demonstrated impacts
to wildlife have most frequently been documented and reported
at the individual organism and sub-organismal levels (Rochman
et al., 2016), with experts viewing entanglement, ingestion and
chemical contamination as all having the potential for significant
(e.g., lethal or sub-lethal) impacts to marine vertebrate fauna
(Wilcox et al., 2016).
Microplastics are a specifically identified subset of marine
pollution that is of increasing concern. They result from
the breakdown of larger plastics and are also manufactured
specifically for use in consumer goods (as microplastic beads).
These small particles have high surface to volume ratios and
can sorb environmental contaminants. Also, they are accessible
to a wide array of marine organisms from the smallest (e.g.,
plankton) to the largest marine fauna (e.g., whales, fish, seabirds,
and so on). Furthermore, as people eat filter-feedings marine
delicacies such as shrimp, scallops, mussels and sea cucumbers,
the relationship to human health and food security becomes an
increasing concern (Ivar do Sul and Costa, 2014).
In addition to impacts on biodiversity, anthropogenic debris
or litter has implications for aesthetics and economics, which are
tightly intertwined (Hardesty et al., 2017). For example, after a
heavy rainfall event which resulted in a significant increase in
coastal debris loads in South Korea, revenue losses from tourism
were estimated at $29–37M USD (Jang et al., 2014). In coastal
California, visitors are reported to travel longer distances to
avoid beaches with more waste (Leggett et al., 2014), and in
Brazil, a recent survey reports that 85% of beachgoers will avoid
beaches with high litter loads (>15 pieces per m2) (Krelling
et al., 2017). This is also interesting in light of numerous reports
(and anecdotal evidence) that beachgoers themselves can be a
contributing source of debris (Santos et al., 2005).
Solutions to managing the tragedy of plastic pollution, as any
commons, are multifaceted requiring a mixture of regulation,
economic/market and community-based efforts (Feeny et al.,
1990; Ostrom et al., 2002; Dietz et al., 2003). They range
from local community efforts to global actions (Vince and
Hardesty, 2016). Globally, the need to address the plastic problem
is increasingly recognized with discussions on marine plastic
pollution occurring at international fora such as the World
Oceans Summit (2017) and at recent meetings of the top seven
and top 20 global economies G7 and G20. Furthermore, a
Ministerial Declaration “Toward a Pollution Free Planet” was
adopted by consensus by the UN Environment Assembly (2017).
While a new legally binding international agreement is urgently
needed (Chen, 2015; Vince and Hardesty, 2016; Raubenheimer
and McIlgorm, 2017; Worm et al., 2017), it will need to work in
context with economic and biodiversity goals.
We discuss solutions to the marine plastic pollution issue, and
we describe examples of successes, opportunities and levers for
change. These can be achieved in addition to regulatory measures
including community’s ability to give or withhold social license
to operate (SLO) and self-regulatory measures in the private
sector (through tools such as corporate or environmental social
responsibility policies). We argue that marine plastic pollution is
a tragedy of the commons. However, it is a tragedy that can be
reversed, and one where communities both local and global can
successfully contribute to change.
REGULATORY MEASURES
Global Approaches
Three quarters or more of waste that ends up in the ocean comes
from land-based sources (Derraik, 2002; Hardesty et al., 2014;
Jambeck et al., 2015). Accordingly, management of this waste
needs support not only on the global scale, but also at national
and local levels. There is a large gap in international hard law
specifically dealing with land based plastic marine pollution. The
United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) Part XII
(articles 192–237) is dedicated to the protection and preservation
of the marine environment. States are required to take all
measures “that are necessary to prevent, reduce and control
pollution of the marine environment from any source, using for
this purpose the best practicable means at their disposal and in
accordance with their capabilities, and they shall endeavor to
harmonize their policies in this connection”(Article 194). It also
sets out the responsibilities of states and necessary measures they
need to undertake to minimize pollution their own and other
states’ jurisdictions. While UNCLOS recognizes the differences
between sea based and land based pollution, it does not address
the type of pollutants and technical rules in great detail (Palassis,
2011). States are required to adopt their own laws and regulations
that address marine pollution.
In the case of ship-sourced pollution, the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) takes responsibility for the 1972
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
of Wastes and Other Matter (London Dumping Convention)
and the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (Joyner and Frew, 1991).
Annex V of MARPOL (entered into force in 2013 with further
revisions in March 2018) is particularly important with regard
to anthropogenic debris as it prohibits the disposal of plastics
anywhere at sea. Ships are required to dispose of their waste at
land based wasted facilities. MARPOL Annex V “requires states
to provide reception facilities for garbage at ports and terminals,
and to present a list of these facilities to the IMO.” Compliance,
however, remains a significant issue and states around the world
are in varying phases of implementing their domestic policies that
reflect this regulation (Ryan, 2015).
To date, soft law has dominated efforts to address plastic
marine debris and it has had a discernible influence in some
areas. For instance, the UN Conference on the Environment and
Development’s Agenda 21 encourages integrated, precautionary
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 2June 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 214

Vince and Hardesty Marine Debris Tragedy of the Commons
and anticipatory marine environmental protection (UN, 1992).
It sets out an approach to addressing damaging impacts from
air, land and water; recycling; sewerage treatment; and the
prevention, reduction and control of ship sourced pollution
(Palassis, 2011). The Conference of the Parties to the Convention
on Biological Diversity (COP CBD) Scientific and Technical
Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility adopted
Decision XI/18 at the 11th Meeting (2012) which addresses the
impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity. The
Parties also agreed upon a Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011–
2020) that includes Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Target 8 states that
a goal that “by 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients,
has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem
function and biodiversity.” Monitoring measures to assess such
targets, however, will need to be established appropriately to
assess whether targets are met.
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has
also addressed marine pollution through specific guidelines
(UNEP, 2009a,b) that include the Guidelines On the Survey And
Monitoring Of Marine Litter (2009), Guidelines On The Use Of
Market-Based And Economic Instruments (2009) and Marine
Litter a Global Challenge (Jeftic et al., 2009). The latter report
provides a number of recommendations for the 13 participating
Regional Seas programmes including, inter alia, the development
of a Regional Action Plan or strategy to deal with marine
pollution; mitigation should be global but coordinated at the
regional level and implemented at the national level; National
Plans of Action that draw on existing legislation; and the
coordination of UN organizations working on the marine litter
problem (see regional approaches, below).
The Honolulu Strategy (UNEP, 2012) was adopted by
participants of the Fifth International Marine Debris Conference
(5IMDC). The Honolulu Strategy is a volunteer-supported,
global strategy to reduce marine debris. Also in 2012, the UNEP
Global Partnership of Marine Litter (GPML) was announced.
GPML is part of the UN Environment Global Programme of
Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-
based Activity (GPA). This global partnership is a coordinating
forum for stakeholders at all levels working on marine debris
prevention and management. It is generally agreed on a global
level that a coordinated effort is required by governments, the
private sector and civil society to reduce and prevent plastic
pollution entering the ocean (Global Ocean Commission, 2014).
This was further highlighted by The G7 (consisting of Canada,
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the
United States) which released an Action Plan to Combat Marine
Litter in June 2015. This Action Plan included land and sea-based
priorities to reduce marine debris.
Outcomes of the G7 and G20 meetings include Action
Plans on Marine Litter and the 2017 UNEP launching of the
CleanSeas Campaign (Mendenhall, in press). The Joint Group
of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection (GESAMP) has supported multiple working groups
on various components of plastics and microplastics in the ocean
(GESAMP W40 – see http://www.gesamp.org/work/groups/40)
which is managed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization-Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission (UNESCO-IOC) and UNEP. The key objective for
the current working group (2017–2018 period) is to develop
guidelines for the terminology and methodologies for sampling
and analysis of macro and micro plastics, which has long been
identified as a key gap or challenge.
There has also been a recent focus on global plastic pollution
in the Sustainability Development Goals (SDG), in particular,
SDG14.1, which focuses on life below water. Substantial efforts
have been made to implement these sustainability development
goals through the Oceans Conferences held in 2017 and 2018.
The 2017 meeting resulted in the creation of the Communities
of Ocean Action that included representation from governments,
non-government organizations (NGOs) and civil society groups
(Haward, 2018). In December 2017, the UN Environment
Assembly passed a non-binding resolution on marine litter
and microplastics that encouraged member states to “develop
integrated and source-to-sea approaches to combat marine litter
and microplastics from all sources” and it recognized “that
private sector and civil society, including non-governmental
organizations, can contribute significantly to prevent and reduce
marine litter and microplastics” (resolution UNEP/EA.3/L.20).
There are numerous efforts afoot at international, national
and sub-national levels to collate information about existing
efforts, to engage institutions, governments, and other bodies
to incorporate sustainability measures aimed at reducing plastic
pollution. Furthermore, there is an expanding interest in the
circular economy of plastic. The circular economy in the plastic
context aims to shift from a produce, use, dispose approach to a
design, use, re-design/re-use approach. Furthermore, the circular
economy encourages supply chain investment opportunities to
address marine plastic pollution—before such waste makes it to
the ocean (MacArthur et al., 2016; Moss et al., 2017).
A new legally binding global instrument will take time and
is complex as it requires agreement from multiple partners with
varying capacity, resources and waste management infrastructure
capability. It will also benefit from a holistic, integrated approach
that combines community and economic/market instruments to
help provide solutions to the marine litter issue. In the meantime,
the initiatives mentioned above are recognized for providing a
broad framework for addressing the plastics pollution issue at the
large scale (see Figure 1).
Regional Approaches
Regions around the world are also addressing marine plastic
pollution at appropriate regional geographic scales. Regional
approaches occur between the national and global efforts (as seen
on the continuum in Figure 1). For example, regional fisheries
organizations have provisions to address sea and ship based
pollution. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) also has a mandatory
requirement for fishers in the Southern Ocean to report gear
loss to the Scientific Committee (CCAMLR, 2015). The activities
that can cause pollution are relatively well monitored in the
Southern Ocean. However, not all areas of ocean are well
managed and compliance remains an issue. Plastic pollution
is a transboundary challenge, and when it occurs in Areas
Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) the issue of responsibility
is particularly problematic, particularly when it comes to removal
of plastic debris (Vince and Hardesty, 2016).
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 3June 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 214

Vince and Hardesty Marine Debris Tragedy of the Commons
FIGURE 1 | A holistic governance approach to the reduction of plastic marine litter.
Around the world there are a number of regional seas
conventions and action plans underway to combat plastic
pollution. For example, there is a Regional Action Plan on Marine
Litter management (RAPMaLi) for the wider Caribbean Region.
This plan addresses litter issues in the wider Caribbean basin,
supported by the UN’s Caribbean Environment Programme
(http://www.cep.unep.org/regional-action-plan-on-marine-
litter-management-rapmali- for-the- wider-caribbean- region).
Similarly, the Northwest Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP; www.
nowpap.org) contributes to the global action program that aims
to protect the marine environment from land-based activities in
the Northwest Pacific Region. NOWPAP has developed regional
activity centers, including coastal environment assessment and
emergency preparedness regional centers to address plastic
pollution and other environmental issues within the region.
Within Europe the pollution issue is being addressed through
Regional Sea Conventions—the Barcelona Convention, the
Bucharest Convention, the HELCOM Convention and the
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of
the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR). In 1972, for the first time
all sources of pollution were recognized through the Helsinki
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Baltic Sea Area (the HELCOM Convention) (adopted in 1992).
In 2015, a Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter in the Baltic Sea
was adopted by nine coastal Baltic Sea states who are signatories
of HELCOM (HELCOM, 2015).
The Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment and Coastal Region of the Mediterranean
(the Barcelona Convention) (initiated in 1976 and reviewed in
1995) addresses pollution from land and sea based sources. In
2013, the Mediterranean countries adopted the Regional Plan
for Marine Litter Management in the Mediterranean of the
Barcelona Convention—the first legally binding regional plan for
marine litter management at European Regional Seas Level. Its
signatories adopted the Mediterranean Action Plan which was
one of UNEP’s first regions in the Regional Seas Programme.
In 2016 UN Environment launched the ambitious Integrated
Monitoring and Assessment Programme (IMAP) which aims
to enable a “ quantitative, integrated analysis of the state of
the marine and coastal environment, covering pollution and
marine litter, biodiversity, non-indigenous species, coast, and
hydrography, based on common regional indicators, targets and
Good Environmental Status descriptions.” (http://web.unep.org
website; accessed 20 May 2018).
The OSPAR Commission also has a Regional Action and
implementation plan that focusses on key areas that include
inter alia port reception facilities, fishing for litter, education and
outreach and reduction of single use items (https://www.ospar.
org/documents?v =34422). OSPAR has developed consistent
data collection approaches for marine litter monitoring and
data reporting for the last several years (https://www.ospar.org/
work-areas/eiha/marine-litter). The Black Sea Region, under the
auspices of the Bucharest Convention, is the last region which
is yet to develop an Action Plan and when implemented, will
complete the region’s efforts in having regional action plans to
combat marine pollution.
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), adopted
by European Union (EU) member states in 2008, identifies
marine litter as one of the descriptors of Good Environmental
Status. The MSFD requires EU Member States to ensure that,
by 2020, “properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause
harm to the coastal and marine environment.” The key measures
toward this end—reflected within the European Strategy for
Plastics in a Circular Economy—include measures against single
use plastics and fishing gear; restrictions related to the use
of microplastics in products or measures against microplastics
generated during the life cycle of products; measures to
reduce marine litter from ships, including fishing vessels
and recreational craft (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/
good-environmental-status/descriptor-10/index_en.htm).
While we cannot include all regional approaches here, those
described above provide relevant examples of significant steps
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 4June 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 214

Vince and Hardesty Marine Debris Tragedy of the Commons
being undertaken at regional levels around the world. It is
relevant to note that Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are
also becoming more deeply engaged in the marine pollution
issue. This is a significant issue for SIDS, particularly because
resources and infrastructure for waste disposal are inadequate in
many of these developing countries. The Secretariat of the Pacific
Regional Environment Program (SPREP) is now a regional node
of marine litter prevention, supported by the GPML. The Pacific
Ocean Pollution Prevention Programme (PACOL) Strategy and
Work Plans document was released by SPREP and the IMO
in 2015. The recommendations will be implemented through
a bottom up approach which can be a time-intensive process.
We acknowledge that regional oceans governance in the South
Pacific is difficult to achieve (Vince et al., 2017) and the tragedy
of the commons through plastic pollution adds another layer
of complexity to already stretched resources in marine—and
waste—management which may be particularly difficult for many
small island nations.
National Approaches
While global decision making can direct national incentives,
national-level policy actions are the mechanisms for steering
action. Numerous nations around the world are addressing
plastic pollution in various significant ways that we are unable
to cover in depth here. However, efforts in developing countries
such as Indonesia, Ghana and Kenya highlight the significance
of this issue and its increasing recognition as an issue of
concern, and legislation in New Zealand and the United States
demonstrate that incentives can prove successful in reducing
waste mismanagement.
In 2017, the coordinating Ministry of Maritime Affairs
for the Republic of Indonesia, recently cited as one of the
countries with the most significant waste mismanagement issues
resulting in plastic pollution in the ocean (Jambeck et al.,
2015), released Indonesia’s Plan of Action on Marine Plastic
Debris for 2017–2025. The Plan includes the five components
of improving behavioral change, reducing land—and sea-based
leakage, reducing plastics production and use, and enhancing
funding mechanisms, policy reform and legislation enforcement.
Although in its infancy, this Plan has already made an impact on
reducing marine litter through community efforts that have been
assisted and coordinated by government (Lasut et al., 2018). The
Kenya government has recently passed legislation that prohibits
the importing, making, or selling plastic bags. Any offenses will
be punishable by fines of up to US$40,000 (or up to 4 years
in jail, ABC News, 2017). This may be viewed as a success
story, and as a story of caution. The government is taking the
plastic issue seriously, however, such sanctions can result in
adverse effects in the community. The Waste and Environment
Association of Kenya have opposed the ban on the basis that it
will cost thousands of jobs (Xinhuanet, 2017). What seem like
straightforward solutions are often complex, with myriad factors
to consider.
In 2002, the government of Bangladesh was the first to ban
plastic bags due to flooding caused by blocked stormwater
drains (Dauvergne, 2018). Similarly, in 2015 in Ghana, plastic
waste blocked drains and caused flooding that resulted in
approximately 150 human deaths (Jambeck et al., in press).
The initial response was to ban plastics in a similar effort
to that undertaken in Kenya, though this has been delayed.
Officials of Ghana have recognized that policy responses
need to be made through collective decision making with the
participation of a range of stakeholders. While a National Plastic
Management Policy is being developed, the country is focusing
on innovative methods to solve the plastic pollution issue rather
than through bans on particular products (see http://www.
ghananewsagency.org/science/-ghana-is-not- ready-to-ban-
plastics-now$-$126770; http://mesti.gov.gh/mesti-embraces-
innovative-use-plastic-waste/). To date, a large number of
countries have introduced taxes, bans or restrictions on the use
of plastic bags. In some countries, such as the United States of
America and Australia, however, legislation has typically been
implemented at a state-based level rather than through national
approaches (Xanthos and Walker, 2017).
Other national measures to reduce (micro) plastic pollution
from entering the ocean’s waterways include New Zealand’s
plastic microbeads ban which is scheduled to come into effect in
June 2018. Under section 23 of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008,
wash off cosmetics (including body exfoliants and toothpastes
and abrasive cleansing products) will be forbidden. In 2015, then-
president Barak Obama signed the Microbead-Free Waters Act of
2015 into law within the United States of America. The law bans
plastic microbeads in both personal care and cosmetic products
and aims to stop the introduction of plastic microbeads into lakes,
coastal areas and the ocean. However, the ban did not come to
full effect until January 2018 revealing that implementation takes
time (Stoett and Vince, 2018). Other countries that have pursued
similar microbead bans or restrictions include Canada, Finland,
France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxenburg, Norway, Sweden and the
UK (Dauvergne, 2018).
COMMUNITY-BASED MEASURES
Governance solutions can also come from communities. Dietz
et al. (2003) reported that effective commons governance is
achieved when communities communicate effectively. Through
communication, communities become involved in strong
social networks and increase their social capital. This results
in a decrease in monitoring of behavior and increases
compliance. They also found that the tragedy of the commons
can be overturned not only by regulation and market-
based mechanisms but also through adaptive governance
strategies (Dietz et al., 2003). Although regulation and market
approaches do manage resources successfully, the socio-
economic environment contributes to the degree of this success
(Feeny et al., 1990). Furthermore, public opinion and good will is
a key component to driving change.
Strength to create social change (and SLO) can be found in
communities and other non-state actors. For example, there has
been a swell in grass root efforts, such as those initiated by
the global #breakfreefromplastic movement which was launched
in September 2016 (www.breakfreefromplastic.org). Since then,
more than 1,000 non-governmental organizations from across
the world have joined the movement demanding massive
reductions in single-use plastics and to encourage new lasting
solutions to plastic pollution. The organizations involved in
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 5June 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 214

Vince and Hardesty Marine Debris Tragedy of the Commons
the movement share the common values of environmental
protection and social justice. This in turn helps guide their
work at the community level while representing a global,
unified vision through the #breakfreefromplastic campaign.
Movement members deliver campaigns that help avoid the
plastics crisis from worsening. Some of these campaigns include
working with local governments to implement zero waste
programs, and exposing the role of companies in promoting
and perpetuating the use of non-recyclable packaging (Von
Hernandez, pers. comm. 4 Dec 2017). Another example is
“Plastic Free July” (http://www.plasticfreejuly.org/). Started by a
local government organization (Western Metropolitan Regional
Council) in Western Australia in 2011, Plastic Free July is
a campaign to nudge citizens into changing their consumer
behavior in favor of avoiding single-use plastics. Individuals,
schools, and organizations pledge to refuse single-use plastic
during a single month (or week or day). The focus is on
solutions and providing a toolbox in which participants can
select appropriate measures for themselves (or their institutions).
To date, more than 2 million people have participated in the
event, which supports networking, storytelling and collaborative
approaches to the challenge of single-use plastics in society (R.
Prince-Ruiz, pers. comm., 1 Dec 2017).
There are many situations where communities have the
capacity for self-management and it makes administrative
and economic sense to include them in decision making in
resource management (Feeny et al., 1990). Bye Bye Plastic
Bags is one example (see http://www.byebyeplasticbags.org/)
of a recent, successful community-based campaign aimed at
reducing single use plastics, which has been driven by a change
in public perception. This social initiative is driven by youth
in Bali, Indonesia. Their community-based campaign aims to
reduce single use plastic bags and has become a well-known
international movement which focuses on education, joint
messaging and youth empowerment. Shared governance between
the community and the state, along with self-management (or
co-management) “can capitalize on the local knowledge and
long-term self-interest of users, while providing for coordination
with relevant uses and users over a wide geographic scope at
potentially lower transaction (rule-enforcement) cost” (Feeny
et al., 1990). Large scale co-management, where communities
drive the solution and share responsibilities with regulatory
bodies, is one of the many means of combatting the plastic
marine pollution problem. Such an approach, similar to the 1987
Montreal Protocol, would be a practical option internationally to
help resolve this transboundary problem.
Education is also a key to strengthening community support
and understanding of the impact of plastic on the marine
environment. Supported by the United Nations, the GPML has
sponsored numerous projects aimed to increase understanding
of losses and movement of debris in the marine environment.
These efforts have aimed to increase educational and public
awareness through the development of a Massive Online
Open Course (MOOC) on marine debris (https://www.ou.nl/
documents/40554/72652/MOOC_Marine_Litter_2017_leaflet.
pdf/5d520cb2-b334-488e-826b-e19284916935) and to broaden
the community engagement with the topic more generally.
Around the world there are hundreds of groups that have
engaged with the public and with school children around marine
litter. Whilst many organizations focus on an advocacy approach,
others use the topic as an educational tool, developing content
that addresses curriculum requirements (e.g., www.Teachwild.
com.au). NOAA, for example, developed a “Turning the Tide
on Trash” program in the United States (see www.marinedebris.
noaa.gov for details); The University of California at Davis
has developed a marine debris lesson, which includes analysis
of debris on university campuses; and the Plastic Pollution
Coalition (http://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/) has
developed curriculum content for grades 7–12 that can be used
in educational systems across the world. These organizations and
dozens more make their content freely available on line. While
there are a growing number of groups providing content and
making materials available in different countries, a consistent
message is the role and value of community engagement around
an environmental issue that is relevant for people of all ages,
from primary school children to senior citizens (see van der
Velde et al., 2017 and references within).
ECONOMIC/MARKET-BASED POLICY
INSTRUMENTS AND THE IMPACT OF
SOCIAL LICENSE
The traditional form of governance through government and
regulation has been unable to solve many of the world’s
“tragedy of the commons” environmental issues. Regulatory
frameworks have often experienced difficulties and challenges
with the implementation of sustainable, conservation measures,
demonstrating that these regulatory measures alone cannot bring
about the required change to effectively stop marine plastic
pollution and land-based waste. However, when regulatory and
market based incentives are combined, interesting developments
can occur in the reduction of plastic use and pollution. A
recent analysis highlighted the effectiveness of small incentives
in reducing waste mismanagement in Australia and the
United States. An incentive of as little as 5–10 cents through
container deposit legislation (CDL) or cash for containers was
effective in reducing beverage container waste (Schuyler et al., in
press). The proportion of beverage containers found in coastal
surveys from states with incentives was approximately 40% less
than in states without incentives—and was consistent between
the two countries (Schuyler et al., in press). Importantly, the
reduction in beverage containers was greater in areas with lower
socio-economic status, where debris loads are highest, providing
strong evidence that incentives are particularly effective where
incomes are lower (Schuyler et al., in press). This suggests
that putting a price on plastic would likely be effective in
terms of material recovery and would reduce loss rates to
the environment. We already see this with material such as
aluminum, steel and copper, as these materials are valuable and
can be sold back into the market.
Market governance solutions are being developed and tested
and indeed the economic cost of marine plastic pollution is
another factor that needs to be considered as part of this solution
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 6June 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 214

Vince and Hardesty Marine Debris Tragedy of the Commons
(McIlgorm et al., 2011). For instance, there are efforts to clean
up the well- known “Pacific Garbage Patch” located in both the
East and West parts of the Pacific (Moore et al., 2001; Kaiser,
2010). However, such clean-up efforts are complex and unlikely
to yield desired results. They are also addressing the “end of
the pipe” rather than where efforts are likely prove successful
(Rochman, 2016; Sherman and Van Sebille, 2016). Moreover
the gap in international law addressing areas beyond national
jurisdiction complicates the mitigation and removal of marine
debris from these ABNJ areas. Finding solutions to removing
marine debris or taking responsibility for it within the high seas
from a governance and practical perspective adds another layer
of complexity.
As a result, alternative tools and approaches, including
external third party assessment and certification systems, have
been developed to address perceived regulatory failure, including
economic and community based management. These approaches
(see link between the community and market in Figure 1)
step outside state-based governance and address market and
consumers directly through product certificates and ecolabels
(Potts and Haward, 2007). Certification and labeling initiatives
encourage industry best practices that influence shareholders
and the market (such as sustainability labeling, green labeling,
etc.). Moreover, certification and labeling can add another layer
of legitimacy for community groups in providing their SLO.
The legitimacy of third party certifiers can be removed at any
time if the community decides not to accept the standards or
organization. Certification schemes can therefore be considered
“new markets of governance” through their organizational set
up, consultancy services and contractual arrangements (Foley
and Hébert, 2013). Although self-regulatory industry measures,
policies and standards can also be effective in the plastics
pollution issue, the opportunity to use third party certification
organization as a regulatory measure has been little explored.
Landon-Lane (2018) suggests that a “Plastics Stewardship
Council” be enacted, based on the Marine Stewardship Council
(MSC) model and we believe that this gap in governance will
provide a unique and innovative way to address plastic pollution
issues and to identify additional solutions to this problem.
Industry can also obtain social license through Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) (Gjølberg, 2009). Corporate Social
Responsibility is becoming an increasingly important priority
for some companies involved in the development, distribution
and life cycle of plastics. Although social license and CSR
concepts are interrelated and overlap, there are key differences
(Parsons and Moffat, 2014). SLO is an intangible, unwritten and
impermanent social contract between industry and social groups
(Parsons and Moffat, 2014). Through social license, communities
and consumers can instigate changes to corporate policies and
products (Morrison, 2014). Industry is, however, ultimately in
control of its CSR policies and activities. According to Steurer
(2013) “new governance and CSR are complementary concepts
that both fundamentally reshape the roles of the public and
the private sectors in similar directions.” CSR can be driven
by community support through social license or government
regulation (Vince and Hardesty, 2016). Solutions to plastic
pollution can be driven by willing industry and their use their
CSR policies to gain consumer confidence and to demonstrate
their commitment to social and environmental issues. The
Australian Packaging Covenant is but one co-regulatory non-
government organization that partners government and industry
with a goal of helping its industry-based signatories realize CSR
opportunities.
The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and
the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel - GEF (2012) has
stated that “many companies now see packaging and plastics
sustainability as part of broader corporate social responsibility,
and negative brand image is becoming a major driving force
which is being harnessed in the interests of improving packaging
materials and technologies.” This has been evidenced by a
global Declaration for Solutions on Marine Litter which was
developed and signed by industry plastics associations in 2011.
Their aims include to “contribute to solutions by working in
private-public partnerships aimed at preventing marine debris”
and to promote science-based policies and enforcement of
existing legislation. As of May 2016, 65 members from 34
countries have signed this Declaration and supported 260
projects (https://www.marinelittersolutions.com; accessed 4 Dec
2017). Industry is also being encouraged to take responsibility
of the full life-cycle of the products they produce through
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). This can be voluntarily
driven by CSR policies, or in the case of many European
nations EPR legislation has been enacted to reduce use and
increase the reuse and recycling of plastics (Tibbetts, 2015;
Worm et al., 2017). Changes to market and industry through
EPR can result in an increase in Sustainable Development and
Consumption production methods and address the SD goal
12—Responsible Consumption and Production (see https://
www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-
production/).
The flow on effect of this in industry decision making is
becoming evident. For example, Selfridges and Company, a UK
based high end department store, initiated an intense oceans
campaign that highlighted the impacts of single-use plastics on
marine fauna. As part of their campaign, they no longer offer
plastic bags in their stores, they aim to make communities and
cities plastic water bottle free, and have a growing “Project
Ocean” which targets consumer awareness with respect to
micro-bead free products, sustainable seafood practices, and
responsible purchasing. Community acceptance and trust offers
stronger and higher levels of social license (Thomson and
Boutilier, 2011; Parsons and Moffat, 2014), which may be
apparent with the public’s positive response to Selfridge’s recent
campaign.
Local communities in South Korea have used SLO to reduce
mismanagement of polystyrene buoys (Lee et al., 2015). In
this instance, their broader community views were represented
in behavior change workshops with government and key
stakeholders. A successful collaboration resulted in changes to
national governmental policy—a significant SLO change that is
particularly relevant when one considers that polystyrene buoys
are the most abundant littered item found on Korea coastal beach
surveys, and that they can account for 10% or more of marine
debris nationwide (Lee et al., 2015).
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 7June 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 214

Vince and Hardesty Marine Debris Tragedy of the Commons
As most are aware, the media is a powerful, non-state
actor that is capable of steering trust and social license (Vince
and Haward, 2017). The media has the ability to influence
community views and public perception and can affect how
industry is scrutinized (Lester, 2016). Consequently, social
license through social media has become a useful tool to
bring about change (Boutilier et al., 2012). Recent campaigns
(2016, 2017) by Greenpeace to target major industry beverage
manufacturers are but one example (https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=Q7Uxaw6YoRw) of the power of media to shape the
conversation.
USING SCIENCE TO INFORM THE
“PLASTIC TRAGEDY”
Industry has called on science to help drive marine litter policy
(Vince and Hardesty, 2016), and indeed, there is a growing body
of work on plastic pollution that is being used to inform the
discussion and to underpin policy decisions at a multitude of
levels. The regional, national and sub-national plans of action
acknowledge the importance of evidence-based informational
at relevant scales (as described above). Increasingly we see
the inclusion of scientific experts in discussions on the threat
posed by plastic pollution with bodies such as the Convention
on Biological Diversity, the International Whaling Commission
and the United Nations Environment. Similar conversations are
being held at numerous local, state, national and fora in countries
around the world.
Documentation of the ubiquity of plastics interactions
between fauna and marine debris has exploded in recent years
(see review by Gall and Thompson, 2015), with the number of
peer-reviewed publications on the topic having quadrupled in the
last few years alone (Dauvergne, 2018). Researchers have even
identified what commonplace debris items are expected to have
the most significant, deleterious impacts on major marine taxa
and where major marine taxa are at the most significant risk
(Wilcox et al., 2016). Other work has evaluated the effectiveness
of various policies on mismanaged waste (Hardesty et al., 2017;
Schuyler et al., in press; Willis et al., in press) visitors’ response to
local litter loads (Leggett et al., 2014) and the economic costs of
marine debris pollution due to major weather events (Jang et al.,
2014). Scientists have moved beyond providing evidence alone of
the interactions between plastic and the environment, with the
field having matured to address questions around what we know
vs. what is believed (i.e., demonstrated evidence, opinions and
public perception) (Rochman et al., 2015; Hardesty and Wilcox,
2017).
In an ideal world, a holistic approach to the governance of
plastic pollution, science would underpin policy decision making
so that decisions are based upon best available evidence. Policies,
whether local, national, regional or global; communities that
grant or withhold social license; and industries that ignore or
respond through CSR efforts, all have been steered by scientific
evidence that identifies and quantifies the extent of plastic
pollution and its impacts on biodiversity, economics and society.
However, there remains a gap between the way science is
interpreted and translated into policy. This challenge is being
continually addressed by researchers in the ocean and coastal
science and governance space (Nursey-Bray et al., 2014; Rudd,
2015; Vince and Hardesty, 2016).
Currently, one of the emerging scientific questions that has
significant potential to shift the conversation, is whether there is
an impact on human health from plastics in the environment.
This is of particular concern with respect to the potential for
chemical contaminants in seafood consumed by humans—and
the question points to a difficult-to-resolve knowledge gap.
Applying a risk-based approach to the issue and considering the
severity and certainty of particular events may prove particularly
useful, particularly as we view through the management and
impact lenses (see Hardesty and Wilcox, 2017, Figures 3, 4).
CONCLUSION—A HOLISTIC APPROACH
WILL BE MOST EFFECTIVE
Arguably, the conversation about plastics and society is changing.
There is an increasing focus on a circular economy approach
which focuses on purposeful design to minimize waste, along
with repurposing, reusing or recycling products (MacArthur
et al., 2016). This is in sharp contrast to the linear economy
approach of make, use, discard. A societal shift in the form of
a new global social movement advocating awareness of plastic
pollution is also emerging (Vince and Stoett, in press). This
movement or shift from liner to circular is supported through
scientific evidence, educational tools (Hartley et al., in press)
and citizen science initiatives that foster a greater understanding
of the vast task facing the global community to reduce plastic
pollution. The individuals in this social movement are also
consumers who by granting or withholding social license can
steer policy changes, and more broadly alter societal attitudes
and behaviors. The tragedy of the plastic commons is tractable
and solvable. It will take a shared public will, effective policies
and coordination to work effectively on global, regional, national,
local and individual levels. We propose that a new global
agreement could prove important in driving change. We also
acknowledge that coming to such an agreement will be a difficult
and time-consuming process, as there are a multitude of actors,
drivers and competing agendas. In the meantime, regional,
national and local governance approaches will provide some of
the regulatory measures required to reduce plastic losses to the
environment. The success of some of these regulatory measures
will be reliant upon resources being available to develop and
support the essential infrastructure. Industry-based solutions
that utilize market/economic based initiatives will also prove
useful—if they are environmentally and socially responsible.
Profit and CSR policies can be mutually beneficial in driving
such change in the market. Presumably, when all of these align,
consumers will be supportive.
There is no “silver bullet” or single approach that will
effectively resolve this complex environmental and societal
challenge. Instead, an ever-changing variety of actions, activities,
legislative and cooperative approaches will ultimately help
resolve this tragedy of the commons that plastic pollution has
become.
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 8June 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 214

Vince and Hardesty Marine Debris Tragedy of the Commons
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and
intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for
publication.
FUNDING
JV is supported by the University of Tasmania. BH is supported
by CSIRO’s Oceans and Atmosphere, the Oak Family Foundation
and Schmidt Marine Technologies for this work.
REFERENCES
ABC News (2017). Plastic Bag-Makers and Users Risk Jail, Fines as Kenya cracks
Down on Pollution [Online]. Available online at: http://www.abc.net.au/
news/2017-08- 28/kenya-imposes- worlds- toughest-law- against-plastic-bags/
8850186 (Accessed August 28, 2017).
Andrady, A. L., and Neal, M. A. (2009). Applications and societal benefits
of plastics. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364, 1977–1984.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0304
Boutilier, R., Black, L., and Thomson, I. (2012). “From metaphor to management
tool: how the social license to operate can stabilise the socio-political
environment for business,” in International Mine Management 2012
Proceedings (Melbourne, VIC), 227–237.
Carson, R. (2002). Silent Spring. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
CCAMLR (2015). “Conservation Measure 26-01 (2015)” in Adopted at Meeting:
CCAMLR-XXXIV.
Chen, C.-L. (2015). “Regulation and management of marine litter” in Marine
Anthropogenic Litter, eds M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, and M. Klages (Springer),
395–428.
Choy, C. A., and Drazen, J. C. (2013). Plastic for dinner? Observations of frequent
debris ingestion by pelagic predatory fishes from the central North Pacific. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Series 485, 155–163. doi: 10.3354/meps10342
Dauvergne, P. (2018). Why is the global governance of plastic failing the oceans?
Global Environ Change 51, 22–31. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.002
Davison, P., and Asch, R. G. (2011). Plastic ingestion by mesopelagic fishes in
the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. Mar. Ecology Progress Series 432, 173–180.
doi: 10.3354/meps09142
Derraik, J. G. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
review. Mar. Poll. Bull. 44, 842–852. doi: 10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00220-5
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., and Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons.
Science 302, 1907–1912. doi: 10.1126/science.1091015
Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., and Acheson, J. M. (1990). The
tragedy of the commons: twenty-two years later. Hum. Ecol. 18, 1–19.
doi: 10.1007/BF00889070
Foley, P., and Hébert, K. (2013). Alternative regimes of transnational
environmental certification: governance, marketization, and place in Alaska’s
salmon fisheries. Environ. Plann. A 45, 2734–2751. doi: 10.1068/a45202
Gall, S. C., and Thompson, R. C. (2015). The impact of debris on marine life. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 92, 170–179. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., and Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all
plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 3:e1700782. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1700782
Global Ocean Commission (2014). From decline to Recovery: A Rescue Package for
the Global Ocean. Global Ocean Commission.
Gjølberg, M. (2009). The origin of corporate social responsibility: global forces or
national legacies? Socio-Econ. Rev. 7:605–637. doi: 10.1093/ser/mwp017
Hall, N., Berry, K., Rintoul, L., and Hoogenboom, M. (2015).
Microplastic ingestion by scleractinian corals. Mar. Biol. 162, 725–732.
doi: 10.1007/s00227-015-2619-7
Hardesty, B. D., Lawson, T., Velde, T., Lansdell, M., and Wilcox, C. (2017).
Estimating quantities and sources of marine debris at a continental scale. Front.
Ecol. Environ. 15, 18–25. doi: 10.1002/fee.1447
Hardesty, B., and Wilcox, C. (2017). A risk framework for tackling marine debris.
Anal. Methods 9, 1429–1436. doi: 10.1039/C6AY02934E
Hardesty, B., Wilcox, C., Lawson, T., Lansdell, M., and van der Velde, T. (2014).
Understanding the Effects of Marine Debris on Wildlife. A Final report to
Earthwatch Australia (CSIRO).
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162, 1243–1248.
doi: 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Hartley, B. L., Pahl, S., Holland, M., Alampei, I., Veiga, J. M., and
Thompson, R. C. (in press). Turning the tide on trash: empowering
european educators and school students to tackle marine litter. Mar. Policy.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.002
Haward, M. (2018). Plastic pollution of the world’s seas and oceans as
a contemporary challenge in ocean governance. Nat. Commun. 9:667.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03104-3
HELCOM (2015). Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter in the Baltic Sea. ed B. M.
E. P. Commission. Helsinki: HELCOM.
Ivar do Sul, J.,A., and Costa, M.,F (2014). The present and future of
microplastic pollution in the marine environment. Environ. Poll. 185, 352–364.
doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.036
Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., et al.
(2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347, 768–771.
doi: 10.1126/science.1260352
Jambeck, J., Hardesty, B. D., Brooks, A. L., Friend, T., Teleki, K., Fabres, J., et al. (in
press). Challenges and emerging solutions to the land-based plastic waste issue
in Africa. Mar. Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.041
Jang, Y. C., Hong, S., Lee, J., Lee, M. J., and Shim, W. J. (2014). Estimation of lost
tourism revenue in Geoje Island from the 2011 marine debris pollution event in
South Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 81, 49–54. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.021
Jeftic, L., Sheavly, S., and Adler, E. (2009). Marine Litter: a Global Challenge.
Nairobi: UNEP.
Joyner, C. C., and Frew, S. (1991). Plastic pollution in the marine environment.
Ocean Dev. Int. Law 22, 33–69. doi: 10.1080/00908329109545949
Kaiser, J. (2010). The dirt on ocean garbage patches. Science. 328:1506.
doi: 10.1126/science.328.5985.1506
Krelling, A. P., Williams, A. T., and Turra, A. (2017). Differences in
perception and reaction of tourist groups to beach marine debris that can
influence a loss of tourism revenue in coastal areas. Mar. Policy 85, 87–99.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.021
Landon-Lane, M. (2018). Corporate social responsibility in marine
plastic debris governance. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 127, 310–319.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.054
Lasut, M. T., Weber, M., Pangalila, F., Rumampuk, N. D. C., Rimper, J. R. T. S. L.,
Warouw, V., et al. (2018). “From coral triangle to trash triangle—how the hot
spot of global marine biodiversity is threatened by plastic waste”, in Proceedings
of the International Conference on Microplastic Pollution in the Mediterranean
Sea, eds M. Cocca, E. Di Pace, M. Errico, G. Gentile, A. Montarsolo, and R.
Mossotti (Cham: Springer), 107–113.
Lee, J., Hong, S., Jang, Y. C., Lee, M. J., Kang, D., and Shim, W. J.
(2015). Finding solutions for the styrofoam buoy debris problem through
participatory workshops. Mar. Policy 51, 182–189. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.
08.008
Leggett, C. G., Scherer, N., Curry, M. S., Bailey, R., and Haab, T. C. (2014). Assessing
the Economic Benefits of Reductions in Marine Debris: A Pilot Study of Beach
Recreation in Orange County, California: Industrial Economics, Incorporated.
Lester, L. (2016). Media and social licence: on being publicly useful in the
Tasmanian forests conflict. Forestry 89, 542–551. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpw015
MacArthur, D., Waughray, D., and Stuchtey, M. (2016). “The New Plastics
Economy, Rethinking the Future of Plastics,”in World Economic Forum.
Masura, J., Baker, J. E., Foster, G., Arthur, C., and Herring, C. (2015).
Laboratory Methods for the Analysis of Microplastics in the Marine
Environment: Recommendations for Quantifying Synthetic particles in Waters
and Sediments. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, NOAA Marine Debris
Program.
McIlgorm, A., Campbell, H. F., and Rule, M. J. (2011). The economic cost and
control of marine debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region. Ocean Coast.
Manag. 54, 643–651. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.05.007
Mendenhall, E. (in press). Oceans of plastic: a research agenda to propel policy
development. Mar. Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.05.005
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 9June 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 214

Vince and Hardesty Marine Debris Tragedy of the Commons
Moore, C. J., Moore, S. L., Leecaster, M. K., and Weisberg, S. B. (2001). A
comparison of plastic and plankton in the North Pacific central gyre. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 42, 1297–1300. doi: 10.1016/S0025-326X(01)00114-X
Morrison, J. (2014). The Social License: How to Keep Your Organization Legitimate.
Basingstoke: Springer.
Moss, E., Eidson, A., and Jambeck, J. (2017). Sea of Opportunity: Supply Chain
Investment Opportunities to Address Marine Plastic Pollution. New York, NY:
Encourage Capital on behalf of Vulcan, Inc.
Nursey-Bray, M. J., Vince, J., Scott, M., Haward, M., O’Toole, K., Smith, T., et al.
(2014). Science into policy? Discourse, coastal management and knowledge.
Environ. Sci. Policy 38, 107–119. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.010
Ogata, Y., Takada, H., Mizukawa, K., Hirai, H., Iwasa, S., Endo, S., et al. (2009).
International pellet watch: global monitoring of persistent organic pollutants
(POPs) in coastal waters. 1. Initial phase data on PCBs, DDTs, and HCHs. Mar.
Poll. Bull. 58, 1437–1446. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.06.014
Ostrom, E. E., Dietz, T. E., Dolšak, N. E., Stern, P. C., Stonich, S. E., and Weber,
E. U. (2002). The Drama of the Commons. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Palassis, S. (2011). “Marine pollution and environmental law,” in Australian
Coastal and Marine Law, eds R. Baird and D. Rothwell (Annandale, NSW: The
Federation Press), 228–263.
Parsons, R., and Moffat, K. (2014). Constructing the meaning of social licence. Soc.
Epistemol. 28, 340–363. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2014.922645
Potts, T., and Haward, M. (2007). Internation trade, eco-labelling, and sustainable
fisheries - recent issues, concepts and practices. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 9,
91–106. doi: 10.1007/s10668-005-9006-3
Raubenheimer, K., and McIlgorm, A. (2017). Is the Montreal Protocol a model
that can help solve the global marine plastic debris problem? Mar. Policy 81,
322–329. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.04.014
Rochman, C. M. (2016). Strategies for reducing ocean plastic debris
should be diverse and guided by science. Environ. Res. Lett. 11:041001.
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/041001
Rochman, C. M., Browne, M. A., Underwood, A. J., van Franeker, J. A., Thompson,
R. C., and Amaral-Zettler, L. A. (2016). The ecological impacts of marine
debris: unraveling the demonstrated evidence from what is perceived. Ecology
97, 302–312. doi: 10.1890/14-2070.1
Rochman, C. M., Kross, S. M., Armstrong, J. B., Bogan, M. T., Darling, E. S., Green,
S. J., et al. (2015). Scientific evidence supports a ban on microbeads. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 49, 10759–10761. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03909
Rudd, M. A. (2015). Scientists’ framing of the ocean science–policy interface.
Global Environ. Change 33, 44–60. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.04.006
Ryan, P. G. (2015). “A brief history of marine litter research,” in Marine
Anthropogenic Litter, eds M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, and M. Klages (Heidelberg;
New York, NY; Dordrecht; London: Springer International Publishing), 1–25.
Santos, I. R., Friedrich, A. C., Wallner-Kersanach, M., and Fillmann, G. (2005).
Influence of socio-economic characteristics of beach users on litter generation.
Ocean Coast. Manag. 48, 742–752. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.08.006
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific and
Technical Advisory Panel - GEF (2012). Impacts of Marine Debris on
Biodiversity: Current Status and Potential Solutions. Montreal Technical Series
No. 67, 61.
Schuyler, Q., Hardesty, B. D., Lawson, T. J., Opie, K., and Wilcox, C. (in
press). Economic incentives reduce plastic inputs to the ocean. Mar. Policy.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.009
Schuyler, Q., Hardesty, B. D., Wilcox, C., and Townsend, K. (2014). Global analysis
of anthropogenic debris ingestion by sea turtles. Conserv. Biol. 28, 129–139.
doi: 10.1111/cobi.12126
Sherman, P., and Van Sebille, E. (2016). Modeling marine surface microplastic
transport to assess optimal removal locations. Environ. Res. Lett. 11:014006.
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014006
Spear, L. B., Ainley, D. G., and Ribic, C. A. (1995). Incidence of plastic in
seabirds from the tropical pacific, 1984–1991: relation with distribution of
species, sex, age, season, year and body weight. Mar. Environ. Res. 40, 123–146.
doi: 10.1016/0141-1136(94)00140-K
Steurer, R. (2013). Disentangling governance: a synoptic view of regulation
by government, business and civil society. Policy Sci. 46, 387–410.
doi: 10.1007/s11077-013-9177-y
Stoett, P., and Vince, J. (2018). “Environmental justice and multi-level plastic
governance: linking marine debris to climate change, biodiversity conservation,
and human health,” in The International Studies Association Annual Meeting
(San Francisco, CA).
Thomson, I., and Boutilier, R. (2011). “The social license to operate,” in SME
Mining Engineering Handbook, ed P. Darling (Colorado, CO: Society for
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration), 1779–1796.
Tibbetts, J. H. (2015). Managing marine plastic pollution: policy initiatives
to address wayward waste. Environ. Health Perspect. 123:A90.
doi: 10.1289/ehp.123-A90
UN (1992). “Chapter 17 in Conservation and management of resources
for development concern (section),” Agenda 21: Programme of Action for
Sustainable Development and the UNCED Proceedings, Oceana (New York,
NY), Part 17.5.
UNEP (2009a). Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine Litter. Nairobi:
UNEP.
UNEP (2009b). Guidelines on the Use of Market-Based and Economic Instruments.
Nairobi: UNEP.
UNEP (2012). The Honolulu Strategy: A Global Framework for Prevention and
Management of Marine Debris. Nairobi: UNEP.
Van Cauwenberghe, L., Claessens, M., Vandegehuchte, M. B., and Janssen, C. R.
(2015). Microplastics are taken up by mussels (Mytilus edulis) and lugworms
(Arenicola marina) living in natural habitats. Environ. Poll. 199, 10–17.
doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.01.008
van der Velde, T., Milton, D. A., Lawson, T., Wilcox, C., Lansdell, M., Davis, G.,
et al. (2017). Comparison of marine debris data collected by researchers and
citizen scientists: is citizen science data worth the effort? Biol. Conserv. 208,
127–138. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.025
Vince, J., and Hardesty, B. D. (2016). Plastic pollution challenges in marine
and coastal environments: from local to global governance. Restorat. Ecol. 25,
123–128. doi: 10.1111/rec.12388
Vince, J., and Haward, M. (2017). Hybrid governance of aquaculture:
opportunities and challenges. J. Environ. Manage. 201, 138–144.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.039
Vince, J., and Stoett, P. (in press). From problem to crisis to interdisciplinary
solutions: plastic marine debris. Mar. Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.05.006
Vince, J., Brierley, E., Stevenson, S., and Dunstan, P. (2017). Ocean governance in
the South Pacific region: progress and plans for action. Mar. Policy 79, 40–45.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.02.007
Wilcox, C., Mallos, N. J., Leonard, G. H., Rodriguez, A., and Hardesty, B. D.
(2016). Using expert elicitation to estimate the impacts of plastic pollution
on marine wildlife. Mar. Policy 65, 107–114. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.
10.014
Willis, K., Maureaud, C., Wilcox, C., and Hardesty, B. D. (in press).
How successful are waste abatement campaigns and government policies
at reducing plastic waste into the marine environment? Mar. Policy
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.037
World Oceans Summit (2017). World Oceans Summit (Bali).
Worm, B. (2015). Silent spring in the ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112,
11752–11753. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1513514112
Worm, B., Lotze, H. K., Jubinville, I., Wilcox, C., and Jambeck, J. (2017).
Plastic as a persistent marine pollutant. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42, 1–26.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060700
Xanthos, D., and Walker, T. R. (2017). International policies to reduce plastic
marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads):
a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 118, 17–26. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.
02.048
Xinhuanet (2017). Kenya’s waste Management Lobby Opposes Plastic Ban.
Xinhuanet (Accessed 28 August 2017).
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2018 Vince and Hardesty. This is an open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication
in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No
use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
terms.
Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org 10 June 2018 | Volume 5 | Article 214