Tom Gammage’s research while affiliated with James Cook University and other places

Small‐scale fisheries (SSF) are commonly governed through co‐management, a widely advocated approach for promoting equitable governance. However, evidence suggests that this governance approach can sometimes exacerbate power imbalances, facilitate elite capture and intensify conflicts. To foster co‐management that successfully enhances equity in SSF governance, it is crucial to understand when and why it leads to positive or negative equity outcomes. To this end, we undertook a scoping review to identify empirical research on the relationship between SSF co‐management and equity outcomes. We identified 30 empirical studies that assessed equity outcomes in SSF co‐management initiatives. Our analysis revealed four key findings: (1) distributional and procedural equity received approximately equal levels of attention, largely without an explicit equity lens; (2) co‐management had mixed impacts on equity, with the most prevalent outcome being improvement to equity; (3) delegated and cooperative co‐management types were more often associated with improved equity outcomes, while consultative co‐management was more often associated with reductions or no change; and (4) inclusive participation, strong social capital and secure property rights were most often associated with improved equity outcomes, while weak social capital, institutional design and management oversight were most often associated with reduced equity outcomes. However, the evidence supporting our findings was limited, with only seven studies robustly documenting the role of inclusive participation in enhancing equity. Our review offers valuable insights into the complex interplay between SSF co‐management and equity, informing future research and practice and policy interventions aimed at achieving social goals through co‐management governance approaches.

The UN international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution (UNEA resolution 5/14) aims to reduce plastics pollution. However, midstream and downstream assessments show that optimizing waste management, removal technologies, and improved circularity is not sufficient to curb plastics pollution in the short-, mid- or long-term. Therefore, we have to look upstream to the root of the problem and define binding national phase-down schedules and Global Aggregate Targets in order to reduce Primary Plastic Polymers production

The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) recently adopted a resolution with a mandate to negotiate a new international legally binding instrument (a treaty) on plastic pollution. The mandate includes the need to ‘prevent’ as well as ‘reduce’ and ‘eliminate’ plastic pollution through a ‘comprehensive approach that addresses the full life cycle of plastic’. Unsustainable production and consumption of virgin (primary) plastic polymers represents the single greatest threat to preventing plastic pollution and risks undermining the incoming treaty. However, current discussions on a global plastics treaty overlook upstream measures that address virgin plastic production and consumption, focusing instead on midstream and downstream measures on product design and waste management. This article presents the justification for and benefits of a stepwise approach for controlling virgin plastic production and consumption internationally, inspired by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer;