Exploring Multilevel Governance Strategies in Australia and Brazil for Marine Plastic Solutions

Exploring Multilevel Governance Strategies in Australia and Brazil for Marine Plastic Solutions | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Exploring Multilevel Governance Strategies in Australia and Brazil for Marine Plastic Solutions Nicole Russo Guerrato, Pedro Fidelman, Leandra Regina Gonçalves This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6692013/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in Environmental Management → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Marine plastic pollution is a current and highly visible environmental problem. The increase of marine litter is a result of the transformations experienced by humanity, whether economic, political, cultural or institutional. It is a global problem that causes impacts at the local scale. Each country has its peculiarity and presents unique strategies to face marine plastic litter, the multidimensional nature of this issue requires responses at multiple geographic and jurisdictional levels. Due to its diffuse origin, and different ways of this litter reaching the ocean, the problem involves different actors and sectors, demanding a complex institutional arrangement to solve the problem. The study analyses 29 policies and practices adopted by both countries and leans on the innovative approaches that can be adapted or transferred to other federative systems in similar situations. The research identifies key challenges and opportunities for improved governance and more effective responses to marine plastic pollution through a comparison of policies and strategies across countries. Multilevel Governance Marine Plastic Pollution Environmental Policies Federalism Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 1. Introduction The Anthropocene - the current era during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment- is illustrated by increasing marine plastic pollution (Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2024 ). The cumulative consequences of human activity have led to an unprecedented ecological crisis, whose restoration has already demanded a critical reflection on the development and environmental governance models that form the basis of contemporary society (Fracalanza et al. 2022 ). Annual plastic entering the ocean is projected to triple to between 23 and 37 million metric tons each year by 2040 if no action is taken, with current estimate at 11 million metric tons per year so triple in the next 20 years (UNEP 2021a). Most of this plastic debris originates from land-based sources (Vince and Hardesty 2017 , Simon and Schulte 2017 ), with poor management of domestic waste systems being one of the main causes (ABRELPE 2020). Marine plastic pollution is widespread and found throughout all levels of the ocean, from surface waters to greater depths (Gall and Thompson 2015 ). It threatens the integrity of the ocean due to negative impacts on the environment, society, and economy (Newman et al. 2015 ; Mouat et al. 2010 ; Bergmann et al. 2015 ; Wyles et al. 2016 ). The problem is aggravated by the over-usage of single-use plastics (Gall and Thompson 2015 ) and underutilization of this material in recycling (Geyer et al. 2017). Items like disposable packaging, bags, and bottles are among the main contributors to oceanic plastic waste (Chen et al. 2021 ), while many countries continue to struggle with recycling systems and public awareness (ABRELPE 2020; Mihai et al. 2021 ). By 2016, estimates of plastic waste entering aquatic environments ranged from 9 to 23 million metric tons annually (Borelle et al. 2020), with higher figures gaining wider acceptance (UNEP 2014; World Economic Forum 2016 ; Vince and Hardesty 2017 ). This persistent escalation complicates the implementation of effective prevention and mitigation policies. While marine plastic pollution is a global transboundary issue, plastic production and management are influenced by actions at local, national, and international levels. Consequently, in addition to international policies, there is a pressing need for more effective national and subnational initiatives to prevent and mitigate marine plastic pollution, particularly within the intricate framework of multilevel governance (Termeer et al. 2011 ; Keskitalo 2010 a). Multilevel governance describes the interaction of governmental and non-governmental actors across different territorial scales and policy domains. While it can help with collective decision making and service delivery of public goods (Alcantara and Nelles 2014 ; Piattoni, 2010 ), it might also process and some difficulties, such as duplication, overlap and competing objectives regarding increasing pressures of the Anthropocene (Croese et al. 2021 , Franchini, et al. 2017 , Juhola 2016 ). Whereas some studies have examined marine plastic pollution in the frame of multilevel governance (i.e., Beltran et al. 2024 ), the understanding of how it might best be solved in this context is still limited. In developing this knowledge gap, we explore the cases of Australia and Brazil, two jurisdictions defined by multilevel governance as a result of their federal systems of government. Australia and Brazil offer opportunities to explore how federative systems are tackling marine plastic pollution. Both have multi-layered governance structures, with responsibilities divided between local, state and federal authorities. This complexity poses difficulties in the coordination, implementation, and enforcement of policy, especially in dealing with transboundary concerns such as marine plastic pollution (Gonçalves et al. 2021). The study’s emphasis on multilevel governance — the need for local, state and federal authorities to be in collaboration — underscores how integrated approaches to environmental management are so critical. Broadly speaking, this means that subnational policies must also be evaluated if we want to gain a complete–even if imperfect–view of institutional complexities. As such, Gold Coast (Queensland, Australia) and Bertioga (São Paulo, Brazil) were chosen to assess their marine plastic pollution policies and legislation at national and subnational levels in Australia and Brazil, including local government (represented by Gold Coast in Queensland and Bertioga in São Paulo). Thus, this article identifies avenues for improving governance in federal systems and provides a deeper understanding of how comparable governance frameworks in federal systems respond to environmental issues, offering valuable lessons on multilevel governance and sustainable coastal management practices in both contexts. The insights from this research can also be useful for other jurisdictions, in efforts to combat marine litter as one among many multilevel governance challenges and improving the strategies to ensure coordination and minimize policy fragmentation. 2. Material and Methods 2.1. Case Study Selection The criteria for selecting Australia and Brazil as case studies included several key considerations: First, the complex multilayered nature of federative governance in both countries, within which administrative jurisdictions and powers overlap, can either improve or impede the effectiveness of policies/initiatives addressing marine litter (Hooghe and Marks 2003 ; Ostrom 2010). The analysis looks at how federal, state and local governments collaborate — or fail to collaborate — to address the problem of marine pollution through the lenses of these two systems, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Australia and Brazil, despite being so different in terms of their environmental and socio-economic contexts, are confronted with similar issues of marine litter due to their long coastlines and the great dependence of both economies on the coast (Jambeck et al. 2015 ; Martinez et al. 2007 ). Here gives an in-depth comparison of how different environmental, economic and culture contexts determine if and how policies are achieved through similar structures of governance. Regarding solid waste, approximately 76 million tons of waste were created in Australia in 2018, including domestic, commercial, industrial and demolition waste (DEE 2018). Brazil, for comparison, generated 79 million tons of solid waste, or approximately 1.04 kg per person per day (ABRELPE 2018). Australia has a higher recycling rate than Brazil—13% compared to Brazil's 3%— despite Brazil's larger population (DAWE 2021; ABRELPE 2020). Brazil's lower recycling rate indicates more issues on the infrastructure, logistics, awareness and public policies sides when it comes to proper waste management. The choice of the City of Gold Coast in Australia and Bertioga on the São Paulo coast as case studies in the comparison between Australia and Brazil is grounded in their common challenges of managing urban growth and tourism while ensuring environmental protection (City of Gold Coast 2020 ; Bertioga Municipal Government 2020 ). Both areas are vital for their biodiversity and coastal ecosystems but are under strain from urban expansion, pollution, and the effects of tourism (Fig. 1 ). Bertioga Bertioga is located in São Paulo State. According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), in 2015, Bertioga (São Paulo State) had a population of 56,555 inhabitants, with approximately 98.5% residing in urban areas (IBGE 2015). The Human Development Index (HDI) indicates a relatively young population, with over 50% considered economically active. During the summer months (December–February), Bertioga experiences a significant increase in its floating population, reaching up to 550,000 people. This surge places substantial pressure on urban infrastructure. Tourism is a key economic activity, driven by the municipality's natural attractions, including beaches and waterfalls. According to Bertioga's Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan (Bertioga Municipal Government, 2020 ), the city achieves a recycling rate of 70%. However, limitations in infrastructure constrain the available space for proper waste disposal and treatment (IBGE, 2015; UNEP, 2018). Bertioga's approach to waste management emphasizes environmental responsibility and sustainable practices, making it an important case study for examining marine plastic pollution and its legal implications (UNEP 2021a; Jambeck et. al.. 2015 ; Bertioga Municipal Government 2020 ). Gold Coast In Queensland the city of Gold Coast managed approximately 7% of the solid waste generated in the state—over 8.4 million tonnes in the 2013–2014 FY [2]. Gold Coast is Australia's sixth largest city with an approximate 546,000 people or about 11% of the total population of Queensland. Tourism is a lucrative global market with high expected growth rates, and Sydney receives over 12 million visitors per year (ABS 2013). Gold Coast the largest regional city and the sixth-largest city in Australia, with an estimated residential population approaching 600,000. Additionally, it remains a popular destination for both domestic and international travellers, attracting approximately 13 million visitors each year (ABS 2013). 2.2. Research Approach A database of international, federal, state, and local policy and legislative arrangements related to marine litter, and where possible, specifically addressing marine plastic pollution was developed. To ensure data collection consistency, these arrangements had to apply to coastal and marine areas in Brazil and Australia. The types of documents collected included legislation, programs, and plans, which were identified on official government websites and legislation databases. The process involved screening document titles and executive summaries, followed by a review of the full content. To understand the global context in which Australia’s and Brazil’s initiatives to address marine plastic pollution take place, an analysis of key conventions and protocols relating to waste reduction and marine plastic pollution was conducted. This analysis primarily focused on those international agreements that Australia and/or Brazil were signatories. To comprehend the specific initiatives undertaken by Australia and Brazil concerning the reduction of marine plastic pollution another search was conducted. Policies documents (e.g., plans, policies, and programs) relating to marine litter and pollution until 2024 were collected and analysed. The searches were conducted on the websites of the Australian government and the Australian Legal Database and the Brazilian government for searches regarding federal documentation. In both cases, local government master plans were included, as well as state strategies for the State of São Paulo, and Queensland. To ensure the reliability of the classification process, the coding of governance approaches was conducted independently by two researchers based on predefined criteria drawn from Mangalagiu et al. ( 2019 ). Each policy document was reviewed and categorized according to its dominant governance strategy (e.g., command-and-control, economic incentives, enabling actors, or hybrid forms). Discrepancies in coding were discussed and resolved through consensus. The sample included strategic plans, legal instruments, and programs directly addressing marine litter or broader waste management issues with coastal relevance. This approach ensured consistency and transparency in assessing governance patterns across jurisdictions. The mapped strategies were classified into (1) organizations responsible for the strategy and administrative level (e.g.: federal, state or local government) and type of strategy (e.g.: information and research, policy, and plans and programs); (2) governance approach (e.g.: enabling actors, command-and-control and partnership with the private sector; enabling actors and economic incentives, economic incentive, command-and-control, as defined in Table 1 ; (3) sectors involved and (4) purposefulness of action. Interplay between documents were also analysed to identify citations or guidelines followed across different documents (Table 2 ) and illustrate how the policy coherence works in this policy landscape. The plans and policies were categorised in terms of governance approach and instruments, following the approach outlined in Table 1 . Analysis and systematization of all policies and plans were conducted using network graphs with the software NodeXL. Table 1 Governance approach and examples of policy instruments as defined by Mangalagiu, et. al. ( 2019 ) Governance Approach Policy instruments Enabling actors Strengthening participation of governmental and non-governmental actors in decision-making on policies or projects leading to improved project design and implementation Command-and-control and partnership with the private sector Legally binding measures and voluntary approaches by business and other stakeholders Economic Incentives Individual transferable quotas, taxes, incentives, subsidies Command-and-control Regulation of access and resource use rights 3. Results 3.1. International and regional policy agreements targeting marine debris and plastics Thirteen international agreements were found, including 2 regional agreements (Table 2 ). Further, both Australia and Brazil are party to the: Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); UNEP 2014, 2016, 2019: Marine plastic debris and microplastic; Global Partnership on Plastic Pollution and marine litter; Rio + 20; Basel Convention; MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships); G20 Action Plan on Marine Litter and Honolulu Strategy. Only Australia is a signatory to regional agreements, i.e., the Waigani Convention and the Pacific Ocean Litter Project (POLP) (Fig. 2 ). Overall, these agreements aim to achieve a balance between economic interests and social well-being, cultural preservation, environmental protection and political considerations. International agreements relating to marine pollution go back to 1973, as shown by the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. Despite this however, it wasn't until 2010 that marine plastic pollution began to receive serious international recognition in terms of discussion of international treaties (e.g. the Honolulu Strategy). The key results from global treaties designed to mitigate marine and terrestrial pollution are summarized in Table 2 . These accords call for preemptive waste prevention and disposal, regional and global measures to support the design and implementation of monitoring and sustainable management programs, and specific steering of hazardous waste management, marine debris, and plastics reduction, which deal with multiple forms of pollution at once. Table 2 Examples of international and regional agreements addressing marine pollution and marine plastic pollution, categorised by administrative level, type of strategies and main purpose. Date International agreements Administrative level Brazil Australia Governance Approach Main purpose 1972 London convention Global x x Command-and-control Targets the dumping of land-based waste deliberately at sea 1973/78 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Global x x Command-and-control and Partnership with the Private Sector Annex V species to prevent the dumping of plastic while at sea and for ports to have adequate facilities to handle waste 1989 Basel Convention Global x x Command-and-control and Economic Incentives Established provisions to control and regulate the movement of hazardous waste, including some types of plastic waste. 1995 UNEP global programme of action for the protection of the marine environment from land-based activities Global x x Enabling Actors e Economic Incentives Targets pollution from rivers, estuaries and storm drains 2001 Waigani Convention Regional (Pacific) x Command-and-control The regional implementation of the international hazardous waste control regime (Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention) 2009 UNEP Global Initiative on marine litter Global x x Enabling Actors and Economic Incentives Creation of twelve regional seas to target marine litter at a regional level. Ties in with the UNEP Regional Seas Programme 2011 Honolulu Strategy Global x Enabling Actors e Economic Incentives Targets the management and monitoring of marine debris. 2012 Rio + 20 Global x x Enabling Actors Targets a reduction in marine debris by 2025 2012 Global partnership on Plastic Pollution and marine litter Global x x Enabling Actors e Economic Incentives Targets the reduction of land and marine sources as well as reduce impacts on habitats 2014 UNEP/EA.1/Res.6 (2014)/Res. 11 (2016)/ Res. 7 (2017)/ Res. 6 (2019): Marine plastic debris and microplastics Global x x Enabling Actors e Economic Incentives Targets the reduction of land and marine sources as well as reduce impacts on habitats 2017 G20 Implementation Framework for Actions on Marine Plastic Litter Regional x x Enabling Actors e Economic Incentives 2018–2025 Pacific Ocean Litter Project (POLP) Regional (Pacific) x Enabling Actors e Economic Incentives Targets the reducing the production and consumption of plastics and improve their post-use management. Overall, these international agreements have informed the development and implementation of national policies addressing marine plastic pollution, including those in Australia and Brazil. Notably, most of these international policies have been signed by both countries and largely fall under an “Enabling Actors” governance approach, emphasizing the strengthening of governmental and non-governmental participation in decision-making processes. 3.2. Australian Australia's policy strategies for marine plastic pollution reflect a complex and interconnected system of governance, spanning local, state, and federal levels. The policy landscape and linkages across governance levels are illustrated in Fig. 3 , providing an overview of how different plans and policies interact and vary in their approaches. The diagram highlights the roles of different levels of government and the organisations responsible for policy implementation, offering insight into how marine plastic pollution strategies are structured. Policies are categorised into five main policy approaches (as outlined in Table 1 ) and demonstrate a combination of enabling actors and command-and-control instruments. 3.2.1. Federal Level At the federal level, the predominant approach is enabling actors, with national plans setting broad guidelines and targets for the sector. The Recycling and Waste Reduction Plan (2019) created by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is a guiding document that informs the formulation of policies at the state level (e.g., the Waste Reduction and Recycling (Plastic Items)). This is also reflected in the National Plastics Plan (2021), which sets out national goals and commitments. Australia has a national approach to plastic pollution management, but it is the responsibility of each level of government to play its role, including the Australian Federal Government which is responsible for the policies and initiatives to reduce plastic pollution. DCCEEW is the principal Commonwealth agency for marine pollution in (Commonwealth) waters (3 NM or further from the coast), but jurisdiction over particular issues can also be held by other federal agencies (e.g., national marine parks). For example, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 1 (GBRMPA), responsible for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, promotes measures to reduce marine debris within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, but the agency with responsibility over marine pollution is DCCEEW. At the federal level, policies are the predominant governance arrangements, with a strong focus on voluntary initiatives, such as the 2021 National Plastics Plan. This plan focuses on five main areas - prevention, recycling, consumer education, ocean and waterway protection, and research - reflecting the federal government's emphasis on voluntary strategies and long-term goals to reduce plastic pollution. The legislative and plans showed at the Fig. 3 underscore Australia's commitment to waste management and environmental preservation The National Plastics plan aims to reduce the negative effects of products, plastic waste and associated materials on human and environmental health. It aims for a circular economy and to control the export of waste materials, holding manufacturers, importers, distributors and designers accountable. Another important part is the prohibition on plastic microbeads, especially in wash-off cosmetics. Other governance arrangements include GBRMPA’s position statement, which calls for evidence-based actions to reduce marine debris. This includes rethinking products away from plastics, reducing plastic production and prioritizing reusable options. Related initiatives include the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) 2 report provides important data on marine debris across various monitoring sites in Australia, aiming to identify and understand the types of debris that wash up on shorelines. In addition, the 2025 National Packaging Targets, supported by industry and government, underscore sustainable packaging approaches. These targets require a systemic shift in packaging creation, collection, and recovery, aligning with global sustainable packaging initiatives, and have a strong support from federal and state governments and also are part of the National Waste Policy Action Plan and the National Plastics Plan (Fig. 3 ). Figure 3 illustrates the intricate web of governance approach employed to combat marine plastic pollution, elucidating the interrelationships between disparate plans and policies and delineating the distribution of responsibilities across the various levels of government. This integrated perspective is indispensable for comprehending the multifaceted landscape of environmental policies and their implementation and management in disparate administrative contexts. 3.2.2. State Level At the state level, policies predominantly use a mixed approach of governance, though command-and-control approaches are most common. This is exemplified by Queensland's Waste Reduction and Recycling (Plastic Items) legislation, which incorporates both Command-and-control strategies and economic incentives. The Queensland government plastic pollution directive covers responsibilities as they relate to waste management and adopt targeted policies and legislation. The Queensland Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation is the primary state agency responsible for addressing plastic pollution, including marine pollution in state waters (3NM from the coast). However, as shown in Fig. 3 , plastic pollution management in Queensland uses not only legislation, but also policy which indicates a wider combination of regulatory with voluntary management strategies. Such dynamic is critical to adjusting solutions to different needs and local realities — fostering a better implementation of initiatives, as indicated by concrete measures and established programs, some of which are described below. On the 1st of September 2021, Queensland introduced bans on single use plastic items such straws, stirrers, plates, bowls, cutlery as well as expanded polystyrene (EPS) takeaway containers and cups (Queensland Government 2021 ) These initiatives are consistent with the Queensland Waste Management and Resource Recovery Strategy (Waste Strategy), released July 2019. The Queensland Plastic Pollution Reduction Plan, released in November 2019, outlines targeted actions and emphasises partnerships to reduce plastic waste across the state. Several key initiatives have contributed to this aim, including: The plastic shopping bag ban (introduced on 1 July 2018), which has led to a more than 70 per cent reduction in plastic bag litter. The Containers for Change refund scheme (introduced on 1 November 2018), which has resulted in a more than 35 per cent reduction in beverage container litter. Increased penalties for littering and illegal dumping, now among the strongest in the country. Enhanced littering and illegal dumping reporting systems, improving data collection to inform best-practice programs and policy development. 3.2.3. City of Gold Coast At the local level, policies are mostly adopting an enabling actor’s perspective, but some do include Command-and-control approaches, such as in the Gold Coast government's Litter & Illegal Dumping Reduction Plan (2019–2024). The following sections will provide a more detailed examination of the policies regarding to the different levels of government - federal, state, and local. There is a considerable role for local governments to reduce plastic pollution with corresponding duties to enact interventions that minimise litter impacts in their jurisdiction. The City of Gold Coast is charged with pollution via certain plans (e.g. Litter and Illegal Dumping Reduction Plan (2019–2024)). This plan seeks to actively address litter and illegal dumping, so that the clean-up of these materials becomes a massive unsustainably expensive burden on the residents of the community. It is a step-by-step, project focused, multi-faceted approaches of best practice. These are solutions aimed to understand why people litter or illegally dump so they can seek to influence them to dispose of waste responsibly. Moreover, the Gold Coast Water Strategy Plan 2019–2024 also highlight decreased littering and waste going to navigable waters. The integration of these plans, as depicted by the dashed lines in Fig. 3 symbolize a holistic approach to plastic pollution and its environmental impact, contributing to an effective and comprehensive effort to tackle marine pollution. These plans are summarized in the appendix (Table 3 ). Some of these plans are correlated with others, as suggested in Fig. 3 . 3.3 Brazil Like Australia, Brazil's approach to marine plastic pollution is shaped by a complex, multi-tiered governance system that operates across local, state, and federal levels. Figure 4 emphasizes the collaborative and coordinated efforts among different government levels and their respective organizations in addressing marine plastic pollution. The dominance of command-and-control strategies and government agencies reflects a normative and regulatory approach to pollution control. This is important to note though, plans and policies are not in binary opposition and many governances’ approaches are mixed in many of the plans. As highlighted in Fig. 4 , collaborative and coordinated efforts between different levels of government are being taken to mitigate marine plastic pollution through their respective agencies. 3.3.1. Federal Level At the federal level, the prevailing policies are typically formulated by national agencies, with a distinct emphasis on command-and-control strategies, encompassing regulations and specific legislation. At the federal level, the primary federal agencies responsible for the management of plastic pollution is the Ministry of the Environment, via its Department for Environmental Quality. This agency is responsible for a comprehensive arrangement of plans and policies, such as National Solid Waste Management Plan, the National Solid Waste Policy, the National Coastal Management Plan, the National Basic Sanitation Policy, and the Marine Litter Management Plan. Most of these plans follow a command-and-control approach, which are designed to regulate and monitor practices related to waste and marine pollution. The Ministry of Economy also plays a significant role through the issuance of the Recycling Logistics Reverse Credit Certificate. It is an economic incentives for sustainability and a call to action by the stakeholders in private sector, community level towards plastic waste reduction. The employment of both command-and-control strategies and economic incentives underscores the holistic response needed in addressing marine plastic pollution issues. One of the main instruments regulating solid waste is the National Policy on Solid Waste, developed by the Ministry of the Environment, specifically the Department of Environmental Quality, as provided by Law No. 2,305/2010. This policy establishes guidelines for waste management, including non-generation, reduction, reuse, recycling, and proper environmentally sound disposal of residues. It also promotes the adoption of sustainable production and consumption of goods and services, the adoption, development, and improvement of clean technologies to minimise environmental impacts, the reduction of volume and hazardousness of waste, and the promotion of the recycling industry to encourage the use of raw materials and inputs derived from recyclable and recycled materials. The policy also emphasises integrated solid waste management, coordination between different levels of government and cooperation between the public and business sectors for technical and financial support in waste management. Continuous technical training in the field of solid waste is also encouraged. The National Policy on Solid Waste includes the following instruments: the National Solid Waste Plan, as well as state, interregional, intermunicipal, and municipal solid waste plans, in addition to the solid waste management plan (Brazilian Government 2010 ). The government, the business sector, and the community are responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of actions aimed at ensuring compliance with the National Policy on Solid Waste and the guidelines and other provisions established in this Plan and its regulations. Another notable initiative was the Recicla + program, launched in 2022 to encourage private investment in recycling consumer-discarded products and packaging. However, the program was discontinued in February 2023.Under this program, Recycling Agents could register the invoices generated from the sale of recyclable materials with managing entities, which verified the transactions and issued credits. Each ton equalled one credit, which waste-generating companies could purchase to meet reverse logistics targets. This program was replaced by the Certificate of Reverse Logistics Recycling Credit, the Certificate of Structure and Recycling of General Packaging, and the Certificate of Future Mass Credit within the reverse logistics systems", established by Law No. 11,413/2023. This legislation aims to incentivise and close the loop of the waste production chain by improving the implementation and operationalisation of physical and logistical infrastructure. It also aims to achieve economies of scale in waste recycling and reconcile the interests of economic and social agents and business management and marketing processes with environmental management through the development of sustainable strategies. In addition, the National Plan to Combat Marine Litter (PNCLM), established in 2021, consists of a diagnosis of the marine litter problem, a governance model, key implementation areas, guidelines, indicators, and an action plan. The PNCLM represents a new strategy to address a complex issue requiring the involvement of the federal, state, and municipal governments, the productive sector and civil society. The Plan is divided into 30 short-, medium-, and long-term actions, emphasising pragmatic and concrete solutions that contribute to short-term environmental quality improvement. Its main objectives are to reduce the quantity and impacts of marine litter originating from land-based sources; reduce the quantity and impacts of waste from maritime sources, including solid waste, lost cargo, abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear, and abandoned vessels; decrease the quantity and impacts of solid waste accumulated on the coast and in coastal and oceanic waters; to promote research, development of technologies, and methodologies to combat marine litter; and carry out environmental education activities, engage society, and communicate the impacts of marine litter and the need for better solid waste management. Lastly, the National Coastal Management Plan, which includes recycling of waste as an environmental goal in areas where there are changes in the functional organisation of pristine ecosystems undergo functional changes, are partially modified with limited regeneration options, or are largely degraded or lost. 3.3.2. State Level The state government employs a combination of governance approaches, including command-and-control, command-and-control and partnership with the private sector, economic incentives, enabling actors and enabling actors and economic incentives. State-level policies frequently draw upon federal guidelines, adapting them to align with state requirements. The government of São Paulo state has significant responsibility for the management and mitigation of plastic pollution, particularly marine pollution. The Secretariat of Energy, Water Resources and Sanitation, in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure and Environment, the Fisheries Institute, and the Foundation for Conservation and Sustainable Forests of the State of São Paulo are the primary agencies responsible for addressing pollution. They play a pivotal role in implementing and overseeing policies and programs for pollution control. There are many policy and legislative arrangements and initiatives relating to plastic pollution, particularly waste management. They include: The Strategic Monitoring Plan and Marine Litter Assessment (PEMALM) combined knowledge, engagement, and interaction among key stakeholders to create a qualified information base and institutional capital for monitoring and evaluating the marine litter problem in the state of São Paulo. State Solid Waste Policy (Law No. 12,300) and The State Solid Waste Policy aligns with the National Solid Waste Plan (Law No. 12,305/2010), sharing the same objectives of the Plan. However, the implementation is the responsibility of the state government. This also applies to the instruments of this policy, such as the State Solid Waste Plan. Solid Waste Plan of the State of Sao Paulo, launched in 2014, includes the problem of marine litter from abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) at sea. This Plan establishes guidelines, goals, and strategies for waste management within the state, following the guidelines established by the National Solid Waste Policy. The "Verão no Clima" project is an awareness campaign about the responsibility of beach users in generating and disposing of waste in these spaces. The Sustainable Development Program of the Coast of Sao Paulo, regulated by State Decree No. 60,029/2014, involves a partnership between the state government (Secretariat of Infrastructure and Environment, Housing Department, Environmental Military Police, Geological Institute, and Forest Foundation), municipalities, and the Inter-American Development Bank. It aims to reduce the pressure of human activities on protected and socially vulnerable areas, mitigate the impact of irregular occupations, restore degraded areas, and improve housing and sanitation conditions on the coast of Sao Paulo, thereby reducing pollution of coastal water bodies and the influx of litter into the sea through diffuse pollution. The Lost Fishing Gear at Sea Project, started in 2009 as a partnership between the Fisheries Institute (APTA/SAA) and the Forest Foundation, focuses on research, development, and innovation to prevent and mitigate the problem of ghost fishing, mainly in the territory of marine protected areas. The project encourages the structuring of reverse logistics through the Blue Line System and reprocessing of unusable gear, generating employment and social income for fishing communities, scrap dealers, and recycling cooperatives. The Strategic Monitoring Plan and Marine Litter Assessment, developed in 2021, combines knowledge, engagement, and interaction of key actors to create a basis of qualified information and institutional capital to monitor and evaluate the problem of marine litter in the state of Sao Paulo. "Mar Sem Lixo" (Trash-Free Sea) project, developed by the Forest Foundation and the Secretariat of Infrastructure and Environment which seeks to remunerate artisanal fishermen who removes waste from the sea while engaging in small-scale shrimp trawling. This payment is provided for by the federal law on payments for environmental services, law Nº. 14,119/2021. 3.3.3. –Bertioga Municipality At the local level, the emphasis is on practical strategies that are adapted to the local context. The responsibilities and mandate of local government relating to plastic pollution include waste management - the collection, treatment and disposal of waste, including plastics. This may include implementing selective waste collection, recycling, and composting programs to reduce the amount of plastic waste destined for landfills. The local government is also responsible for implementing and overseeing measures to prevent pollution of coastal and marine areas. This may include regulating practices that prevent the dumping of plastic waste at sea and monitoring activities that may contribute to pollution. Additionally, the local government is responsible for monitoring the amount and type of plastic waste that reaches coastal and marine areas, and reporting this data is a crucial part of the local mandate. This monitoring helps assess the effectiveness of policies and the need for adjustments to waste management strategies. These responsibilities align with the objectives of environmental protection and the reduction of plastic pollution, thereby promoting the health of marine ecosystems and the quality of life of coastal communities. In Bertioga, the Municipal Integrated Solid Waste Plan addresses the integrated management of solid waste. It presents a diagnosis of the solid waste in the municipality, including all relevant actors in involved. It is noteworthy that the central area of focus involves the implementation of recycling systems with social inclusion, as well as the evaluation of financial indicators and budgetary support. It is aligned with the National Solid Waste Plan, which stipulates that the development of the Municipal Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (PMGIRS) is the responsibility of each municipality in Brazil. The municipal Management Plan for Protect Areas is another important document relating to marine pollution. Bertioga is home to three conservation units, namely: the Marine Environmental Protection Area of Litoral Centro (APAMLC), Bertioga`s Restinga State Park (PERB), and Serra do Mar State Park - Bertioga Nucleus (PESM-NB). These conservation units are managed by the Forest Foundation, a state agency. Created through State Decrees (No. 53.526/08, No. 56.500/10, and No. 1.251/77, respectively), each conservation unit has a Management Plan, a guiding document with directives and goals to be fulfilled by the management and other bodies with a mandate over sectors/activities affecting these conservation units. Some of these goals and directives specifically target pollution on beaches and rivers. For example, one of the directives aims to develop actions to prevent litter disposal in coastal environments, including actions such as: "Monitoring and contributing to the discussion of the working group involved in the development of state public policies to combat marine litter"; "Promoting and supporting initiatives for the provision of environmental services to remove litter from the sea by fishermen, based on the reverse logistics instrument"; "Supporting initiatives to create physical barriers for the containment of waste reaching the sea"; and "Seeking funding for projects aimed at reducing marine litter and promoting the training of local agents for their implementation." It is important to emphasize that all these actions outlined in the conservation units' management plan require interinstitutional coordination, as the responsibility is shared between the state and municipal levels, as well as other private institutions and civil society. On the other hand, the city of Bertioga is situated in the Santos Bay region and has been a pioneer in structuring a waste collection and management system. The city focuses on reducing waste destined for landfills through the principles of social inclusion and adherence to the law that established the National Solid Waste Policy (PGIRS, Bertioga 2017). A summary of these plans can be found in appendix Table 4. 3.4. Differences Between Australia and Brazilian governance approaches In both countries, local governments focus on practical and context-specific solutions to marine plastic pollution. In Brazil, municipalities like Bertioga are responsible for managing solid waste through initiatives like the Municipal Integrated Solid Waste Plan, which addresses waste management with an emphasis on social inclusion and sustainable practices (Bertioga 2021). Brazil’s marine litter policies lean more towards regulatory, Command-and-control strategies with government-led actions, where compliance is enforced through legal mechanisms, such as the National Policy on Solid Waste (Law nº. 12,305/2010) (Brazilian government 2010 ). In contrast, Australia's approach to environmental governance, particularly in combating plastic pollution, adopts a more comprehensive and inclusive strategy. Australian policies engage a wide range of stakeholders, emphasizing preventive measures across the plastic life cycle. Instead of relying predominantly on government mandates, Australia fosters a bottom-up approach where local communities and industries are empowered to take voluntary actions. The National Plastics Plan (Australian Government 2021 ), for instance, prioritizes collaboration, enabling actors such as industries, NGOs, and local governments to participate actively in addressing environmental challenges. The connection between these plans lies in their shared focus on reducing plastic waste and mitigating its impacts on marine ecosystems. While each plan targets different scales and aspects of pollution, they collectively contribute to a holistic approach to tackling this global issue. The National Plastics Plan sets overarching goals, while state and local plans provide specific actions tailored to their contexts. The collaborative nature of these initiatives reflects the understanding that marine pollution is a complex challenge that requires coordinated efforts across various levels of governance and society. Local governments in Australia, such as the City of Gold Coast, implement localized policies like the Litter and Illegal Dumping Reduction Plan (City of Gold Coast 2020 ), but Australia places more emphasis on community engagement and voluntary measures, whereas Brazil relies heavily on legislative actions. 4. Discussion 4.1. International Laws addressing mitigate Marine Litter Marine plastic pollution is an increasing concern among international law experts, particularly those focused on maritime law. The definition of high seas has come to be understood as a space of access and shared responsibility among all countries, except in areas under national sovereignty. This principle emphasizes that, although each country exercises sovereignty over its waters, it is essential that they do not cause damage or pollution to other nations, taking responsibility for any contamination that may arise (Zanella et. al. 2015). The international agreements identified in this study highlight a global commitment to addressing the urgency of marine plastic pollution, promoting cooperation among countries and implementing strategies to mitigate such pollution. The complexity of marine litter is heightened by its transboundary nature, as oceanic currents, including gyres such as the North Pacific Gyre, facilitate the widespread transport of debris across vast distances (Lincoln et. al. 2022 ). Other primary limitation to deal with this transboundary issue is the lack of recognition of the terrestrial origin of most marine plastic waste in major international conventions (Vince and Hardesty 2017 ), as approximately 80% of this waste originates from land-based activities (Vince and Hardesty 2017 ; Simon and Schulte, 2017 ). Conventions such as UNCLOS (1982) place the responsibility for controlling land-based pollution in the hands of local governments, but this approach is insufficient to address the scale of the problem. One possible contributing factor is the vertical structure of the regulatory framework, which spans from the international to national levels. Furthermore, the governance structure has been primarily reactive and sectoral rather than preventive and integrated. Many international frameworks offer excessive flexibility, allowing each country to define its goals and guidelines, which results in uneven and inconsistent implementation. The lack of coordination between institutions across different governance levels also limits the effectiveness of control measures. Therefore, a more cohesive and integrated approach is required to effectively address marine pollution (Ekstrom et al. 2009). In contrast, the polycentric system, as presented by Ostrom et al. ( 2008 ), refers to a governance framework in which multiple decision-making centers, independent but interrelated, can share responsibility for addressing specific issues. In the environmental context, a polycentric system involves different levels of governance - local, regional, national and international - acting simultaneously and collaboratively, rather than relying solely on a central authority or vertical hierarchy. This approach has the potential to address environmental problems more effectively because it involves multiple scales and requires flexible coordination, in contrast to centralized or vertical governance systems that may be less agile and less responsive to local variations (Ostrom et al. 2008 ). Landon-Lane ( 2018 ) highlights the importance of a multi-level and inclusive approach to addressing marine plastic pollution. The study explores the potential for the private sector to contribute to reducing the impacts of plastic pollution through corporate social responsibility (CSR). However, it emphasizes that successful implementation of CSR requires collaboration between multiple stakeholders, including regulators and non-governmental partnerships, to establish effective governance frameworks. It also highlights the importance of international, regional and national initiatives to address marine pollution. The Global Ghost Gear Initiative and international conventions such as the Law of the Sea and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships are examples of multi-sectoral efforts. In addition, international cooperation is essential because of the significant movement of plastic waste across jurisdictions, either through waste exports or through the dispersal of plastics in the oceans.Regional agreements in Pacific Ocean (Waigani Convention and the Pacific Ocean Litter Project), focus on regional waste management and reducing plastic production and consumption, critical for the Pacific islands where are regions generating the most land-based mismanaged plastic waste (MPW) (Jambeck et al. 2015 ; Lebreton and Andrady 2019 ). Besides both Brazil and Australia are signatories to the same global multilateral agreements, Australia has committed to regional policies, such as the Waigani Convention and the Pacific Ocean Litter Project (POLP), which are specific to the Pacific region. This reflects Australia's active participation in regional efforts to tackle plastic pollution. Brazil, in contrast, has no regional agreements in this context. The reasons for South Atlantic didn’t have a regional agreement may include political priorities, resource constraints, and domestic legal considerations. This may point to the need for Brazil to engage more in regional governance structures, particularly in South America and the Atlantic region, to strengthen its efforts against marine debris (Gonçalves et al. in press) . The political landscape and marine waste management have a recent history in Brazil. Specifically, during the United Nations Conference on the Oceans in June 2017, Brazil voluntarily committed to crafting this national strategy, emphasizing its growing dedication to tackling the issue of marine debris. This initiative is part of broader efforts to mitigate marine litter, which have been included in discussions since earlier events such as the 4th National Conference on the Environment (Solid Waste) and Brazil's participation in the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) in 2015 (Lima et al., 2020 ). However, it was only from 2017 onward that the subject became a concrete goal within the MMA, following the ministry's participation in the United Nations Conference on the Oceans, held in June. During this event, the Brazilian government voluntarily committed to developing a "National Strategy to Combat Marine Litter" (UNEP b 2021). Australia has a significant history of engagement with marine pollution. The country has demonstrated a commitment to the prevention of catastrophic disasters and to the protection of the environment (Gaskell and Forrest 2008 ). Since the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Australia has been actively involved in international negotiations and revisions of maritime legislation, assuming a leading role in the international evolution of maritime law. This has included negotiations on Part XI of UNCLOS and issues related to marine pollution. Furthermore, the country participates in regional initiatives such as the Pacific Ocean Project Litter and the Waigani Convention. Australia's approach reflects a commitment to balancing environmental protection with sustainable development and adherence to international standards (Burmester 1994 ). 4.3. Federalism, Decentralization, and Institutional Interplay: A Comparative Analysis of Brazil and Australia Marine plastic pollution governance exemplifies the challenges and opportunities inherent in federal systems, where decision-making spans multiple administrative levels and involves a wide array of actors. The concept of multilevel governance—where policy-making occurs across various jurisdictions and sectors—has been widely recognized as a promising approach to addressing complex environmental issues (Termeer et al. 2010 ). Yet, its implementation is often hindered by coordination challenges and the intricate interplay among institutions operating at different scales (Young 2002 ; Stokke 2001 ). In Brazil, the 1988 Federal Constitution ushered in an era of administrative decentralization, assigning municipalities significant responsibility for land use planning. The City Statute (Federal Law 10,257/2001) further mandates that urban policies serve the collective good by regulating the use of urban property, making the Master Plan the primary tool for municipal-level planning. In coastal regions, however, despite the preparation and publication of Master Plans for many cities, the effective implementation remains questionable. Moreover, Brazilian urban policy historically emphasizes local government actions, often at the expense of metropolitan and regional coordination. This focus has led to a situation where state-level roles in regional planning are diminished, exacerbating the challenges of managing cross-scale environmental issues (Rossbach et al. 2018 ). This decentralized arrangement, while empowering local decision-makers, also generates what can be described as a cross-scale dependence. Institutions operating at one level may dominate or conflict with those at another due to formal rules that grant precedence to higher-level decisions (Young 2006 ). For instance, in Brazil, although coastal management is constitutionally decentralized, it remains largely controlled at the federal level. Local institutions, which are primarily oriented toward land use rather than broader environmental drivers, often lack the mandate or capacity to manage the coastal zone effectively (Gonçalves et al. 2021). The fragmentation is further compounded by sectoral policies that, when not normatively linked, lead to institutional silos rather than integrated management (Young 2006 ). The concept of interplay management—the purposeful shaping and improvement of institutional interactions (Stokke 2001 )—is crucial in this context. Effective interplay management can range from simple information exchanges to coordinated program planning and joint decision-making. However, as noted by Oberthür ( 2009 ) and others, such management remains under-researched and is often absent in practice. In Brazil, the lack of formal mechanisms for interplay management in coastal and urban planning results in fragmented decision-making, where multiple actors are forced to trade off competing interests without sufficient coordination (Therville et al. 2019 ). This situation is emblematic of the broader challenge of aligning scale-dependent policies to achieve cohesive outcomes in environmental governance. Australia offers a contrasting model. Its governance framework for marine plastic pollution is characterized by a more bottom-up approach that actively involves local communities, industries, and non-governmental organizations. Federal initiatives—such as the National Plastics Plan —set overarching goals, while state and municipal policies, like the City of Gold Coast’s Litter and Illegal Dumping Reduction Plan , enable localized, context-specific actions (Barrowclough and Deere-Birkbeck 2020). This polycentric model facilitates stakeholder collaboration and shared decision-making, which can enhance the adaptability and responsiveness of environmental policies (Newig and Fritsch 2009 ). Moreover, Australia’s decentralized approach is mindful of the transboundary nature of marine pollution, recognizing that waste generated domestically can affect neighbouring countries (Hardesty et al. 2020 ). However, even Australia is not without challenges. The need for effective coordination across different governmental levels remains paramount. While local initiatives drive innovation, fragmentation can occur if efforts are not harmonized at the regional or national scale. In both countries, the success of environmental governance hinges on the ability to balance Command-and-control measures—essential for enforcing stringent standards in critical areas—with Economic Incentives and participatory processes that empower stakeholders and promote voluntary action. In developing contexts such as Brazil, where regulatory capacity is often compromised by resource constraints and institutional weaknesses (Russell and Vaughan 2003 ; Blackman et al. 2018 ), achieving this balance is particularly challenging. A combined policy mix that integrates command-and-control approaches with market-based instruments and voluntary agreements is most effective in addressing complex environmental challenges (Fidelman et al. 2019 ). Command-and-control measures remain crucial for setting minimum environmental standards and protecting critical ecosystems, greater use of economic instruments—such as taxes and subsidies—can improve efficiency and foster innovation. However, it’s importance of actively involving the private sector and civil society, noting that collaborative governance arrangements enhance legitimacy, compliance, and policy outcomes (Fidelman et al. 2019 ). The institutional interplay within federal systems in Brazil and Australia demonstrates both the strengths and limitations of multilevel governance in addressing marine plastic pollution. Brazil’s system, marked by its centralized legal mandates and decentralized execution, reveals significant challenges in ensuring coordination and effective local implementation. Conversely, Australia’s more integrated and polycentric approach illustrates how stakeholder engagement and adaptive management can yield more responsive outcomes. Yet, in both cases, fostering robust interplay management—through improved communication, shared knowledge, and coordinated policy-making—is essential for reducing fragmentation and achieving sustainable environmental governance (Cash et al. 2006 ; Olsson et al. 2007 ; Allen et al. 2011 ; Long et al. 2015 ). Ultimately, harmonizing top-down directives with bottom-up innovation remains a critical imperative for the evolution of federal environmental governance in an era of complex global challenges. In both countries, local governments focus on practical and context-specific solutions to marine plastic pollution. In Brazil, municipalities like Bertioga are responsible for managing solid waste through initiatives like the Municipal Integrated Solid Waste Plan, which addresses waste management with an emphasis on social inclusion and sustainable practices. Brazil’s marine litter policies lean more towards regulatory, Command-and-control strategies with government-led actions, where compliance is enforced through legal mechanisms, such as the National Policy on Solid Waste (Law Nº. 12,305/2010). In contrast, Australia's approach to environmental governance, particularly in combating plastic pollution, adopts a more comprehensive and inclusive strategy. Australian policies engage a wide range of stakeholders, emphasizing preventive measures across the plastic life cycle. Instead of relying predominantly on government mandates, Australia fosters a bottom-up approach where local communities and industries are empowered to take voluntary actions. The National Plastics Plan, for instance, prioritizes collaboration, enabling actors such as industries, NGOs, and local governments to participate actively in addressing environmental challenges. The connection between these plans lies in their shared focus on reducing plastic waste and mitigating its impacts on marine ecosystems. While each plan targets different scales and aspects of pollution, they collectively contribute to a holistic approach to tackling this global issue. The National Plastics Plan sets overarching goals, while state and local plans provide specific actions tailored to their contexts. The collaborative nature of these initiatives reflects the understanding that marine pollution is a complex challenge that requires coordinated efforts across various levels of governance and society. Local governments in Australia, such as the City of Gold Coast, implement localized policies like the Litter and Illegal Dumping Reduction Plan, but Australia places more emphasis on community engagement and voluntary measures, whereas Brazil relies heavily on legislative actions. 4.4. Marine Litter Challenges and Opportunities for Multilevel Governance Marine plastic pollution exemplifies the type of complex environmental challenge that requires coordinated actions across multiple levels of governance. As illustrated by Fidelman et al. ( 2013 ) in the context of climate change adaptation, multilevel governance offers a promising avenue for bridging gaps among governmental, corporate, civil, and international actors. By leveraging diverse perspectives and capacities, MLG can foster cohesive strategies for mitigating marine plastic pollution. However, it also carries risks of overlapping mandates, inconsistent policies, and inter-institutional friction when mechanisms for coordination are weak (Betsil & Bulkeley 2006). The findings from this comparative analysis indicate that both Brazil and Australia face significant obstacles in coordinating marine plastic pollution policies across multiple governmental levels. As demonstrated in the preceding sections, the institutional complexity inherent in federative systems can lead to fragmented decision-making, overlapping mandates, and gaps in implementation—challenges also noted by Betsil and Bulkeley (2006). This echoes Fidelman et al. ( 2013 ), who found that multilevel governance can be a powerful framework for addressing complex environmental issues, but only if cross-scale interactions and stakeholder engagement are carefully managed. Our results show that national policies serve as crucial anchors for local action, as emphasized by Corfee-Morlot et al. ( 2009 ). However, the data further reveal that top-down directives may inadvertently stifle local autonomy and capacity, leading to “mal-adaptation” or “mal-mitigation” in certain contexts. In Brazil, for example, the National Policy on Solid Waste faces implementation hurdles at the municipal level, where resource limitations impede local authorities’ ability to meet federal mandates. In Australia, meanwhile, the presence of more polycentric governance structures fosters innovative local initiatives—such as the City of Gold Coast’s Litter and Illegal Dumping Reduction Plan —but also underscores the need for consistent coordination between state and federal authorities to avoid policy fragmentation. These findings resonate with the four themes identified by Bache and Flinders ( 2004 ), which highlight the evolving role of the state, the challenges of overlapping decision-making networks, and the growing participation of non-state actors. Both Brazil and Australia illustrate how increasing involvement of private companies, NGOs, and civil society can enrich policy processes but also necessitates stronger oversight and clear accountability mechanisms to ensure democratic legitimacy. Based on these insights, we recommend six key strategies to enhance multilevel governance for marine plastic pollution in Brazil and Australia. These measures directly address the institutional gaps and coordination deficits identified in our comparative assessment (Fig. 5 ): Strengthening environmental departments at all governmental levels to enhance regulatory oversight and foster policy coherence. Building capacity and improving information dissemination so that all actors—from local municipalities to national agencies—can make informed decisions grounded in accurate data. Co-producing knowledge in partnership with research institutes and universities, ensuring that policies reflect the latest scientific evidence and are adapted to local realities. Transferring best practices from successful initiatives, whether within the country or internationally, to replicate effective models and avoid repeated pitfalls. Coordinating with and incentivizing private sector involvement in cleanup and prevention programs, leveraging market-based tools and corporate social responsibility. Leveraging international actors and external funding to expand resources and technical expertise, thereby amplifying the impact of local and national efforts. By adopting these measures, Brazil and Australia can better align their respective federal, state, and local mandates, addressing existing gaps and inefficiencies. These recommendations build on the principle that robust multilevel governance frameworks—characterized by adequate funding, clear mandates, and sustained stakeholder collaboration—are crucial to effectively tackle marine plastic pollution. Ultimately, integrating financial support, institutional synergy, and policy coherence across all levels of government will be essential to ensure that strategies for managing marine plastic pollution are both comprehensive and sustainable. 5. Conclusion This study explored the complex landscape of marine plastic pollution mitigation within the multilevel governance systems of Australia and Brazil, as its subnational localities Bertioga and Gold Coast. Given the unique federalism structure in both countries, it became essential to analyses the interplay of policies across varying tiers of governance, ensuring coherence, collaboration, and alignment. Multi-level governance offers a framework to harmonize policies, share responsibilities, and leverage resources effectively. Comparative studies have the potential to stimulate learning from past and ongoing experiences of applying different legal frameworks in different jurisdictions. Brazil tends to rely on regulatory, command-and-control strategies led by the government, while Australia takes a more flexible approach, combining voluntary measures with regulations and actively involving the private sector and community initiatives. Brazil's policies are more centralized, with clearly defined responsibilities across governance levels, whereas Australia allows for more autonomy at the state and local levels, resulting in diverse, region-specific solutions. The management of solid waste stands as a multifaceted and interdisciplinary subject, intricately woven throughout the text. To further enrich this discourse, future contributions have the potential to broaden this research panorama. In this light, complementary studies investigating actions and policies stemming from the private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) would offer a comprehensive perspective. Moreover, conducting research though interviews with stakeholders involved in governance efforts to mitigate marine plastic pollution could provide valuable insight into how legal frameworks either positively or negatively impacted the implementation of adaptative management policies and strategies, offering better insights on the effectiveness of the policy landscape. Lastly, the findings presented here aim at not only further improving our understanding of marine plastic pollution governance but also informing the operational advancement of policies and actions to mitigate marine litter. Australia and Brazil are particularly useful case studies, with lessons to be learnt that apply to global approaches to tackling marine litter through ensuring aligned policies across national and sub-national levels of government according to respective abilities and responsibilities. Declarations Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflict of Interest . The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Author Contribution Nicole Russo Guerrato — Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Validation, Preparation of all figures and tables.Pedro Fidelman — Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing.Leandra Regina Gonçalves — Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Acknowledgements NRG acknowledges the financial support of the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) of Brazil, through the Process nº 2021/10951-9 and nº 2022/12013-9. All authors acknowledge the support of their respective academic institutions. References Alcantara, C., & Nelles, J. (2014). Indigenous peoples and the state in settler societies: Towards a more robust definition of multilevel governance. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 44(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjt013 Allen, C. R., Fontaine, J. J., Pope, K. L., & Garmestani, A. S. (2011). Adaptive management for a turbulent future. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1339–1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.019 Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública de Resíduos Especiais - ABRELPE. (2018). Panorama dos resíduos sólidos no Brasil 2017. [Edição especial 15 anos]. Retrieved from: http://abrelpe.org.br/download-panorama-2017/ Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza Pública de Resíduos Especiais - ABRELPE. (2020). Panorama dos Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil 2020. Australian Bureau of Statistics - ABS. (2013). National regional profile: Gold Coast (statistical area level 4). Canberra. Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au Australian Government. (2018). Department of the Environment and Energy. National Waste Report 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7381c1de-31d0-429b-912c-91a6dbc83af7/files/national-waste-report-2018.pdf Australian Government. (2021). National Plastics Plan 2021. Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. Retrieved from: https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/plastics-and-chemical-recycling/national-plastics-plan Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (2004). Multi-level governance and the study of the British state. Public Policy and Administration, 19(1), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/095207670401900104 Barrowclough, D., & Deere Birkbeck, C. (2020). Transforming the global plastics economy: The political economy and governance of plastics production and pollution (No. 142). GEG Working Paper. Beltran, M., Tjahjono, B., Suoneto, T. N., Tanjung, R., & Julião, J. (2024). Rethinking marine plastics pollution: Science diplomacy and multi-level governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 90(1), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523231183909 Bergmann, M., Sandhop, N., Schewe, I., & D'Hert, D. (2015). Observations of floating anthropogenic litter in the Barents Sea and Fram Strait, Arctic. Polar Biology, 39, 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-015-1795-8 Bertioga Municipal Government (2017). Plano Municipal de Gestão Integrada de Resíduos Sólidos de Bertioga. Bertioga Municipal Government (2020). Sustainable Tourism and Environmental Protection Plan. Blackman, A., Ávila, S., & Rivera, J. (2018). Effectiveness of environmental taxes and charges for managing sand and gravel mining in Costa Rica. Resources Policy, 58, 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.05.009 Brazilian Government. (1988) Law No. 7,661. (1988). National Coastal Management Plan (PNGC). D.O.U., Brasília. Retrieved from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l7661.htm Brazilian Government. (2001). Federal Law 10,257, of July 10, 2001 (Estatuto da Cidade). Official Gazette, Brasília, DF. Ministério das Cidades. Retrieved from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/leis_2001/l10257.htm Brazilian Government. (2010). National Solid Waste Policy (Law No. 12,305, August 2, 2010). Official Gazette, Brasília, DF. Retrieved from http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2010/lei/l12305.htm Brazilian Government. (2020). National Solid Waste Plan. Ministry of the Environment. Retrieved from https://www.gov.br/mma/en . Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). (2015). Cities: Bertioga. Retrieved from https://cidades.ibge.gov.br Burmester, H. (1994). Australia and the Law of the Sea. In The Law of the Sea in the Asian Pacific Region (pp. 51–64). Brill Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004482203_008 Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., & Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01759-110208 City of Gold Coast. (2020). Environment strategy 2020. Retrieved from https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au Chen, Y., Awasthi, A. K., Wei, F., Tan, Q., & Li, J. (2021). Single-use plastics: Production, usage, disposal, and adverse impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 752, 141772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141772 Corfee-Morlot, J., Kamal-Chaoui, L., Donovan, M. G., Cochran, I., Robert, A., & Teasdale, P. J. (2009). Cities, climate change, and multilevel governance. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/220062444715 Croese, S., Oloko, M., Simon, D., & Valencia, S. C. (2021). Bringing the global to the local: The challenges of multi-level governance for global policy implementation in Africa. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 13(3), 435–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2021.1958335 Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment- DAWE. (2021). National Plastics Plan 2021. Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, December. CC BY 4.0. Fidelman, P. I., Leitch, A. M., & Nelson, D. R. (2013). Unpacking multilevel adaptation to climate change in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Global Environmental Change, 23(4), 800–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.016 Fidelman, P., Pellegrini, L., Roberts, T., Lebel, L., de Coninck, H., & Moreno-Beltrán, R. (2019). Policy, theory and practice. In United Nations Environment Programme (Ed.), Global Environment Outlook 6: Healthy planet, healthy people (pp. 433–474). Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/27662 Fracalanza, A. P., et al. (2022). Sociedade, meio ambiente e cidadania em tempos de pandemia. São Paulo: Blucher. Franchini, M., Viola, E., & Barros-Platiau, A. F. (2017). The challenges of the Anthropocene: From international environmental politics to global governance. Ambiente & Sociedade, 20, 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422ASOC214V2022017 Gall, S. C., & Thompson, R. C. (2015). The impact of debris on marine life. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 92(1–2), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041 Gaskell, N., & Forrest, C. (2008). Marine pollution damage in Australia: Implementing the Bunker Oil Convention 2001 and the Supplementary Fund Protocol 2003. University of Queensland Law Journal, 27(2), 103–165. Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782 Gonçalves, L. R., Barros-Platiau, A.F., Tomé, C. H and de Oliveira, C. C. Forthcoming. “Bridging the Governance Gaps in the South Atlantic Ocean.” In The Politics of Global Ocean Regions, edited by Christian Bueger, Elizabeth Mendenhall, and Rebecca Strating. Springer Nature. In press. Hardesty, B. D., Harari, J., Isobe, A., Lebreton, L., Maximenko, N., Potemra, J., & Wilcox, C. (2020). Using numerical model simulations to improve the understanding of micro-plastic distribution and pathways in the marine environment. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 567. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00567 Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649 Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., … Law, K. L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768–771. DOI: 10.1126/science.1260352 Juhola, S. (2016). Barriers to the implementation of climate change adaptation in land use planning: A multilevel governance problem? International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 8(3), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2014-0030 Keskitalo, E. (2010). Developing Adaptation Policy and Practice in Europe: Multi-level Governance of Climate Change. Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-9325-7_1 Landon-Lane, M. (2018). Corporate social responsibility in marine plastic debris governance. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 127, 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.054 Lebreton, L., Andrady, A., 2019. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Commun. 5, 6. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7 Lima, A.R.A., Silva, M.D., Possatto, F.E., Ferreira, G.V.B., Krelling, A.P. (2020). Plastic Contamination in Brazilian Freshwater and Coastal Environments: A Source-to-Sea Transboundary Approach. In: Stock, F., Reifferscheid, G., Brennholt, N., Kostianaia, E. (eds) Plastics in the Aquatic Environment - Part I. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 111. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2020_514 Lincoln, S., Andrews, B., Birchenough, S. N., Chowdhury, P., Engelhard, G. H., Harrod, O., Pinnegar, J.K., & Townhill, B. L. (2022). Marine litter and climate change: Inextricably connected threats to the world's oceans. Science of The Total Environment, 837, 155709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155709 Long, R. D., Charles, A., & Stephenson, R. L. (2015). Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Marine Policy, 57, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.013 Martinez, M. Luisa, Intralawan, Arturo, Vázquez, Gabriela, Pérez-Maqueo, Octavio, Sutton, Paul, & Landgrave, Rosario. (2007). The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.022 Mangalagiu, D., Baker, E., Fidelman, P., Gonçalves, L. R., Harris, P., Hollway, J., Kim, R. E., & Rice, J. (2019). Global Environment Outlook 6: Healthy planet, healthy people (pp. 433–474). UNEP. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108627146.020 Mihai, F. C., Gündoğdu, S., Markley, L. A., Olivelli, A., Khan, F. R., Gwinnett, C., … Molinos-Senante, M. (2021). Plastic pollution, waste management issues, and circular economy opportunities in rural communities. Sustainability, 14(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010020 Mouat, J., Lozano, R. L., & Bateson, H. (2010). Economic Impacts of Marine Litter. KIMO International. Retrieved November 29, 2013, from http://www.seas-at-risk.org/1mages/Economic%20impacts%20of%20marine%20litter%20KIMO.pdf Newig, J., Fritsch, O., 2009. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level and effective? Environ. Policy Gov. 19, 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.509 Newman, S., Watkins, E., Farmer, A., Ten Brink, P., & Schweitzer, J.-P. (2015). The economics of marine litter. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, & M. Klages (Eds.), Marine anthropogenic litter (pp. 371–398). Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3 Oberthür, S. (2009). Interplay management: Enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 9(4), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-009-9109-7 Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hughes, T. P. (2007). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15194–15199. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701886104 Ostrom, E., Janssen, M. A., & Anderies, J. M. (2008). Going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15176–15178. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701886104 PEMALM. (2021). Plano Estratégico de Monitoramento e Avaliação do Lixo no Mar do Estado de São Paulo. São Paulo: PEMALM. Piattoni, S. (2010). The Theory of Multi-level Governance: Conceptual, Empirical, and Normative Challenges. Oxford University Press. Queensland Government. (2021). Plastic pollution reduction plan: Ban on single-use plastics. Retrieved from https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/management/waste/plastic-pollution/single-use-plastics-ban Rangel-Buitrago, N., Ben-Haddad, M., Nicoll, K., Galgani, F., & Neal, W. J. (2024). Marine plastic pollution in the Anthropocene: A linguistic toolkit for holistic understanding and action. Ocean & Coastal Management, 248, 106967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106967 Rossbach, A., Lavalle, C., & Ribeiro, W. C. (2018). Metropolitan governance in Brazil: The case of São Paulo. In M. Le Galès & P. Vitale (Eds.), Governing the metropolis: The politics of urban governance in the 21st century (pp. 123–144). Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 978-3-319-62601-4. Russell C, Vaughan W. 2003. The choice of pollution control policy instruments in developing countries: arguments, evidence and suggestions. In International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 7, ed. TH Tietenberg, H Folmer, pp. 331–71. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781843769426.00010 Simon, N., & Schulte, M. L. (2017). Stopping global plastic pollution: The case for an international convention. ARNOLD Group, Großbeeren. ISBN 978-3-86928-159-9 Stokke, O. S. (2001). The interplay of international regimes: Putting effectiveness theory to work (FNI Report 14/2001). Fridtjof Nansen Institute. ISSN: 0804–7239. Retrieved from https://www.fni.no/publications/the-interplay-of-international-regimes-putting-effectiveness-theory-to-work-article2908-290.html Termeer, C. J., Dewulf, A., & Van Lieshout, M. (2010). Disentangling scale approaches in governance research: Comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptive governance. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 29. DOI: 10.5751/ES-03798-150429 Termeer, C. J., Dewulf, A., Breeman, G. E., & Stiller, S. J. (2011). Governance capabilities for dealing wisely with wicked problems. Administration & Society, 47(6), 680–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712469195 Therville, C., Andrade, D. C., & de Oliveira, F. R. (2019). Challenges for coastal governance in Brazil: The case of Santos Estuary. Marine Policy, 108, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103112 United Nations Environment Programme – UNEP (2014). Valuing Plastics: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing, and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry. Nairobi, Kenya. 2014. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500. 11822/9238 United Nations Environment Programme. (2018). Single-use plastics: A roadmap for sustainability. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/single-use-plastics-roadmap-sustainability United Nations Environment Programme – UNEP a (2021). From Pollution to Solution: A global assessment of marine litter and plastic pollution. Nairobi, 147 pp. https://www.grida.no/publications/747.https://www.unep.org/resources/pollution-solution-global-assessment-marine-litter-and-plastic-pollution United Nations Environment Programme. (2021). Policies, regulations and strategies in Latin America and the Caribbean to prevent marine litter and plastic waste. UNEP Report. https:// United Nations Environment Programme (2023). Turning off the Tap. How the world can end plastic pollution and create a circular economy. Nairobi. https://www.unep.org/resources/turning-off-tap-end-plastic-pollution-create-circular-economy Vince, J., & Hardesty, B. D. (2017). Plastic pollution challenges in marine and coastal environments: from local to global governance. Restoration ecology, 25(1), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12388 World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and McKinsey & Co. “The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics” (2016) page 7 https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-plastics-economy-ethinking-the-future-of-plastics . Wyles, K.J., Pahl, S., Thomas, K., Thompson, R.C., (2016). Factors that can undermine the psychological benefits of coastal environments: exploring the effect of tidal state, presence, and type of litter. Environ. Behav. 48, 1095–1126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515592177 Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. MIT Press. ISBN: 978-0-262-74026-9. Young, O. R. (2006). Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01619-110127 Zanella, T., V. (2015). Poluição marinha por plásticos e o direito internacional do ambiente, in Direito do mar: textos selecionados. Volume 1, Curitiba: Juruá, pp.147–168. / ISSN: 2182–7567 Footnotes 1 GBRMPA is a federal statutory authority established under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 with powers to prepare and publish plans and policies relating to the protection and management of the GBR (Commonwealth of Australia 1975). CSIRO - Australian Government corporate entity, with a Board and Chief Executive. Constituted by and operate under the provisions of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in Environmental Management → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 04 Jul, 2025 Reviews received at journal 30 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Jun, 2025 Reviews received at journal 04 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Jun, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Jun, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 02 Jun, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 28 May, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 23 May, 2025 First submitted to journal 18 May, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6692013","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":465189430,"identity":"c28c0068-0fa2-472b-afb0-3adbed7acc57","order_by":0,"name":"Nicole Russo Guerrato","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federal University of São Paulo","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nicole","middleName":"Russo","lastName":"Guerrato","suffix":""},{"id":465189431,"identity":"825d74f6-b4fa-4f34-a55c-9eebe9a67680","order_by":1,"name":"Pedro Fidelman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Queensland","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Pedro","middleName":"","lastName":"Fidelman","suffix":""},{"id":465189432,"identity":"d82d3889-f521-4333-b3a0-c846aa32d00d","order_by":2,"name":"Leandra Regina Gonçalves","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Federal University of São Paulo","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Leandra","middleName":"Regina","lastName":"Gonçalves","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-18 13:38:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6692013/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6692013/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02366-0","type":"published","date":"2026-01-30T15:58:45+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":83909601,"identity":"08f09c0f-a9a6-499e-8233-23c518568ff4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-04 11:23:00","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":82843,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBertioga, Sao Paulo State- Brazil and Gold Coast, Queensland State – Australia. Made on R \u003cem\u003eSoftware\u003c/em\u003e. Elaborate by authors.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6692013/v1/321b0119c89758ae064ebd30.jpg"},{"id":83909248,"identity":"9c53ed6e-1a48-4fbd-bd0b-7c6a341cf010","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-04 11:15:00","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":60780,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInternational agreements to which Australia and Brazil are signatories. Note: circle shapes represent international agreements—black circles indicate a global focus, while orange circles indicate a regional focus. The lines connect international agreements to their signatory countries, which are represented by triangle and diamond shapes.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6692013/v1/2f15f74f2ba43b1bf449d998.png"},{"id":83909251,"identity":"abf7727e-8b4b-4a9c-8d01-c74d3a7dabe3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-04 11:15:00","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":230289,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eExamples of Australia policies for mitigating marine plastic pollution at federal, state and local levels. The dotted lines in the diagram illustrate the interconnections between the documents across the various levels of government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: DCCEEW: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; CSIRO: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; GBRMPA: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6692013/v1/ba2d5bf2666f2e8a7d6e2b4a.png"},{"id":83909602,"identity":"90af1da6-b05b-4a14-82c6-73dff44d5529","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-04 11:23:00","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":238235,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMain Brazilian governance arrangements for mitigating marine plastic pollution, organised by levels of governance (federal, state and local level). Note: continuous lines represent the links between plans and policies and the agencies responsible for them. Dashed lines represent the connections and interrelationships between plans and policies.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6692013/v1/5a5793c216d74909f184051c.png"},{"id":83909250,"identity":"5133ecf0-9f23-4ab6-8033-37720ebc146d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-04 11:15:00","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":89470,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA diagram with recommendations of six key strategies to enhance multilevel governance for marine plastic pollution in Brazil and Australia.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6692013/v1/14dab6d073e9cbb0609b234e.png"},{"id":101692370,"identity":"a2897fde-02a8-4180-b076-40bd1f5b9763","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-02 16:17:59","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1839781,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6692013/v1/4bfc8462-83d2-4c3a-8710-0d107e8065b9.pdf"},{"id":83909600,"identity":"f364d9b3-4293-4a96-876a-b843bdae2e0f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-04 11:23:00","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":22709,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6692013/v1/4bfb2f0407849c92bab2c49b.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Exploring Multilevel Governance Strategies in Australia and Brazil for Marine Plastic Solutions","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe Anthropocene - the current era during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment- is illustrated by increasing marine plastic pollution (Rangel-Buitrago et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The cumulative\u0026ensp;consequences of human activity have led to an unprecedented ecological crisis, whose restoration has already demanded a critical reflection on the development and environmental governance models that form the basis of contemporary society (Fracalanza et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnnual plastic entering the ocean is projected to triple to between 23 and 37\u0026nbsp;million metric tons each year by 2040 if no action is taken, with current estimate at 11\u0026nbsp;million metric tons per year so triple in the next 20 years (UNEP 2021a). Most of this plastic debris originates from land-based sources (Vince and Hardesty \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, Simon and Schulte \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), with poor management of domestic waste systems being one of the main causes (ABRELPE 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarine plastic pollution is widespread and found throughout all levels of the ocean, from surface waters to greater depths (Gall and Thompson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). It threatens the integrity of the ocean due to negative impacts on the environment, society, and economy (Newman et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Mouat et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Bergmann et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Wyles et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The problem is aggravated by the over-usage of single-use plastics (Gall and Thompson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) and underutilization of this material in recycling (Geyer\u0026ensp;et al. 2017). Items like disposable packaging, bags, and bottles are among the main contributors to oceanic plastic waste (Chen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), while many countries continue to struggle with recycling systems and public awareness (ABRELPE 2020; Mihai et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). By 2016, estimates of plastic waste entering aquatic environments ranged from 9 to 23\u0026nbsp;million metric tons annually (Borelle et al. 2020), with higher figures gaining wider acceptance (UNEP 2014; World Economic Forum \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Vince and Hardesty \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). This persistent escalation complicates the implementation of effective prevention and mitigation policies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile marine plastic pollution is a global transboundary issue, plastic production and management are influenced by actions at local, national, and international levels. Consequently, in addition to international policies, there is a pressing need for more effective national and subnational initiatives to prevent and mitigate marine plastic pollution, particularly within the intricate framework of multilevel governance (Termeer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Keskitalo \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003ea).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultilevel governance describes the interaction of governmental and non-governmental actors across different territorial scales\u0026ensp;and policy domains. While it can help with collective decision making and service delivery of\u0026ensp;public goods (Alcantara and Nelles \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Piattoni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), it might also process and some difficulties, such as duplication, overlap and competing objectives regarding increasing pressures of the Anthropocene (Croese et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e, Franchini, et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e, Juhola \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhereas some studies have examined marine plastic pollution in\u0026ensp;the frame of multilevel governance (i.e., Beltran et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), the understanding of how\u0026ensp;it might best be solved in this context is still limited. In developing\u0026ensp;this knowledge gap, we explore the cases of Australia and Brazil, two jurisdictions defined by multilevel governance as a result of their federal systems of government.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u0026ensp;and Brazil offer opportunities to explore how federative systems are tackling marine plastic pollution. Both have multi-layered governance structures,\u0026ensp;with responsibilities divided between local, state and federal authorities. This complexity poses difficulties in the coordination, implementation, and enforcement\u0026ensp;of policy, especially in dealing with transboundary concerns such as marine plastic pollution (Gon\u0026ccedil;alves et al. 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on multilevel governance \u0026mdash; the need for local, state and federal authorities to be in collaboration \u0026mdash; underscores how integrated approaches to\u0026ensp;environmental management are so critical. Broadly speaking, this means that subnational policies must also be evaluated if we want to gain\u0026ensp;a complete\u0026ndash;even if imperfect\u0026ndash;view of institutional complexities. As such, Gold Coast (Queensland, Australia) and Bertioga (S\u0026atilde;o Paulo, Brazil) were chosen to assess their marine plastic pollution policies and legislation at national and subnational levels in Australia and\u0026ensp;Brazil, including local government (represented by Gold Coast in Queensland and Bertioga in S\u0026atilde;o Paulo).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, this article identifies avenues for improving governance in federal systems and provides a deeper understanding of how comparable governance frameworks in federal systems respond to environmental issues, offering valuable lessons on multilevel governance and sustainable coastal management practices in both contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe insights from this research can also be useful for other jurisdictions, in efforts to combat marine litter as one among many multilevel governance challenges and improving the strategies to ensure coordination and minimize policy fragmentation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Material and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Case Study Selection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe criteria for selecting Australia and Brazil as case studies included several key considerations: First, the complex multilayered nature of federative governance in both countries, within which administrative jurisdictions and powers overlap, can either improve or impede the effectiveness of policies/initiatives addressing marine litter (Hooghe and Marks \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Ostrom 2010). The analysis looks at how federal, state and local governments collaborate \u0026mdash; or fail to collaborate \u0026mdash; to address\u0026ensp;the problem of marine pollution through the lenses of these two systems, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each approach.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia and Brazil, despite being so different in terms of their environmental and socio-economic contexts, are confronted with similar issues of marine litter due\u0026ensp;to their long coastlines and the great dependence of both economies on the coast (Jambeck et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Martinez et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Here\u0026ensp;gives an in-depth comparison of how different environmental, economic and culture contexts determine if and how policies are achieved through similar structures of governance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding solid waste, approximately 76\u0026nbsp;million tons of waste were created in Australia in 2018, including domestic, commercial, industrial and demolition waste (DEE\u0026ensp;2018). Brazil, for comparison, generated 79\u0026nbsp;million tons of solid waste, or approximately 1.04 kg per person per\u0026ensp;day (ABRELPE 2018). Australia has a higher recycling rate than Brazil\u0026mdash;13% compared\u0026ensp;to Brazil's 3%\u0026mdash; despite Brazil's larger population (DAWE 2021; ABRELPE 2020). Brazil's lower recycling rate indicates more issues on the infrastructure, logistics, awareness and\u0026ensp;public policies sides when it comes to proper waste management.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe choice of the City of Gold Coast in Australia and Bertioga on the S\u0026atilde;o Paulo coast as case studies in the comparison between Australia and Brazil is grounded in their common challenges of managing urban growth and tourism while ensuring environmental protection (City of Gold Coast \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Bertioga Municipal Government \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Both areas are vital for their biodiversity and coastal ecosystems but are under strain from urban expansion, pollution, and the effects of tourism (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eBertioga\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBertioga is located in S\u0026atilde;o Paulo State. According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), in 2015, Bertioga (S\u0026atilde;o Paulo State) had a population of 56,555 inhabitants, with approximately 98.5% residing in urban areas (IBGE 2015). The Human Development Index (HDI) indicates a relatively young population, with over 50% considered economically active.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring the summer months (December\u0026ndash;February), Bertioga experiences a significant increase in its floating population, reaching up to 550,000 people. This surge places substantial pressure on urban infrastructure. Tourism is a key economic activity, driven by the municipality's natural attractions, including beaches and waterfalls. According to Bertioga's Municipal Solid Waste Management Plan (Bertioga Municipal Government, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), the city achieves a recycling rate of 70%. However, limitations in infrastructure constrain the available space for proper waste disposal and treatment (IBGE, 2015; UNEP, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBertioga's approach to waste management emphasizes environmental responsibility and sustainable practices, making it an important case study for examining marine plastic pollution and its legal implications (UNEP 2021a; Jambeck et. al.. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Bertioga Municipal Government \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eGold Coast\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Queensland the city of Gold Coast managed approximately 7%\u0026ensp;of the solid waste generated in the state\u0026mdash;over 8.4\u0026nbsp;million tonnes in the 2013\u0026ndash;2014 FY [2]. Gold Coast is Australia's sixth largest city with an approximate 546,000 people or about 11%\u0026ensp;of the total population of Queensland. Tourism is a lucrative global market with high expected growth rates, and Sydney receives\u0026ensp;over 12\u0026nbsp;million visitors per year (ABS 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGold Coast the largest regional city and the sixth-largest city in Australia, with an estimated residential population approaching 600,000. Additionally, it remains a popular destination for both domestic and international travellers, attracting approximately 13\u0026nbsp;million visitors each year (ABS 2013).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Research Approach\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA database of international, federal, state, and local policy and legislative arrangements related to marine litter, and where possible, specifically addressing marine plastic pollution was developed. To ensure data collection consistency, these arrangements had to apply to coastal and marine areas in Brazil and Australia. The types of documents collected included legislation, programs, and plans, which were identified on official government websites and legislation databases. The process involved screening document titles and executive summaries, followed by a review of the full content.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo understand the global context in which Australia\u0026rsquo;s and Brazil\u0026rsquo;s initiatives to address marine plastic pollution take place, an analysis of key conventions and protocols relating to waste reduction and marine plastic pollution was conducted. This analysis primarily focused on those international agreements that Australia and/or Brazil were signatories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo comprehend the specific initiatives undertaken by Australia and Brazil concerning the reduction of marine plastic pollution another search was conducted. Policies documents (e.g., plans, policies, and programs) relating to marine litter and pollution until 2024 were collected and analysed. The searches were conducted on the websites of the Australian government and the Australian Legal Database and the Brazilian government for searches regarding federal documentation. In both cases, local government master plans were included, as well as state strategies for the State of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo, and Queensland.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo ensure the reliability of the classification process, the coding of governance approaches was conducted independently by two researchers based on predefined criteria drawn from Mangalagiu et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Each policy document was reviewed and categorized according to its dominant governance strategy (e.g., command-and-control, economic incentives, enabling actors, or hybrid forms). Discrepancies in coding were discussed and resolved through consensus. The sample included strategic plans, legal instruments, and programs directly addressing marine litter or broader waste management issues with coastal relevance. This approach ensured consistency and transparency in assessing governance patterns across jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mapped strategies were classified into (1) organizations responsible for the strategy and administrative level (e.g.: federal, state or local government) and type of strategy (e.g.: information and research, policy, and plans and programs); (2) governance approach (e.g.: enabling actors, command-and-control and partnership with the private sector; enabling actors and economic incentives, economic incentive, command-and-control, as defined in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e; (3) sectors involved and (4) purposefulness of action.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterplay between documents were also analysed to identify citations or guidelines followed across different documents (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) and illustrate how the policy coherence works in this policy landscape.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe plans and policies were categorised in terms of governance approach and instruments, following the approach outlined in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Analysis and systematization of all policies and plans were conducted using network graphs with the software NodeXL.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernance approach and examples of policy instruments as defined by Mangalagiu, et. al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernance Approach\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy instruments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnabling actors\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStrengthening participation of governmental and non-governmental actors in decision-making on policies or projects leading to improved project design and implementation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommand-and-control and partnership with the private sector\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegally binding measures and voluntary approaches by business and other stakeholders\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomic Incentives\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividual transferable quotas, taxes, incentives, subsidies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommand-and-control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulation of access and resource use rights\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1. International and regional policy agreements targeting marine debris and plastics\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThirteen international agreements were\u0026ensp;found, including 2 regional agreements (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Further, both Australia and Brazil are party to the: Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities of the United Nations\u0026ensp;Environment Programme (UNEP); UNEP 2014, 2016, 2019: Marine plastic debris and microplastic; Global Partnership on Plastic Pollution and marine litter; Rio\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;20; Basel Convention; MARPOL (International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships);\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG20 Action Plan on Marine Litter and Honolulu Strategy. Only Australia is a signatory to regional agreements, i.e., the Waigani Convention and the Pacific Ocean Litter Project (POLP) (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall, these agreements aim to achieve a balance between economic interests and social well-being, cultural preservation, environmental protection and political considerations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInternational agreements relating to marine pollution go back\u0026ensp;to 1973, as shown by the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. Despite this however, it wasn\u0026apos;t until 2010 that marine plastic pollution began to receive\u0026ensp;serious international recognition in terms of discussion of international treaties (e.g. the Honolulu Strategy).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe key results from global\u0026ensp;treaties designed to mitigate marine and terrestrial pollution are summarized in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. These accords call for preemptive waste prevention and disposal, regional and global measures to support the design and implementation of monitoring and sustainable management programs, and specific steering of hazardous waste management, marine debris, and plastics reduction, which deal with\u0026ensp;multiple forms of pollution at once.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExamples of international and regional agreements addressing marine pollution and marine plastic pollution, categorised by administrative level, type of strategies and main purpose.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInternational agreements\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdministrative level\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBrazil\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernance Approach\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMain purpose\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1972\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLondon convention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlobal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommand-and-control\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTargets the dumping of land-based waste deliberately at sea\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1973/78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInternational Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlobal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommand-and-control and Partnership with the Private Sector\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnnex V species to prevent the dumping of plastic while at sea and for ports to have adequate facilities to handle waste\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1989\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBasel Convention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlobal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommand-and-control and Economic Incentives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstablished provisions to control and regulate the movement of hazardous waste, including some types of plastic waste.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1995\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUNEP global programme of action for the protection of the marine environment from land-based activities\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlobal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnabling Actors e Economic Incentives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTargets pollution from rivers, estuaries and storm drains\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWaigani Convention\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Pacific)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommand-and-control\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe regional implementation of the international hazardous waste control regime (Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2009\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUNEP Global Initiative on marine litter\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlobal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnabling Actors and Economic Incentives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCreation of twelve regional seas to target marine litter at a regional level. Ties in with the UNEP Regional Seas Programme\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHonolulu Strategy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlobal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnabling Actors e Economic Incentives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTargets the management and monitoring of marine debris.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRio\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlobal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnabling Actors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTargets a reduction in marine debris by 2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlobal partnership on Plastic Pollution and marine litter\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlobal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnabling Actors e Economic Incentives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTargets the reduction of land and marine sources as well as reduce impacts on habitats\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2014\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUNEP/EA.1/Res.6 (2014)/Res. 11 (2016)/ Res. 7 (2017)/ Res. 6 (2019): Marine plastic debris and microplastics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGlobal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnabling Actors e Economic Incentives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTargets the reduction of land and marine sources as well as reduce impacts on habitats\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2017\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eG20 Implementation Framework for Actions on Marine Plastic Litter\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnabling Actors e Economic Incentives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2018\u0026ndash;2025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePacific Ocean Litter Project (POLP)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegional\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(Pacific)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ex\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnabling Actors e Economic Incentives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTargets the reducing the production and consumption of plastics and improve their post-use management.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOverall, these international agreements have informed the development and implementation of national policies addressing marine plastic pollution, including those in Australia and Brazil. Notably, most of these international policies have been signed by both countries and largely fall under an \u0026ldquo;Enabling Actors\u0026rdquo; governance approach, emphasizing the strengthening of governmental and non-governmental participation in decision-making processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Australian\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAustralia\u0026apos;s policy strategies for marine plastic pollution reflect a complex and interconnected system of governance, spanning local, state, and federal levels. The policy landscape and linkages across governance levels are illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, providing an overview of how different plans and policies interact and vary in their approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe diagram highlights the roles of different levels of government and the organisations responsible for policy implementation, offering insight into how marine plastic pollution strategies are structured. Policies are categorised into five main policy approaches (as outlined in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) and demonstrate a combination of enabling actors and command-and-control instruments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2.1. Federal Level\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAt the federal level, the predominant approach is enabling actors, with national plans setting broad guidelines and targets for the sector. The Recycling and\u0026ensp;Waste Reduction Plan (2019) created by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) is a guiding document that informs the formulation of policies at the state level (e.g., the Waste Reduction and Recycling (Plastic Items)). This is also reflected in the National Plastics Plan (2021), which sets out\u0026ensp;national goals and commitments.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAustralia has a national approach to plastic pollution management, but it is the responsibility of each level of government to play\u0026ensp;its role, including the Australian Federal Government which is responsible for the policies and initiatives to reduce plastic pollution. DCCEEW is the principal Commonwealth agency for marine pollution in (Commonwealth) waters (3 NM or further from the coast), but jurisdiction over particular issues can\u0026ensp;also be held by other federal agencies (e.g., national marine parks). For example, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e (GBRMPA), responsible for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, promotes measures to reduce marine debris within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, but the agency with responsibility over marine pollution is DCCEEW. At the federal level, policies are the predominant governance arrangements, with a strong focus on voluntary initiatives, such as the 2021 National Plastics Plan. This plan focuses on five main areas - prevention, recycling, consumer education, ocean and waterway protection, and research - reflecting the federal government\u0026apos;s emphasis on voluntary strategies and long-term goals to reduce plastic pollution.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe legislative and plans showed at the Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e underscore Australia\u0026apos;s commitment to waste management and environmental preservation The National Plastics plan aims to reduce the negative effects\u0026ensp;of products, plastic waste and associated materials on human and environmental health. It aims for a circular economy and\u0026ensp;to control the export of waste materials, holding manufacturers, importers, distributors and designers accountable. Another important part is\u0026ensp;the prohibition on plastic microbeads, especially in wash-off cosmetics.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther governance arrangements include GBRMPA\u0026rsquo;s position statement, which calls for evidence-based actions to reduce marine debris. This includes rethinking products away from plastics, reducing plastic production and prioritizing reusable options. Related initiatives include the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e report provides important data on marine debris across various monitoring sites in Australia, aiming to identify and understand the types of debris that wash up on shorelines. In addition, the 2025 National Packaging Targets, supported by industry and government, underscore sustainable packaging approaches. These targets require a systemic shift in packaging creation, collection, and recovery, aligning with global sustainable packaging initiatives, and have a strong support from federal and state governments and also are part of the National Waste Policy Action Plan and the National Plastics Plan (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the intricate web of governance approach employed to combat marine plastic pollution, elucidating the interrelationships between disparate plans and policies and delineating the distribution of responsibilities across the various levels of government. This integrated perspective is indispensable for comprehending the multifaceted landscape of environmental policies and their implementation and management in disparate administrative contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2.2. State Level\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAt the state level, policies predominantly use a mixed approach\u0026ensp;of governance, though command-and-control approaches are most common. This is exemplified by Queensland\u0026apos;s Waste Reduction and Recycling (Plastic Items) legislation, which incorporates both Command-and-control strategies and economic incentives. The Queensland government plastic pollution\u0026ensp;directive covers responsibilities as they relate to waste management and adopt targeted policies and legislation. The Queensland Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation is the primary state agency responsible for addressing plastic pollution, including marine pollution in state waters (3NM from the coast). However, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, plastic pollution management in Queensland uses not only legislation, but also policy which indicates a wider combination of regulatory with voluntary management\u0026ensp;strategies. Such dynamic is critical to adjusting solutions to\u0026ensp;different needs and local realities \u0026mdash; fostering a better implementation of initiatives, as indicated by concrete measures and established programs, some of which are described below.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOn the 1st of September 2021, Queensland introduced bans on single use plastic items such straws, stirrers, plates, bowls, cutlery as well\u0026ensp;as expanded polystyrene (EPS) takeaway containers and cups (Queensland Government \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) These initiatives are consistent with the Queensland Waste\u0026ensp;Management and Resource Recovery Strategy (Waste Strategy), released July 2019.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Queensland Plastic Pollution Reduction Plan, released in November 2019, outlines targeted actions and emphasises partnerships to reduce plastic waste across the state. Several key initiatives have contributed to this aim, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe plastic shopping bag ban (introduced on 1 July 2018), which has led to a more than 70 per cent reduction in plastic bag litter.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Containers for Change refund scheme (introduced on 1 November 2018), which has resulted in a more than 35 per cent reduction in beverage container litter.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncreased penalties for littering and illegal dumping, now among the strongest in the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnhanced littering and illegal dumping reporting systems, improving data collection to inform best-practice programs and policy development.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2.3. City of Gold Coast\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAt the local level, policies are mostly adopting an enabling actor\u0026rsquo;s perspective, but some do include Command-and-control approaches, such as in the\u0026ensp;Gold Coast government\u0026apos;s Litter \u0026amp; Illegal Dumping Reduction Plan (2019\u0026ndash;2024). The following sections will provide a more detailed examination of the policies regarding to the different levels of government - federal, state, and local.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThere is a considerable role for local governments to reduce plastic pollution with corresponding duties to enact interventions that minimise litter impacts in their jurisdiction. The City of Gold Coast is charged with pollution via certain plans (e.g. Litter and Illegal Dumping Reduction Plan (2019\u0026ndash;2024)). This plan seeks to actively address litter and illegal dumping, so that the clean-up of these materials becomes a massive unsustainably expensive burden on the residents of the community. It is a step-by-step, project focused, multi-faceted approaches of best practice. These are solutions aimed to understand why people litter or illegally dump so they can seek to influence them to dispose of waste responsibly. Moreover, the Gold Coast Water Strategy Plan 2019\u0026ndash;2024 also highlight decreased littering and waste going to navigable waters. The integration of these plans, as depicted by the dashed lines in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e symbolize a holistic approach to plastic pollution and its environmental impact, contributing to an effective and comprehensive effort to tackle marine pollution. These plans are summarized in the appendix (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Some of these plans are correlated with others, as suggested in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Brazil\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLike Australia, Brazil\u0026apos;s approach to marine plastic pollution is shaped by a complex, multi-tiered governance system that operates across local, state, and federal levels. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e emphasizes the collaborative and coordinated efforts among different government levels and their respective organizations in addressing marine plastic pollution.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe dominance of command-and-control strategies and government agencies reflects a normative and regulatory approach to pollution control. This is important to note though, plans and policies are not in binary opposition and many governances\u0026rsquo; approaches are mixed in many of the plans. As highlighted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, collaborative and coordinated efforts between different levels of government are being taken to mitigate marine plastic pollution through their respective agencies.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3.1. Federal Level\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAt the federal level, the prevailing policies are typically formulated by national agencies, with a distinct emphasis on command-and-control strategies, encompassing regulations and specific legislation.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAt the federal level, the primary federal agencies responsible for the management of plastic pollution is the Ministry of the Environment, via its Department for Environmental Quality.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis agency is responsible for a comprehensive arrangement of plans and policies, such as National Solid Waste Management Plan, the National Solid Waste Policy, the National Coastal Management Plan, the National Basic Sanitation Policy, and the Marine Litter Management Plan. Most of these plans follow a command-and-control approach, which are designed to regulate and monitor practices related to waste and marine pollution.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Ministry of Economy also plays a significant role through the issuance of the Recycling Logistics Reverse Credit Certificate. It is an economic incentives for sustainability and a call to action by the stakeholders in private sector, community level towards plastic waste reduction. The employment of both command-and-control strategies and economic incentives underscores the holistic response needed in addressing marine plastic pollution issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOne of the main instruments regulating solid waste is the National Policy on Solid Waste, developed by the Ministry of the Environment, specifically the Department of Environmental Quality, as provided by Law No. 2,305/2010. This policy establishes guidelines for waste management, including non-generation, reduction, reuse, recycling, and proper environmentally sound disposal of residues. It also promotes the adoption of sustainable production and consumption of goods and services, the adoption, development, and improvement of clean technologies to minimise environmental impacts, the reduction of volume and hazardousness of waste, and the promotion of the recycling industry to encourage the use of raw materials and inputs derived from recyclable and recycled materials. The policy also emphasises integrated solid waste management, coordination between different levels of government and cooperation between the public and business sectors for technical and financial support in waste management. Continuous technical training in the field of solid waste is also encouraged.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe National Policy on Solid Waste includes the following instruments: the National Solid Waste Plan, as well as state, interregional, intermunicipal, and municipal solid waste plans, in addition to the solid waste management plan (Brazilian Government \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). The government, the business sector, and the community are responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of actions aimed at ensuring compliance with the National Policy on Solid Waste and the guidelines and other provisions established in this Plan and its regulations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnother notable initiative was the Recicla\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;program, launched in 2022 to encourage private investment in recycling consumer-discarded products and packaging. However, the program was discontinued in February 2023.Under this program, Recycling Agents could register the invoices generated from the sale of recyclable materials with managing entities, which verified the transactions and issued credits. Each ton equalled one credit, which waste-generating companies could purchase to meet reverse logistics targets. This program was replaced by the Certificate of Reverse Logistics Recycling Credit, the Certificate of Structure and Recycling of General Packaging, and the Certificate of Future Mass Credit within the reverse logistics systems\u0026quot;, established by Law No. 11,413/2023. This legislation aims to incentivise and close the loop of the waste production chain by improving the implementation and operationalisation of physical and logistical infrastructure. It also aims to achieve economies of scale in waste recycling and reconcile the interests of economic and social agents and business management and marketing processes with environmental management through the development of sustainable strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn addition, the National Plan to Combat Marine Litter (PNCLM), established in 2021, consists of a diagnosis of the marine litter problem, a governance model, key implementation areas, guidelines, indicators, and an action plan. The PNCLM represents a new strategy to address a complex issue requiring the involvement of the federal, state, and municipal governments, the productive sector and civil society. The Plan is divided into 30 short-, medium-, and long-term actions, emphasising pragmatic and concrete solutions that contribute to short-term environmental quality improvement. Its main objectives are to reduce the quantity and impacts of marine litter originating from land-based sources; reduce the quantity and impacts of waste from maritime sources, including solid waste, lost cargo, abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear, and abandoned vessels; decrease the quantity and impacts of solid waste accumulated on the coast and in coastal and oceanic waters; to promote research, development of technologies, and methodologies to combat marine litter; and carry out environmental education activities, engage society, and communicate the impacts of marine litter and the need for better solid waste management.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLastly, the National Coastal Management Plan, which includes recycling of waste as an environmental goal in areas where there are changes in the functional organisation of pristine ecosystems undergo functional changes, are partially modified with limited regeneration options, or are largely degraded or lost.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3.2. State Level\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe state government employs a combination of governance approaches, including command-and-control, command-and-control and partnership with the private sector, economic incentives, enabling actors and enabling actors and economic incentives. State-level policies frequently draw upon federal guidelines, adapting them to align with state requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe government of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo state has significant responsibility for the management and mitigation of plastic pollution, particularly marine pollution. The Secretariat of Energy, Water Resources and Sanitation, in conjunction with the Department of Infrastructure and Environment, the Fisheries Institute, and the Foundation for Conservation and Sustainable Forests of the State of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo are the primary agencies responsible for addressing pollution. They play a pivotal role in implementing and overseeing policies and programs for pollution control.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThere are many policy and legislative arrangements and initiatives relating to plastic pollution, particularly waste management. They include:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Strategic Monitoring Plan and Marine Litter Assessment (PEMALM) combined knowledge, engagement, and interaction among key stakeholders to create a qualified information base and institutional capital for monitoring and evaluating the marine litter problem in the state of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState Solid Waste Policy (Law No. 12,300) and The State Solid Waste Policy aligns with the National Solid Waste Plan (Law No. 12,305/2010), sharing the same objectives of the Plan. However, the implementation is the responsibility of the state government. This also applies to the instruments of this policy, such as the State Solid Waste Plan.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSolid Waste Plan of the State of Sao Paulo, launched in 2014, includes the problem of marine litter from abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) at sea. This Plan establishes guidelines, goals, and strategies for waste management within the state, following the guidelines established by the National Solid Waste Policy.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe \u0026quot;Ver\u0026atilde;o no Clima\u0026quot; project is an awareness campaign about the responsibility of beach users in generating and disposing of waste in these spaces.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Sustainable Development Program of the Coast of Sao Paulo, regulated by State Decree No. 60,029/2014, involves a partnership between the state government (Secretariat of Infrastructure and Environment, Housing Department, Environmental Military Police, Geological Institute, and Forest Foundation), municipalities, and the Inter-American Development Bank. It aims to reduce the pressure of human activities on protected and socially vulnerable areas, mitigate the impact of irregular occupations, restore degraded areas, and improve housing and sanitation conditions on the coast of Sao Paulo, thereby reducing pollution of coastal water bodies and the influx of litter into the sea through diffuse pollution. The Lost Fishing Gear at Sea Project, started in 2009 as a partnership between the Fisheries Institute (APTA/SAA) and the Forest Foundation, focuses on research, development, and innovation to prevent and mitigate the problem of ghost fishing, mainly in the territory of marine protected areas. The project encourages the structuring of reverse logistics through the Blue Line System and reprocessing of unusable gear, generating employment and social income for fishing communities, scrap dealers, and recycling cooperatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Strategic Monitoring Plan and Marine Litter Assessment, developed in 2021, combines knowledge, engagement, and interaction of key actors to create a basis of qualified information and institutional capital to monitor and evaluate the problem of marine litter in the state of Sao Paulo.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Mar Sem Lixo\u0026quot; (Trash-Free Sea) project, developed by the Forest Foundation and the Secretariat of Infrastructure and Environment which seeks to remunerate artisanal fishermen who removes waste from the sea while engaging in small-scale shrimp trawling. This payment is provided for by the federal law on payments for environmental services, law N\u0026ordm;. 14,119/2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3.3. \u0026ndash;Bertioga Municipality\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAt the local level, the emphasis is on practical strategies that are adapted to the local context. The responsibilities and mandate of local government relating to plastic pollution include waste management - the collection, treatment and disposal of waste, including plastics. This may include implementing selective waste collection, recycling, and composting programs to reduce the amount of plastic waste destined for landfills. The local government is also responsible for implementing and overseeing measures to prevent pollution of coastal and marine areas. This may include regulating practices that prevent the dumping of plastic waste at sea and monitoring activities that may contribute to pollution. Additionally, the local government is responsible for monitoring the amount and type of plastic waste that reaches coastal and marine areas, and reporting this data is a crucial part of the local mandate. This monitoring helps assess the effectiveness of policies and the need for adjustments to waste management strategies. These responsibilities align with the objectives of environmental protection and the reduction of plastic pollution, thereby promoting the health of marine ecosystems and the quality of life of coastal communities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn Bertioga, the Municipal Integrated Solid Waste Plan addresses the integrated management of solid waste. It presents a diagnosis of the solid waste in the municipality, including all relevant actors in involved. It is noteworthy that the central area of focus involves the implementation of recycling systems with social inclusion, as well as the evaluation of financial indicators and budgetary support. It is aligned with the National Solid Waste Plan, which stipulates that the development of the Municipal Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (PMGIRS) is the responsibility of each municipality in Brazil.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe municipal Management Plan for Protect Areas is another important document relating to marine pollution. Bertioga is home to three conservation units, namely: the Marine Environmental Protection Area of Litoral Centro (APAMLC), Bertioga`s Restinga State Park (PERB), and Serra do Mar State Park - Bertioga Nucleus (PESM-NB). These conservation units are managed by the Forest Foundation, a state agency. Created through State Decrees (No. 53.526/08, No. 56.500/10, and No. 1.251/77, respectively), each conservation unit has a Management Plan, a guiding document with directives and goals to be fulfilled by the management and other bodies with a mandate over sectors/activities affecting these conservation units.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSome of these goals and directives specifically target pollution on beaches and rivers. For example, one of the directives aims to develop actions to prevent litter disposal in coastal environments, including actions such as: \u0026quot;Monitoring and contributing to the discussion of the working group involved in the development of state public policies to combat marine litter\u0026quot;; \u0026quot;Promoting and supporting initiatives for the provision of environmental services to remove litter from the sea by fishermen, based on the reverse logistics instrument\u0026quot;; \u0026quot;Supporting initiatives to create physical barriers for the containment of waste reaching the sea\u0026quot;; and \u0026quot;Seeking funding for projects aimed at reducing marine litter and promoting the training of local agents for their implementation.\u0026quot; It is important to emphasize that all these actions outlined in the conservation units\u0026apos; management plan require interinstitutional coordination, as the responsibility is shared between the state and municipal levels, as well as other private institutions and civil society.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, the city of Bertioga is situated in the Santos Bay region and has been a pioneer in structuring a waste collection and management system. The city focuses on reducing waste destined for landfills through the principles of social inclusion and adherence to the law that established the National Solid Waste Policy (PGIRS, Bertioga 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA summary of these plans can be found in appendix Table\u0026nbsp;4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Differences Between Australia and Brazilian governance approaches\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn both countries, local governments focus on practical and context-specific solutions to marine plastic pollution. In Brazil, municipalities like Bertioga are responsible for managing solid waste through initiatives like the Municipal Integrated Solid Waste Plan, which addresses waste management with an emphasis on social inclusion and sustainable practices (Bertioga 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBrazil\u0026rsquo;s marine litter policies lean more towards regulatory, Command-and-control strategies with government-led actions, where compliance is enforced through legal mechanisms, such as the National Policy on Solid Waste (Law n\u0026ordm;. 12,305/2010) (Brazilian government \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, Australia\u0026apos;s approach to environmental governance, particularly in combating plastic pollution, adopts a more comprehensive and inclusive strategy. Australian policies engage a wide range of stakeholders, emphasizing preventive measures across the plastic life cycle. Instead of relying predominantly on government mandates, Australia fosters a bottom-up approach where local communities and industries are empowered to take voluntary actions. The National Plastics Plan (Australian Government \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), for instance, prioritizes collaboration, enabling actors such as industries, NGOs, and local governments to participate actively in addressing environmental challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe connection between these plans lies in their shared focus on reducing plastic waste and mitigating its impacts on marine ecosystems. While each plan targets different scales and aspects of pollution, they collectively contribute to a holistic approach to tackling this global issue. The National Plastics Plan sets overarching goals, while state and local plans provide specific actions tailored to their contexts. The collaborative nature of these initiatives reflects the understanding that marine pollution is a complex challenge that requires coordinated efforts across various levels of governance and society.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocal governments in Australia, such as the City of Gold Coast, implement localized policies like the Litter and Illegal Dumping Reduction Plan (City of Gold Coast \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), but Australia places more emphasis on community engagement and voluntary measures, whereas Brazil relies heavily on legislative actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. International Laws addressing mitigate Marine Litter\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarine plastic pollution is an increasing concern among international law experts, particularly those focused on maritime law. The definition of high seas has come to be understood as a space of access and shared responsibility among all countries, except in areas under national sovereignty. This principle emphasizes that, although each country exercises sovereignty over its waters, it is essential that they do not cause damage or pollution to other nations, taking responsibility for any contamination that may arise (Zanella et. al. 2015). The international agreements identified in this study highlight a global commitment to addressing the urgency of marine plastic pollution, promoting cooperation among countries and implementing strategies to mitigate such pollution.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe complexity of marine litter is heightened by its transboundary nature, as oceanic currents, including gyres such as the North Pacific Gyre, facilitate the widespread transport of debris across vast distances (Lincoln et. al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Other primary limitation to deal with this transboundary issue is the lack of recognition of the terrestrial origin of most marine plastic waste in major international conventions (Vince and Hardesty \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), as approximately 80% of this waste originates from land-based activities (Vince and Hardesty \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Simon and Schulte, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Conventions such as UNCLOS (1982) place the responsibility for controlling land-based pollution in the hands of local governments, but this approach is insufficient to address the scale of the problem. One possible contributing factor is the vertical structure of the regulatory framework, which spans from the international to national levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the governance structure has been primarily reactive and sectoral rather than preventive and\u0026ensp;integrated. Many international frameworks offer excessive flexibility, allowing each country to define its goals and guidelines, which results in uneven and inconsistent implementation. The lack of coordination between institutions across different governance levels also limits the effectiveness of control measures. Therefore, a more cohesive and integrated approach is required to effectively address marine pollution (Ekstrom et al. 2009).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, the polycentric system, as presented by Ostrom et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), refers to a governance framework in which multiple decision-making centers, independent but interrelated, can share responsibility for addressing specific issues. In the environmental context, a polycentric system involves different levels of governance - local, regional, national and international - acting simultaneously and collaboratively, rather than relying solely on a central authority or vertical hierarchy. This approach has the potential to address environmental problems more effectively because it involves multiple scales and requires flexible coordination, in contrast to centralized or vertical governance systems that may be less agile and less responsive to local variations (Ostrom et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLandon-Lane (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) highlights the importance of a multi-level and inclusive approach to addressing marine plastic pollution. The study explores the potential for the private sector to contribute to reducing the impacts of plastic pollution through corporate social responsibility (CSR). However, it emphasizes that successful implementation of CSR requires collaboration between multiple stakeholders, including regulators and non-governmental partnerships, to establish effective governance frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt also highlights the importance of international, regional and national initiatives to address marine pollution. The Global Ghost Gear Initiative and international conventions such as the Law of the Sea and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships are examples of multi-sectoral efforts. In addition, international cooperation is essential because of the significant movement of plastic waste across jurisdictions, either through waste exports or through the dispersal of plastics in the oceans.Regional agreements in Pacific Ocean (Waigani Convention and the Pacific Ocean Litter Project), focus on regional waste management and reducing plastic production and consumption, critical for the Pacific islands where are regions generating the most land-based mismanaged plastic waste (MPW) (Jambeck et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Lebreton and Andrady \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBesides both Brazil and Australia are signatories to the same global multilateral agreements, Australia has committed to regional policies, such as the Waigani Convention and the Pacific Ocean Litter Project (POLP), which are specific to the Pacific region. This reflects Australia's active participation in regional efforts to tackle plastic pollution. Brazil, in contrast, has no regional agreements in this context. The reasons for South Atlantic didn\u0026rsquo;t have a regional agreement may include political priorities, resource constraints, and domestic legal considerations. This may point to the need for Brazil to engage more in regional governance structures, particularly in South America and the Atlantic region, to strengthen its efforts against marine debris (Gon\u0026ccedil;alves et al. \u003cem\u003ein press)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe political landscape and marine waste management have a recent history in Brazil. Specifically, during the United Nations Conference on the Oceans in June 2017, Brazil voluntarily committed to crafting this national strategy, emphasizing its growing dedication to tackling the issue of marine debris. This initiative is part of broader efforts to mitigate marine litter, which have been included in discussions since earlier events such as the 4th National Conference on the Environment (Solid Waste) and Brazil's participation in the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) in 2015 (Lima et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, it was only from 2017 onward that the subject became a concrete goal within the MMA, following the ministry's participation in the United Nations Conference on the Oceans, held in June. During this event, the Brazilian government voluntarily committed to developing a \"National Strategy to Combat Marine Litter\" (UNEP b 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia has a significant history of engagement with marine pollution. The country has demonstrated a commitment to the prevention of catastrophic disasters and to the protection of the environment (Gaskell and Forrest \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Since the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Australia has been actively involved in international negotiations and revisions of maritime legislation, assuming a leading role in the international evolution of maritime law. This has included negotiations on Part XI of UNCLOS and issues related to marine pollution. Furthermore, the country participates in regional initiatives such as the Pacific Ocean Project Litter and the Waigani Convention. Australia's approach reflects a commitment to balancing environmental protection with sustainable development and adherence to international standards (Burmester \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Federalism, Decentralization, and Institutional Interplay: A Comparative Analysis of Brazil and Australia\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarine plastic pollution governance exemplifies the challenges and opportunities inherent in federal systems, where decision-making spans multiple administrative levels and involves a wide array of actors. The concept of multilevel governance\u0026mdash;where policy-making occurs across various jurisdictions and sectors\u0026mdash;has been widely recognized as a promising approach to addressing complex environmental issues (Termeer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Yet, its implementation is often hindered by coordination challenges and the intricate interplay among institutions operating at different scales (Young \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Stokke \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Brazil, the 1988 Federal Constitution ushered in an era of administrative decentralization, assigning municipalities significant responsibility for land use planning. The City Statute (Federal Law 10,257/2001) further mandates that urban policies serve the collective good by regulating the use of urban property, making the Master Plan the primary tool for municipal-level planning. In coastal regions, however, despite the preparation and publication of Master Plans for many cities, the effective implementation remains questionable. Moreover, Brazilian urban policy historically emphasizes local government actions, often at the expense of metropolitan and regional coordination. This focus has led to a situation where state-level roles in regional planning are diminished, exacerbating the challenges of managing cross-scale environmental issues (Rossbach et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis decentralized arrangement, while empowering local decision-makers, also generates what can be described as a cross-scale dependence. Institutions operating at one level may dominate or conflict with those at another due to formal rules that grant precedence to higher-level decisions (Young \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, in Brazil, although coastal management is constitutionally decentralized, it remains largely controlled at the federal level. Local institutions, which are primarily oriented toward land use rather than broader environmental drivers, often lack the mandate or capacity to manage the coastal zone effectively (Gon\u0026ccedil;alves et al. 2021). The fragmentation is further compounded by sectoral policies that, when not normatively linked, lead to institutional silos rather than integrated management (Young \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of interplay management\u0026mdash;the purposeful shaping and improvement of institutional interactions (Stokke \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;is crucial in this context. Effective interplay management can range from simple information exchanges to coordinated program planning and joint decision-making. However, as noted by Oberth\u0026uuml;r (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) and others, such management remains under-researched and is often absent in practice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Brazil, the lack of formal mechanisms for interplay management in coastal and urban planning results in fragmented decision-making, where multiple actors are forced to trade off competing interests without sufficient coordination (Therville et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This situation is emblematic of the broader challenge of aligning scale-dependent policies to achieve cohesive outcomes in environmental governance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAustralia offers a contrasting model. Its governance framework for marine plastic pollution is characterized by a more bottom-up approach that actively involves local communities, industries, and non-governmental organizations. Federal initiatives\u0026mdash;such as the \u003cem\u003eNational Plastics Plan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;set overarching goals, while state and municipal policies, like the City of Gold Coast\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eLitter and Illegal Dumping Reduction Plan\u003c/em\u003e, enable localized, context-specific actions (Barrowclough and Deere-Birkbeck 2020). This polycentric model facilitates stakeholder collaboration and shared decision-making, which can enhance the adaptability and responsiveness of environmental policies (Newig and Fritsch \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, Australia\u0026rsquo;s decentralized approach is mindful of the transboundary nature of marine pollution, recognizing that waste generated domestically can affect neighbouring countries (Hardesty et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, even Australia is not without challenges. The need for effective coordination across different governmental levels remains paramount. While local initiatives drive innovation, fragmentation can occur if efforts are not harmonized at the regional or national scale. In both countries, the success of environmental governance hinges on the ability to balance Command-and-control measures\u0026mdash;essential for enforcing stringent standards in critical areas\u0026mdash;with Economic Incentives and participatory processes that empower stakeholders and promote voluntary action. In developing contexts such as Brazil, where regulatory capacity is often compromised by resource constraints and institutional weaknesses (Russell and Vaughan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Blackman et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), achieving this balance is particularly challenging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA combined policy mix that integrates command-and-control approaches with market-based instruments and voluntary agreements is most effective in addressing complex environmental challenges (Fidelman et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Command-and-control measures remain crucial for setting minimum environmental standards and protecting critical ecosystems, greater use of economic instruments\u0026mdash;such as taxes and subsidies\u0026mdash;can improve efficiency and foster innovation. However, it\u0026rsquo;s importance of actively involving the private sector and civil society, noting that collaborative governance arrangements enhance legitimacy, compliance, and policy outcomes (Fidelman et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe institutional interplay within federal systems in Brazil and Australia demonstrates both the strengths and limitations of multilevel governance in addressing marine plastic pollution. Brazil\u0026rsquo;s system, marked by its centralized legal mandates and decentralized execution, reveals significant challenges in ensuring coordination and effective local implementation. Conversely, Australia\u0026rsquo;s more integrated and polycentric approach illustrates how stakeholder engagement and adaptive management can yield more responsive outcomes. Yet, in both cases, fostering robust interplay management\u0026mdash;through improved communication, shared knowledge, and coordinated policy-making\u0026mdash;is essential for reducing fragmentation and achieving sustainable environmental governance (Cash et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Olsson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Allen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Long et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Ultimately, harmonizing top-down directives with bottom-up innovation remains a critical imperative for the evolution of federal environmental governance in an era of complex global challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn both countries, local governments focus on practical and context-specific solutions to marine plastic pollution. In Brazil, municipalities like Bertioga are responsible for managing solid waste through initiatives like the Municipal Integrated Solid Waste Plan, which addresses waste management with an emphasis on social inclusion and sustainable practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrazil\u0026rsquo;s marine litter policies lean more towards regulatory, Command-and-control strategies with government-led actions, where compliance is enforced through legal mechanisms, such as the National Policy on Solid Waste (Law N\u0026ordm;. 12,305/2010).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, Australia's approach to environmental governance, particularly in combating plastic pollution, adopts a more comprehensive and inclusive strategy. Australian policies engage a wide range of stakeholders, emphasizing preventive measures across the plastic life cycle. Instead of relying predominantly on government mandates, Australia fosters a bottom-up approach where local communities and industries are empowered to take voluntary actions. The National Plastics Plan, for instance, prioritizes collaboration, enabling actors such as industries, NGOs, and local governments to participate actively in addressing environmental challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe connection between these plans lies in their shared focus on reducing plastic waste and mitigating its impacts on marine ecosystems. While each plan targets different scales and aspects of pollution, they collectively contribute to a holistic approach to tackling this global issue. The National Plastics Plan sets overarching goals, while state and local plans provide specific actions tailored to their contexts. The collaborative nature of these initiatives reflects the understanding that marine pollution is a complex challenge that requires coordinated efforts across various levels of governance and society.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal governments in Australia, such as the City of Gold Coast, implement localized policies like the Litter and Illegal Dumping Reduction Plan, but Australia places more emphasis on community engagement and voluntary measures, whereas Brazil relies heavily on legislative actions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Marine Litter Challenges and Opportunities for Multilevel Governance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMarine plastic pollution exemplifies the type of complex environmental challenge that requires coordinated actions across multiple levels of governance. As illustrated by Fidelman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) in the context of climate change adaptation, multilevel governance offers a promising avenue for bridging gaps among governmental, corporate, civil, and international actors. By leveraging diverse perspectives and capacities, MLG can foster cohesive strategies for mitigating marine plastic pollution. However, it also carries risks of overlapping mandates, inconsistent policies, and inter-institutional friction when mechanisms for coordination are weak (Betsil \u0026amp; Bulkeley 2006).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings from this comparative analysis indicate that both Brazil and Australia face significant obstacles in coordinating marine plastic pollution policies across multiple governmental levels. As demonstrated in the preceding sections, the institutional complexity inherent in federative systems can lead to fragmented decision-making, overlapping mandates, and gaps in implementation\u0026mdash;challenges also noted by Betsil and Bulkeley (2006). This echoes Fidelman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), who found that multilevel governance can be a powerful framework for addressing complex environmental issues, but only if cross-scale interactions and stakeholder engagement are carefully managed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur results show that national policies serve as crucial anchors for local action, as emphasized by Corfee-Morlot et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). However, the data further reveal that top-down directives may inadvertently stifle local autonomy and capacity, leading to \u0026ldquo;mal-adaptation\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;mal-mitigation\u0026rdquo; in certain contexts. In Brazil, for example, the National Policy on Solid Waste faces implementation hurdles at the municipal level, where resource limitations impede local authorities\u0026rsquo; ability to meet federal mandates. In Australia, meanwhile, the presence of more polycentric governance structures fosters innovative local initiatives\u0026mdash;such as the City of Gold Coast\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eLitter and Illegal Dumping Reduction Plan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;but also underscores the need for consistent coordination between state and federal authorities to avoid policy fragmentation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings resonate with the four themes identified by Bache and Flinders (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), which highlight the evolving role of the state, the challenges of overlapping decision-making networks, and the growing participation of non-state actors. Both Brazil and Australia illustrate how increasing involvement of private companies, NGOs, and civil society can enrich policy processes but also necessitates stronger oversight and clear accountability mechanisms to ensure democratic legitimacy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on these insights, we recommend six key strategies to enhance multilevel governance for marine plastic pollution in Brazil and Australia. These measures directly address the institutional gaps and coordination deficits identified in our comparative assessment (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStrengthening environmental departments\u003c/b\u003e at all governmental levels to enhance regulatory oversight and foster policy coherence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eBuilding capacity and improving information dissemination\u003c/b\u003e so that all actors\u0026mdash;from local municipalities to national agencies\u0026mdash;can make informed decisions grounded in accurate data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCo-producing knowledge\u003c/b\u003e in partnership with research institutes and universities, ensuring that policies reflect the latest scientific evidence and are adapted to local realities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTransferring best practices\u003c/b\u003e from successful initiatives, whether within the country or internationally, to replicate effective models and avoid repeated pitfalls.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCoordinating with and incentivizing private sector involvement\u003c/b\u003e in cleanup and prevention programs, leveraging market-based tools and corporate social responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLeveraging international actors and external funding\u003c/b\u003e to expand resources and technical expertise, thereby amplifying the impact of local and national efforts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy adopting these measures, Brazil and Australia can better align their respective federal, state, and local mandates, addressing existing gaps and inefficiencies. These recommendations build on the principle that robust multilevel governance frameworks\u0026mdash;characterized by adequate funding, clear mandates, and sustained stakeholder collaboration\u0026mdash;are crucial to effectively tackle marine plastic pollution. Ultimately, integrating financial support, institutional synergy, and policy coherence across all levels of government will be essential to ensure that strategies for managing marine plastic pollution are both comprehensive and sustainable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study explored the complex landscape of marine plastic pollution mitigation within the multilevel governance systems of Australia and Brazil, as its subnational localities Bertioga and Gold Coast. Given the unique federalism structure in both countries, it became essential to analyses the interplay of policies across varying tiers of governance, ensuring coherence, collaboration, and alignment. Multi-level governance offers a framework to harmonize policies, share responsibilities, and leverage resources effectively. Comparative studies have the potential to stimulate learning from past and ongoing experiences of applying different legal frameworks in different jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrazil tends to rely on regulatory, command-and-control strategies led by the government, while Australia takes a more flexible approach, combining voluntary measures with regulations and actively involving the private sector and community initiatives. Brazil's policies are more centralized, with clearly defined responsibilities across governance levels, whereas Australia allows for more autonomy at the state and local levels, resulting in diverse, region-specific solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe management of solid waste stands as a multifaceted and interdisciplinary subject, intricately woven throughout the text. To further enrich this discourse, future contributions have the potential to broaden this research panorama. In this light, complementary studies investigating actions and policies stemming from the private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) would offer a comprehensive perspective.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, conducting research though interviews with stakeholders involved in governance efforts to mitigate marine plastic pollution could provide valuable insight into how legal frameworks either positively or negatively impacted the implementation of adaptative management policies and strategies, offering better insights on the effectiveness of the policy landscape.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLastly, the findings presented here aim at not only further improving our understanding of marine plastic pollution governance\u0026ensp;but also informing the operational advancement of policies and actions to mitigate marine litter. Australia\u0026ensp;and Brazil are particularly useful case studies, with lessons to be learnt that apply to global approaches to tackling marine litter through ensuring aligned policies across national and sub-national levels of government according to respective abilities and responsibilities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompliance with Ethical Standards\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/b\u003e. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eNicole Russo Guerrato \u0026mdash; Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Writing \u0026ndash; original draft, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing, Methodology, Validation, Preparation of all figures and tables.Pedro Fidelman \u0026mdash; Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing.Leandra Regina Gon\u0026ccedil;alves \u0026mdash; Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNRG acknowledges the financial support of the Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) of Brazil, through the Process n\u0026ordm; 2021/10951-9 and n\u0026ordm; 2022/12013-9. All authors acknowledge the support of their respective academic institutions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlcantara, C., \u0026amp; Nelles, J. (2014). Indigenous peoples and the state in settler societies: Towards a more robust definition of multilevel governance. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 44(1), 183\u0026ndash;204. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjt013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/publius/pjt013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAllen, C. R., Fontaine, J. J., Pope, K. L., \u0026amp; Garmestani, A. S. (2011). Adaptive management for a turbulent future. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1339\u0026ndash;1345. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.019\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.019\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAssocia\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza P\u0026uacute;blica de Res\u0026iacute;duos Especiais - ABRELPE. (2018). Panorama dos res\u0026iacute;duos s\u0026oacute;lidos no Brasil 2017. [Edi\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o especial 15 anos]. Retrieved from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://abrelpe.org.br/download-panorama-2017/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://abrelpe.org.br/download-panorama-2017/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAssocia\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o Brasileira de Empresas de Limpeza P\u0026uacute;blica de Res\u0026iacute;duos Especiais - ABRELPE. (2020). Panorama dos Res\u0026iacute;duos S\u0026oacute;lidos no Brasil 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAustralian Bureau of Statistics - ABS. (2013). National regional profile: Gold Coast (statistical area level 4). Canberra. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.abs.gov.au\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.abs.gov.au\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAustralian Government. (2018). Department of the Environment and Energy. National Waste Report 2018. Retrieved from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7381c1de-31d0-429b-912c-91a6dbc83af7/files/national-waste-report-2018.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7381c1de-31d0-429b-912c-91a6dbc83af7/files/national-waste-report-2018.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAustralian Government. (2021). National Plastics Plan 2021. Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. Retrieved from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.awe.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/plastics-and-chemical-recycling/national-plastics-plan\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.awe.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/plastics-and-chemical-recycling/national-plastics-plan\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBache, I., \u0026amp; Flinders, M. (2004). Multi-level governance and the study of the British state. Public Policy and Administration, 19(1), 31\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/095207670401900104\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/095207670401900104\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarrowclough, D., \u0026amp; Deere Birkbeck, C. (2020). Transforming the global plastics economy: The political economy and governance of plastics production and pollution (No. 142). GEG Working Paper.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeltran, M., Tjahjono, B., Suoneto, T. N., Tanjung, R., \u0026amp; Juli\u0026atilde;o, J. (2024). Rethinking marine plastics pollution: Science diplomacy and multi-level governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 90(1), 237\u0026ndash;258. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/00208523231183909\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/00208523231183909\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBergmann, M., Sandhop, N., Schewe, I., \u0026amp; D'Hert, D. (2015). Observations of floating anthropogenic litter in the Barents Sea and Fram Strait, Arctic. Polar Biology, 39, 553\u0026ndash;560. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-015-1795-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s00300-015-1795-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBertioga Municipal Government (2017). Plano Municipal de Gest\u0026atilde;o Integrada de Res\u0026iacute;duos S\u0026oacute;lidos de Bertioga.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBertioga Municipal Government (2020). Sustainable Tourism and Environmental Protection Plan.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlackman, A., \u0026Aacute;vila, S., \u0026amp; Rivera, J. (2018). Effectiveness of environmental taxes and charges for managing sand and gravel mining in Costa Rica. Resources Policy, 58, 255\u0026ndash;263. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.05.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.05.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrazilian Government. (1988) Law No. 7,661. (1988). National Coastal Management Plan (PNGC). D.O.U., Bras\u0026iacute;lia. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l7661.htm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l7661.htm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrazilian Government. (2001). Federal Law 10,257, of July 10, 2001 (Estatuto da Cidade). Official Gazette, Bras\u0026iacute;lia, DF. Minist\u0026eacute;rio das Cidades. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/leis_2001/l10257.htm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/leis_2001/l10257.htm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrazilian Government. (2010). National Solid Waste Policy (Law No. 12,305, August 2, 2010). Official Gazette, Bras\u0026iacute;lia, DF. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2010/lei/l12305.htm\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2010/lei/l12305.htm\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrazilian Government. (2020). National Solid Waste Plan. Ministry of the Environment. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.gov.br/mma/en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.gov.br/mma/en\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). (2015). Cities: Bertioga. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://cidades.ibge.gov.br\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://cidades.ibge.gov.br\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBurmester, H. (1994). Australia and the Law of the Sea. In The Law of the Sea in the Asian Pacific Region (pp. 51\u0026ndash;64). Brill Nijhoff. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1163/9789004482203_008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1163/9789004482203_008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., \u0026amp; Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01759-110208\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-01759-110208\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCity of Gold Coast. (2020). Environment strategy 2020. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, Y., Awasthi, A. K., Wei, F., Tan, Q., \u0026amp; Li, J. (2021). Single-use plastics: Production, usage, disposal, and adverse impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 752, 141772. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141772\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141772\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCorfee-Morlot, J., Kamal-Chaoui, L., Donovan, M. G., Cochran, I., Robert, A., \u0026amp; Teasdale, P. J. (2009). Cities, climate change, and multilevel governance. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://dx.doi.org/10.1787/220062444715\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/220062444715\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCroese, S., Oloko, M., Simon, D., \u0026amp; Valencia, S. C. (2021). Bringing the global to the local: The challenges of multi-level governance for global policy implementation in Africa. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 13(3), 435\u0026ndash;447. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2021.1958335\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/19463138.2021.1958335\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDepartment of Agriculture, Water and the Environment- DAWE. (2021). National Plastics Plan 2021. Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, December. CC BY 4.0.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFidelman, P. I., Leitch, A. M., \u0026amp; Nelson, D. R. (2013). Unpacking multilevel adaptation to climate change in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Global Environmental Change, 23(4), 800\u0026ndash;812. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.016\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFidelman, P., Pellegrini, L., Roberts, T., Lebel, L., de Coninck, H., \u0026amp; Moreno-Beltr\u0026aacute;n, R. (2019). Policy, theory and practice. In United Nations Environment Programme (Ed.), Global Environment Outlook 6: Healthy planet, healthy people (pp. 433\u0026ndash;474). Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/27662\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFracalanza, A. P., et al. (2022). Sociedade, meio ambiente e cidadania em tempos de pandemia. S\u0026atilde;o Paulo: Blucher.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFranchini, M., Viola, E., \u0026amp; Barros-Platiau, A. F. (2017). The challenges of the Anthropocene: From international environmental politics to global governance. Ambiente \u0026amp; Sociedade, 20, 177\u0026ndash;202. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422ASOC214V2022017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/1809-4422ASOC214V2022017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGall, S. C., \u0026amp; Thompson, R. C. (2015). The impact of debris on marine life. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 92(1\u0026ndash;2), 170\u0026ndash;179. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGaskell, N., \u0026amp; Forrest, C. (2008). Marine pollution damage in Australia: Implementing the Bunker Oil Convention 2001 and the Supplementary Fund Protocol 2003. University of Queensland Law Journal, 27(2), 103\u0026ndash;165.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGeyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., \u0026amp; Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/sciadv.1700782\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGon\u0026ccedil;alves, L. R., Barros-Platiau, A.F., Tom\u0026eacute;, C. H and de Oliveira, C. C. Forthcoming. \u0026ldquo;Bridging the Governance Gaps in the South Atlantic Ocean.\u0026rdquo; In The Politics of Global Ocean Regions, edited by Christian Bueger, Elizabeth Mendenhall, and Rebecca Strating. Springer Nature. In press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHardesty, B. D., Harari, J., Isobe, A., Lebreton, L., Maximenko, N., Potemra, J., \u0026amp; Wilcox, C. (2020). Using numerical model simulations to improve the understanding of micro-plastic distribution and pathways in the marine environment. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 567. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00567\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fmars.2020.00567\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHooghe, L., \u0026amp; Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233\u0026ndash;243. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0003055403000649\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., \u0026hellip; Law, K. L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768\u0026ndash;771. DOI: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1126/science.1260352\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/science.1260352\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJuhola, S. (2016). Barriers to the implementation of climate change adaptation in land use planning: A multilevel governance problem? International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 8(3), 338\u0026ndash;355. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2014-0030\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJCCSM-03-2014-0030\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKeskitalo, E. (2010). Developing Adaptation Policy and Practice in Europe: Multi-level Governance of Climate Change. Springer. DOI \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/978-90-481-9325-7_1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-90-481-9325-7_1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLandon-Lane, M. (2018). Corporate social responsibility in marine plastic debris governance. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 127, 310\u0026ndash;319. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.054\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.054\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLebreton, L., Andrady, A., 2019. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Commun. 5, 6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLima, A.R.A., Silva, M.D., Possatto, F.E., Ferreira, G.V.B., Krelling, A.P. (2020). Plastic Contamination in Brazilian Freshwater and Coastal Environments: A Source-to-Sea Transboundary Approach. In: Stock, F., Reifferscheid, G., Brennholt, N., Kostianaia, E. (eds) Plastics in the Aquatic Environment - Part I. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 111. Springer, Cham. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/698_2020_514\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/698_2020_514\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLincoln, S., Andrews, B., Birchenough, S. N., Chowdhury, P., Engelhard, G. H., Harrod, O., Pinnegar, J.K., \u0026amp; Townhill, B. L. (2022). Marine litter and climate change: Inextricably connected threats to the world's oceans. Science of The Total Environment, 837, 155709. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155709\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155709\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLong, R. D., Charles, A., \u0026amp; Stephenson, R. L. (2015). Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Marine Policy, 57, 53\u0026ndash;60. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMartinez, M. Luisa, Intralawan, Arturo, V\u0026aacute;zquez, Gabriela, P\u0026eacute;rez-Maqueo, Octavio, Sutton, Paul, \u0026amp; Landgrave, Rosario. (2007). The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance. Ecological Economics, 63(2\u0026ndash;3), 254\u0026ndash;272. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMangalagiu, D., Baker, E., Fidelman, P., Gon\u0026ccedil;alves, L. R., Harris, P., Hollway, J., Kim, R. E., \u0026amp; Rice, J. (2019). Global Environment Outlook 6: Healthy planet, healthy people (pp. 433\u0026ndash;474). UNEP. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/9781108627146.020\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/9781108627146.020\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMihai, F. C., G\u0026uuml;ndoğdu, S., Markley, L. A., Olivelli, A., Khan, F. R., Gwinnett, C., \u0026hellip; Molinos-Senante, M. (2021). Plastic pollution, waste management issues, and circular economy opportunities in rural communities. Sustainability, 14(1), 20. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su14010020\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su14010020\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMouat, J., Lozano, R. L., \u0026amp; Bateson, H. (2010). Economic Impacts of Marine Litter. KIMO International. Retrieved November 29, 2013, from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.seas-at-risk.org/1mages/Economic%20impacts%20of%20marine%20litter%20KIMO.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.seas-at-risk.org/1mages/Economic%20impacts%20of%20marine%20litter%20KIMO.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNewig, J., Fritsch, O., 2009. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level and effective? Environ. Policy Gov. 19, 197\u0026ndash;214. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/eet.509\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/eet.509\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNewman, S., Watkins, E., Farmer, A., Ten Brink, P., \u0026amp; Schweitzer, J.-P. (2015). The economics of marine litter. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, \u0026amp; M. Klages (Eds.), Marine anthropogenic litter (pp. 371\u0026ndash;398). Springer. DOI \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOberth\u0026uuml;r, S. (2009). Interplay management: Enhancing environmental policy integration among international institutions. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 9(4), 371\u0026ndash;391. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-009-9109-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10784-009-9109-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOlsson, P., Folke, C., \u0026amp; Hughes, T. P. (2007). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15194\u0026ndash;15199. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701886104\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.0701886104\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOstrom, E., Janssen, M. A., \u0026amp; Anderies, J. M. (2008). Going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15176\u0026ndash;15178. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701886104\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.0701886104\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePEMALM. (2021). Plano Estrat\u0026eacute;gico de Monitoramento e Avalia\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o do Lixo no Mar do Estado de S\u0026atilde;o Paulo. S\u0026atilde;o Paulo: PEMALM.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePiattoni, S. (2010). The Theory of Multi-level Governance: Conceptual, Empirical, and Normative Challenges. Oxford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQueensland Government. (2021). Plastic pollution reduction plan: Ban on single-use plastics. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/management/waste/plastic-pollution/single-use-plastics-ban\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/management/waste/plastic-pollution/single-use-plastics-ban\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRangel-Buitrago, N., Ben-Haddad, M., Nicoll, K., Galgani, F., \u0026amp; Neal, W. J. (2024). Marine plastic pollution in the Anthropocene: A linguistic toolkit for holistic understanding and action. Ocean \u0026amp; Coastal Management, 248, 106967. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106967\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106967\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRossbach, A., Lavalle, C., \u0026amp; Ribeiro, W. C. (2018). Metropolitan governance in Brazil: The case of S\u0026atilde;o Paulo. In M. Le Gal\u0026egrave;s \u0026amp; P. Vitale (Eds.), Governing the metropolis: The politics of urban governance in the 21st century (pp. 123\u0026ndash;144). Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 978-3-319-62601-4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRussell C, Vaughan W. 2003. The choice of pollution control policy instruments in developing countries: arguments, evidence and suggestions. In International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 7, ed. TH Tietenberg, H Folmer, pp. 331\u0026ndash;71. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4337/9781843769426.00010\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4337/9781843769426.00010\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSimon, N., \u0026amp; Schulte, M. L. (2017). Stopping global plastic pollution: The case for an international convention. ARNOLD Group, Gro\u0026szlig;beeren. ISBN 978-3-86928-159-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStokke, O. S. (2001). The interplay of international regimes: Putting effectiveness theory to work (FNI Report 14/2001). Fridtjof Nansen Institute. ISSN: 0804\u0026ndash;7239. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fni.no/publications/the-interplay-of-international-regimes-putting-effectiveness-theory-to-work-article2908-290.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fni.no/publications/the-interplay-of-international-regimes-putting-effectiveness-theory-to-work-article2908-290.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTermeer, C. J., Dewulf, A., \u0026amp; Van Lieshout, M. (2010). Disentangling scale approaches in governance research: Comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptive governance. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 29. DOI: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5751/ES-03798-150429\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-03798-150429\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTermeer, C. J., Dewulf, A., Breeman, G. E., \u0026amp; Stiller, S. J. (2011). Governance capabilities for dealing wisely with wicked problems. Administration \u0026amp; Society, 47(6), 680\u0026ndash;710. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0095399712469195\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0095399712469195\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTherville, C., Andrade, D. C., \u0026amp; de Oliveira, F. R. (2019). Challenges for coastal governance in Brazil: The case of Santos Estuary. Marine Policy, 108, 103\u0026ndash;112. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103112\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103112\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations Environment Programme \u0026ndash; UNEP (2014). Valuing Plastics: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing, and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry. Nairobi, Kenya. 2014. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e11822/9238\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations Environment Programme. (2018). Single-use plastics: A roadmap for sustainability. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unep.org/resources/report/single-use-plastics-roadmap-sustainability\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unep.org/resources/report/single-use-plastics-roadmap-sustainability\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations Environment Programme \u0026ndash; UNEP a (2021). From Pollution to Solution: A global assessment of marine litter and plastic pollution. Nairobi, 147 pp. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.grida.no/publications/747.https://www.unep.org/resources/pollution-solution-global-assessment-marine-litter-and-plastic-pollution\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.grida.no/publications/747.https://www.unep.org/resources/pollution-solution-global-assessment-marine-litter-and-plastic-pollution\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations Environment Programme. (2021). Policies, regulations and strategies in Latin America and the Caribbean to prevent marine litter and plastic waste. UNEP Report.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ehttps://\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.unep.org/resources/report/policies-regulations-and-strategies-latin-america-and-caribbean-prevent-marine\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited Nations Environment Programme (2023). Turning off the Tap. How the world can end plastic pollution and create a circular economy. Nairobi. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.unep.org/resources/turning-off-tap-end-plastic-pollution-create-circular-economy\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.unep.org/resources/turning-off-tap-end-plastic-pollution-create-circular-economy\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVince, J., \u0026amp; Hardesty, B. D. (2017). Plastic pollution challenges in marine and coastal environments: from local to global governance. Restoration ecology, 25(1), 123\u0026ndash;128. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12388\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/rec.12388\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and McKinsey \u0026amp; Co. \u0026ldquo;The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics\u0026rdquo; (2016) page 7 \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-plastics-economy-ethinking-the-future-of-plastics\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/the-new-plastics-economy-ethinking-the-future-of-plastics\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWyles, K.J., Pahl, S., Thomas, K., Thompson, R.C., (2016). Factors that can undermine the psychological benefits of coastal environments: exploring the effect of tidal state, presence, and type of litter. Environ. Behav. 48, 1095\u0026ndash;1126. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515592177\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0013916515592177\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYoung, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. MIT Press. ISBN: 978-0-262-74026-9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYoung, O. R. (2006). Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 27. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01619-110127\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5751/ES-01619-110127\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZanella, T., V. (2015). Polui\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o marinha por pl\u0026aacute;sticos e o direito internacional do ambiente, in Direito do mar: textos selecionados. Volume 1, Curitiba: Juru\u0026aacute;, pp.147\u0026ndash;168. / ISSN: 2182\u0026ndash;7567\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003eGBRMPA is a federal statutory authority established under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 with powers to prepare and publish plans and policies relating to the protection and management of the GBR (Commonwealth of Australia 1975).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e CSIRO - Australian Government corporate entity, with a Board and Chief Executive. Constituted by and operate under the provisions of the Science and Industry Research Act 1949.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Multilevel Governance, Marine Plastic Pollution, Environmental Policies, Federalism","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6692013/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6692013/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eMarine plastic pollution is a current and highly visible environmental problem. The increase of marine litter is a result of the transformations experienced by humanity, whether economic, political, cultural or institutional. It is a global problem that causes impacts at the local scale. Each country has its peculiarity and presents unique strategies to face marine plastic litter, the multidimensional nature of this issue requires responses at multiple geographic and jurisdictional levels. Due to its diffuse origin, and different ways of this litter reaching the ocean, the problem involves different actors and sectors, demanding a complex institutional arrangement to solve the problem. The study analyses 29 policies and practices adopted\u0026ensp;by both countries and leans on the innovative approaches that can be adapted or transferred to other federative systems in similar situations. The research identifies key challenges and opportunities for improved governance and more effective responses to marine plastic pollution through a comparison of policies and strategies across countries.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Exploring Multilevel Governance Strategies in Australia and Brazil for Marine Plastic Solutions","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-06-04 11:14:55","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6692013/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-07-04T22:39:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-30T20:22:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"250501158794280555884780393682846696076","date":"2025-06-05T08:40:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-06-04T10:46:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"124996752993776883112594404169227221565","date":"2025-06-02T06:37:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"138379625316862337013390656685109816697","date":"2025-06-02T05:16:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-06-02T04:02:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-05-28T04:18:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-05-23T10:05:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Environmental Management","date":"2025-05-18T13:30:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b293009a-f23e-4822-9241-de666e4ce10c","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 4th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-02T16:17:26+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6692013","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02366-0","journal":{"identity":"environmental-management","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Environmental Management"},"publishedOn":"2026-01-30 15:58:45","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 30th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-06-04 11:14:55","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s00267-025-02366-0","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-025-02366-0","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6692013","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6692013","identity":"rs-6692013","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}