After over a decade of international efforts to include the ocean in the policy discussions at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) annual Conference of the Parties (COP), the ocean has finally been included by, inter alia, a reference to ‘ocean-based action’ in a series of COP outcomes, notable among which is the cover decisions known as the ‘Glasgow Climate Pact’. This article provides the necessary background to the inclusion of the ocean in COP26 outcomes, including the Pact, and examines key issues, impacts and shortfalls of the Pact and other COP26 outcomes, including mitigation, adaptation, finance and human rights. It concludes with suggestions for priority research areas moving forward.

bolanle erinosho, hashali hamukuaya, claire lajaunie, alana malinde s. n. lancaster, mitchell lennan, pierre mazzega, elisa morgera and bernadette snow IntroductionThe ocean's enormity and depth are illustrated by the limited ability of humankind to comprehend it. The current science and policy seascape remains largely fragmented, and as a result the integrity of marine life and the well-being of those (human and nonhuman) dependent on a healthy ocean is being negatively impacted. Fragmented governance is an indirect driver of ocean biodiversity loss due to its inability to provide synergistic solutions to address simultaneously multiple direct drivers for such loss (overfishing, land-based and marine pollution, and climate change). This governance problem is well known (Kelly et al., 2019;Watson-Wright and Valdés, 2018), and to some extent it is being addressed in ongoing international negotiations on an international instrument on marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (A/RES/72/249, 2017). This chapter will shed new light on these well-known problems by applying the lens of "transformative governance," understood as "formal and informal (public and private) rules, rule-making systems and actor-networks at all levels of human society (from local to global) that enable transformative change . . . towards biodiversity conservation and sustainable development more broadly," with a view to "respond[ing] to, manag[ing], and trigger[ing] regime shifts in coupled socio-ecological systems at multiple scales" (Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2021: 21; see also Chaffin et al., 2016 and Chapter 1 of this volume). We share the editors' views that there is a need to shift away "from the technocratic and regulatory fix of environmental problems to more fundamental and transformative changes in social-political processes and economic relations" (Otsuki (2015: 1; see also Chapter 1 of this volume). This can also help us to better understand how ocean biodiversity can contribute to "other environmental and social justice issues" 1 that are interwoven with the ocean in less visible ways than terrestrial biodiversity, such as poverty (Singh et al., 2018) and resource-grabbing (Virdin et al., 2021). 2 All the authors are part of the One Ocean Hub, a collaborative research for sustainable development project funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) through the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) (Grant Ref: NE/S008950/1). GCRF is a key component in delivering the UK AID strategy and puts UK-led research at the heart of efforts to tackle the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In addition, Mr. Hamukuaya was financially supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) toward this research: Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those of the author and are not necessarily to be attributed to the NRF. 1 Chapter 1 in this volume. 2 The term "ocean-grabbing" is increasingly utilized to refer to a situation "[w]here the benefits from use of finite ocean space and resources characterized as pu...

5 Mo'otz kuxtal Voluntary Guidelines for the development of mechanisms, legislation or other appropriate initiatives to ensure the 'prior and informed consent', 'free, prior and informed consent' or 'approval and involvement', depending on national circumstances, of indigenous peoples and local communities for accessing their knowledge, innovations and practices, for fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of their knowledge, innovations and practices relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, and for reporting and preventing unlawful appropriation of traditional knowledge, CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/18, Annex, Montreal, (2016).

This article analyses critically the effectiveness of two EU Directives: Directive 2004/35/CE on Environmental Liability (ELD), and Directive 2008/99/EC on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law (ECD). As the effectiveness of these directives can only be judged through their implementation within a member state's jurisdiction, this article focuses on the United Kingdom-a now former member of the EU. A comparison is made between the implementation of these two directives in two discrete legal systems in the United Kingdom: that of Scotland, and the rest of the United Kingdom (rUK), that is, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This article begins by establishing the roots of the ELD's weaknesses by examining how the ELD has been transposed in the rUK and Scotland. It then turns to whether these weaknesses have been addressed by the implementation of the ECD. Finally, the effectiveness of the ECD regime is assessed by examining how both Scotland and the rUK deal with wildlife crime. This article ultimately concludes that despite implementing the two regimes through separate legal systems, both face similar shortcomings that limit their effectiveness.