
The Canary Islands are one of Europe’s most climate-vulnerable island regions and are classified as an EU Outermost Region due to their geographical isolation and strong dependence on coastal ecosystems. Tourism, housing, ports, and critical infrastructure are heavily concentrated along the shoreline, making coastal zones highly exposed to sea-level rise, flooding, erosion, and extreme weather events. Within the BGG project, Gran Canaria was selected as the main case study because it reflects the wider governance challenges across the archipelago. Its coastal hotspots—such as Arinaga, Arucas, Guanarteme and Maspalomas—illustrate how climate risks directly affect both natural heritage and economic resilience.
Lead Aridane Gonzalez:
“BGG helps all levels of administration, NGOs, business and residents work together on the Canary Islands”
Problem statement
The main governance challenge in the Canary Islands is fragmentation across five administrative levels: European, national, regional, island (cabildo), and municipal. Responsibilities for climate adaptation and coastal management are spread across these layers, often resulting in overlapping mandates, excessive bureaucracy, and weak coordination. Decision-making is slow, while tourism development, urbanisation, and historical occupation of high-risk coastal zones continue to increase exposure to flooding and erosion. Scientific knowledge is not consistently integrated into policymaking, and citizen participation often remains consultative rather than influential. Limited staff capacity and unstable funding further weaken implementation.
Impact
The Canary Islands case shows that successful climate adaptation depends as much on governance reform as on technical coastal protection. The BGG project helps public administrations, researchers, NGOs, businesses, and residents work together around shared risks such as sea-level rise and beach loss. Stakeholders strongly agree that stronger inter-administrative coordination, better science-policy integration, and more meaningful citizen participation are urgently needed. Nature-based solutions such as dune and wetland restoration, supported by the regional Climate Change Law and strategic foresight tools, offer promising pathways for long-term resilience. The project aims to move from fragmented responses toward collaborative blue-green governance.
Workshops
Workshop 1
Exploring the Horizon:
Land-Sea Governance and Risk Mapping
Workshop 2
Vulnerability Assessment and Governance Reflection
Canary Islands - Workshop 1
Workshop 1 (WS1) was the first participatory step within the Canary Islands case study of the Blue Green Governance project. It brought together stakeholders from public authorities, academia, civil society, and key economic sectors to identify the main climate risks, governance barriers, and adaptation needs for the coastal zones of Gran Canaria.
The workshop focused on understanding how sea-level rise, flooding, coastal erosion, and extreme weather events affect coastal communities, ecosystems, and economic activities, while also exploring how governance systems can better respond through stronger coordination, participation, and long-term planning.
Main climate and environmental pressures
Sea-level rise and flooding
Coastal urban areas, tourist infrastructure, housing, and essential services are highly exposed. Participants emphasized:
- recurrent flooding of residential and tourist areas;
- loss of property and infrastructure damage;
- salinization of coastal aquifers;
- beach loss and reduced tourism attractiveness;
- increasing risks for public safety and local quality of life.
Coastal erosion
- accelerated beach loss;
- degradation of dunes and natural barriers;
- reduced ecosystem resilience;
- direct impacts on tourism and shoreline stability.
Extreme weather events (storms, heavy rainfall, heatwaves):
- increase flood risks;
- damage infrastructure and biodiversity;
- affect fisheries, tourism, transport, and urban planning
Main vulnerabilities, conflicts, and synergies
The workshop showed that vulnerability is not only environmental, but also social, economic, and political.
Most urgent vulnerability dimensions
Subsistence and survival
- Strong dependence on external resources for water, food, and energy increases fragility.
- Coastal populations and critical infrastructure are highly exposed to floods and storms.
- Climate degradation threatens drinking water, food security, and housing.
Environmental distribution
- Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services was considered highly critical.
- Coastal ecosystems provide essential protection, climate regulation, and water access.
- Their degradation directly affects both resilience and human well-being.
Political agency
- Lack of coordination, slow decision-making, and weak participation were seen as major vulnerabilities.
- Political action was considered a vital cross-cutting issue for successful adaptation.
Main conflicts identified
- Restricting urban development in high-risk coastal zones creates conflict with property owners, tourism investors, developers and local governments.
- Economic interests often conflict with ecosystem restoration and long-term resilience.
Additional conflicts:
- relocation of local communities;
- rising housing costs;
- loss of cultural heritage;
- growing inequality between regions (“climate gap”).
Main synergies identified
- Nature-based solutions (NBS)
- Stronger climate legislation
- Better cooperation between governments, science, and citizens
- Long-term adaptation planning
What governance problems hinder climate adaptation?
Fragmented governance
- Responsibilities are divided across regional, island, and municipal authorities.
- Overlapping competences create inefficiency and slow implementation.
- Lack of a shared institutional framework limits effective cooperation.
Excessive bureaucracy
- Administrative procedures are considered too slow and complex.
- Regulations are often outdated, restrictive, and difficult to harmonize.
Limited political will
- Economic priorities—especially tourism—often outweigh climate adaptation goals.
- Political leaders are reluctant to adopt stricter measures due to electoral risks.
Weak participation and poor science-policy integration
- Participation mechanisms are mainly consultative and rarely influence final decisions.
- Scientific knowledge is insufficiently integrated into policymaking.
Canary Islands - Workshop 2
The second workshop focused on vulnerability dimensions and how climate risks affect ecosystems, communities, and governance systems. Participants examined not only environmental threats, but also political, financial, and social vulnerabilities linked to climate adaptation. The workshop also explored relocation scenarios, participation quality, and strategic foresight for future planning.
1. Assessment of six vulnerability dimensions
Participants evaluated subsistence and survival, environmental distribution, social dimension, financial capacities, political agency, and autonomy and creation.
2. Identification of highest vulnerabilities
Housing loss, water access, public safety, and biodiversity decline were seen as highly vulnerable. Environmental distribution and political agency were especially ranked as critical.
3. Political and institutional reflection
Weak political coordination, limited human resources, and the lack of real participation were identified as major barriers. Many stakeholders stressed the difference between consultation and genuine co-decision.
4. Discussion of relocation and social identity
Relocating communities from high-risk coastal zones raised concerns about social cohesion, cultural identity, and the loss of traditional livelihoods such as artisanal fishing.
5. Recognition of economic conflicts
Tourism dependency creates major tensions: protecting beaches and coastal infrastructure is economically vital but also increases resistance to long-term adaptation measures such as zoning restrictions or managed retreat.











