
Réunion Island is a volcanic tropical island in the Western Indian Ocean, where land and sea governance are closely interconnected. Its Exclusive Economic Zone includes both the island’s terrestrial area and surrounding marine ecosystems, which are under increasing pressure from urban expansion, coastal erosion, biodiversity loss, and climate change.
Although large parts of the island are protected through a National Park and marine protected areas, coastal development, pollution, and fragmented governance continue to threaten ecological resilience and long-term sustainability. Managing these challenges requires stronger integration between terrestrial and marine planning systems.





Problem statement
The main governance challenge on Réunion Island is the fragmentation of planning and decision-making across multiple institutions and governance levels. Several strategic planning frameworks exist, such as the SAR, SMVM and DSBM, but they are managed by different authorities and often operate in parallel rather than in coordination. At the same time, urban development, agriculture, and tourism continue to increase pressure on coastal ecosystems. Weak political leadership, limited long-term strategic coherence, and insufficient integration of scientific knowledge into policy reduce the effectiveness of land-sea governance and climate adaptation efforts.
Impact
The case study shows that improving governance on Réunion Island depends on better coordination between institutions, stronger stakeholder participation, and the use of scientific and strategic foresight tools. Existing initiatives such as the Agence Régionale pour la Biodiversité (ARB), participatory platforms like SeaSketch, and scenario planning projects such as ATP Domino demonstrate the potential for more integrated governance. However, participation remains limited, especially for civil society and marginalised groups. The project highlights the need for governance systems that connect environmental protection, social resilience, and economic development more effectively.
Workshops
Workshop 1
Stakeholder insights on existing barriers
Workshop 2
Vulnerability Assessment
Workshop 3
Governance Challenges and Strategic Foresight
Réunion - Workshop 1
Workshop 1 (WS1) was the first stakeholder dialogue within the Blue Green Governance (BGG) case study for Réunion Island, focusing on coastal and marine governance across the island’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and its land–sea interactions. Réunion faces growing pressures from urban expansion, coastal erosion, biodiversity loss, coral reef degradation, and increasing climate-related hazards such as sea-level rise and extreme weather events.
Participants
The workshop brought together stakeholders from public administration, research institutions, NGOs, economic sectors, and coordination bodies to identify the main environmental pressures, governance barriers, and vulnerability dimensions shaping long-term resilience.
Focus
The workshop focused particularly on fragmented governance, weak coordination between planning instruments, and the need for stronger integrated land–sea management.
Main climate and environmental pressures
- Sea-level rise and coastal erosion: Increased coastal submersion and shoreline retreat; greater risks for infrastructure and low-lying urban areas.
- Extreme weather events: More intense storms and cyclones increase coastal vulnerability.
- Changes in rainfall patterns. Greater runoff, sedimentation, and transfer of pollutants from land to sea; long dry periods followed by heavy rainfall intensify erosion.
- Marine heatwaves and rising ocean temperatures: Strong pressure on coral reefs and marine biodiversity.
- Reduced effectiveness of traditional coastal protection. Existing shoreline defenses are becoming less effective, requiring more transformative adaptation strategies
Participants emphasized that climate risks are amplified by the concentration of population and infrastructure in the narrow coastal lowlands.
Human pressures intensifying those risks
- Urban sprawl and land-use planning: Coastal development prioritizes housing and economic growth over ecosystem protection, resulting in habitat loss and surface runoff increase.
- Agriculture: Sugarcane monoculture contributes to sedimentation and pollution through runoff.
- Tourism is concentrated along the coast, increasing artificialization and ecological pressure.
- Land-based pollution: Wastewater and stormwater discharges reduce coastal water quality
- Habitat fragmentation caused by poorly coordinated planning and lack of integrated land–sea governance
Participants also highlighted a strong overreliance on short-term development priorities at the expense of long-term resilience and sustainability.
Main governance challenges
Institutional fragmentation
- Multiple planning frameworks exist (SAR, SMVM, DSBM), but coordination between them remains weak
- Responsibilities are spread across international, EU, national, regional, and municipal levels
- Policies are often developed in silos, reducing coherence and effectiveness
- Weak political leadership and limited long-term strategic vision
- Governance dysfunctions such as poor institutional guidance and corruption concerns
Although initiatives such as the Agence Régionale pour la Biodiversité (ARB) aim to improve cooperation, stakeholders stressed that integrated governance remains insufficiently institutionalized.
Key vulnerabilities
Subsistence and Survival
- High dependence on imported goods makes food security fragile
- Food autonomy is considered a major strategic issue
- Marine ecosystem degradation directly threatens food resources and basic services
Environmental Distribution
- Access to healthy ecosystems is seen as essential for both protection and quality of life
- Coral reefs and mangroves provide crucial coastal protection against erosion and flooding
- Environmental inequalities exist in access to ecosystem services
Social and Financial Dimensions
- Environmental degradation threatens cultural identity, social cohesion, and community well-being
- Tourism, fisheries, and local economic resilience depend heavily on healthy coastal ecosystems
Participants emphasized that ecological degradation is not only an environmental issue, but also a direct social and economic risk.
Improving governance by participation, science, and foresight
Participation is improving, but remains limited
- Institutionalized participation mechanisms are still underdeveloped
- Civil society and marginalized groups are not consistently involved
- Tools such as SeaSketch and initiatives like the SAR Caravan show potential for stronger citizen engagement
Scientific knowledge is strong but poorly integrated
- Universities and research institutes generate important knowledge on biodiversity and land–sea interactions
- Scientific evidence is not consistently translated into policymaking due to weak coordination and mismatched political and academic timelines
Strategic foresight exists but is not embedded
- Scenario tools and modelling projects exist (e.g. ATP Domino, Descartes)
- However, foresight remains sporadic rather than institutionalized
Digital tools
- Digital tools are used for monitoring (GIS, satellite data), but governance integration remains weak and many tools are poorly adapted to the local context.
Réunion - Workshop 2
The second workshop explored how environmental risks affect different dimensions of life on Réunion Island through a vulnerability questionnaire developed with the University of Paris-Saclay. Participants from administration, academia, and business assessed how coastal risks influence six social and environmental dimensions.
1. Introduction of vulnerability dimensions
Six categories were introduced: subsistence and survival, environmental distribution, social dimension, financial capacities, political agency, and autonomy and creation.
2. Questionnaire and participant input
Respondents evaluated the importance of each dimension and provided qualitative comments explaining how environmental risks affect each area.
3. Analysis of key vulnerabilities
Basic needs such as food security and transport were seen as highly vulnerable due to island dependency on imports. Environmental distribution was identified as essential because coral reefs and coastal ecosystems provide direct protection and services.
4. Social and economic interpretation
Participants linked ecosystem degradation to cultural identity, social cohesion, and financial resilience, especially in tourism and fisheries. Coastal degradation was seen as both an ecological and economic threat.
5. Governance reflection
Political agency received mixed responses, showing uncertainty about how citizens can influence decisions. This highlighted the need for stronger participatory governance and more visible civic engagement.
Réunion - Workshop 3
Alongside the workshops, twelve interviews with institutional and academic stakeholders supported a broader discussion on governance barriers and opportunities for integrated planning. This phase focused on the use of scientific knowledge, strategic foresight, and digital governance tools.
1. Identification of governance barriers
Participants highlighted fragmented institutions, weak coordination between planning frameworks, and limited long-term strategic vision as the main barriers to effective governance.
2. Review of participatory practices
Existing projects such as Océan Metiss and the SAR Caravan showed the value of participatory tools like SeaSketch, but participants noted that broader citizen involvement remains insufficient.
3. Assessment of scientific knowledge use
Strong scientific expertise exists through institutions such as the University of La Réunion, CIRAD, and IFREMER, but research is not always effectively translated into policy decisions.
4. Strategic foresight and scenario planning
Scenario-based projects such as ATP Domino and Descartes demonstrated how foresight can support future land-use planning and climate adaptation, but these practices are not yet structurally embedded.
5. Recommendations for integrated governance
The workshop concluded that better alignment between SAR, SMVM and DSBM, supported by local digital tools and stronger stakeholder participation, is essential for long-term resilience and sustainable land-sea planning.





