Seven coasts, one recurring problem

The BlueGreen Governance project exploreds coastal governance in seven regions across Europe: the Oslofjord in Norway, the Scheldt Estuary shared by the Netherlands and Belgium, Valencia and the Canary Islands in Spain, Réunion Island in France, Slovenia, the North Adriatic in Italy, and the Isle of Wight in the United Kingdom. At first glance, these regions appear vastly different. Despite their very different landscapes, histories, and political systems, these regions share a striking common pattern: land and sea are still largely governed through separate institutions, priorities, and decision-making systems. Even where comprehensive plans and environmental frameworks exist, implementation often remains disconnected.

Too many cooks, not enough coordination

Stakeholders across several case studies highlighted how governance responsibilities are spread across multiple authorities, making coordination difficult and slow. In Valencia, for example, participants described the complexity of aligning decisions between national, regional, and local governments. In the Oslofjord, agencies were often seen as working independently rather than through a unified governance structure. Similar governance fragmentation was observed in the Scheldt Estuary, where overlapping institutional responsibilities complicate long-term flood risk and ecological management.

Science is there, but is it being used?

Scientific knowledge is widely available across many of these regions, but translating it into action remains a challenge. The Scheldt Estuary stands out for its strong scientific monitoring systems and long-term scenario planning, while Réunion Island has developed extensive environmental research and data infrastructures over the past two decades. However, even in these cases, stakeholders noted that scientific information is often used to describe environmental conditions rather than actively shape adaptive governance decisions.

Other regions face additional barriers. In the Isle of Wight and the Canary Islands, stakeholders pointed to limited institutional capacity, political complexity, and inconsistent use of scientific evidence in decision-making. Across most case studies, scientific expertise exists, but stronger science–policy integration is still needed.

Governing for the future, not just the present

One of the clearest findings across all countries is the weakness of long-term strategic foresight. Scenario planning and future-oriented governance approaches remain limited in many regions. While the Scheldt Estuary demonstrates relatively advanced climate adaptation planning and scenario development, most case studies still focus heavily on short-term management rather than preparing for long-term environmental transitions.

Participation: box-ticking or genuine influence?

Participation presents another important paradox. Formal stakeholder engagement processes exist almost everywhere, but many participants questioned how much influence these consultations actually have. Stakeholders from several regions described participation as procedural rather than transformative. Economic trade-offs, institutional hierarchies, and power imbalances continue to shape whose voices matter most in final decisions.

Digital tools: promise and pitfall

The same pattern appears in digital governance. Although online platforms, GIS systems, and environmental dashboards are increasingly used, many remain fragmented, difficult to access, or disconnected from everyday governance processes. Technology alone cannot improve governance unless it genuinely supports transparency, collaboration, and shared learning.

More than a technical fix

What these case studies collectively demonstrate is that sustainable land–sea governance is not simply a technical challenge; it is an institutional and social one. Effective governance requires stronger coordination across sectors, better integration of scientific knowledge, meaningful stakeholder participation, and a greater willingness to think beyond short political cycles.

Perhaps the most important lesson is that institutional change happens gradually. It emerges through dialogue, experimentation, collective learning, and the continuous negotiation of competing interests and futures. In a rapidly changing climate, building that adaptive capacity may be one of the most valuable governance tools Europe can develop.

Want to read more about coastal governance in seven case studies: read the report Monitoring and evaluation of policy experiments

Please notice: BlueGreen Governance will start a series of webinars in the autumn. This webinar series will present different approaches and tools for improving coastal governance and illustrate how they have been used in different places to support planning and policymaking. Follow the website for announcements.