Fisheries management and biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean policy integration: how far are we from policy coherence?

The Mediterranean Sea is one of the world's most extensive biodiversity hotspots, yet its biodiversity is increasingly degraded due to environmental pressures and socio-economic activities, particularly fishing. Although a comprehensive policy framework exists to balance socio-economic needs with environmental protection, tensions persist due to limited integration among relevant policies and institutions. Mediterranean fisheries provide substantial socio-economic benefits, but overfishing remains a critical challenge. Against this background, this paper examines the integration of marine environmental and fisheries policies in the Mediterranean. The study adopts a multi-scale case study approach, covering the full Mediterranean regional level and two national contexts: the Italian North Adriatic and the French Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region. It employs a mixed qualitative methodology combining literature and policy reviews with semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic research. The analysis focuses on coherence between European Union and regional Mediterranean policies, as well as their implementation at the national level in French Mediterranean and Italian northern Adriatic waters. The analysis identifies key challenges in policy alignment and persistent tensions between biodiversity conservation and fisheries management at the policy level. Both the EU's Common Fisheries Policy and the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean incorporate environmental objectives and coordinate with environmental policies and institutions. However, this coherence at higher policy levels diminishes during implementation due to entrenched sectoral silos, power dynamics, varying levels of political will, and differences in available funding. These findings highlight ongoing difficulties in achieving effective marine policy coherence in the Mediterranean. The dilution of high-level policy alignment during implementation underscores the need for stronger enforcement, enhanced cross-sectoral coordination at both institutional and stakeholder levels, and more adaptive governance mechanisms. Addressing these issues is essential to better safeguard Mediterranean biodiversity while balancing socio-economic objectives.

The Mediterranean Sea is one of the largest global biodiversity hotspots, with a long history of anthropogenic and natural elements interacting (Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund, 2017; Myers et al., 2000). Moreover, the region is surrounded by politically, culturally, and socio-economically diverse countries. The northern rim includes wealthier EU Member States, whereas the eastern and southern rims consist mostly of poorer nations with rapidly growing populations (Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund, 2017). The Mediterranean remains one of the most biodiverse regions on Earth. However, it faces profound challenges such as climate change, widespread biological invasions, and intense human use for shipping, tourism, and fishing (Piroddi et al., 2020; Cos et al., 2022; Aurelle et al., 2021; Pisano et al., 2020). Managing these multiple environmental pressures while balancing socio-economic needs requires a strong, internationally coordinated policy framework (Plan Bleu, 2020). Globally and within the EU, biodiversity conservation has gained importance. Numerous policies were agreed to curb the losses of species to increase resilience against other environmental challenges (e.g., Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, Treaty on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions, European Green Deal, and EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030). While the Mediterranean biodiversity is threatened by several interrelated pressures, one of the main pressures remains fishing (United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan and Plan Bleu, 2020). While fishing in the Mediterranean provides significant socio-economic benefits, with 227.000 direct jobs and about three billion euro of revenues annually, it is also resulting in significant overfishing across the region (Piroddi et al., 2020; Penca et al., 2021; FAO, 2023). Only 50% of the exploited fish stocks in the Mediterranean are assessed, with more than half of those being fished beyond sustainable limits (FAO, 2023). Additionally, due to Mediterranean fisheries being mixed, there are significant amounts of bycatch to contend with as well (Bellido et al., 2020; Piroddi et al., 2020; Penca et al., 2021; Katsanevakis et al., 2020; Fiorentino and Vitale, 2021; Ramírez-Amaro et al., 2020).

Efforts to balance the Mediterranean's socio-economic, cultural, and environmental needs have produced numerous policies. Some target specific issues, while others emphasize coordination and holistic management (Boyes and Elliott, 2014; Bigagli, 2015; Bellido et al., 2020; Piroddi et al., 2020; Rilov et al., 2020; Katsanevakis et al., 2020; Kleitou et al., 2021; Ramirez-Monsalve et al., 2016). Both the EU and the Mediterranean Regional Sea Convention (Barcelona Convention) have committed to pursuing Ecosystem-based Management in their marine policies. This has led to increasing integration among the policies, both between the EU and the Barcelona Convention systems, and within them. The EU has established several key framework directives—such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD), Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD)—which together form the environmental pillar of the Integrated Maritime Policy. On the Barcelona Convention's side, their Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Programme (IMAP) and the Ecosystem Approach, as well as SPA/RAC Action Plans (Specially Protected Areas Regional Activity Center) mirror the principles of the EU directives as well. All these policies aim at bringing different sectors and expertises together to produce common, integrated, and holistic implementation documents and improve the status of marine nature.

This paper focuses on the concept of policy coherence, which refers to how well various policies work together, both by exploring synergies and reducing conflicts between objectives and measures, to efficiently achieve various, linked policy objectives (Albrecht et al., 2025). Albrecht et al. (2025) state that coherent policy interactions are determined by the extent to which policies are coordinated and aligned to support shared objectives across and within sectors. Key criteria include consistency and efficiency among policy instruments, as well as the ability of policymaking processes to manage trade-offs and exploit synergies between different policy goals. Effective coherence also requires integration across policy outputs, instruments, and objectives, rather than isolated sectoral effectiveness. Policy coherence is a valuable analytical tool because it helps to identify and assess synergies and conflicts across different policy domains, enabling policymakers and analysts to understand how sets of policies collectively contribute to broad governance objectives rather than working at cross-purposes (Nilsson et al., 2022). Such analyses have been used in Blue Economy studies across the world, where coherence assessments can reveal whether maritime and ocean governance objectives are aligned across sectors or whether gaps and tensions exist that could impede sustainable development (Voyer et al., 2020). In the European environmental policy sphere, coherence analysis has been used to unpack how different climate, energy and environmental instruments interact, revealing how consistency (or the lack thereof) between objectives and tools influences implementation outcomes and the potential for achieving sustainability targets (Lenschow et al., 2018).

Although fisheries management is addressed within frameworks like the MSFD and IMAP (Raicevich et al., 2017), additional policies specifically target fisheries. At the scale of the whole Mediterranean, the Regional Fishery Management Organization (RFMO), called General Fishery Commission for the Mediterranean and Black Seas (GFCM) is managing fisheries, while the EU Member States comply with the EU's Common Fishery Policy (CFP), which, in contrast to the environmental framework directives, remains an exclusive competence of the EU and is largely determined in Brussels, with Member States implementing it directly. Additionally, another RFMO is managing tuna and tuna-like species, called International Commission for the Conservation of the Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which maintains complete control over those specific stocks.

Therefore, despite all these processes, most implementation assessments still show that the environmental objectives have not been reached so far. European Court of Auditors (2020) claims that while frameworks are in place to protect marine environment, the EU has not yet achieved good environmental status, nor sustainable fishing levels, particularly in the Mediterranean. Dom et al. (2016) have found that the first cycle of implementation strategies under MSFD has also lacked ambition and opportunities to improve the marine environmental status. Similarly, the European Environment Agency has also emphasized that the decoupling of harmful environmental practices from the further deterioration of the state of marine environments has not yet occurred (Reker et al., 2019). Several studies have identified inconsistencies among Member States' implementation documents (e.g., Cavallo et al., 2018; Gorjanc et al., 2020; Murillas-Maza et al., 2020). This raises questions about whether policy integration has truly improved coherence, and where the main obstacles persist.

This paper studies the processes in the integration between marine environmental and fisheries policies in the Mediterranean through a case study approach. Policy integration operates across multiple levels of governance. Accordingly, three relevant case studies were analyzed to capture different scales of policy action. One case study examines the context of the entire Mediterranean scale, addressing EU, Barcelona Convention, and GFCM policies. Two additional case studies, one focused on French Mediterranean waters and the other on Italian northern Adriatic waters, examine the sub-national level while also considering national scale implications. The paper examines coherence among framework directives and implementation tools at different levels to assess the region's progress toward more effective and integrated policies. It also identifies remaining challenges and potential solutions.

Given the complexity of the Mediterranean region and numerous interactions between existing marine environmental and fisheries policies, a case study approach has been selected, as it allows in-depth focus on understanding the coherence and implementation challenges in particular contexts, as well as the comparison between those contexts (Creswell, 2007). This study has set up three case studies, one in the Western Mediterranean and the second one in the Adriatic Sea, with the third one focusing on a greater context of the Mediterranean as a whole to frame the other two case studies. These three case studies were selected to represent two regions within the Mediterranean (PACA and Northern Adriatic) that are bound by the same EU and international policies, but differ in the biogeographical characteristics as well as national and sub-national institutional set ups, allowing the study of how coherently the same policies are implemented in different areas within the same marine region. Additionally, the entire Mediterranean case study was added to provide greater context and delve more into the interactions between EU and international policies, which in turn affect the national policy settings.

All three case studies employed the same combination of methods and the general research approach, but also retained independence and flexibility to adapt to the specificities of each case study.

Geographical scope of case studies

Mediterranean

The scope of the Mediterranean case study geographically encompassed the entirety of Mediterranean Sea basin, from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Suez Canal and the Dardanelle Straits (Figure 1). The Mediterranean sea covers about 2.500.000 km2 and is shared between 22 coastal states (along its 46.000 km of coast), of which there are eight EU Member States (Spain, France, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Greece, Cyprus, Malta), four EU Accession countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Turkey), one country with special EU relationship (Monaco), four Eastern Mediterranean states (Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Palestine State), and five Northern African states (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco). The sea has the average depth of 1.500 m, with the deepest point at 5.109 m, with about 5.000 islands across its surface (Telesca et al., 2015).

French Mediterranean (Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur)

The case study focused on the French Mediterranean coastline, which has high environmental and economic stakes. In order to facilitate the analysis, the main area studied was the coastline corresponding to the “PACA-Durance” sub-basin (from the Italian border up to and including the Rhône). This scale of analysis is relevant because it ensures a certain consistency in the players involved (PACA region, DREAL PACA—Direction Regionale de l'Environnement de l'Amenagement et du Logement, for example, see Figure 1).

Northern Adriatic

The Adriatic Sea is a semi-enclosed basin with significant depth and geomorphological variations along its north-south gradient. The Northern Adriatic, averaging 35 meters in depth, contains the Mediterranean's largest continental shelf and features deltas, lagoons, and wetlands along its coast (Zavatarelli et al., 1998). Major Italian rivers, including the Po, Adige, Brenta, Piave, and Isonzo, provide freshwater and nutrients, shaping oceanographic characteristics and making this one of the most productive Mediterranean zones (see Figure 1).

Policy analysis

Policy analysis is a tool to help build understanding of how and why certain policies are conceived, passed and implemented, and what kind of effects they have (Browne et al., 2019). Following Browne et al. (2019)'s typology of different policy analysis approaches, an interpretive orientation of policy analysis has been judged as the most appropriate due to its focus on representational questions, following the work of numerous policy analysts (Bacchi, 2009; Fischer, 2003; Hajer and Laws, 2006; Yanow, 2000). The policy analysis here has focused on the interpretive analysis of Mediterranean and EU marine environmental and fishery policies' implementation. The analysis has been done through desk-based document analysis (see Supplementary material) with each case study focusing on the framework directives or IMAP system and relevant fishery implementation documents at the scales of the whole Mediterranean, French Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur (PACA) region, and Italian northern Adriatic.

The documents were selected on the basis of the thematic association with relevant overarching policies, such as MSFD, WFD, MSPD, IMAP, GFCM 2030 Strategy, Post-2020 Strategic Action Plan for Biodiversity (SAPBIO). The Mediterranean case study only considered strategic and implementation documents at the international level, while the French and the Italian case studies focused on the national and regional governance scales and the relevant documents there. These documents included both official reports and policy texts, academic papers, as well as meeting minutes of the relevant meetings, where implementation of policies was discussed.

Semi-structured interviews

Interviews across the three case studies were undertaken between June 2023 and March 2025, in a number of phases, that corresponded with developments at each of the different case studies. The participant sampling endeavored to reach key policy actors, researchers (in marine and social sciences), representatives of relevant institutions/administrations, District Basin Authorities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Altogether, 28 interviews and two questionnaires were conducted across the three case studies. Some interviews were conducted in person, while the majority took place online and lasted between 60 and 90 min. Table 1 gives a general overview of the types of respondents. The respondents were identified through existing networks, attendance at relevant national and international conferences, and through a snowballing technique. The interviews were semi-structured and adapted to the specificities of each case study (Interview Guides can be found in the Supplementary material). The interviews focused on analysis of the state of coherence between fisheries and environmental policies that were relevant for each of the case studies (see Table 2) and to discuss with interviewees about how these policies are implemented, where the gaps and challenges lie, as well as where possible solutions might lie. The interviews were conducted in English, French, Italian, Croatian, and Slovenian, with the aim to discuss in the language that was most convenient for the participant. All interviewees were recorded, before being transcribed and pseudonymised to protect the participants' identities. The transcriptions of the interviews were then used in comparison with the review of policy documents (see section above) and to provide context, clarifications or insights into how the interactions between different policies and their instruments worked out in practice.

Supplementary data collection methods

Complementing policy analysis and semi-structured interviews, a variety of other methods have been used in concert to provide more context for the results. Within the full Mediterranean and French Mediterranean case studies, ethnographic observations were used by joining French public consultation webinars and analyzing the reports of public debates held, while within the Mediterranean case study, the discussions during the GFCM Fish Forum 2024 were followed and used to provide a wider contextualization of the situation.

Case study results—Mediterranean

The Mediterranean's marine environmental policy landscape is complex, shaped by the interaction of EU, Mediterranean, and international policies involving a wide range of actors (Figure 2). The Barcelona Convention's post-2020 SAPBIO serves as the main biodiversity framework, aligning its system with the Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and, by extension, with the European Green Deal and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (BDS2030). Several species- and habitat-specific action plans have been developed at the Mediterranean level to guide regional protection measures, sometimes extending beyond the scope of the EU Habitats and Birds Directives. However, those documents remain on the strategic level, while the implementation and adopting concrete actions remains at the level of individual States.

On the other hand, the fisheries policies at the regional level are legally more directly influential. The GFCM and the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) work closely together. GFCM Decisions are binding on all Mediterranean States and are immediately adopted as CFP Delegated Acts, which makes them enforceable within the EU legal framework. On the issues of tuna and tuna-like species, ICCAT retains full control and enforcement of the governance of those stocks, through their Management Decisions.

The Mediterranean EU Member States are further bound or expected to follow additional EU strategies and legislation, particularly relevant for the topics of biodiversity and fisheries are the EU BDS2030, Marine Action Plan, Habitats and Birds Directives, as well as MSFD. EU policies overlap with broader Mediterranean frameworks. The MSFD is largely mirrored in the Barcelona Convention's IMAP, and several BDS2030 targets appear in the post-2020 SAPBIO—though not all, such as the 10% strict-protection goal for the entire Mediterranean. An exception to this are the policies around Maritime Spatial Planning. EU Member States must implement the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD). At the Mediterranean scale, however, only the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Protocol existed until recently. Although it shares similar objectives, it has a narrower spatial scope and focuses more on coastal and land–sea interactions. Only recently, in 2023, did the Barcelona Convention also adopt an MSP Decision, which sets the foundation for future MSP-related work at the scale of the whole Mediterranean.

At the Mediterranean scale, the post-2020 SAPBIO biodiversity framework aligns with the GFCM 2030 Strategy for fisheries. Both the Barcelona Convention and the RFMOs (GFCM and ICCAT) have committed to the global 30 × 30 target of conserving 30% of land and sea by 2030. The SAPBIO and GFCM 2030 Strategies were developed in close cooperation and are aligned in objectives, timelines, and assessment schedules, although assessments are conducted separately. The main institutions have some formal arrangements in place too. UNEP/MAP, as Barcelona Convention's Secretariat, has a signed Memorandum of Understanding with GFCM, which is the basis for their cooperation, while GFCM and ICCAT also have a more limited Letter of Cooperation in place. Nevertheless, ICCAT stands a bit apart from closer integration and has no formal relationships with the Barcelona Convention.

These policy alignments appear to have driven measurable progress. GFCM actions have reduced overexploited stocks by 31% in the past 2 years (FAO, 2023) and established new, partly strongly protected Fishery Restricted Areas (FRAs) now being considered as Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs). The example of Jabuka/Pomo Pit in the Adriatic Sea is often brought up as a success case. Barcelona Convention and GFCM have also already established fruitful collaboration, which was particularly well developed in the MedByCatch and Depredation projects (funded by the MAVA Foundation). Within these two projects, both institutions collaborated well and managed to prepare both new/updated species action plans for the Barcelona Convention and fishery decisions in GFCM.

Despite progress, major challenges persist. Over 58% of fish stocks remain overexploited, and only half of commercially exploited stocks are assessed (FAO, 2023). Spatial protection is also limited: less than 10% of the Mediterranean is formally protected, only 1–3% is effectively managed, and just 0.1% enjoys strict protection (United Nations Environment Programme/Mediterranean Action Plan and Plan Bleu, 2020). Both relevant RFMOs are actively involved in global biodiversity frameworks and are contributing to the discussions around the definitions of Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs), although the discussions around the contributions of OECMs to 30 x 30 targets are diverging among the interviewees. Some stakeholders argue that all FRAs should count toward the 30 × 30 targets. By this reasoning, the Mediterranean would already meet the target, since bottom trawling is banned in waters deeper than 1,000 m—an area covering more than half the sea. Others fiercely dispute such interpretation of OECMs and argue that only those Fishery Restricted Areas with clear conservation outcomes could be considered. GFCM is only considering three current Fishery Restricted Areas as potential OECMs (Jabuka/Pomo Pit, East of Adventure Bank, West of Gela Basin). These three FRAs cover 3,366 square kilometers (0.13% of the Mediterranean Sea). There is also work advancing on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) in the Mediterranean, although some interviewees have pointed out that here the region is lagging behind other European regional seas, such as the North-East Atlantic. Currently, four VMEs have been defined and closed to fishing in the Mediterranean (Bari Canyon, Lophelia reef off Capo Santa Maria di Leuca, Eratosthenes seamount, Nile delta area cold hydrocarbon seeps), altogether covering 15.862 square kilometers (0.63% of the Mediterranean Sea). Therefore, their contribution to reaching 30 x 30 will be minor, even if they get recognized as OECMs.

The high-level coherence between Mediterranean fisheries and biodiversity policies starts unraveling when one moves to more specific implementation steps. It has been pointed out that some of the vulnerable species that have been listed as protected under the Barcelona Convention and that have agreed Action Plans since 2012, or that are listed on Annexes of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, have not yet been given the same statuses under GFCM Decisions and in fact some are still targeted and sold openly on fish markets. A policy analysis of the integration of biodiversity commitments into fishery management plans through GFCM Decisions has shown the same patterns [cetaceans and most of birds and reptiles are covered in GFCM Decisions, but only a minority of fish, arthropods, cnidarians, molluscs, echinoderms and plants are covered, and none of the Porifera (sponges), Bryozoa (moss animals), Chlorophyta (green algae), Rhodophyta (red seaweeds), and Heterokontophyta (brown algae)].

The gap between the aligned policy objectives at the high levels and the implementation is not particularly surprising, considering the variety of challenges that the Mediterranean Sea is facing. Among those, the most often mentioned were the national implementation of policies, limited enforcement, complex geopolitical situation, funding, and insufficient political support and prioritization reported by interviewees. The implementation of policies is in the national hands and there is limited influence of international organizations over national implementation patterns. Outside of the EU waters or management of tunas (ICCAT), the enforcement mechanisms are scarce. Therefore, numerous interviews pointed out that the Mediterranean functions based on cooperation, communication, and collaboration. There are numerous cases of best practices of such collaborations being very successful and could be further upscaled. Therefore, while this complexity and the need to establish such cooperation can be seen as hindering the policy implementation, others claim that the strength of the Mediterranean and its institutions is in this way of working.

Funding and resource allocation are arguably the main challenges at the Mediterranean level. The funding issue goes beyond the lack of funds for Mediterranean-level institutions to the fact that experts from the Mediterranean south and east have less opportunities for engaging in international projects and exchanging knowledge and skills than experts from the Mediterranean north. Due to persistent funding shortages, much implementation occurs through externally financed projects supported by the EU, World Bank, Global Environment Facility, international foundations (e.g., CEPF, MAVA), national development agencies, and philanthropies. The funding challenge has also been attributed to a lack of finances for the policy instruments underneath the overarching policies and the limiting of their effectiveness, follow up, and support that can be offered to the states, that are often struggling themselves with other development issues.

The persistence of sectoral silos remains the main obstacle to policy coherence. Even at the European Commission level, coordination between Directorate-General for the Environment (DG ENV) and Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) is incomplete, with differing approaches to fisheries management. While the European Commission is representing the EU as the contracting party to the Barcelona Convention, GFCM, and ICCAT, the unaligned positions can present an issue. This split continues to national administrations with highly segregated biodiversity and fisheries authorities, often in conflict with each other and stuttered communication between them. Although Barcelona Convention representatives, NGOs, and marine protected area (MPA) managers regularly attend GFCM and Mediterranean advisory council meetings, environmental or conservation-oriented proposals often fail to gain support within the GFCM. These silos then result in the situation when one ministry agrees the protection of species, but their fishery counterpart is either unaware or opposed to the passing of relevant fishery measures to manage them, which is where coherence disintegrates. This can be linked to the lack of political will as a root cause. Funding allocations, adoption of biodiversity-oriented GFCM measures, and expansion of protected areas were often described as influenced by the level of political commitment and prioritization.

Case study results—French Mediterranean

The implementation of European marine policies in France operates within a complex administrative and political framework (see Figure 3). The WFD, MSFD, and MSPD are implemented across seven governance levels: European, national, regional, local, marine regions, hydrographic basins, and maritime façades. Each level involves different stakeholders, including administrative bodies, compliance authorities, and scientific institutions. Additionally, sectoral policies, such as those governing fisheries and offshore wind energy, bring their own sets of regulations, plans, and institutions. Land-based sectors like tourism and agriculture also significantly affect coastal and marine environments.

In the French Mediterranean, the WFD, MSFD, and MSPD are implemented coherently, with clear divisions of responsibility between the Water Agency and the Interregional Marine Directorate. In France, a distinctive feature is the integration of the MSFD and MSPD into a single planning document—the Marine Strategy—which enhances coherence between environmental and spatial planning objectives. Although there is no dedicated institution managing the land-sea interface, coordination mechanisms have been established to ensure consistency. These include regular inter- agency meetings and mutually supportive programs of measures. In contrast, sectoral policies—particularly fisheries—operate largely in silos, prioritizing economic development and maintaining independent decision-making and implementation tools, with limited coordination. This fragmentation can undermine marine biodiversity objectives.

As in other EU Member States, fisheries and environmental policies in France are implemented through a complex policy framework. Fisheries policy remains an exclusive EU competence, while environmental matters are shared between the EU and Member States. This case study focuses on the national implementation of fisheries policy through the Ministry of the Sea ((2022)), the National EMFAF Programme, Regulation (EU) 2019/1022, and the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code and related decrees. It also considers the Law n ° 2016-1087 on the Recovery of Biodiversity, Nature, and Landscapes, and relevant international decisions, such as GFCM/46/2023/1 and CFP regulations and quotas.

Fisheries governance in France remains highly centralized. Implementation mechanisms are designed at the ministerial level—primarily within the Ministry for Ecological Transition and Solidarity and the Directorate for Maritime Affairs—through strategic documents such as the Ministry of the Sea ((2022)) and the National EMFAF Programme. Allocations of landing quotas and maximum fishing efforts, as determined under the CFP, are also made at the ministerial level and then delegated to regional organizations. Due to the exclusive competence of fishing policy, the EU and GFCM regulations tend to have a strong role in French fisheries as well. Regulation (EU) 2019/1022 established a multi-annual plan for demersal fisheries in the Western Mediterranean to promote conservation and sustainable exploitation. Under this regulation, France imposes an annual three-month ban on bottom trawling within six nautical miles of the coast, generally from May to July. Regional adjustments apply in areas such as the Gulf of Lion and the Corsican coast. GFCM decisions, such as GFCM/46/2023/1, are implemented in France through the designation of Fishery Restricted Areas in the Gulf of Lion. One small zone is entirely closed to fishing, while another prohibits bottom trawling from September to April to protect red mullet and hake stocks. These restrictions are enforced by the Directorate for Maritime Affairs and the Maritime Prefectures, which may also establish additional marine protected areas. According to the French Marine Science Institute, these measures have been effective, achieving a 55% reduction in catches (Gregoire et al., 2023).

Moreover, France has also established a series of regulations to govern professional fishing activities at sea (mainly through the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code), which must take into consideration both EU and Mediterranean policies. All professional fishers must comply with French and EU authorizations, with vessels holding licenses to carry out specified fishing activities. The Rural and Maritime Fishing Code is accompanied by a variety of ministerial decrees, some published annually. These national-level, centralized policies are then implemented by the Departmental Directorates, which are responsible for issuing fishing landing permits, under the auspices of the Directorate for Maritime Affairs. The issued permits need to be verified by port authorities, particularly in terms of quotas and minimum catch sizes. The quotas are split between fishers who belong to producer organizations and for those who do not, the allocations are done based on catch history.

Private stakeholders also play a key role in implementing the CFP and supporting marine biodiversity protection. The National Committee for Sea Fisheries and Marine Animal Husbandry represents all fisheries and marine aquaculture professionals and defends their general interests in dealing with national and Community public authorities. It participates in the management of fisheries resources as part of responsible fishing and sustainable development. The Committee has established partnerships with the French Office for Biodiversity to train fishermen in the challenges of protecting biodiversity, and with the French Institute for Marine Research to monitor marine species.

The fisheries sector receives substantial support through EMFAF funding, representing one of the largest financial inputs to the French maritime economy. Between 2014 and 2020, France received €588 million to support approximately 3,500 projects. This was made possible through a combination of €250 million from the EMFAF and €300 million in national public aid. The fund was distributed in accordance with key priorities, including the promotion of competitive fishery industry, as well as the steering of the fishing industry toward sustainable development. To support these two priorities, a list of eleven objectives has been established, including a new objective on biodiversity protection. In alignment with these objectives, 1,500 businesses were supported, and 200 projects were funded to protect the marine environment, including support for 50 Natura 2000 protected sites.

Through the EMFAF fund, the PACA Region can boost fisheries sector through economic aid but also influence the implementation of the MSFD and European Green Deal indicators and objectives by deciding on the conditionality of the allocation of these funds. Complementary funds can be distributed through Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAGs), groups of local stakeholders comprised of maritime professionals, associations, local authorities, businesses, and other relevant entities. These groups select local projects and support the operational implementation of EMFAF, taking account of local issues. A total of 71 projects related to small-scale professional fisheries were supported in the PACA region during the 2014–2020 EMFAF program (with exception of COVID fundings to support the industry). Among these projects, 18 focused on biodiversity protection, pollution, and data acquisition. The majority of these projects focused on the management of protected areas, and only one action was financed to actively change practices in the sector (support to a fisher for the purchase of a newer vessel that consumes less fuel).

Between 2021–2024, 35 projects were supported in the PACA region, of these, one action focused on enhancing marine biodiversity knowledge, while 22 actions aimed at hiring a marine guard (one per Natura 2000 or marine protected area) to raise awareness among visitors and users of protected areas about marine challenges. However, no project has yet been funded to changes practices in favor of marine biodiversity protection in the sector.

The EMFAF has a national and regional scope aiming to fit with local needs. One of the financial sub-measures of the EMFAF is “local development led by local actors” which aims to “Enable a sustainable blue economy in coastal, island and inland areas” and promote the development of fishing and aquaculture communities. The EMFAF has been expanded to include more than just professional fishermen at local level. This local envelope has been allocated €2 million in the PACA region and is distributed by local professional organizations in order to best adapt to the needs of local fishermen.

Therefore, the current National Fisheries Operational Programme is aligned with the priorities of the French Mediterranean marine strategy (environmental and economic development programme of measures), with convergence on environmental sustainability, innovation development, as well as the marketing and processing of fishery products. Such convergence suggests a coordinated effort to integrate ecological objectives with socio-economic development in this region. This takes shape through an explicit reference to the objectives of MSFD in the EMFAF specific objective 1.4. Despite these formal alignments, the national EMFAF strategy primarily allocates biodiversity funds to data collection and awareness-raising in marine protected areas. It has not yet been used as a direct incentive to promote sustainable fishing practices. However, despite these advancements, a critical gap persists: none of the funded projects have targeted the transformation of sectoral practices to actively promote marine biodiversity conservation. This discrepancy underscores both the progress achieved in policy formulation and the enduring challenges in translating policy objectives into concrete, practice-oriented interventions. This underlines the main mechanisms for enforcing compliance with CFP stock sustainability objectives and MSFD indicators remain regulatory and coercive, through temporary bans and landing obligations.

Case study results—Italian Northern Adriatic

The governance of the Adriatic Sea fisheries operates through a multi-level framework. At the international level, the GFCM issues recommendations for Geographical Subareas 17 and 18, with Subarea 17 overlapping the Northern Adriatic. These recommendations are central for managing small pelagic and demersal fisheries, key local resources (e.g., General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, 2013, 2019). At the EU level, they are partially reflected in annual Council Regulations that set fishing opportunities for Mediterranean and Black Sea stocks (Council of the European Union, 2024). Fisheries governance intersects with the implementation of environmental EU directives that have been transposed into the Italian legislation (particularly MSFD, WFD, HD, and BD), as well as MSPD (see Figure 4).

At the national level, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty, and Forestry (MASAF) ensures compliance with EU and international obligations, maintaining uniformity in fisheries management. Regional Administrations can develop local management plans for fisheries, limited to internal and transitional waters. Examples include the Management Plan of the Marano and Grado Lagoon, identifying the permitted fishing gear and usage areas to ensure the protection of biodiversity and sensitive species adopted by Friuli Venezia Giulia Region (2023) and the Regional Fishery Chart adopted by Veneto Region (2022). Finally, bivalve fishery Consortia (e.g., the five Co.Ge.Vo—Consorzio di Gestione della pesca delle Vongole), involving bivalves' fisheries companies, play a key role in the management and regulation of bivalve mollusc fishing activities in the Northern Adriatic. They may adopt stricter measures than those required by national or EU regulations, ensuring more sustainable local practices.

To improve coordination, several additional initiatives were established. At the macro-regional level, the Northern Adriatic Fishing District, created by the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies—MIPAAF (now MASAF) in 2010, resulted from collaboration among the regions of Friuli Venezia Giulia, Veneto, and Emilia-Romagna, as well as joint projects with Slovenia and Croatia. The District prepares proposals and local management plans, which are submitted to MIPAF for approval. Additionally, the Socio-Economic Observatory of Fisheries and Aquaculture provides an important structure for the monitoring and analysis of economic and social trends in the fishing sector in the northern Adriatic Sea area. Lastly, another relevant initiative is the CO.VE.P.A. (Consorzio Veneto Pesca Artigianale), that is a consortium of fishers operating in the Veneto region, aiming to preserve, enhance, and promote small-scale artisanal fishing, e.g., by providing coordination and support to the activities, promoting training initiatives for fishers as well as research in the field.

The Italian National Biodiversity Strategy 2030 (Ministry the Environment and Energy Security, 2023) promotes biodiversity conservation and its integration into sectoral policies, including fisheries, wherever feasible and appropriate. Moreover, relevant biodiversity-related directives (i.e., HD, BD, WFD, and MSFD) have been transposed into the national legislation and implemented through plans. These policies are implemented by MASE (the Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security), regional authorities managing natural reserves, and Basin District Authorities in charge of WFD management plans.

Some of these policies include objectives and consider measures aimed at improving and supporting the sustainable management of the fisheries sector. In general, WFD is less directly and explicitly linked to the sectoral policies of fisheries at sea. Nevertheless, achieving good status of inland, transitional, and groundwater bodies can affect coastal biodiversity and, in turn, the economic activities that depend on it. As for MSFD, Italy adopted new targets for the 2018–2024 cycle (Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security, 2019). Targets under Descriptor 3 address commercially exploited species, aiming to reduce overfishing and regulate recreational fishing. Descriptor 6 focuses on sea-floor integrity, seeking to protect at least 10% of exploited seabed and control activities that disturb biogenic habitats. In addition, the Program of Measures (Annex 1 of the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers, 2022) reports some relevant for fishing, such as commercializing edible non-indigenous species (e.g., blue crab), developing training for fishers on sustainability (e.g., bycatch, sensitive habitats, ecosystems services, marine litter), and banning recreational fishing of protected species.

In Italy, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport adopted the Maritime Spatial Plan (MSP) for the Adriatic in September 2024 (Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports, 2024a), alongside with plans for the Ionian and Tyrrhenian areas, following common national guidelines (Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers, 2017). These guidelines emphasize the role of Ecosystem-Based MSP as balancing maritime activities and their conflicts, while supporting environmental protection, ensuring GES and ecosystem service provision.

The MSP defines fisheries-related objectives aligned with the MSFD, such as promoting sustainable small-scale coastal fishing (OS_P|03), promoting the creation of areas aimed at the restoration and protection of fish stocks and the protection of Essential Fish Habitat (OS_P|04), and controlling and combating illegal fishing (OS_P|06). Additionally, the MSP includes a wide package of national level measures to achieve the plan's strategic objectives, aimed at improving the sustainability of the sector, by: (i) promoting co-management agreements between small-scale fishers and managers of MPAs and Natura 2000 sites, aligning with EU biodiversity goals, (ii) implementing an integrated evaluation of knowledge on Essential Fish Habitat of main species, to identify areas to prioritize for protection through spatial and resources' management measures (e.g., FRAs), (iii) strengthening efforts against illegal fishing, including improved monitoring systems and co-management schemes. These measures are further integrated by those designed at the regional level for each sub-area; e.g., (i) measures to support the development of sustainable small-scale fisheries (Veneto and Friuli Venezia Giulia), (ii) measures to regulate the authorization and management of areas where artificial barriers and Fish Aggregation Devices can be placed (Emilia-Romagna).

Nevertheless, as the Italian MSPs were only recently adopted, implementation remains limited. Consequently, despite MSP provides a potential role of integration between sectoral and biodiversity policies, its full capacity and efficacy need to be further developed and explored based on its implementation, monitoring and evaluation. In this sense, the “Report: operational proposal for the start of the implementation and monitoring phase of the plans” (Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports, 2024b) launched with the adoption of the MSP in Italy, already offers the opportunity to develop such coordination. Among the actions to prioritize for the implementation of MSP, there is one in particular aimed at supporting a close and continuous inter-institutional dialogue through the creation of a working group on MSP—MSFD—Biodiversity Strategy 2030 (Protected Areas and Restoration)—Fisheries Policies.

As anticipated, the two Ministries (MASE and MASAF) responsible for the two policies have a clear division of mandates, related to the support to the formulation and implementation of biodiversity policies in the first case and to fisheries management in the second. The same applies at the regional level, where separate departments manage the two policy streams.

The National Triennial Program for Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022–2024 (Ministry of Agriculture Food Sovereignty and Forestry, 2022b) link with biodiversity goals is rather indirect, mainly based on the CFP objective of reaching maximum sustainable yield, reducing fleets capacity and intensifying control over illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing. Likewise, the National Management Plans on hydraulic dredging (Ministry of Agricultural Food and Forestry, 2019) and trawling (Ministry of Agricultural Food and Forestry Policies, 2011) are indirectly linked to biodiversity conservation. For instance, concerning dredge fishing of mussels, they regulate the maximum daily quantity of clams that can be caught by each vessel, establish specific characteristics for the dredges (width, weight), prohibit fishing of certain species with hydraulic dredges such as truffles, and regulate clams' discards. The trawling-related plan includes measures regulating permanent and temporary fishing ban, fishing permits, minimum landing sizes, trawl net selectivity and areas prohibited from trawl net use (e.g., prohibition within three nautical miles from the coast, or inside the 50-meter isobaths—a depth that is not reached in the area—on seagrass beds, other marine seagrasses and in biological protection areas). Lastly, the Ministry adopts every year a Decree with which it regulates the annual fishing ban for the various maritime districts. For instance, the one adopted for 2024 set the fishing ban for the Northern Adriatic Sea between 31 st of July and 13 th of September (Ministry of Agriculture Food Sovereignty and Forestry, 2024). From 1 July to 31 October, the Decree bans otter, rapido, and twin-otter trawl nets within six nautical miles of the coast, except for small-scale vessels (under 15 m) allowed to operate between 4 and 6 miles.

The National Program under the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund—EMFAF 2021–2027 (Ministry of Agriculture Food Sovereignty and Forestry, 2022a) supports the integration of fisheries and biodiversity policies. Its objectives focus on: (i) reducing fishing effort in overexploited areas (e.g., pelagic trawling and purse seining in the Adriatic); (ii) improving the environmental status of marine areas, consistently with MSFD protection measures; and (iii) promoting conservation and restoration in MPAs and Natura 2000 sites, encouraging cooperation between fishers and protected area managers. In addition to this, the four FLAGs (Fisheries Local Action Groups) in the area, funded and supported by EMFAF, have a pivotal role for the integration between biodiversity and sustainable fishing. For instance, in collaboration with research institutes and NGOs, they contributed to the development of projects for the protection of the Caretta caretta (logger head sea turtle, e.g., TARTATUR Project), by suggesting the use of more selective fishing instruments to avoid bycatch, developing recovery and release programs, education programs for fishers and monitoring presence and bycatch of turtles. Finally, FLAGs contributed to developing the management plans for two marine Natura 2000 sites off the Po Delta. These are two adjacent Natura 2000 sites designated by the Veneto Region (IT3270025) and the Emilia Romagna Region (IT4060018), in particular for the protection of the Caretta caretta and the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). The measures adopted by the Regions for the conservation and protection of the Natura 2000 sites [Regional Council Decree Emilia RomagnaRegion (2021) and Veneto Region (2020)], make reference to the measures aimed at the reduction of the fishing effort in the area and integrate them by banning the use of longlines and single or multiple hook lines. Additionally, other activities are forbidden in the area, such as windsurfing and kitesurfing, and the close interaction with the individuals of the aforementioned species.

In summary, sectoral fisheries policies contribute indirectly to biodiversity conservation through temporal, spatial, and technical restrictions on fishing activities. These measures include: (i) the regulation of type and characteristics of gears; (ii) the temporal banning of specific fishing activities, and (iii) the design of areas with specific fishing restriction, such as Biological Protection Zones established at the national level (the study area includes several biological protection zones of small/medium size, i.e.,: the area between Filtri and Barcola that includes the Miramare MPA, Tegnue di Chioggia, Tegnue di Porto Falconera Caorle, and Fuori Ravenna), thereby supporting the restoration and protection of fish stocks and benthic habitats. In addition, the important role of engaging the fisheries community in the development and implementation of biodiversity-related policy and planning is recognized by several plans and initiatives, although could be better valorized.

The current decade is critical for meeting global environmental objectives. These include reversing biodiversity decline and transitioning toward sustainable resource use (Mace et al., 2018; Economou et al., 2020; Katsanevakis et al., 2017; IPBES, 2019, 2024). The global objectives are already ambitious, but the European Union (EU) has been further positioning itself as a global leader in this field (Van Leeuwen and Kern, 2013; Reker et al., 2019). EU policies frequently shape ambitious global agendas, with EU delegations pushing for higher targets in international negotiations (Van Leeuwen and Kern, 2013). The EU's own policies often go beyond the global objectives, such as the goals of strictly protecting 10% of land and sea, or by passing the first nature restoration regulation on the planet through the Nature Restoration Regulation. The EU also benefits from decades of environmental legislation−44 years in the case of the Birds Directive (Bigagli, 2015; Boyes and Elliott, 2014). This long experience has enabled efforts to integrate environmental goals into sectoral policies (Raicevich et al., 2017). Despite all this progress, it is necessary to assess how far we have come to achieve global objectives, given that we are now halfway through the decade.

All three case studies reveal complex governance frameworks for managing fisheries and marine biodiversity. These systems remain divided into sectoral silos, with separate authorities overseeing implementation at international, EU, national, and sub-national levels. Moreover, the fisheries policies have a clearer and more centralized implementation pathway, with regulations decided at the level of the Mediterranean region or the EU and then directly translated into actions on the national and sub-national levels. Biodiversity policies are instead managed mainly by national and regional authorities. Their funding is less defined, and integration into fisheries programmes—such as the European Maritime, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) and Fisheries Local Action Groups (FLAG) initiatives—remains limited. Despite these challenges, increasing levels of integration, at least on the level of policies and cross-referencing of objectives through implementation plans across the directives can be observed, even if this does not always fully translate into the actions on the ground yet.

At the strategic and international levels, fisheries and biodiversity policies are largely aligned. This alignment builds on long-standing collaborations between key institutions. This can be observed in the alignment of the post-2020 Strategic Action Plan for Biodiversity (SAPBIO) with the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean and Black Seas (GFCM) 2030 Strategy, the initiatives in designating Fishery Restricted Areas (FRAs) and ongoing work on recognizing some of them as Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs). This can be similarly observed at the EU level, through the collaboration of European Commission's Directorates-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE), on one side, and Environment (DG ENV), on the other, in formulating and adopting the EU Marine Action Plan, as well as in the integration of biodiversity objectives into national funding priorities within EMFAF and the integration of fishery considerations in national programmes of measures (in Water Framework Directive -WFD and Marine Strategy Framework Directive -MSFD) and Maritime Spatial Plans (MSPs). Similar alignment processes were also observed in French and Italian case studies. In the Italian Northern Adriatic, both the MSFD and the MSP define objectives and measures aimed at supporting sustainable fisheries practices and protecting marine biodiversity. The MSFD Programme of Measures addresses pressures such as bycatch and habitat disturbance, while the MSP strategic objectives promote sustainable small-scale coastal fishing and the identification of Essential Fish Habitats. The EMFAF national programme further supports these goals by aiming at funding measures that reduce fishing pressure in overexploited areas, enhance the conservation and restoration of marine habitats, and promote sustainable resource use. In France, the MSFD and MSPD are even further integrated, as the country has decided to combine the implementation documents of both (the MSFD Programme of Measures and the Maritime Spatial Plan) into the same strategic document, ensuring the alignment between the goals and policies. Like in the Italian case study, the EMFAF national programme in France supports these goals as well, although the results show that the funding of biodiversity initiatives underneath it is limited.

Despite progress, the two policy areas remain mostly independent. Fisheries governance is more streamlined, with internationally agreed regulations directly applied at national and regional levels, as seen in France and Italy. While some fisheries decisions are still proposed at sub-national levels (such as maritime facades and prefectures in France, as well as regional authorities and fishing consortia in Italy), all decisions are framed at the national level by Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and GFCM policy instruments. Moreover, fisheries retain more power, influence, and greater funding levels compared to the environmental policies (Raicevich et al., 2017; Gorjanc et al., 2024). The sectoral split is reinforced by different underlying philosophies. Fisheries policies prioritize economic growth and social benefits, whereas environmental policies view these as secondary to ecological protection (Gorjanc et al., 2024; Raicevich et al., 2017). This sectoral split remains a major barrier to more coherent implementation of fisheries and biodiversity policies. The case studies found examples of the different treatments of protected species between Barcelona Convention's Action Plans and GFCM Decisions, as well as clear differences in the allocations of EMFAF funding on national levels. All three case studies also detailed the complexities in the governance and institutional setups. These illustrate how the implementation of fisheries and marine biodiversity policies remains largely segregated between fisheries and environmental authorities, with this split extending from EU (DG MARE vs. DG ENV), to Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention vs. GFCM and International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas—ICCAT), to national (Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security—MASE vs. Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty and Forestry—MASAF in Italy, Directorates of the Sea vs. Office for the Biodiversity in France) to regional levels (different departments/divisions involved in Italy).

Despite notable progress—both in high-level policy integration and in expanding protected areas, major challenges persist. These must be addressed if global, European, and Mediterranean policy objectives are to succeed. Fortunately, there are some practices that have been identified through the case study approach that seem to have the potential to accelerate moving toward the set of policy objectives.

In EU Member States, the adoption of the MSPD has been seen as exerting additional streamlining and coordination influences over different sectoral policies (Zaucha et al., 2024). As argued in the results chapter, this is the case of the Northern Adriatic case study, where MSP can act as a tool to align and coordinate sector-specific policies, including fisheries ones, with biodiversity conservation objectives. However, it is still too early (due to the recent approval of the MSP) to assess what kind of effects will be felt concretely on the ground. In the French Mediterranean, the authorities have combined the implementation plans under both MSFD and MSPD into one planning document, thus also increasing coherence between them. Similarly, to the Italian case, the effect of this integration on the fisheries policies is still a bit unclear. These examples reflect the intrinsic nature of ecosystem-based and adaptive MSP processes (Zaucha et al., 2024), which aim to enhance coherence among conservation, fisheries, and other maritime sectors while promoting resilience to ecological and socio-economic change (Norse, 2010; Vigo et al., 2024). Such approaches recognize that marine ecosystems and resource uses are dynamic in space and time, and therefore require flexible, cross-sectoral governance mechanisms that can accommodate shifting species distributions, evolving fishing pressures, and emerging conservation priorities (Gissi et al., 2019). Since a new MSP Decision has also been adopted at the level of the Barcelona Convention, to supplement the existing Integrated Coastal Zone Management Protocol, this development can provide further integration potential across the sectoral policies, provided that it will also directly involve GFCM and ICCAT in any implementation processes that will be set up.

The global drive to expand marine protected areas (MPAs) and Fishery Restricted Areas (FRAs) is creating new opportunities for collaboration. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) now have a formal role in implementing Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) objectives. The GFCM, for example, is advancing work on several FRAs, including the Jabuka/Pomo Pit and the Gulf of Lion (Chiarini et al., 2022; Vilas et al., 2021), as well as on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems. Especially since the current extent of protection in the Mediterranean is still far from the 2030 targets, agreed at EU, Mediterranean, and global levels. Nevertheless, the focus should be on the success stories in collaborations between conservationists and fishers. These have been observed on sub-national levels, too, such as the cases of Cap d'Agde in France or Torre Guaceto in Italy (Russi, 2020). Further examples are available in the Northern Adriatic. EMFAF-supported FLAGs have been involved in the formulation of the management plan for the Natura 2000 sites facing the Po Delta and in projects addressing sea turtle bycatch. These activities highlight the potential for local-level collaboration between fisheries stakeholders and conservation initiatives, suggesting opportunities for integrating sectoral and biodiversity objectives in practice, even if challenges and competing interests remain.

It has to be recognized that formal interactions between environmental and fishery authorities and organizations already exist (for example, Memorandum of Understanding between GFCM and Barcelona Convention, cooperation between DG MARE and ENV, inclusion of a variety of stakeholders in the Mediterranean Advisory Council, and the French and Northern Adriatic examples mentioned above). However, these interactions so far have not yet bridged the sectoral silos (Gorjanc et al., 2024; Gorjanc, 2023). A possible way forward, at least for the EU Member States, is through the newly established working group under the EU Marine Action Plan, which brings together representatives of both fishery and environmental authorities to move forward through direct collaboration. Additionally, the European Ocean Pact and the upcoming Ocean Act, which will revise the MSPD, could also further streamline the sectoral interactions, although it is too early to say what the implications of it will be. At the national level, the Northern Adriatic case highlighted what is proposed by the MSP, i.e. the establishment of a technical working group bringing together representatives from the MSP, MSFD, Biodiversity Strategy 2030 (Protected Areas and Restoration), and fisheries policy processes (Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports, 2024b). This measure illustrates a national example of efforts to foster inter-institutional dialogue. If properly implemented, it will represent a concrete opportunity to enhance coordination and coherence among different planning frameworks, highlighting how MSP can contribute to bridging sectoral silos.

Several interviewees emphasized that, despite funding shortages, geopolitical complexity, and knowledge gaps, it is time to accelerate implementation. They noted that Mediterranean institutions and stakeholders are oriented toward collaboration, and that this cooperative approach is already producing results. The examples of this approach are the work ongoing through MedPAN, as well as the MedByCatch and Depredation projects. Additionally, the developments in the functioning of the FLAGs in Italy, as well as a rising proportion of biodiversity related projects funded through EMFAF, both in France and Italy, also indicate the willingness to collaborate across the divides, with such collaborations needing to be fostered in future too.

While considerable progress in achieving greater coherence of fisheries and biodiversity policies and consequent improvements in their implementation has been observed in the Mediterranean, there is still a long and stormy way to navigate to the achievement of relevant policy objectives. Significant acceleration is urgently needed to achieve sustainable fisheries and conserve biodiversity by 2030. Several promising approaches are emerging, though none are fully tested. The key question is whether to wait for more evidence or proceed decisively with the methods that already show success.

The Mediterranean Sea is characterized both exceptionally high biodiversity and persistently complex policy framework, in face of numerous environmental challenges. This study demonstrates that, despite clear progress in aligning fisheries management and biodiversity conservation policies, full policy coherence remains elusive. Strategic convergence among global, EU, and regional frameworks—such as SAPBIO, the GFCM 2030 Strategy, and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030—reflects increasing recognition of shared objectives and the need for integrated ocean governance. Yet, these advances are still more evident in strategic, high level policies themselves than in their implementation.

Fisheries governance retains stronger institutional power, resources, and centralization compared with biodiversity frameworks, which remain fragmented across authorities with limited capacities. This imbalance continues to sustain sectoral silos and limits the translation of policy alignment into coherent, ecosystem-based management. Nonetheless, promising practices—such as integrated Maritime Spatial Planning, EMFAF-supported FLAG initiatives, and locally co-managed areas in France and Italy—illustrate that collaborative approaches can foster meaningful integration on the ground.

Overall, the Mediterranean is progressing toward, but has not yet achieved, policy coherence between fisheries and biodiversity policies. Realizing this goal will require strengthening inter-institutional mechanisms, harmonizing funding priorities, and ensuring that ecological and socio-economic objectives are addressed jointly. Upcoming instruments such as the EU Ocean Act and expanded regional cooperation under the Barcelona Convention and GFCM frameworks provide valuable opportunities to accelerate this process. Transforming policy alignment into coordinated implementation will be decisive for achieving sustainable fisheries and effective biodiversity conservation in the Mediterranean by 2030.