From policy to practice: challenges and solutions for coastal local authorities implementing European marine biodiversity policies in the French Mediterranean

1 Introduction

European Union (EU) policy has increasingly emphasized biodiversity conservation, and an integrated, holistic approach to managing the environment and human activities within it, particularly in marine policies (Elliott et al., 2025). To put this policy direction into action, conceptual and governance frameworks like Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) and the Source-to-Sea approach are being adopted, moving beyond traditional sector-based methods. EBM focuses on regional areas, as opposed to traditional sector-driven policy approaches, aiming for integrated planning and coherent management (Soma et al., 2015; Haugen et al., 2024). The source-to-sea approach, recently highlighted in the European Water Resilience Strategy, recognizes the interconnectedness of water systems across inland, transitional, coastal, and marine environments. Effectively managing this continuum requires addressing the distinct dynamics and pressures present throughout these interconnected systems (EC, n.d5.). The shift has been reinforced through framework directives and cross-cutting instruments that provide a common architecture for water and marine governance (Paramana et al., 2023). In particular, the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), and the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD) each pursue distinct objectives but together offer a structure for integrating a diverse range of existing policies in a coordinated and holistic way.

Yet implementation on the ground often remains fragmented and complex, with disjointed conservation and management efforts (Fraschetti et al., 2018; Boyes and Elliott, 2015). While system and policy interactions are being continuously studied at EU level (Lenschow et al., 2018), limited coherence and persistent sectoral silos across key policy areas, such as biodiversity, zero pollution, agriculture, fisheries, and offshore wind, create additional challenges for coherent marine protection (Kyrönviita et al., 2024).

Natural system boundaries, such as river basins and coastal zones, often fail to align with administrative jurisdictions, so different parts of the same water body are governed by multiple rules, authorities, and enforcement agencies. (Granit et al., 2017). This mismatch between ecological and administrative boundaries complicates coordination and the development of nested governance systems that support the wellbeing of the whole Source-to-Sea system (Fraschetti et al., 2018; Boutin et al., 2025; Pröbstl et al., 2025; Granit et al., 2017).

These governance mismatches ultimately translate into practical hurdles for those tasked with implementing marine measures on the ground, primarily local authorities. For example, under the MSFD framework, Programmes of Measures (PoM) combine vertical governance, where objectives and measures are defined at EU and national levels and executed locally, with horizontal coordination integrating sectors within a geographic area in line with EBM principles (Elliott et al., 2023). As highlighted in previous studies, this fragmented and extensive EU marine policy framework places a significant burden on local authorities, risking that ambitious objective for biodiversity conservation, integrated and holistic management of human activities, and recent calls for sustainable economic development under the Blue Growth agenda remain unrealised. Table 1 (in Annex) summarizes the main challenges experienced by local authorities in coastal and marine management, as reported in the European literature.

Table 1. Main challenges for coastal and marine local authorities identified in the European literature.

This study examines the implementation of the WFD, MSFD, and MSPD in the French Mediterranean, focusing on the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur (PACA) region, to highlight the challenges local authorities face in managing coastal areas. This area is a biodiversity hotspot under intense human pressure and governed by complex, multi-level institutions, making it an ideal case to explore the practical challenges of integrated marine management. In this regional context, our analysis shows that implementation remains fragmented and resource-limited, with overlapping frameworks, jurisdictional mismatches, and capacity constraints creating barriers for local authorities. Understanding these challenges matters because they threaten the effectiveness of EU marine policy and the achievement of biodiversity and sustainability goals.

This research aims to identify systemic and operational obstacles in the French Mediterranean, analyse how local authorities navigate these overlapping frameworks, and provide insights to inform policy adjustments and capacity building. Local authorities have expertise and knowledge of their territory, which make them key players in the implementation of these policies. They contribute to the practical implementation of the programmes of measures set out in European directives, target funding and incentive tools, and report on the effectiveness of these measures for the environment. Ultimately, the goal is to make governance more coherent and reduce administrative complexity, enabling local authorities to implement marine policies effectively.

In this article, we refer to local authorities as the official bodies responsible for local governance and policy implementation, encompassing both regional actors [such as the Water Agency, Sea Directorate, regional and departmental prefects, Coastal Conservatory Administration (Conservatoire du littoral)] and municipalities and protected area managers with a specific geographical scope of action. This definition includes both elected officials and civil servants working within those authorities.

After introducing the overarching policy context and research aims, Section 2 presents the relevant EU and French marine policy frameworks, focusing on the PACA region. Section 3 describes the methodology, including assessment frameworks and data collection. Section 4 outlines the main findings on challenges, coordination issues, and good practices among local authorities. Finally, Section 5 discusses these results in relation to existing literature, highlights innovative governance mechanisms, reflects briefly on study limitations, and suggests key areas for future research. Table 2 (in Annex) lists the names of the various policies, documents, and tools in English and French, as well as the acronyms used in the text.

Table 2. Acronyms used in the French Mediterranean case study and related marine governance frameworks.

2 Context

2.1 EU frameworks for sustainable water and marine management

The European Union has established a robust legal framework for sustainably managing Europe's water resources, as well as protecting its freshwater and marine environment (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025b). While the WFD, the MSFD, and the MSPD each pursue distinct objectives, they also offer a structure for integrating a diverse range of existing policies in a coordinated and holistic way. The WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC) focuses on reducing marine pollution from land-based sources and achieving good status for inland, transitional, coastal surface waters, and groundwater up to 12 nautical miles, vital area for marine species (Rodriguez-Perez et al., 2023). The MSFD (Directive 2008/56/EC) extends this ambition to marine waters, addressing issues such as eutrophication, contamination, and marine litter, and the MSPD (Directive 2014/89/EU) adds a spatial planning dimension by requiring Member States to develop MSP that balance economic activities with environmental protection (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025b).

Implementation relies on River Basin Management Plans (RBMP), Marine Strategies (MaS), and Maritime Spatial Plans (MSP), which translate EU obligations into national and sub-national objectives, measures, and monitoring programmes. These instruments are complemented by other EU and national (e.g., Urban Waste Water Treatment, Nitrates, Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive, Common Agricultural Policy, Drinking, and Bathing Water Directives), which target specific pressures across inland and marine waters (EC, n.d1.; n.d2.; n.d3.; n.d4.).

The Source-to-Sea approach, recently mentioned in the European Water Resilience Strategy (EC, n.d5.), recognizes the interconnectedness of water systems across the continuum of inland, transitional, coastal, and marine waters. Effectively managing this continuum requires addressing the distinct dynamics and pressures present throughout these interconnected systems. The multiplication of land and marine instruments in the coastal area has led to an unstable governance where land or marine regime applies depending on circumstances and interests (O'Hagan et al., 2020). This does not imply the need for a single overarching policy or complete uniformity across all policies, but rather that different legal frameworks and policies work together within a joint and coherent structure (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a). Granit et al. (2017), assert that turning this approach into an effective environmental management tool toward sustainability requires defining the appropriate governance scale, assembling a governance baseline and engaging key stakeholders. In line with this, this article reflects the role of the local level as a relevant scale for implementing the Source-to-Sea continuum.

The Ocean Pact, within its strategic framework for tackling pollution and managing land-sea interactions, also presents the Source-to-Sea approach as one of its four key principles (EC, n.d2.). The concept has also been present in earlier initiatives, such as in the Mission Restore Our Ocean and Waters by 2030 when referring to prevention, elimination and remediation measures that tackle pollution and ecosystem pressures along the full water continuum to sea (EC, 2021, 2025).

2.2 The French Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur region

The French Mediterranean coastline stands as a biodiversity hotspot of global significance, hosting over ten protected species and critical ecosystems, such as coral, Posidonia oceanica seagrass meadows, rocky inlets, and island habitats (Deter et al., 2012; Gobert et al., 2009; Houngnandan, 2020). However, this ecologically rich region faces intense anthropogenic pressures, including maritime activities (e.g., cruise shipping, commercial navigation, recreational tourism, and fishing), freshwater-borne pollution (notably plastic waste from the Rhône River), and land-based impacts (e.g., urbanization and untreated wastewater discharges). Historically, the French Mediterranean Sea has been considered a highly polluted area due to sewage discharge, plastic pollution, marine transport, etc. Today, 94% of marine waters are in good environmental status and more than 50% of its marine waters have a protected (Bockel et al., 2024; Boissery, 2024). Figure 1 shows the focus area of this study.

2.3 Multilevel governance of water and marine conservation in France

The governance of freshwater and marine conservation in France, designed to balance conservation and sustainable development, is embedded within a multilayered administrative and political framework (see Figure 2), shaped by European directives aforementioned. These policies are implemented in France across seven governance levels: European, national, regional, local, marine regions, hydrographic basins, and maritime façades (the shoreline), each involving diverse stakeholders, including administrative bodies, compliance authorities, and scientific institutions. Sectoral policies, such as those regulating fisheries, offshore wind energy and agriculture, as well as cross-cutting and spatial planning frameworks that encompass tourism, further contribute to the regulatory complexity.

While the MSFD and MSPD are adapted at the maritime façade level through the Marine Strategy (MaS), namely, the Document Stratégique de Façade (DSF), primarily drafted at the national level, the WFD is transposed at the hydrographic basin level via RBMPs.

Historically, marine environmental issues were partially addressed within French RBMPs, focusing on chemical contamination and eutrophication. The subsequent implementation of the MSFD and MSPD did not alter the role of the RBMP (Directive 2008/56/EC), whose responsibilities remained intact, reinforcing land-sea continuity and aligning environmental objectives across freshwater and marine domains.

Legally, RBMPs and MaS serve as overarching frameworks, mandating alignment of all planning instruments, terrestrial and sectoral, with their objectives. Yet, the practical integration of these frameworks, as elaborated later in this article, remains constrained by the proliferation of planning documents, competing economic priorities, and limited human and financial resources, hindering effective cross-sectoral coordination (Bastide and Loudin, 2025a; Boyes and Elliott, 2015).

Additional policies and planning documents also influence marine management:

• Land-related documents (e.g., SRADDET), enabling coastal municipalities to develop Sea Enhancement Schemes (SMVM), which predate the MSPD and overlap with MSFD objectives.
• Biodiversity protection instruments, such as the Habitats and Birds Directives (H&BDs).
• Local planning tools, including MPA management plans, local water management plans (local adaptations of RBMP and SMVMs.
• Emerging frameworks for marine energy and fisheries, supporting the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the European Maritime, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF).

The previously listed policy documents illustrate that the management of conservation and sustainable development, particularly within the maritime public domain extending from the coastline to 12 nautical miles, involves a diverse array of legal and policy frameworks and related implementing authorities (Figure 2). The barriers for implementing these policies for French local manager lies on regulatory complexity and operational challenges (Boutin et al., 2025). This complexity highlights the need for local authorities to have adequate support, resources, and capacity-building opportunities to effectively manage the balance between conservation and sustainable economic development in the French Mediterranean (Platjouw et al., 2023; Bastide and Loudin, 2025a,b).

3 Method

To understand the complexity and coherence of the policy landscape that applies to the French PACA region, we applied two assessment frameworks developed by the Horizon Europe CrossGov project. Following a wealth of literature on the coherence of EU public policies (Lenschow et al., 2018; Kurze and Lenschow, 2018; Ahlström and Sjåfjell, 2022; Kivimaa et al., 2024). The Policy Coherence Framework (Platjouw et al., 2025), which includes coherence attributes and explanatory variables (Figure 3), helps identify where in the policy cycle (design and/or implementation) or at which governance level (EU, national, sub-national) problems or challenges of policy coherence emerge (Platjouw et al., 2025). In this article we understand policy coherence as how well different policies work together. Coherence can be defined as the extent to which policies strengthen each other by promoting synergies or reducing conflicts between objectives and measures, both in design and during implementation (Platjouw et al., 2025).

The second assessment used was the Science-Policy-Society Interface (SPSI) Assessment Framework. The framework identifies gaps and opportunities to strengthen the connection between different types of knowledge, policymaking, and societal needs through its six building blocks (Figure 4). The SPSI framework is seen as the further elaboration of one of the explanatory variables of the Policy Coherence Framework, something that can help explain the lack of coherence. Both frameworks (the SPSI and the Coherence framework) have been aligned: in the Coherence framework, the guiding questions for the SPSI explanatory variable are the main questions of each building block in the SPSI framework.

A series of guiding questions supported both assessments, providing a structure for evaluating policies from different perspectives. These guiding questions were adjusted to make them fit-for-purpose for the policy context, governance level, and focus of the study (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a). For the Policy Coherence Framework, the analysis focused on questions such as (1) how links are established among the planning documents implementing the three framework directives; (2) how the institutional mechanisms established for implementing the three directives interact; (3) how effective stakeholder engagement processes are perceived to be; and (4) how the framework directives are seen as contributing to biodiversity conditions within MSP processes. Regarding the SPSI Assessment Framework, the analysis addressed the key components identified by the methodology for analyzing the SPSI system: data and knowledge, assessments, knowledge transfer models, permanent SPSI platforms, competences, and funding and resources.

In the French Mediterranean case study, the two frameworks were operationalized through four main steps. First, exploratory interviews were conducted with key informants (Water Agency, Maritime Administration, and an academic expert) to gain a deeper understanding of the policy context and the primary implementation challenges. Second, following the analysis of the aforementioned interviews and the CrossGov research design, we selected a subset of coherence attributes and explanatory variables (five in total), as well as SPSI building blocks (three in total) that were most relevant to this case. Specifically, we focused on policy framing and mainstreaming, policy objectives, stakeholders, institutions, temporal and spatial scales, and data and knowledge, as well as the associated assessment and competence dimensions for researchers and policymakers. These elements were translated into guiding research questions, which structured both the document analysis and the interview protocol. The first phase of empirical work, comprising a comprehensive review of planning documents and eight semi-structured interviews, was carried out between September 2023 and April 2024. Third, drawing on the findings of the preceding phases, we extended the analysis to the remaining three coherence attributes and variables (policy instruments and SPSI) and two additional SPSI components (SPSI platforms and funding and incentives). Between April 2024 and March 2025, we organized an online workshop and continued our participation in public webinars and stakeholder events, and conducted four additional interviews, complemented by targeted desk research, to refine and validate the emerging results. Finally, in the first semester of 2025, we synthesized the evidence into two internal reports and an SPSI coding table (Excel format), which systematically linked empirical observations from documents, interviews, webinars and the workshop to the coherence attributes, explanatory variables, and SPSI building blocks for use in the CrossGov comparative analysis. To address the wide scope of this subject, including numerous policies, sectors and planning documents, empirical data were collected and analyzed through a combination of policy and planning document analysis, participation in public online webinars, and stakeholder events. These activities were structured around the guiding questions mentioned above. The following subsections describe how these approaches took place. The analysis results were documented in internal reports (Bastide and Loudin, 2025a,b).

3.1 Document analysis

Document analysis, as a method for systematically reviewing and interpreting, in this case, written materials (Bryman, 2016) were used to extract meaning, identify patterns, and answer the selected guiding questions from the two assessment frameworks. Starting from the set of policy documents, plans, and program of measure mentioned earlier, and using a chain-referral approach, a list of documents was compiled (Table 3 in Annex). The documents were selected based on input provided during three exploratory interviews conducted in June and July 2023 with the Water Agency, the Maritime Administration, and a researcher specializing in the subject. Documents were included if they: (1) were in force during the study period; (2) contained explicit provisions on marine or coastal freshwater management and/or biodiversity; and (3) assigned implementation responsibilities to regional or local authorities. We first examined the laws and planning documents that reflect national marine management policies at the regional level, followed by their practical implementation at the regional and local levels. Finally, research on sector-specific policies was conducted in a second phase to avoid confusion. A total of 20 planning documents were selected, prioritizing the management of marine and coastal freshwater, as well as those dealing with coastal development, in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of these intertwined policies. This corpus allowed us to trace how the objectives and measures of the WFD, MSFD, and MSPD, and related coastal-territorial policies are articulated across governance levels, in line with the focus of the coherence and SPSI frameworks.

Table 3. Documents analyzed in the French Mediterranean case study and their relevance to the framework directives and/or sectors of interest.

The documents were explored by themes corresponding to the selected coherence attributes and SPSI building blocks (e.g., objectives, measures, institutional responsibilities, temporal and spatial scales, data and knowledge, and SPSI platforms). The content was analyzed with the objective of answering the guiding questions derived from these frameworks. Most of the documents relate to the PACA region, which is the focus of the study. A comparison was also carried out with Corsica's freshwater and land-related documents, as Corsica is governed by the same MaS as PACA. The reviewed documents related to offshore wind energy and fisheries correspond to national-level documents, as there are no regional adaptations. Document analysis took place between July 2023 and April 2024.

3.2 Semi-structured interviews

Fourteen semi-structured interviews took place between December 2023 and August 2024 with local stakeholders and local and regional authority representatives, as well as with researchers specialized in French Marine Spatial Planning and Land-Sea interactions. Interviews lasted between approximately 45 and 90 min and were conducted online, in French, with participants' consent and subsequently summarized in detailed notes (or transcribed, if applicable). The list of institutions and other relevant stakeholders involved in data collection is presented in Table 4 (in Annex). Inspired by the selected guiding questions from the assessment frameworks, a flexible interview guide was drafted containing open-ended questions which were adapted as needed along with the participants' responses (Bryman, 2016).

Table 4. Institutions and stakeholder groups involved in data collection activities for the French Mediterranean case study.

The interviewees were selected by giving priority to representatives of regional authorities responsible for implementing planning documents and action programs (water agencies, maritime authorities, land-use planning and regional authorities, and local administrators), followed by those involved in research and providing support to public decision-makers (researchers, biodiversity agencies), and finally, those involved in sectoral policies (fisheries and wind power). Participants were selected purposively to cover the main institutional roles involved in the design and implementation of marine and coastal policies (regional authorities, agencies, local administrators, researchers, NGOs and sectoral representatives), as summarized in Table 4. To protect confidentiality, we anonymized individual interviewees in the analysis and reporting.

3.3 Webinar-based data collection

Between 2023 and 2024, a public debate on the renewal of the French Marine Strategy (DSF) included approximately 30 online webinars. We attended those most relevant to this study: one addressing freshwater integration, 15 covering offshore wind, and 14 discussing marine topics such as biodiversity and governance. Data were collected through active observation and note taking during these events, and the findings attributed in the results to webinars or public debates are based on these notes and the analysis of the published webinar reports.

3.4 Online workshop

An online workshop with around 20 representatives from universities and public institutions was organized by the case study team on 18 April 2024. The topic was “Ensuring consistent implementation of public policies relating to the protection and use of marine ecosystems.” Three presentations from representatives of public institutions were included: one on the topic of land-sea interface, a second one on the topic of marine policy processes at the MPA scale, and a third one on the articulation of the economic development of biodiversity protection.

The presentations were followed by debates on two topics: (1) “What constraints and/or opportunities does climate change present for strengthening the integration of marine environment management policies?” and (2) “Are the mechanisms for implementing the various marine environment management policies at the local/territorial level (regulatory tools, support, training, and financial instruments, etc.) consistent with each other?” Three group sessions followed on: (1) how to improve policy coherence at the local scale; (2) economic development and environmental protection, and the conditions for decision-making in public financing; and (3) what knowledge (scientific, operational, and local) is needed to improve the coherence of marine environment management policies.

Through the presentations and discussions, it was possible to gather information that could refute, expand upon, or challenge the findings of the first phase (June 2023–April 2024) of the research, while also opening up new avenues for reflection for the second, in-depth phase (April 2024–March 2025). In the Results and Discussion sections, statements explicitly attributed to “workshop participants” or “the workshop” draw on these presentations, debates and group sessions.

3.5 Data coding, analysis, and triangulation

We conducted a qualitative content analysis of all empirical material (documents, interview notes/transcripts, webinar notes, and workshop notes), guided by the selected attributes and explanatory variables of the Policy Coherence Framework and the SPSI building blocks. Inspired by a grounded theory approach to coding (Charmaz, 2001), we developed a codebook that included deductive codes based on these frameworks (e.g., “policy objectives,” “policy instruments,” “stakeholders,” '“institutions,” “temporal and spatial scales,” “data and knowledge,” “SPSI platforms”) and inductive codes capturing emergent themes (e.g., “administrative burden,” “short-term political priorities,” “staff turnover”). The first author applied this coding scheme systematically to the documents and interviews using a structured Excel matrix, and ambiguous segments were discussed with the co-author until agreement was reached.

To ensure the accuracy and impartiality of the data mentioned in the interviews and workshops and analyzed in the interviews, an iterative source verification process was conducted on a regular basis (after each interview or every 3–4 months for document reviews). When multiple interviews provided conflicting accounts, additional verification was conducted using planning documents and scientific articles. On two occasions, follow-up interviews were requested to verify the sources. One interview was ultimately excluded from the analysis due to doubts about the accuracy of the statements made. Comments that were consistent across two different types of interviews (government agencies and public decision-makers, and scientists and government agencies) and were corroborated by document review were retained. Comments that were significantly different and of emerging research interest from an interview received increased attention, including data verification in the documents as well as requests for feedback via interview or email from local government officials, researchers, and decision-makers. This iterative verification process served as a form of methodological triangulation, whereby we systematically compared statements from different interviewee groups (agencies, local authorities, researchers), documentary evidence (planning documents, official reports) and workshop/webinar discussions to corroborate or nuance emerging findings.

As presented above (method section on the coherence and SPS frameworks), after proof checking of the data collected, it was then synthesized and analyzed through two reports (Bastide and Loudin, 2025a,b) based on the coherence and SPS methods and research questions to facilitate the analysis at the European level (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a). The coded material was then synthesized into an analytical matrix that linked each coherence attribute and SPSI building block with (1) insights from the broader literature and (2) empirical findings from the French Mediterranean case. In the Results and Discussion, statements are described as coming from “document analysis,” “interviews,” “webinars,” or “workshop discussions” when they are based primarily on one of these sources, and as “triangulated findings” when they are supported by more than one type of empirical material. This synthesis is presented in Section 5.1 (Table 5), which illustrates how the frameworks structure our interpretation of local governance challenges and solutions.

Table 5. Alignment of key challenges and responses with Policy Coherence attributes and explanatory variables, and SPSI building blocks, based on European literature and the French Mediterranean case study.

4 Results

Drawing on document analysis, interviews, webinars, and the online workshop, and guided by the Policy Coherence and SPSI frameworks, we identify three main sets of findings for the French Mediterranean: the PACA region. These concern: (1) the challenges local authorities face under a largely top-down approach to marine management; (2) coordination difficulties in linking marine biodiversity protection with regional and local governance; and (3) emerging good practices developed by local administrations in implementing biodiversity protection and economic development policies.

4.1 Challenges encountered by local authorities due to a top-down approach to marine environment management

4.1.1 The centralization of decision-making and limited local influence

While the European directives provide a framework for marine management, including streamlining biodiversity objectives, sectoral policies and the numerous planning documents and implementation tools developed in France (see “Context” section), their design and framing in France remain centralized (interviewees from regional and local administrations). Local authorities, such as municipalities and marine protected area (MPA) managers, are often tasked with executing policies and plans designed at the EU and national level, with limited input into their formulation (online workshop discussions). For these local authorities, this creates a disconnection between European strategies defined at the European and national levels (interview with local authorities), and the operational implementation, funding, resources and achievement of good environmental status, which takes place at the local level.

Although participatory processes exist, such as public debate to renew the regional MaS or the existence of a Regional Maritime Stakeholder Council (Conseil Maritime de Façade, described in Section 4.3), final decision-making power remains concentrated at the national level (document analysis and interviews with scientific experts and regional administrations). State representatives prioritize national objectives that sometimes make limited sense for local challenges (interviews with regional and local administrations). An illustrative example concerns the definition of eutrophication criteria. At the national level, expertise relied on a green-tide model developed for Brittany, which led to the Mediterranean being classified as eutrophicated, whereas this was not reflected in measurements by the Water Agency at the local level, leading to questioning relevance of these criteria for their context (interviews with regional and local authorities). This power imbalance is particularly evident in sectoral policies, where economic interests, such as fisheries and offshore energy, dominate environmental concerns (interviews with regional authorities and researchers, supported by our review of sectoral national policy documents).

4.1.2 Governance sometimes disconnected with the solutions needed

This myriad of EU and French described in the “context section” is one of the first challenges for local authorities is to find their place in this complex governance structure.

While all competent authorities adhere to the overarching framework of European directives and French national legislation, their implementation diverges in both prioritization and temporal scope, sometimes producing misaligned marine environment planning strategies (document analysis and regional administration interviews). For instance, the MaS (2018–2024) and the RBMP (2022–2027) operate under distinct regulatory cycles, resulting in incongruent policy emphases: climate change adaptation features prominently in the RBMP yet remains peripheral in the MaS. Such discrepancies necessitate adaptive governance at the local level, where local authorities must reconcile objectives from newer planning documents (e.g., climate change) with the prescriptive measures from older frameworks. These institutional frictions underscore the challenges of integrating cross-cutting environmental priorities into sectoral policies with asynchronous revision timelines (interviews with regional and scientific administration). When considering Source-to-Sea planning documents affecting the marine environment, urban and regional plans (SRADDET) are most revealing: their objectives focus on economic development, with few on biodiversity protection, highlighting a disconnect that undermines local marine efforts (document analysis). SRADDET enables coastal municipalities to draft a “sea enhancement plan” for sea-based economic permits. Although this document must align with the MaS and RBMP biodiversity requirements, among the 14 guiding objectives, only two directly address biodiversity protection (document analysis).

4.1.3 Administrative burden on local authorities

Another challenge is the sheer volume of regulatory requirements they must navigate (Boutin et al., 2025) (local stakeholder interviews and workshop discussions). In the Mediterranean region, local authorities are expected to implement over 5,000 pages of planning documents, including the MaS, RBMP, Natura 2000 requirements, and H&BDs. This administrative burden is compounded by the lack of human and financial resources at the local level, making it difficult for municipalities and MPA managers to ensure full compliance with all obligations. As an example, Figures 5, 6 below show the number of freshwater and marine action plans in a 50,000-inhabitant municipality (Agde), which also corresponds to the location of an MPA.

The complexity of these documents is further exacerbated by the lack of means from regional and national authorities to guide them (local and regional administration interviews). While national agencies like the Water Agency and the Marine Administration provide support, their capacity to assist local authorities is limited, leaving many authorities struggling to interpret and apply the regulations effectively. Due to a lack of resources and time, there is a risk that local authorities will try to tick as many boxes as possible by prioritizing the easiest or least restrictive requirements in order to facilitate their reporting to higher authorities (local administration interviews). For example, the drafting of MPA management plans or “Sea enhancement plan” (land document for the coast) implies that local authorities are knowledgeable of the full list of requirements and obligations of EU and national directives, planning documents and related programs of measure, which is challenging given the current workload and availability of resources of the local authorities. As a marine environment technician from a coastal city of 50,000 inhabitants underlined during the workshop, this can mean reading and implementing up to 5,000 pages of requirements for a relatively small area. T different policy mechanisms (regulation, funding calls, environmental impact assessment) converge at the local level and rely on local authorities, which are often very competent (technicians) but can also be unfamiliar with the management of the marine environment (municipality representatives; interviews with local stakeholders). This gap is particularly pronounced in smaller municipalities, where officials may be unfamiliar with marine environmental management.

A major obstacle to align marine and freshwater programs of measures is the misalignment of indicators between the MSFD and WFD (local stakeholder interviews). Local authorities often find that data collected for one directive does not meet the requirements of another, leading to inconsistent decision-making. For example, the status of Posidonia meadows may be assessed differently under the MSFD and WFD, creating confusion for local managers.

4.2 Challenges faced to coordinate marine biodiversity protection at the regional and local level

4.2.1 Challenges in connecting the sea to the source

Cooperation between local authorities, water agencies, government departments and civil society actors was strengthened in the past few years to counteract the Source-to-Sea fragmentation (based on all interviews and document analysis). Freshwater and marine issues are now more closely connected. A fundamental issue in the French Mediterranean context is the disconnect between land and sea management. Regional land-use plans are theoretically aligned with marine and freshwater planning documents such as the MaS and RBMP, but in practice, these plans prioritize urban and economic development, with limited emphasis on biodiversity protection or climate change mitigation.

The administrative division between land and sea further complicates implementation at the local level. France's governance structure separates land and marine management, with distinct prefects overseeing each domain (document analysis). This division creates bottlenecks, as land-based policies often fail to consider marine priorities, and vice versa (NGO scientist interview). For example, around 80% of pollution in the Mediterranean Sea originates from land-based sources, yet there is limited coordination between terrestrial and marine planning documents and most of the authorities involved are distinct for a terrestrial and marine connected issue (apart from the Water Agency being involved in some agricultural pollution and water discharge regulation implementation).

The Source-to-Sea continuum is particularly critical, as land-based activities, such as agriculture and urban development, have a direct impact on marine ecosystems. However, integrating these considerations into a coherent local planning remains a significant challenge. Efforts are made in coastal zones. The coastal conservation agency plays a key role in preserving coastal ecosystems and preserving land and coastal biodiversity. Indeed, more than 16% of the PACA region's coastline belongs to this institution, which buys coastal land territory to avoid construction. This coastal conservation strategy follows a national strategy, but each delegation has its own budget. Properties are identified by regional teams, which have a fair amount of freedom to select land of biodiversity and cultural interest.

4.2.2 Challenges to reverse siloed management

In France, fishery policies remain centralized, while biodiversity stakes are local. The CFP implementation is highly centralized, with strategy definition, quotas and funding managed at the national level (document and policy analysis). Quotas are then allocated among regional organizations. These regional fishing organizations can play a key biodiversity protection role, as they are responsible for setting the opening and closing dates for fishing for certain species and for laying down the rules governing cohabitation between the various fishing professions. They also allocate fishing licenses and implement measures to limit fishing effort, such as imposing minimum catch sizes, reducing vessel power, increasing mesh sizes or banning certain fishing gear. For membership of a fishing organization and its quota system, arbitration for the distribution of quotas to entrants considers four criteria, including the track record of the species fished by the vessel, the technical and economic project, the potential for revitalizing the area and the environmental impact of the vessel. The environmental impact of the vessel is only considered if two candidates reach the same grade for the first three criteria and cannot be ranked equally.

In the PACA region, EMFAF is managed by the Regional Administration. Through this fund, the region can boost the fisheries sector through economic aid but also influence the implementation of the MSFD indicators and objectives by deciding on the conditionality of the allocation of these funds. This reflects broader discussions about EMFAF as both a driver of blue-economic development and a potential lever for biodiversity-related conditionality in EU fishery regions (Gorjanc et al., 2026; European Parliament's Committee on Fisherie et al., 2024). Complementary funds can be distributed through flags, a group of local stakeholders comprised of maritime professionals, associations, local authorities, businesses, and other relevant entities. These groups convene to select local projects supported through EMFAF funding, making its effects more tangible at the local level. However, until 2021, there was no explicit biodiversity protection objective defined, illustrating the disconnection between this policy and the objectives set up by the MSFD in 2008. In the PACA region, for example, only 18 out of 71 projects funded between 2014 and 2020 were related to biodiversity, and none aimed to change fishing practices to reduce environmental impacts. Until 2024, only a small fraction of funded projects focused on environmental sustainability.

The development of offshore wind energy is another sector where biodiversity objectives struggle to gain traction (according to scientific interview, webinar-based data collection and document analysis). Similar concerns have been raised in wider European debates on aligning offshore wind expansion with biodiversity protection, where climate and energy targets often carry more political weight than conservation commitments [European Environment Agency (EEA), 2024; CrossGov Consortium, 2025]. While offshore wind projects are subject to environmental impact assessments and public consultations, final decisions are centralized under the Ministry of Ecological Transition. Local actors, including municipalities and environmental NGOs, are involved in the consultation process but have limited capacity to influence outcomes (scientific interviews), such as the projects' localisations. Biodiversity protection is often secondary to energy production goals, as seen in the recent emphasis on offshore wind development in the MaS debates. The compensation measures required under the avoid, reduce, and compensate procedure are frequently applied but are difficult to evaluate scientifically, particularly when it comes to placing a value on ecosystems. This lack of robust assessment can lead to ineffective mitigation of environmental impacts. For each project, public meetings are organized and often show conflicts in use (e.g., in Fos-sur-Mer, where fishers underlined that they would lose one of their fishing areas where the turbines are set up). Local authorities are mobilized to give advice on avoidance and reduction measures based on their knowledge of the territory (e.g., marine protected area managers impacted by the projects). Most of the time, compensation measures are favored rather than avoidance measures. Local authorities thus have an advisory and not a decision-making role (interview with local administration).

Finally, a key Mediterranean issue is pollution (NGO scientist interview). Even though it is not a sectoral policy, agriculture (along with plastic) has a central role in this pollution and needs to be better integrated into sectoral policies. While the RBMP includes measures to address nutrient pollution from agriculture, these rely heavily on voluntary engagement from farmers, with limited regulatory enforcement.

4.3 Good practices from local administrations to achieve marine biodiversity objectives

The French Mediterranean context offers valuable insights into how local and national authorities can implement the MSFD, WFD, and MSPD despite conceptual or structural challenges. The mechanisms and practices developed in this region provide practical solutions that may inform other contexts seeking to strengthen integrated marine and water governance. Two key areas of innovation stand out: strengthened interactions between terrestrial, coastal, and marine governance and the integration of biodiversity protection into sectoral policies.

4.3.1 Strengthened interactions between terrestrial, coastal and marine water governance

Local authorities in the French Mediterranean have developed institutional and collaborative mechanisms to bridge the divide between land-based and marine planning processes, addressing a long-standing challenge in environmental governance.

One of the core coordination mechanism (regional administration interviews) between marine policies is the Regional Maritime Stakeholder Council (Conseil Maritime de Façade), a multi-stakeholder consultative body established on each marine shoreline. This Council brings together over 50 actors, including state representatives, freshwater and marine experts, NGOs, and industry stakeholders. Meeting twice annually, this Council provides strategic recommendations for the Mediterranean Sea, while technical committees address specific topics such as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), marine renewable energy, and maritime employment. This participatory governance model ensures that diverse perspectives inform decision-making, fostering ownership and collaboration among stakeholders.

A second collaboration and expertise mechanism (regional administration interviews and comparisons with other French regions functioning) is the existence of a dedicated marine service within Water Agencies. Each Water Agency has established a specialized marine service or expert team (typically 2–3 individuals) to focus on coastal and marine areas. The Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse Water Agency, for example, has integrated highly qualified marine experts into its teams, enabling strategic advice and active involvement in marine environmental projects. This approach has yielded tangible positive impacts on the Mediterranean Sea, demonstrating the value of institutional specialization in addressing marine challenges.

A third mechanism is the creation of a coastal committee for freshwater and marine coordination in the French Mediterranean region (regional administration interviews and comparisons with other French regions functioning). This committee has been created to support coastal municipalities in implementing freshwater measures that impact the marine environment. This body facilitates cross-sectoral dialogue and ensures that terrestrial water management aligns with marine conservation objectives.

Finally, this integration has lain since 2018 on an innovative governance mechanism: the Territorial Ecological Restoration Plan, STERE. Launched by the Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse Water Agency, this plan is a pioneering initiative aimed at defining, planning, and coordinating ecological restoration actions at the territorial level. Its objectives include non-degradation and ecological restoration of the marine environment, with a focus on reducing pollutant inputs into the sea. The Plan exemplifies how adaptive, place-based planning can enhance the coherence of MSFD and WFD implementation.

The French Mediterranean experience highlights the importance of institutional specialization, cross-sectoral coordination, and participatory governance in overcoming fragmentation between terrestrial and marine governance. These mechanisms could be adapted in other regions to improve policy coherence and stakeholder engagement.

4.3.2 The integration of biodiversity protection by local authorities when implementing marine plans and marine management

Coastal municipality representatives have the possibility to mobilize different management tools to manage the marine environment. It can be through sea-enhancement schemes aiming at developing economic activities on their coastline (up to 300 nm). For larger cities (e.g., Marseille), municipalities can develop a Bay Contract (contrat de baie) where economic, industrial and institutional players join forces to avoid the harmful consequences of industrial and port activities or tourism on water and marine ecosystems. Finally, municipalities can develop territorial ecological restoration plans, which have both objectives: reduce marine contaminants coming from inland waters and develop restoration activities.

Protected areas have also become key local players in promoting consultation, where fishers, scientists, associations and communities can work together, favoring regulations and habits for biodiversity protection. This is the case, for example, at the Côte Bleue Marine Park and Port-Cros National Park, whose original closed area was established by fishers.

Local authorities have emphasized the need for strong political support and dialogue with civil society and businesses to ensure the acceptance and effectiveness of marine management measures. Without this support, even well-designed policies may fail due to a lack of comprehension from key authorities.

4.3.3 Using policy tools and expertise to support biodiversity protection integrated management

To address the lack of integration challenges, funding mechanisms play a crucial role (interview with scientists, regional and local administrations). The Water Agency and the regional Maritime Administration provide financial support to municipalities and MPAs for developing sea enhancement plans, ecological restoration projects and integrated Source-to-Sea schemes (see Territorial Ecological Restoration Plan, STERE). However, accessing these funds requires administrative knowledge and a long-term commitment requesting many efforts from these local players (sometimes several days to build a funding application file from the Biodiversity Office, Life Marha, and Water Agency, etc.). To further enhance the Source-to-Sea integration, the previously mentioned coastal conservation agency's strategy of buying coastal land territory to avoid construction is an asset as well to protect marine and coastal biodiversity from inland pollution, showing the proactive role local institutions can play.

Despite these advancements, local administrations often lack the authority to influence broader sectoral policies, particularly in domains such as fisheries, agriculture, and infrastructure development (interviews, policy and document analysis and workshops). Recent developments at the European level, however, signal a shift toward greater integration of biodiversity considerations. The European Maritime, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF), for instance, has incorporated biodiversity protection as a core objective within its 2021–2027 programming cycle. In the PACA region, this has translated into support for 35 projects between 2021 and 2024. Among these, one initiative focused on advancing scientific knowledge of marine ecosystems, while twenty-two aimed to employ marine guards across Natura 2000 sites and MPAs to raise awareness among stakeholders. Notably, no projects have yet been dedicated to transforming sectoral practices in favor of marine biodiversity, revealing both progress and persistent gaps in policy implementation.

Additional funding mechanisms, such as those embedded within RBMP, offer voluntary financial incentives to farmers through territorial contracts. These contracts encourage the adoption of agri-environmental and climate measures, particularly those aimed at reducing nitrate and phytosanitary inputs. However, the effectiveness of such tools remains contingent on the voluntary participation of sectoral actors, which can limit their reach and impact.

Finally, to strengthen an integrated management of marine biodiversity protection, local and concrete expertise from local administrations is an asset for environmental assessments. Indeed, in sectoral policies, particularly in infrastructure projects such as dam construction, field experts (e.g., MPA managers and technicians) are increasingly mobilized to support decision-makers in environmental impact assessments (local stakeholder and scientific administration interviews). Their involvement ensures that ecological considerations are embedded in planning processes, even in sectors traditionally resistant to environmental regulation.

The limited autonomy of local administrations in shaping sectoral policies remains a significant barrier. However, recent improvement such as the inclusion of biodiversity objectives in funding mechanisms (e.g., EMFAF) and the mobilization of technical expertise represent promising avenues for deeper integration. Future efforts should focus on expanding these initiatives and empowering local authorities to influence sectoral decision-making more effectively.

5 Discussion

Since the 1970s, the European Union has set ambitious environmental goals, resulting in a proliferation of regulations aimed at marine biodiversity protection and the regulation of maritime activities (van Leeuwen and Kern, 2013; Boyes and Elliott, 2014, 2015). Frameworks such as the MSFD and the MSPD have been designed at the EU level to streamline marine protection and reduce sectoral conflicts, with a growing emphasis on the source-to-see approach to address pollution at its origin (Elliott et al., 2025; Paramana et al., 2023). However, the implementation of these frameworks is delegated to Member States and, ultimately, to regional and local authorities. This delegation, while allowing for adaptation to local contexts, has led to fragmented and uneven integration across territories (Cavallo et al., 2019).

Our study, focusing on the French Mediterranean, an ecologically significant and institutionally complex region, reveals that local authorities face persistent challenges in implementing EU marine policies. These include administrative burdens, resource constraints, sectoral silos, and limited local autonomy. Despite these obstacles, local authorities have contributed to significant improvements in marine conditions and species protection over the past two decades. Their experience offers valuable lessons and illustrative practices that can inform other regions seeking to achieve integrated, effective marine policy implementation and biodiversity protection.

By systematically applying the Policy Coherence and SPSI frameworks, this research advances our understanding of how local authorities navigate overlapping governance structures and competing priorities. Section 5.1 and Table 5 make this explicit by organizing the main systemic challenges and responses according to specific coherence attributes, explanatory variables and SPSI building blocks. The French Mediterranean case demonstrates that, although local authorities are rarely involved in shaping EU-level policies, they possess critical knowledge and skills for identifying both obstacles and solutions.

5.1 Systemic and structural challenges mapped to the policy coherence and SPSI frameworks

When we compared our findings with the existing literature, we found that the challenges faced by local authorities in the French Mediterranean closely resembled those observed across Europe. In particular, the systemic and structural challenges identified in our case echo wider concerns about the fragmented and multilayered nature of EU marine governance and the difficulties of implementing ecosystem-based management in practice (Boyes and Elliott, 2015; van Leeuwen and Kern, 2013). We now briefly summarize these challenges and present the mechanisms and approaches identified in our case study that local authorities adopted to address them. We also draw on insights from other CrossGov cases: the Finnish Archipelago, the Italian North Adriatic, and the Oslo Fjord, which were examined in parallel with the French Mediterranean (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a). These cases offer additional promising approaches that, together with those identified in the French Mediterranean, can inspire local authorities across Europe to mitigate similar constraints. In this section, we present systemic and structural challenges as they emerge from the literature and our case, explicitly mapped onto the attributes and variables of the Policy Coherence Framework and the SPSI building blocks (Table 5).

5.1.1 Human resource shortages as institutional capacity constraints (institutions/SPSI competences)

As conceptual and governance frameworks become more complex, training and recruiting qualified personnel becomes increasingly difficult, especially under limited budgets (Fraschetti et al., 2018). High staff turnover and unclear roles further undermine continuity and decision-making (Kelly et al., 2019; Tocco et al., 2024; Boutin et al., 2025; Pröbstl et al., 2025). In the French Mediterranean case, our research similarly highlights a shortage of human resources at the local level to implement policies and programs, seeking funding, and oversee training. The hiring practices of certain government agencies in France also pose a barrier. Indeed, France hires many of these environmental technicians in government agencies on short-term contracts (1–3 years) and encourages the mobility of tenured civil servants (3–4 years). This poses a major obstacle to ensuring the monitoring of environmental projects and funding, and also requires the retraining of staff, which is very time-consuming. This can lead to a cyclical shortage of expertise while staff are being retrained. However, within the French Mediterranean, we observed that the creation of multi-actor councils has enabled local authorities to pool expertise and compensate for a shortage of human resources.

Other CrossGov case studies show that collaborative governance models can also help mitigate these issues. France could keep on integrating expertise and responsibilities across agencies, not only between fresh and marine waters but also with regular meetings (2–3 times per year), including sector administrations and services. For example, the Finnish Archipelago case demonstrates that centralizing responsibilities within regional agencies (ELY Centres) allows for more efficient use of limited staff by combining freshwater and marine management roles. In the Italian North Adriatic, technical working groups and collaborative platforms (e.g., MSP Technical Committee, ARPA, and ISPRA) have enabled authorities to share expertise and responsibilities, helping to compensate for limited staff in individual organizations (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a).

5.1.2 Gaps in professional development and training (SPSI building block: competences)

Capacity-building faces the dual challenge of providing regular training to keep pace with evolving regulations while contending with limited staff availability and insufficient institutional support. Mandatory training programs struggle to address interdisciplinary needs and keep pace with regulatory demands (Kelly et al., 2019; Kirsop-Taylor and Hejnowicz, 2022). This is compounded by insufficient institutional support and underutilized knowledge-sharing exchanges (Almeida et al., 2025; Pröbstl et al., 2025). The French Mediterranean case study revealed that capacity building is delivered by several entities, the main one being the French Biodiversity Office delivering training to protected area managers. If training courses are provided on MSFD and MSPD by the Maritime Administration and the Water Agency, it is insufficient to maintain awareness of staff changes and regulatory developments (see “human resources” section). Capacity development often takes place through informal exchanges between stakeholders (e.g., networks of MPA managers). In the French Mediterranean context, it is advised to increase the number of trainings specifically dedicated to the MSFD and WFD programs of measure implementation, relying on the long-term expertise from the Maritime Administration and Water Agency. Improving the level of training in these two agencies regarding sector-specific policies (fisheries, wind power, and agriculture) would be an asset in promoting training and guidance that transcends siloed management.

Other CrossGov case studies have shown that collaborative networks and integrating specialized expertise within existing structures can help local authorities bridge professional development gaps and remain responsive to regulatory change, even when formal training resources are limited. In the Italian North Adriatic, ongoing knowledge exchange and interdisciplinary learning are fostered through partnerships with research institutions and regular engagement in working groups and technical committees. The Finnish Archipelago case highlights the value of regular collaboration and knowledge exchange through stakeholder events, workshops, and co-creation pilots (e.g., GOVAQUA project) (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a). While regular working groups are useful, they contribute to stakeholder fatigue and require time that is taken away from staff members' actual work time needed to implement guidelines. In France, before increasing the number of working groups, it will be necessary to ensure that staff members are available.

5.1.3 Institutional fragmentation and organizational constraints (coherence variable: institutions/stakeholders)

Marine planning and licensing remain fragmented across government departments despite EU directives promoting integration (Kelly et al., 2019). Siloed administrative cultures and path-dependent regulatory frameworks restrict flexibility and innovation (Tocco et al., 2024; Boutin et al., 2025). France's administrative structure is quite unique, shaped by 200 years of centralization until the 1980s, when regional administrations began to proliferate, playing a significant role in the implementation of European policies. Evidence from the French Mediterranean case study shows the strong weight of this administrative legacy, with more than 12 institutions being involved in marine environment management. This administrative structure specifically supports regions and land-use planning documents in the management of economic activities; thus, marine sectoral policies remain strongly siloed involving, sometimes being managed by non-marine administrations (e.g., offshore wind energy, mostly involving technical land-wind energy administrations rather than marine-biodiversity services). However, recent improvements have been made in fishing administrations, where authorities are working much more closely with biodiversity services. While it may not be feasible in the short to medium term to change France's administrative structures, relying on increased collaboration between institutions (see the two preceding paragraphs) could reduce this fragmented governance.

Cross-government case studies show that dedicated coordination bodies and multi-actor forums break down silos, improve communication, and enable integrated coastal management. These mechanisms strengthen local authorities' capacity to implement policies and respond to emerging challenges. In the Italian North Adriatic, the establishment of technical working groups and inter-ministerial committees has helped align objectives and actions across different governance levels and sectors, reducing fragmentation. In the Finnish archipelago, the central role of ELY Centres clarifies roles, supporting more coherent and coordinated action, and in Norway, the Oslofjord Plan and Council provided a unifying framework for coordination, aligning objectives and actions across sectors and governance levels (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a). In France, likewise these countries such structures exist at the national level. At the regional scale, the Regional Maritime Stakeholder Council supports local stakeholder participation but has remained a consultative body. Thus, the point is not to create more of these bodies and forums, but rather to ensure transparency and that the views expressed by the council's stakeholders are genuinely taken into account.

5.1.4 Policy layering across marine and sectoral policies (coherence attributes: objectives and instruments)

The accumulation of new policies and directives on top of existing frameworks requires time for harmonization. A period during which governance is fragmented. For example, the addition of marine spatial planning to a country's planning act exemplifies “layering of layering,” failing to resolve institutional complexity (Kelly et al., 2019; Tocco et al., 2024). Regulatory overlap among EU directives such as the Habitats Directive, WFD, and national laws creates contradictions and legal uncertainty (Boutin et al., 2025; Pröbstl et al., 2025). Across the CrossGov case studies, we see that policy layering can be managed more effectively through deliberate coordination mechanisms. Analysis of our case shows that, in the French Mediterranean, the integration of multiple directives into a single strategic planning instrument, the MaS (Document Stratégique de Façade), has facilitated harmonization and minimized regulatory overlap. This document, which incorporates the MSFD and MSPD and was developed in close collaboration with the RBMPs, is effective. However, it has not yet been integrated into land-use planning documents (dating from 2018 and 2021) or into sectoral land-use policies (particularly those addressing agricultural and chemical pollution). Work should be undertaken by regional authorities in this regard to ensure, for example, that their funding mechanisms are aligned with marine biodiversity objectives.

Other CrossGov case study experience suggests that actively aligning planning cycles, consolidating instruments, and cross-referencing objectives can help local authorities navigate the complexities of policy layering and foster more integrated and effective coastal governance. For instance, the Italian North Adriatic aligned the RBMP, Marine Strategy, and MSP, while Finland integrated WFD and MSFD into one act (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a). The Finnish integration model is of interest to France but would be difficult to implement (due to differences in river basins and maritime areas). Efforts should focus on automating cross-references in monitoring programs and on the implementation mechanisms for all policies (marine and sector-specific).

5.1.5 Short-term political priorities (coherence variable: temporal and spatial scales)

Previous studies show that political cycles and funding structures often favor visible, short-term projects and initiatives over long-term ecological sustainability, with conservation targets and management plans aligned to electoral timelines rather than ecological needs (Fraschetti et al., 2018; Kelly et al., 2019; Tocco et al., 2024). Case studies show some mechanisms to counter this trend. Within the French Mediterranean case study, we can note cycles of internal implementation of the Water Agency's priorities that are completely different from the timeframes of RBMPs cycles. Some local stakeholders have also pointed out (in interviews) that local governments and decision-makers tend to prioritize high-profile projects that help them win votes in elections, rather than ensuring compliance with environmental standards that are difficult to understand for non-technician staff (except for bathing water quality, which remains a priority for local governments, particularly along the Mediterranean coast). Efforts should be made to educate and train these officials to help them understand the benefits of promoting the implementation of these policies and objectives, and to facilitate communication and coordination with the local community and stakeholders.

CrossGov case study experience suggests that establishing transparent accountability mechanisms and inclusive governance structures can enable local authorities to sustain long-term ecological objectives, ensuring continuity and resilience despite shifting political priorities and funding cycles. In the Italian North Adriatic case, the use of structured, multi-level coordination and knowledge-sharing platforms (e.g., technical committees and scientific teams) helps maintain continuity and focus on long-term ecological objectives, even as political priorities shift. In Norway, the Oslofjord case shows that cross-sectoral action plans, annual reporting, and a dedicated stakeholder council can help maintain momentum for long-term ecological objectives, even as political priorities shift (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a). In France, continuity will be ensured through planning documents and the periods between elections and changes in personnel within administrations.

5.1.6 Funding constraints for implementation and knowledge (SPSI building block: funding and incentives)

Insufficient, unstable, and ad hoc funding limits implementation, monitoring, and enforcement, reducing adaptive capacity. Limited funding resulted in weaker conservation efforts (Fraschetti et al., 2018; Boutin et al., 2025). Case studies highlight effective strategies. In the French Mediterranean, the Water Agency, the French Biodiversity Office and the Maritime Administration all have their own calls for funding for the marine environment. However, they have launched dedicated funding streams and project calls to support biodiversity protection, ecosystem restoration and integrated management of pollution. While the preliminary results are encouraging, we will need to assess their short- and medium-term effects and replicate this model across all areas of interest, expanding the scope as needed (for example, to include the offshore wind turbines at Fos-sur-Mer).

CrossGov experiences show that diversifying funding sources, creating dedicated streams, and aligning financial mechanisms with integrated plans can help local authorities maintain critical conservation efforts and build resilience to financial uncertainty. The Finnish Archipelago case shows that leveraging multiple funding streams (e.g., national water protection programs, targeted agricultural subsidies) and aligning them with integrated management plans can help sustain priority actions even when overall funding is limited. The Oslofjord Plan enabled the targeted allocation of national resources to support environmental measures in the region, even when overall funding was limited (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a). France still needs to make an effort to align its funding (particularly for agriculture and fisheries) with marine biodiversity goals.

5.1.6 Conflicts with economic interests (coherence between biodiversity and sectoral policy objectives)

Private economic interests compete with conservation objectives, delaying or weakening conservation measures. Hotspots of conflicts in European marine conservation, where economic priorities prevail over conservation aims, result in stalled implementation (Fraschetti et al., 2018; Boutin et al., 2025). Similar tensions between biodiversity objectives and sectoral policies, particularly fisheries, shipping, and offshore energy, have been documented more broadly in EU marine governance debates [Boyes and Elliott, 2015; van Leeuwen and Kern, 2013; Eurofish International Organisation (EUROFISH), 2023; Seas At Risk, 2025]. Case studies show effective strategies to balance these competing goals. The French Mediterranean case study highlights that integrating economic and environmental objectives within unified strategic planning instruments, such as the MaS (DSF), can help balance competing interests. By being involved in cumulative impact assessments for new maritime projects, local authorities can guide development in ways that minimize ecological harm while supporting sustainable economic activities.

CrossGov analysis of the Oslofjord Plan shows a holistic approach to integrated economic, environmental, and social objectives, promoting dialogue and compromise among stakeholders (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a). This experience suggests that the use of integrated management tools can assist local authorities in reconciling competing interests while strengthening stakeholder trust as part of coastal area management. Such a document could be implemented in France at the sea-basin level to involve and bring into compliance economic sectors (agriculture, offshore wind, tourism, and chemical and plastic industries).

5.1.7 Lack of stakeholder engagement and compliance (coherence variable: stakeholders/SPSI platforms)

Insufficient involvement of local communities and stakeholders undermines legitimacy and effectiveness (Katsanevakis et al., 2020), leading to poor compliance. Consultation processes have been criticized as exclusionary and tokenistic, with some groups deliberately left out (Kelly et al., 2019; Fraschetti et al., 2018). Insights from our case suggest that, within the French Mediterranean, the establishment of multiactor councils such as the Regional Maritime Stakeholder Council can foster more inclusive and transparent stakeholder engagement. These councils have enabled ongoing dialogue, improved legitimacy, and facilitated the co-creation of solutions tailored to local needs. However, decision-making remains centralized with few transparencies in how the results of this representative process are considered.

In Norway, the Oslofjord Plan mobilized actors across sectors and governance levels, fostering shared responsibility and expertise. Regular forums such as the Oslofjord Council and stakeholder workshops-maintained momentum despite limited municipal staff, while strengthening trust and legitimacy in management actions (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a). These experiments show that regular, structured forums for stakeholder engagement can help local authorities integrate diverse perspectives into marine management decisions, building trust and contribute to improved compliance with coastal and marine policies. The question of whether this plan can be replicated in France remains, given that Norway has a much more participatory culture and a much smaller number of administrative and political stakeholders, as well as a much smaller population than the Oslofjord region.

5.1.8 Mismatch between administrative and ecological boundaries (coherence variable: temporal and spatial scales

Lack of alignment between administrative jurisdictions and ecological boundaries complicates integrated management. As underlined in the introduction, the Source-to-Sea continuum is particularly critical in this regard [Granit et al., 2017; Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI), 2019]. In Mediterranean coastal lagoons, for example, Natura 2000 site boundaries under the Habitats Directive frequently fail to match watershed areas managed under the WFD (Boutin et al., 2025; Pröbstl et al., 2025). The French Mediterranean case study shows that fostering collaboration among agencies responsible for different administrative areas and developing integrated management plans can bridge these gaps by supporting joint projects and regular dialogue between water agencies, biodiversity offices, and local authorities. As mentioned above, aligning marine and freshwater resources is difficult due to differing basins. However, this can be improved through cooperation with land-based authorities.

CrossGov experiences show that multi-agency cooperation and integrated planning tools can help local authorities coordinate actions across jurisdictions and implement more effective ecological management strategies tailored to local needs. The Oslofjord Plan promoted integrated management across administrative boundaries by covering the entire fjord and catchment, shifting focus from individual water bodies to the fjord as a whole. In the Italian North Adriatic Case, integrating land-sea interactions into planning processes and the coordination between RBMPs, MSFD, and MSP help align ecological and administrative scales (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a).

5.1.9 Data fragmentation and integration challenges (SPSI building block: data and knowledge)

Persistent gaps and fragmented datasets across sectors and scales undermine effective decision-making. Insufficient baseline data and limited monitoring hinder assessment of ecological status and conservation priorities (Tocco et al., 2024; Almeida et al., 2025; Boutin et al., 2025). In France, the creation of a joint data platform in 2024 enabled water agencies and biodiversity offices to compile and share information relevant to both the WFD and the MSFD, improving accessibility and integrated assessments. A version that integrates sectoral policies and is automatically used by the agencies responsible for those policies would be beneficial to implement.

In the Finnish archipelago, integrated monitoring systems for coastal and marine waters, with shared data collection and reporting, support more consistent and informed decision-making. The Oslofjord Plan mandated annual status reports and promoted the integration of data and knowledge across sectors and governance levels. In the Italian North Adriatic case, coordinated monitoring activities and shared repositories (e.g., SINTAI for WFD, SIC for MSFD) strengthened planning (Ramírez-Monsalve et al., 2025a). These experiences could inspire France, as they show that investing in shared data infrastructure and fostering regular inter-agency collaboration can help local authorities overcome fragmentation.

6 Conclusion: the critical role of local authorities

Our findings indicate three overarching conclusions. First, local authorities in the French Mediterranean carry a major share of responsibility for implementing EU marine biodiversity policies, while having limited influence over their design. Second, misalignments across policy instruments, administrative levels, and land–sea interfaces create structural obstacles that cannot be solved by local actors alone. Third, despite these constraints, local administrations have developed innovative governance mechanisms that enhance coherence and stakeholder engagement. These conclusions are grounded in triangulated evidence from document analysis, interviews, selected public debates, and the online workshop. These findings align with previous research highlighting the implementation gap between ambitious EU policy objectives and practical outcomes on the ground and the complexity of translating marine legislation into coherent national and local action (Fraschetti et al., 2018; Boyes and Elliott, 2014, 2015). While the tools of the directives, such as objectives, measures, data systems, and reporting, are aligned at the European level, their operationalisation is left to local and regional authorities, who often have limited involvement in decision-making and must interpret and apply complex frameworks with varying resources and capacities. This process places a significant burden on local authorities, who are ultimately responsible for achieving policy objectives.

Our findings support previous observations that the centralization of policy design and decision-making at the EU and national levels often limits the influence and adaptive capacity of local authorities. In the French Mediterranean case, this disconnect is further exacerbated by the layering of new policies atop existing ones without sufficient harmonization, resulting in regulatory overload and inefficiencies. Here, as in other European coastal regions discussed in the literature, the lack of coherence between sectoral policies, i.e., fisheries, agriculture, and offshore energy and biodiversity objectives remains a critical barrier, with economic interests frequently taking precedence over conservation goals.

One unexpected finding from this case study was the extent to which the administrative burden and regulatory complexity hinder local action and put pressure on local authorities. While previous studies have noted resource constraints, the sheer volume of planning documents, sometimes exceeding 5,000 pages for a single municipality, was striking. This overload not only risks superficial compliance (“box-ticking”) but may also discourage meaningful engagement with biodiversity objectives. Additionally, the limited influence of local authorities over sectoral policies, especially on fisheries and offshore energy, was more pronounced than anticipated, suggesting that strengthening subsidiarity and local influence may be important for improving implementation in similar coastal regions. Despite these advancements, integrating sectoral policies and clarifying local authorities' roles still hinder holistic marine governance. Systematically exchanging best practices and incorporating local feedback into EU policy could improve effectiveness and coherence.

Overall, this study underscores local authorities' critical role in achieving EU marine biodiversity goals. While challenges like policy coherence and resource allocation persist, innovative governance in the French Mediterranean offers valuable lessons for advancing integrated Source-to-Sea management. However, obstacles rooted in France's centralized administration, legal hierarchies, and land-sea institutional separation create unique constraints. Empowering local actors and aligning incentives across governance levels remain essential for success.

7 Limitations, further research, and recommendations for policy and practice

This case study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the empirical material is confined to the French Mediterranean, particularly the PACA region, and the findings should therefore be interpreted as context-specific rather than statistically representative of all French or European coastal areas. Second, the interview and workshop participants, as well as the public debates we analyzed, constitute a self-selected group of actors who are already engaged in marine governance, which may underrepresent more marginal or fewer resourced voices. Third, while our multimethod design (documents, interviews, public debates, workshops) enables triangulation, the breadth of material also required us to focus the analysis on a limited number of core themes, meaning that some issues could only be treated in an illustrative rather than exhaustive manner.

Beyond these general insights, our findings also point to several context-specific recommendations for French conservation and marine authorities. First, regional Water Agencies and the Interregional Sea Directorates could be given a clearer mandate and stable staffing to act as integrating hubs for MSFD and WFD implementation at the land–sea interface, building on the existing marine units and STERE schemes. Second, the PACA region and other coastal regions could experiment with making biodiversity protection and policy coherence explicit conditions for at least part of EMFAF and regional blue-economy funding, thereby aligning financial incentives with marine conservation objectives. Third, national and regional authorities could work toward better synchronizing the planning cycles and legal weight of key instruments (MaS, RBMPs, SRADDET, and sea enhancement plans) and clarifying how recommendations from the Regional Maritime Stakeholder Council are taken into account in formal decisions so that consultative bodies have a more tangible influence on policy outcomes. While this research primarily explored policy incoherence, it became evident that the challenges faced by public authorities and civil servants are broader, encompassing administrative burdens, resource limitations, and the complexities of multi-level governance. The goal of perfect consistency, particularly with other sectors, may even be called into question in favor of a pragmatic and realistic approach (Ahlström and Sjåfjell, 2022). Future research (Table 6, in Annex) could therefore benefit from comparative analyses across different regions and more systematic evaluation of policy outcomes, including how specific governance reforms (e.g., changes to funding conditionality or coordination mechanisms) affect biodiversity status over time.

Table 6. Priority areas for future research and policy action in coastal and marine governance derived from the French Mediterranean case study and insights from the wider European literature.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. During the preparation of this work, we used MistralAI and Copilot as editorial tools to meet native speaker standards and achieve consistency in writing style. After using these tools, we reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Daniel Depellegrin, Environmental Hydraulics Institute (IHCantabria), Spain

Reviewed by: Constance M. Schéré, King's College London, United Kingdom

Lydia Papadaki, Athena Research Center, Greece