In April 2026, project partners from Denmark, Sweden and Norway gathered at DTU in Lyngby for the 5th BlueBioClimate seminar, and the task was clear: Turn shared research insights into concrete policy briefs addressing the project’s three core themes – prioritization and spatial planning, restoration and coastal protection, and invasive, alien and new species.
Results stood out clearly from the partners’ presentations, and the challenge now lies in coordination, data integration and long‑term governance.
“I am impressed by the progress in the different science and data collection activities in our project. We are addressing cross border challenges with managing and protecting biodiversity under climate change from several complementary scientific angles, and I think that our project shows the value of integrating information across data types, geographic areas and nations,” says Project leader and Senior researcher Jakob Hemmer-Hansen from DTU Aqua.
SEE BLUEBIOCLIMATE'S WEBSITE
The research groups worked hard on drafting the policy briefs and communication plans this time – Jakob Hemmer-Hansen says:
“Translating complicated and technical scientific results into straight-forward actionable policy recommendations is a challenging task. Through teamwork among the highly skilled scientists in our project and with good support from our communication and science/policy professionals, I really think that we progressed well at our workshop.”
Intense days of working out policy briefs and plans for communication
The three cross-national thematic groups worked on drafting thematic policy briefs, wrapped up below:
#From fragmented actions to eco‑regional planning
Within prioritisation and spatial planning, researchers showed how genetic data can reveal eco‑regions that cut across national borders. These regions reflect how species actually disperse, reproduce and survive – rather than how coastlines are divided administratively.
The conclusion is that climate‑smart spatial planning must focus on connectivity and diversity within and between eco‑regions rather than national borders. This has direct implications for where marine protected areas are placed, how offshore developments are planned, and how countries share responsibility.
Protecting 30 percent of the sea area – a key EU goal – will only strengthen biodiversity if it is done eco‑region by eco‑region, not country by country.
#Restoration needs stronger biological foundations
The BlueBioClimate seminar in Lyngby 2026 highlighted a growing mismatch between political ambitions for large‑scale restoration and the biological realities on the ground. Under the restoration and coastal protection theme, BlueBioClimate researchers warned that many restoration efforts risk short‑lived success and negative biodiversity impacts if genetic diversity is not systematically embedded into restoration planning and monitoring.
Genetic diversity is important for securing population resilience, for example to warming waters, disease and extreme events. Using poorly matched or genetically uniform donor material can undermine restoration – especially under climate change.
The policy brief calls for genetic baselines, careful donor selection, climate‑aware sourcing strategies and long‑term genetic monitoring as standard practice, aligning restoration efforts with ambitions in the EU Nature Restoration Regulation.
#Early warning instead of late reaction
Under invasive, alien and new species, discussions centered on the urgency of moving from reactive to proactive management.
Case studies on Pacific oysters, zebra mussels and oyster parasites illustrated how invasive species and associated pathogens can establish and spread from just a few individuals – often undetected for years.
BlueBioClimate research shows that DNA‑based monitoring, combined with shared Nordic data infrastructures, can radically improve early detection. However, current systems remain fragmented, short‑term and nationally siloed.
The seminar participants at DTU in Lyngby 2026 agreed that a Scandinavian early‑warning system for aquatic invasions is technically feasible – but requires political commitment, harmonised reporting and long‑term hosting beyond project funding cycles.
“An important next step will be to get some feedback from the end-users on the project outputs and how to make the project outputs as useful to them as possible,” says Jakob Hemmer Hansen.
A common direction
BlueBioClimate, now approaching the end of the three years’ project lifetime, seeks to answer the overarching question: How do we across the Nordic countries around Oeresund, Kattegat and Skagerrak protect and restore marine biodiversity under climate change?
Despite covering three distinct themes, the policy briefs coming out of the project converge on a common direction: integration over isolation.
Whether dealing with marine planning, restoration, or invasive species, effective biodiversity-climate action depends on cross‑border cooperation, shared data, and governance structures that reflect ecological realities rather than administrative boundaries.