Thank you for the opportunity to review the document entitled "Sea Level Rise in Europe: Summary for Policy Makers" (SPM).  This SPM is a policy summary of the first Assessment Report to address the challenges posed by sea level rise (SLR) in Europe.  As this is a summary for policymakers and not a scientific document, I emphasise in my review questions or comments relating to clarity, conciseness, and readability. As such, the formal manuscript ratings in the submission form are irrelevant.

In particular, I looked for clear, direct and precise comments on the policy implications of the SLR Assessment Report. While I did anonymise the comments in the attached marked-up document. I do not however object to attaching my name to the comments if that will assist the review process.

Please note that while I provide a list of comments and suggestions in this report I also upload a marked-up version of the SPM that contains all my input to the summary.  This review is not complete without this attachment (sp-2024-3_reviewer.pdf).  

I did not review the robustness of the science statements but focus on how well the science content supports the policy summary provided.  The SPM was reviewed as a standalone document since I did not read and consider the content of the full Assessment Report and I cannot comment on the exclusion of important information from the SPM.  Neither did I have access to the terms-of-reference for the SPM and this means that my comments may conflict with the TOR.  All comments are suggestions.

This review report mostly contains general comments, while the marked-up version contains specific comments.

General comments:

• This reviewer acknowledges the challenge and complexity of writing for a policy audience.  While the science content needs to be correctly and rigorously presented it also needs to be accessible, clear and conveyed in plain language.  In parts of the SPM this goal is achieved, in others not.  There remains a substantial amount of scientific jargon that is not required by policymakers.
• It is recommended to use an acronym for the 1st SLR Assessment Report (possibly SLR AR1)  This may be useful as a "branded report" name used throughout the SPM.
• Please include a sentence in the abstract that identifies the target audience of the SPM.  Policy-makers is a very generic term across multiple scales.  Please be specific as to who should read this SPM.
• Also, in the abstract: make a general statement on the state of SLR  in the six European sea basins.  There is such statements provided in Section 2 of the SPM.  Give a clear reason or present a clear problem relating to SPM.  Do not assume that the target audience is aware of the extent of the threat of SLR and the challenge to policy- and decision-makers at various scales. One statement on the potential impact sets the scene and provides a reason for policy-makers to continue reading.
• In some places in the SPM there is a reference to communities.  Is this group also included as a target audience for the SPM?
• Please use the term "six European sea basins" consistently.  Using regions, in some places in the SPM, is confusing. 
• Please reconsider the Section and Sub-section titles.  These were often unnecessarily long and not always clear and simple.
• The two stakeholder groups outlined in Section 1.2.1 are not intuitive. Is it intended to have "planning and research" as a single concept? If so, why?  It makes more sense to target stakeholders in 1) planning, and 2) research.  These are different stakeholder groupings requiring differentiation in survey methods.  This relates to Line 54-55 (government and scientists as binary stakeholder groups).  This is ambiguous.  Many government stakeholders may also be involved with research.  Please define what you mean by "government". Local government may have a substantive different understanding than national government experts or officials.
• Line 64-65 (Both government and scientists...similar gaps). The explanatory sentences that follow conflicts with this statement. Government officials identified a need for regional projections while scientists were interested in causality.  These are not similar at all. Is it not more accurate and intuitive to point out the difference here, rather than the similarity?
• Line 85 (Section on Policy Support).  The subsection title makes the reader believe that it deals with SLR and its supporting role in policy.  The allocation of resources for research and data collection is only broadly connected to policy support.  After reading the sub-section heading and then the content I am not sure what was intended here. Please rethink the objective of this section and clarify.
• Section 1.2.2. Online Workshops.  1.) Propose to structure the summary of the outcomes of the workshops for each basin/basin group to explicitly report on i.) data and information gaps, and ii.) policy needs and gaps.  Be more explicit about the separation of these.  The policy-makers would like to know the state of affairs relating to data and information while also expressing the need for specific information. 2.) I question the value of presenting the disaggregated outcomes of the workshops as unique and sufficiently important to stand alone by basin or basin group.  I would propose a much higher degree of interpretation by the drafting authors to provide a much clearer signal as to the combined needs of all basins, with a much clearer expression of custom regional needs as a table.  While the reporting on the various needs from the workshops is interesting, it does not create a strong policy message.  Why did some basins identify extreme events and others did not?  Is this not important information across the basins?  This section must reconfirm the combined priorities for SLR information and policy support without providing unnecessary "raw" data from the workshops.  I propose to strengthen the consistent message from all workshops and highlight regional-specific needs.
• Section 2 Past, Present...The implications of the findings of past, and current future sea levels by basin were not easy to follow.  While the science of SLR uses many complex terms and acronyms it does not make for easy digestion by policy makers.  I would propose shortening the explanatory scientific statements and providing a separate plain language assessment of what this means for policymakers, if not also for local communities.
• Section 3.2. For the sub-sections please use the same order in all sections, i.e., Flooding, SWI and Erosion.  Please explain why there is no erosion or SWI input in some sub-sections.
• Section 4.1. The four adaptation measures are not sufficiently and consistently defined with clear examples.
• Section 4.3. A table with adaptation options as rows and ocean basins as columns will provide a clear and concise message about selected adaptation options.
• Section 5. Please explain or define what adaption governance means.
• Sub-sections 5.1-5.2. I propose summarising the geopolitical and economic context in a single paragraph without a heading and concluding with a clear statement on the state of and recommendations for adaptation governance.  This is the information that the policymakers will be looking for.

This summary for policymakers provides a comprehensive overview of the findings of the Sea Level Rise in Europe report. It allows policymakers to obtain the main findings of the report in a relatively short time and in a relatively understandable language without too much scientific jargon. The report assumes a basic knowledge of SLR language, which can be expected from policymakers working in the field of climate change adaptation. Only section 2 could be considered to include a bit too much scientific jargon (see comments below).

For this review, I have mainly focused on readability and usability for policymakers involved in decision-making on adaptation measures or decision-making for further research on SLR in Europe. I assumed that these are the target groups for the report. The target groups could be made more explicit in the abstract or an introduction to the article.

I understand that from a scientific perspective it makes sense to provide a robust overview of the drivers and projections of sea levels before moving on to impact and adaptation measures. However, most policymakers reading this summary will be looking for action perspectives. The current layout of the article is not very problematic, but it could be considered to start with the impact and adaptation measures, or to start the article with a clear indication where the reader can find what information. Some policymakers will not even be able to take (or make) the time to read this 15-page summary.

1.2.1: It would be interesting to know if there were representative responses from the different sea basins in both government and research groups.

Section 2 is the most difficult to digest, especially for the assumed target audience. It is relatively dense compared to the other sections. Although this is the crucial information needed to understand the why and what of impact and adaptation measures, it could be considered to move this section (see previous comment) or decrease the amount of scientific jargon.

For several sections, it could be considered to use visual elements (tables/figures) to show the differences between the six European sea basins. Providing policymakers an overview of the basic difference between the knowledge needs, impacts, adaptation measures, drivers and projections in the different sea basins.

I did not focus on the scientific basis behind the statements in this article. Therefore, this review does not address questions such as; Does the manuscript represent a new contribution to scientific knowledge within the scope of the report in question (new information, new concepts, ideas, methods or data)? Or; Are the scientific approach and methods applied valid? [the scores given in the formal manuscript review and recommendation to the editor should therefore be ignored].