the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 09 Jan 2024
Sea Level Rise in Europe: Governance Context and Challenges
Abstract. Sea-level rise (SLR) will affect Europe’s coasts over the coming decades and beyond giving rise to challenges for governing coastal and marine areas. Progress is being made in adapting to and addressing these challenges at both national and sub-national levels across all major European sea basins. This chapter assesses progress in coastal adaptation governance in Europe by, first, characterizing the socio-economic and political contexts in European sea basins, and then reviewing coastal adaptation relevant policy frameworks in place at regional and national levels within each of these sea basins. Regional frameworks reviewed consist in Regional Sea Conventions and are assessed for their legal status and their inclusion of SLR information. National coastal policy frameworks reviewed include national adaptation plans focusing on coastal areas and marine spatial planning instruments for all European member states, as well as public financing arrangements for coastal adaptation, focusing on flood risk reduction measures. Key national policies for coastal adaptation are assessed for which coastal hazards they address, the extent to which they incorporate sea-level rise information, and their inclusion of SLR specific adaptation measures. Finally, the chapter presents governance challenges that arise due to the complexity of adaptation to SLR, i.e., time horizon and uncertainty, cross-scale and cross-domain coordination, and equity and social vulnerability, and discusses examples illustrating how each of these challenges are being addressed in different European sea basins. The chapter finds that for across all basins, regional policy frameworks generally do not include specific provisions for SLR or coastal adaptation, while at the national level, significant progress on SLR governance is being made. For all basins except for the Black Sea, all countries have reported observed and future SLR hazards, and have adopted adaptation strategies. The inclusion of adaptation measures specific to SLR is less advanced, as most sea basins have at least one country that does not include specific SLR adaptation measures in either their adaptation strategies or marine spatial plans. Regarding SLR governance challenges, key examples for how these are being addressed include approaches for incorporating flexibility into coastal planning, e.g., Dynamic Adaptation Pathways in the Netherlands, or dike crest widening in Germany, as well as, co-development of nature-based adaptation solutions in Italy. Examples for addressing equity and social vulnerability challenges include the emerging issue of climate ligation illustrated through several court cases on liability of major carbon emitters for SLR-related damages.
- Preprint
(3548 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on sp-2023-37', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jan 2024
Introduction
This reads more like a summary of the report, not really as an introduction.
Could you maybe introduce the key risks and governance challenges when it comes to Sea-Level-Rise?
Sub-chapter 5.2.1 “Geopolitical context in European Sea Basins”
This report is about SLR governance. It would make this sub-chapter on the geopolitical context more interesting and relevant to the subject of the report, if the geopolitical context was link to the issues of Sea-Level-Rise and adaptation measures (e.g. how the geopolitical context such as cooperation mechanisms, existing conflict(s) or the development of strategic sectors, will be affected or affect SLR governance and the implementation of adaptation measures?)
This sub-chapter highlights certain policy documents per basin, introduced as “key policies documents. In the Mediterranean Sea you mentioned the “2021 European Neighbourhood Policy ”, in the Baltic Sea it’s the Interreg Baltic Sea region program (which is first and foremost a financial instrument), while in the North Sea you mentioned the “North Sea Region 2030 Strategy”, why not mentioning the European Baltic Sea Strategy, or the other Interreg programs in place in all sea basins?
In the Black Sea it is the Black Sea Synergy initiative as “the EU’s key regional policy framework for the region in force since 2007” while regional actor would mention, the Bucharest declaration or the Common Maritime Agenda.
The EU marine security strategy as a geopolitical policy instrument might be worth mentioning…
As a result the choice of the key policy documents presented per basin pose question...
If the intention is to bring a geopolitical perspective, instead of introducing certain policy documents, I would suggest focusing this sub-chapter on the key actors at play including regional organizations, considering you have another chapter dedicated to governance where you are listing key policy documents (table1)?
Sub-Chapter 5.2.2 Economic context in European Sea Basins
Table1: It would be nice to have the source of the statistic mentioned.
Regarding the Black Sea, the numbers stated for the weight of the Oil and Gas industry mentioned might be out-of-date following the Russian-Ukraine war... Is the statistic mentioned from 2022-2023?
In table 2, the description of the situation of the NE Atlantic Ocean is a little surprising and would better fit the Mediterranean coast description…Mentioning the total population of the 4 countries of the region is not pertinent as it does not relate specifically to the NE Atlantic coastline.
Chap. 5.3 Coastal governance
The choice of introducting this chapter by the UNCLOS as key governance frameworks currently in place to tackle the impacts of climate change (ligne 295) is surprising as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not include any reference to climate change (see Amstrong C. 2023[1]). Only the very recent agreement of the new Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) treaty, reached in November 2023, include clear reference on climate chance and marine environment protection. At this stage the effectiveness of this instrument is unknown. It is even more surprising that no mention is made of the Agenda 2030 and the SDG 13, the Paris Agreement, or the European Green Deal. One would expect it is, a minima mentioned, in table 3 (ligne 325) When introducing the regional sea conventions (RSC) (ligne 316), the text would benefit if the different types of agreement with UNEP were mentioned (UNEP-administered / UNEP-Non administered / Independent [2] ), not all RSC are "part of UNEP”, some simply cooperate with.
Table 4: update MSP status of Romania
Ligne 412: the example of France is very approximate; the country is generally referred as a vertical type of territorial management even more regarding marine space. The country has specific regional and local documents to tackle climate adaptation and more specifically SLR as a climate risk (e.g. "plans de prévention des risques littoraux" and strategic sea basin documents). “Conservatoire du littoral” cannot be cited as the “central public authority in charge of coastal management”, different administrations have competences regarding coastal adaptation measures tackling SLR risks.
Chap 5.3.4 Coastal adaptation financing arrangements
A note on private finance, green bounds would have been welcomed.
See also:
- European Union, European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), Expert for the Opinion: “Financing the transition to a low-carbon economy and challenges in financing climate change adaptation (NAT/778)”, 2020.
- Koundouri, P., et al., 2022. Financing the Joint Implementation of Agenda 2030 and the European Green Deal. 2nd Report of the SDSN Senior Working Group on the European Green Deal. Available: https://resources.unsdsn.org/financing-the-joint-implementation-of-agenda-2030-and-the-european-green-deal
Chap. 5.4 Complexity and challenges
Paragraph line 644-650: Can you justify your statement when you said: “Most countries are adopting a low-regret approach and considering SLR estimates that occur in all projections independent of climate and emission scenarios - i.e., between 0.15 and 0.35m by 2050, 2050 including Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Ukraine.” ?
Looking at the 2050 SLR projections, IPCC scenarios don’t foreseen an increase of more than .35cm (it is generally around 20 cm) which can explain why government are not planning for above .35 SLR by 2050 (see https://sealevel.nasa.gov/ipcc-ar6-sea-level-projection-tool)
Could you define “low-regret” approach?
5.4.3 Equity and social vulnerability
A very interesting chapter with added value!
Table 6 is very interesting. Could we also have measures with positive justice factor (such as NBS)?
It would be welcome to also have as, part of the text, an introduction and an explanation of the adaptive response typology (source?).
Box 8 and 9 should also be referenced in the text.
Line 934: Could you define distributive justice?
The report would benefit from an actual concluding part instead of a summary of “ key developments per basin” which would also summarize the key elements of chapter 5.4.
The report needs revision as it contains many approximations and questionable statements.
The sub-chapter on geopolitical context seems a bit disconnected to the subject of the report.
An introduction including the key risks, challenges and governance issues related to Sea-Level-Rise would be welcome.
Properly refers website pages: author of the article or website name / year. You could also use a footnote
[1] . The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, global justice and the environment, Cambridge https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-constitutionalism/article/united-nations-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea-global-justice-and-the-environment/0E40CF82CD994E02D22AC72A96C8FD9A[2] https://www.unep.org/topics/ocean-seas-and-coasts/regional-seas-programme/regional-seas-programmeCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-RC1 -
EC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kate Larkin, 12 Mar 2024
Dear referee,
Many thanks for submitting your review. It is well received and apologies for our late confirmation of receipt.
Best wishes,
Kate Larkin, handling editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
Dear Reviewer,
first of all thank you for your input and suggestions. We went through all the comments and tried to address them in the best possible way.
Please find in the attached table all the comments and the specific answers.
On behalf of all the authors
Giulia Galluccio
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on sp-2023-37', Poppy Kalesi, 12 Mar 2024
General comments
My comments are offered with the caveat that I can only opine on issues relating to the North Sea.
In general, it is a difficult document to navigate. It would be easier for the reader if the authors clearly articulated the common European/global problems, and perhaps discuss how current horizontal and vertical governance structures help solve them or are barriers to resolving them. As the document stands, all these structures are discussed simultaneously, together, which makes it hard to understand what works.
In addition, the authors should consider discussing policy instruments, their benefits and shortcomings, in a more structured way. As it stands, norms and normative approaches are discussed interchangeably with soft law instruments and voluntary initiatives.
Last, tools and resources, or lack thereof, are discussed in fairly generic terms, which makes it hard to learn something about their effectiveness.
Specific comments
There should be a clearer articulation of the nature and structures of governance. Specifically regarding the governance of the North Sea basin, I am missing the aknowledgement that there is currently no formal North Sea Basin strategy, it is work in progress. On page 5, a voluntary initiative, the North Sea Region 2030 Strategy, is refered to as a key policy for th eEU, which is not factually correct. This is a voluntary intiative across regions around the North Sea, including UK and Norwegian regions, which are not part of the EU. The 2030 NSR Strategy is not anchored on any EU policy.
When discussing the socioeconomic context there are a lot of statements which are not backed by evidence. They thus read more as claims an opinions rather than facts.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-RC2 -
EC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kate Larkin, 12 Mar 2024
Dear referee,
Many thanks for submitting your review. It is well received and much appreciated.
Best wishes,
Kate Larkin, handling editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-EC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on EC2', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
Dear Reviewer,
first of all thank you for your input and suggestions. We went through all the comments and tried to address them in the best possible way.
Please find in the attached table all the comments and the specific answers.
On behalf of all the authors
Giulia Galluccio
-
AC2: 'Reply on EC2', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
-
EC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kate Larkin, 12 Mar 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on sp-2023-37', Anonymous Referee #3, 12 Mar 2024
Dear editor,
The chapter presents a review of progress in Europe on the governance of adaptation to SLR, by describing the geopolitical and socio-economic context of SLR governance, EU policy priorities, the status of regional and national frameworks and specific governance challenges.
A main objective/research question is missing. The chapter is descriptive, theoretical observations and reflections are made in section 5.4
The chapter starts with describing the geopolitical and socio-economic characteristics and context of the different European sea basins. This is done in a general, but good way. However why did the authors start with this general description. For me it would have made sense to start with an introduction of how they understand SLR/coastal governance for example as an analytical model and/or as a model of transition/intervention. When the chapter had started with a definition SLR/coastal governance and relevant analytical themes/concepts of SLR/coastal governance (such as equity, vulnerability, justice etc.) it would have given the authors a framework which would have made it possible to present a more focuses analysis of relevant geopolitical and socio-economic developments from a SLR/coastal governance perspective and to understand the enabling and constraining conditions of the institutional context, geopolitical developments, relevant EU and national policies and how to govern the uncertainties related to SLR in a just, fair and democratic way .
Section 5.3 coastal governance gives a good overview of coastal policy frameworks and objectives relevant for SLR both on the international and national level.
Section 5.4 presents interesting building blocks how to govern economic and societal activities and developments given the uncertainties of SLR. My suggestion would be to develop with these building blocks a governance approach presented at the beginning of the chapter.
Section 5.5 presents key developments per basin. It would have been interesting not only to mention what policies are in place and whether countries have reported about SLR, but also to identify the enabling and constraining on the level of a sea basin to govern SLR and what the possibilities are of transboundary cooperation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-RC3 -
EC3: 'Reply on RC3', Kate Larkin, 12 Mar 2024
Dear referee,
Many thanks for submitting your review. It is well received and much appreciated.
Best wishes,
Kate Larkin, handling editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-EC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC3', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
Dear Reviewer,
first of all thank you for your input and suggestions. We went through all the comments and tried to address them in the best possible way.
Please find in the attached table all the comments and the specific answers.
On behalf of all the authors
Giulia Galluccio
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC3', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
-
EC3: 'Reply on RC3', Kate Larkin, 12 Mar 2024
-
EC4: 'Comment on sp-2023-37', Kate Larkin, 13 Mar 2024
Dear lead authors,
I am happy to confirm that the JPI KH SLR Chapter 5 has now received 3 referee comments, following the submission of 2 more earlier this week.This meets the minimum number of referee comments required and we can move to close the review period. In light of this, today I am submitting this editors comment to officially communicate to you all as lead authors to move to the final review stage, updating the Chapter considering the 3 referee reviews, and my editor comments.In this communication I highlight a number of points taken from across the referee comments and also building on my initial comments submitted online on 20th December, and further reflections.To this end, I summarise below some areas of Chapter 5, for which one or more referees and/or the editor suggest revisions to the Chapter, to bring it to a more concise Chapter that focuses on the most pertinent information i.e. key risks and governance challenges in Sea Level Rise and the current state-of the-art in Europe and European Regional Sea basins.
- General: The Chapter is long and not always easy to navigate. The Introduction particularly is too long (up to 11 pages) with some content considered superfluous to the core content of the Chapter. In some sections the structure could be enhanced to more clearly articulate the common challenges in Europe/globally and bringing in examples of solutions, tools and resources;
- Introduction: Reduce length and re-focus This is currently too long (11 pages), with too much emphasis on geopolitical context and socio-economic characteristics, at times leaning towards negative impressions. Proposed updates: Shorten the introduction, include a definition of SLR/coastal governance (RC3), and reach a more concise and balanced description on geopolitical context e.g., more focus on major EU efforts to nurture positive cooperation in the region (not mainly based on NATO reports), more reference to key geopolitical policy instruments e.g., EU marine security strategy and more focus on introducing the key risks and governance challenges when it comes to Sea-Level-Rise, also assessing and increasing where relevant references to Regional Sea Strategies e.g., European Baltic Sea Strategy, Black Sea Synergy initiative, and trans-boundary cooperation. There are some specific suggestions for the North Sea basin from RC2);
- Wording e.g., competitiveness, rivalry and conflicts: Since this is first-and-foremost a European document, I suggest changing the expression “Russian-Ukraine conflict” to “Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine” following the wording used by EEAS/EC, and consider rewording references to competitiveness/rivalry e.g. “rivalry played out in Western Sahara between Morocco and Algeria”, as there are also other viewpoints and facts on this matter;
- Numbers, relevance thereof and evidence used in the text (e.g., section 5.2.2.) and in Figures and Tables (content captions and references in the text - see editor and referee comments), request to add more evidence on socioeconomic content (RC2);
- EU science diplomacy: The EU is very active in science diplomacy across EU Member States and Associated countries and this could be referred to in terms of SLR governance and through connecting researchers as broad as possible on a neutral basis;
- English language (grammar etc) check this throughout – see Editor comments from 20th December 2023
I have sent you all an email with further information on the time-line. In short, the anticipated target deadline for all Chapters in final post-review form is 22nd March. However, I believe you may wish/benefit from more time, and please do let me know if I should request an extension until the end of this working month (29th March) for Chapter 5.
Best wishes,
Kate
Handling Editor, Chapter 5
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-EC4 -
AC4: 'Reply on EC4', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
Dear Kate,
first of all thank you for your input and suggestions. We went through all the comments and tried to address them in the best possible way.
Please find in the attached table all the comments and the specific answers.
On behalf of all the authors
Giulia Galluccio
-
RC4: 'Comment on sp-2023-37', Anonymous Referee #4, 14 Mar 2024
Thank you to the authors for an interesting and useful read
My overarching comments are below with detailed comments attached.
Style - the paper reads like a 'chapter' of a report. It should be recast as a standalone as a science paper.
Conciseness - The text is overly long. Brevity would improve readability in places.
Referencing all assertions - sometimes the evidence in support of an assertion is unclear. Greater referencing or methods statements are needed.
Social justice - great to see, but this section reads a bit as an add on. Less general introduction to the theory and more what policies exist in which countries and how they are implemented would be very interesting to see.
Good luck with the revisions - the basis of a nice paper!
-
EC5: 'Reply on RC4', Kate Larkin, 14 Mar 2024
Dear referee,
Many thanks for your referee comment, which is well received.
Best wishes,
Kate Larkin, Chapter Handling editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-EC5 -
AC5: 'Reply on EC5', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
Dear Reviewer,
thank you the very detailed review , we went through all the comments you left in the document and addressed them accordingly.
Your suggestions were vey helpful to improve the final version of the text.
Kind regards
Giulia Galluccio, on behalf of all the authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-AC5
-
AC5: 'Reply on EC5', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
-
EC5: 'Reply on RC4', Kate Larkin, 14 Mar 2024
-
EC6: 'Comment on sp-2023-37 April 2024 version', Kate Larkin, 22 Apr 2024
The handling editor thanks the authors for their timely submission of the April 2024 version of Chapter 5 “Sea Level Rise in Europe: Governance Context and Challenges” and for their revisions of the paper based on comments from reviewees and the handling editor.
Based on my review of April 2024 manuscript, I recommend that this manuscript still requires some further minor – moderate corrections before finalization.
Firstly, it is noted that the authors have addressed many of the reviewee and editor comments satisfactorily. The manuscript has been shortened to some degree and the geopolitical context has been updated to remove and/or update certain sentences that were identified as requiring a more balanced formulation. It remains long and less connected to SLR and the rest of the content. However, it is shorter, and it is understood that the authors consider this section to be an integral one to the chapter, and that section 5.2 should come before SLR related content. Key policy instruments have also been updated e.g., The Interreg Baltic Sea Region program 2021-2027, and the addition of the EU Maritime Security Strategy (EUMSS). Reference to the fact that the North Sea has no formal strategy (RC2) has been added. The request add green bonds (RC1) has been added/addressed to the section on costal adaptation financing instruments.
The corrections to implement in this finalization round are detailed below according to specific comments. In addition, several minor edits are identified throughout e.g., typos, grammar errors, for which the line and recommended edit is provided.
I thank the authors for their work to-date and for consulting and addressing the comments below, after which we can move to finalization of the manuscript.
Specific comments:
The revised manuscript dated April 2024 has been shortened, particularly reducing text and sections relating to the wider geopolitical context e.g., section 5.2 which is less directly connect with SLR. The resulting reduction in length of the manuscript (e.g., around 1.5 pages less for the Introduction and section 5.2 combined) is a positive. This is welcomed, together with the authors’ actions to update the text to use more balanced formulations. However, the paper remains overly long. Can the authors identify ways to further reduce text across all sections, removing duplication? As identified by reviewee RC4, brevity would improve readability in places;
It is noted that due to a reduction in text for section 5.2 “Geopolitical and socio-economic context” now only covers 3 Sea Basins, namely the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Arctic Ocean. It is noted that this may be a reflection a removal of text that was previously flagged as magnifying negative impressions e.g., for the Black Sea. Nonetheless, since this paper is pan-European and the introduction states that it covers 6 Sea Basins, it is recommended to add back in at least 1-2 sentences of the other 3 Sea Basins that are named in the Introduction as being in scope, namely the Atlantic Ocean, Noth Sea and Black Sea, to ensure this section is complete in terms of the geographical scope of the paper. It is noted that all 5/6 Sea Basins are introduced in lines 120-131. For this reason, can 5.2 be slightly restructured so that each Sea Basin is only introduced once and all text related to that Sea Basin is presented in a single text? For instance, for the Arctic Ocean lines 110-114 could be merged with lines 111-114 into one section on the Arctic. This text on the Arctic does not refer to SLR and is therefore largely outside the scope. Can this be at least supplemented by 1-2 lines on SLR related Arctic Ocean issues, as done for the other Sea Basins in this section? In addition, the North Sea does not yet feature in section 5.2 and could be at least mentioned in the short section on the Atlantic Ocean (that should be rephrased to NorthEast Atlantic Ocean since this is the scope of the European paper);
In addition, since this is a European assessment and is predominantly an EU output, it is encouraged wherever possible to add more focus on EU efforts to nurture positive cooperation in the region. For section 5.2. it is recommended to add a short addition after line 92 “European Sea basins have become geopolitical hotspots in recent years” to further nuance this to explain that the EU continues major efforts to nurture positive cooperation in these regions to boost continued connectivity in these regions, particularly which are particularly challenging where there is a mix of EU Member States and Associated Countries (e.g., Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea);
There remains some repetition that could be further assessed to reduce duplication and shorten the text more. In addition to section 5.2 already mentioned, section 5.3.1. page 8 lines 235-238 seems to repeat the section before (lines 228-235). His should be checked and where possible consolidated;
It is recommended to move the text from Box 2 into standard text (i.e. remove the box 2 outline and keep the text rather as standard text, as for other nations so that section 5.3.2 specifically pages 20-22 includes many national examples, of which Italy is one example amongst other nations. Otherwise, there could be a perceived bias (or increased visibility) towards Italy case studies (multiple examples e.g., Box 2, and references to MOSE Venice, Ravenna etc);
Although references include those related to the EU Green Deal, there remains no mention of the EU Green Deal in the manuscript. This was requested by a reviewee as it is an important ongoing EU policy framework;
Reviewee RC3 requested that the manuscript identifies more objectives/research questions and also explores possibilities are of transboundary cooperation. Could the authors consider this again so that objectives of the paper are outlined more and at least the conclusions refer to future research questions/areas to explore including transboundary cooperation in the area of SLR governance;
Reviewee RC4 noted the reference to social justice and recommended that more could be added on what policies exist in which countries and how they are implemented. It is understood that adding new sections at this point may not be possible, however can the authors consider to add 1-2 sentences in the conclusion about what be further elaborated in future studies?;
Cross-reference to other Chapters in the European SLR Assessment need to be further considered. For this, the authors are asked to consult directly with the JPI Oceans/Climate coordination team to see how other Chapters have done this, so there is as much consistency in approaches across all chapters.There are a few minor edits which should be addressed throughout that include correcting typos, grammar and syntax:
Line 74: update to: Mediterranean Sea and Arctic Ocean
Line 133: update to: …relies on service sectors
Table 1 North Sea Column: Current economic sectors
“…one of the world’s…..
“Oil and gas: Western Europe’s…..
Line 155: Table 1 caption/title. What does the ‘i’ link to at the end of the Table title. Can this be more clear, e.g., putting in brackets a reference ‘see section X’? And also add a source of the statistic into the Table caption/title, as requested by a reviewee?Line 204: “…..Besides, except for UNCLOS….”
Line 239: There are also other important initiatives at the level of sea basins (this edit is needed as the previous section on RSCs are also operating at the scale of sea basins).
Table 2: This Table remains very long. Can the format be further optimized to reduce space e.g., reducing some column widths where there is small amounts of text e.g., “ Sea Basin” and others, to allow for an increase in column width for text-heavy columns “Main objectives” and “specific information on SLR”? This would further reduce the paper length.
Table 2 line “the EU Arctic Policy”: “Aims to help preserve….”
Line 242: “…..makes available country progress….” (check that country/nation is meant, not county = sub-national in some countries e.g., UK)
Line 329: Check what is meant as it looks like a word(s) missing? “……that sea level rise already affects some countries and is expected to impact…..
Line 255: replace relevant with “…however this remains relatively low…”
Line 368-369: this part does not yet make full sense. See proposed edit: “…most measures address the need for consolidated knowledge and reduced uncertainty”
Line 377-378: update to “…Member States differ substantially….”
Line 420: update to “……a key role in coping with short-and long-term…..”
Line 519: Be consistent with reference to countries changing NL to The Netherlands “e.g., The Netherlands, Spain….”
Line 631: If this the first time the MoSE barrier is referred to, it is recommended to add “Venice, Italy” to inform the reader as this text comes before Figure 1.
Line 648-649: The authors are asked to respond to RC 1reviewee that requested authors to add a define “low-regret” approach and/or justification to the sentence “Most countries are adopting a low-regret approach and considering SLR estimates that occur in all projections independent of climate and emission scenarios - i.e., between 0.15 and 0.35m by 2050, including Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway, 650 Portugal, Spain, Ukraine. (McEvoy et al., 2021b)
Line 710: “Cross-cutting challenges also arise with respect…..”
Line 719: If this is the first time Texel is referred to, it is recommended to add “The Netherlands” to inform the reader as this text comes before Box 8.
Line 827: Remove additional bracket “…in Europe (see Riera-Spiegelhalder…)
Box 8 and Line 1081: The term “distributive justice” is used. Reviewee RC1 requested this to be defined.
Box 9 title: 1) There is repetition at the end of the Table with the Table title/caption twice with different titles. It is proposed to remove the first reference. Then, for the main Box 9 title, it is recommended to rephrase since the term “in crosshairs of the courts” is very colloquial and may not translate well in different languages. Suggested update is “Box 9 – Examples of sea level rise related climate litigation cases .”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-EC6
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on sp-2023-37', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jan 2024
Introduction
This reads more like a summary of the report, not really as an introduction.
Could you maybe introduce the key risks and governance challenges when it comes to Sea-Level-Rise?
Sub-chapter 5.2.1 “Geopolitical context in European Sea Basins”
This report is about SLR governance. It would make this sub-chapter on the geopolitical context more interesting and relevant to the subject of the report, if the geopolitical context was link to the issues of Sea-Level-Rise and adaptation measures (e.g. how the geopolitical context such as cooperation mechanisms, existing conflict(s) or the development of strategic sectors, will be affected or affect SLR governance and the implementation of adaptation measures?)
This sub-chapter highlights certain policy documents per basin, introduced as “key policies documents. In the Mediterranean Sea you mentioned the “2021 European Neighbourhood Policy ”, in the Baltic Sea it’s the Interreg Baltic Sea region program (which is first and foremost a financial instrument), while in the North Sea you mentioned the “North Sea Region 2030 Strategy”, why not mentioning the European Baltic Sea Strategy, or the other Interreg programs in place in all sea basins?
In the Black Sea it is the Black Sea Synergy initiative as “the EU’s key regional policy framework for the region in force since 2007” while regional actor would mention, the Bucharest declaration or the Common Maritime Agenda.
The EU marine security strategy as a geopolitical policy instrument might be worth mentioning…
As a result the choice of the key policy documents presented per basin pose question...
If the intention is to bring a geopolitical perspective, instead of introducing certain policy documents, I would suggest focusing this sub-chapter on the key actors at play including regional organizations, considering you have another chapter dedicated to governance where you are listing key policy documents (table1)?
Sub-Chapter 5.2.2 Economic context in European Sea Basins
Table1: It would be nice to have the source of the statistic mentioned.
Regarding the Black Sea, the numbers stated for the weight of the Oil and Gas industry mentioned might be out-of-date following the Russian-Ukraine war... Is the statistic mentioned from 2022-2023?
In table 2, the description of the situation of the NE Atlantic Ocean is a little surprising and would better fit the Mediterranean coast description…Mentioning the total population of the 4 countries of the region is not pertinent as it does not relate specifically to the NE Atlantic coastline.
Chap. 5.3 Coastal governance
The choice of introducting this chapter by the UNCLOS as key governance frameworks currently in place to tackle the impacts of climate change (ligne 295) is surprising as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does not include any reference to climate change (see Amstrong C. 2023[1]). Only the very recent agreement of the new Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) treaty, reached in November 2023, include clear reference on climate chance and marine environment protection. At this stage the effectiveness of this instrument is unknown. It is even more surprising that no mention is made of the Agenda 2030 and the SDG 13, the Paris Agreement, or the European Green Deal. One would expect it is, a minima mentioned, in table 3 (ligne 325) When introducing the regional sea conventions (RSC) (ligne 316), the text would benefit if the different types of agreement with UNEP were mentioned (UNEP-administered / UNEP-Non administered / Independent [2] ), not all RSC are "part of UNEP”, some simply cooperate with.
Table 4: update MSP status of Romania
Ligne 412: the example of France is very approximate; the country is generally referred as a vertical type of territorial management even more regarding marine space. The country has specific regional and local documents to tackle climate adaptation and more specifically SLR as a climate risk (e.g. "plans de prévention des risques littoraux" and strategic sea basin documents). “Conservatoire du littoral” cannot be cited as the “central public authority in charge of coastal management”, different administrations have competences regarding coastal adaptation measures tackling SLR risks.
Chap 5.3.4 Coastal adaptation financing arrangements
A note on private finance, green bounds would have been welcomed.
See also:
- European Union, European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), Expert for the Opinion: “Financing the transition to a low-carbon economy and challenges in financing climate change adaptation (NAT/778)”, 2020.
- Koundouri, P., et al., 2022. Financing the Joint Implementation of Agenda 2030 and the European Green Deal. 2nd Report of the SDSN Senior Working Group on the European Green Deal. Available: https://resources.unsdsn.org/financing-the-joint-implementation-of-agenda-2030-and-the-european-green-deal
Chap. 5.4 Complexity and challenges
Paragraph line 644-650: Can you justify your statement when you said: “Most countries are adopting a low-regret approach and considering SLR estimates that occur in all projections independent of climate and emission scenarios - i.e., between 0.15 and 0.35m by 2050, 2050 including Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Ukraine.” ?
Looking at the 2050 SLR projections, IPCC scenarios don’t foreseen an increase of more than .35cm (it is generally around 20 cm) which can explain why government are not planning for above .35 SLR by 2050 (see https://sealevel.nasa.gov/ipcc-ar6-sea-level-projection-tool)
Could you define “low-regret” approach?
5.4.3 Equity and social vulnerability
A very interesting chapter with added value!
Table 6 is very interesting. Could we also have measures with positive justice factor (such as NBS)?
It would be welcome to also have as, part of the text, an introduction and an explanation of the adaptive response typology (source?).
Box 8 and 9 should also be referenced in the text.
Line 934: Could you define distributive justice?
The report would benefit from an actual concluding part instead of a summary of “ key developments per basin” which would also summarize the key elements of chapter 5.4.
The report needs revision as it contains many approximations and questionable statements.
The sub-chapter on geopolitical context seems a bit disconnected to the subject of the report.
An introduction including the key risks, challenges and governance issues related to Sea-Level-Rise would be welcome.
Properly refers website pages: author of the article or website name / year. You could also use a footnote
[1] . The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, global justice and the environment, Cambridge https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-constitutionalism/article/united-nations-convention-on-the-law-of-the-sea-global-justice-and-the-environment/0E40CF82CD994E02D22AC72A96C8FD9A[2] https://www.unep.org/topics/ocean-seas-and-coasts/regional-seas-programme/regional-seas-programmeCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-RC1 -
EC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kate Larkin, 12 Mar 2024
Dear referee,
Many thanks for submitting your review. It is well received and apologies for our late confirmation of receipt.
Best wishes,
Kate Larkin, handling editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-EC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
Dear Reviewer,
first of all thank you for your input and suggestions. We went through all the comments and tried to address them in the best possible way.
Please find in the attached table all the comments and the specific answers.
On behalf of all the authors
Giulia Galluccio
-
AC1: 'Reply on EC1', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on sp-2023-37', Poppy Kalesi, 12 Mar 2024
General comments
My comments are offered with the caveat that I can only opine on issues relating to the North Sea.
In general, it is a difficult document to navigate. It would be easier for the reader if the authors clearly articulated the common European/global problems, and perhaps discuss how current horizontal and vertical governance structures help solve them or are barriers to resolving them. As the document stands, all these structures are discussed simultaneously, together, which makes it hard to understand what works.
In addition, the authors should consider discussing policy instruments, their benefits and shortcomings, in a more structured way. As it stands, norms and normative approaches are discussed interchangeably with soft law instruments and voluntary initiatives.
Last, tools and resources, or lack thereof, are discussed in fairly generic terms, which makes it hard to learn something about their effectiveness.
Specific comments
There should be a clearer articulation of the nature and structures of governance. Specifically regarding the governance of the North Sea basin, I am missing the aknowledgement that there is currently no formal North Sea Basin strategy, it is work in progress. On page 5, a voluntary initiative, the North Sea Region 2030 Strategy, is refered to as a key policy for th eEU, which is not factually correct. This is a voluntary intiative across regions around the North Sea, including UK and Norwegian regions, which are not part of the EU. The 2030 NSR Strategy is not anchored on any EU policy.
When discussing the socioeconomic context there are a lot of statements which are not backed by evidence. They thus read more as claims an opinions rather than facts.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-RC2 -
EC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kate Larkin, 12 Mar 2024
Dear referee,
Many thanks for submitting your review. It is well received and much appreciated.
Best wishes,
Kate Larkin, handling editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-EC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on EC2', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
Dear Reviewer,
first of all thank you for your input and suggestions. We went through all the comments and tried to address them in the best possible way.
Please find in the attached table all the comments and the specific answers.
On behalf of all the authors
Giulia Galluccio
-
AC2: 'Reply on EC2', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
-
EC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kate Larkin, 12 Mar 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on sp-2023-37', Anonymous Referee #3, 12 Mar 2024
Dear editor,
The chapter presents a review of progress in Europe on the governance of adaptation to SLR, by describing the geopolitical and socio-economic context of SLR governance, EU policy priorities, the status of regional and national frameworks and specific governance challenges.
A main objective/research question is missing. The chapter is descriptive, theoretical observations and reflections are made in section 5.4
The chapter starts with describing the geopolitical and socio-economic characteristics and context of the different European sea basins. This is done in a general, but good way. However why did the authors start with this general description. For me it would have made sense to start with an introduction of how they understand SLR/coastal governance for example as an analytical model and/or as a model of transition/intervention. When the chapter had started with a definition SLR/coastal governance and relevant analytical themes/concepts of SLR/coastal governance (such as equity, vulnerability, justice etc.) it would have given the authors a framework which would have made it possible to present a more focuses analysis of relevant geopolitical and socio-economic developments from a SLR/coastal governance perspective and to understand the enabling and constraining conditions of the institutional context, geopolitical developments, relevant EU and national policies and how to govern the uncertainties related to SLR in a just, fair and democratic way .
Section 5.3 coastal governance gives a good overview of coastal policy frameworks and objectives relevant for SLR both on the international and national level.
Section 5.4 presents interesting building blocks how to govern economic and societal activities and developments given the uncertainties of SLR. My suggestion would be to develop with these building blocks a governance approach presented at the beginning of the chapter.
Section 5.5 presents key developments per basin. It would have been interesting not only to mention what policies are in place and whether countries have reported about SLR, but also to identify the enabling and constraining on the level of a sea basin to govern SLR and what the possibilities are of transboundary cooperation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-RC3 -
EC3: 'Reply on RC3', Kate Larkin, 12 Mar 2024
Dear referee,
Many thanks for submitting your review. It is well received and much appreciated.
Best wishes,
Kate Larkin, handling editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-EC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC3', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
Dear Reviewer,
first of all thank you for your input and suggestions. We went through all the comments and tried to address them in the best possible way.
Please find in the attached table all the comments and the specific answers.
On behalf of all the authors
Giulia Galluccio
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC3', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
-
EC3: 'Reply on RC3', Kate Larkin, 12 Mar 2024
-
EC4: 'Comment on sp-2023-37', Kate Larkin, 13 Mar 2024
Dear lead authors,
I am happy to confirm that the JPI KH SLR Chapter 5 has now received 3 referee comments, following the submission of 2 more earlier this week.This meets the minimum number of referee comments required and we can move to close the review period. In light of this, today I am submitting this editors comment to officially communicate to you all as lead authors to move to the final review stage, updating the Chapter considering the 3 referee reviews, and my editor comments.In this communication I highlight a number of points taken from across the referee comments and also building on my initial comments submitted online on 20th December, and further reflections.To this end, I summarise below some areas of Chapter 5, for which one or more referees and/or the editor suggest revisions to the Chapter, to bring it to a more concise Chapter that focuses on the most pertinent information i.e. key risks and governance challenges in Sea Level Rise and the current state-of the-art in Europe and European Regional Sea basins.
- General: The Chapter is long and not always easy to navigate. The Introduction particularly is too long (up to 11 pages) with some content considered superfluous to the core content of the Chapter. In some sections the structure could be enhanced to more clearly articulate the common challenges in Europe/globally and bringing in examples of solutions, tools and resources;
- Introduction: Reduce length and re-focus This is currently too long (11 pages), with too much emphasis on geopolitical context and socio-economic characteristics, at times leaning towards negative impressions. Proposed updates: Shorten the introduction, include a definition of SLR/coastal governance (RC3), and reach a more concise and balanced description on geopolitical context e.g., more focus on major EU efforts to nurture positive cooperation in the region (not mainly based on NATO reports), more reference to key geopolitical policy instruments e.g., EU marine security strategy and more focus on introducing the key risks and governance challenges when it comes to Sea-Level-Rise, also assessing and increasing where relevant references to Regional Sea Strategies e.g., European Baltic Sea Strategy, Black Sea Synergy initiative, and trans-boundary cooperation. There are some specific suggestions for the North Sea basin from RC2);
- Wording e.g., competitiveness, rivalry and conflicts: Since this is first-and-foremost a European document, I suggest changing the expression “Russian-Ukraine conflict” to “Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine” following the wording used by EEAS/EC, and consider rewording references to competitiveness/rivalry e.g. “rivalry played out in Western Sahara between Morocco and Algeria”, as there are also other viewpoints and facts on this matter;
- Numbers, relevance thereof and evidence used in the text (e.g., section 5.2.2.) and in Figures and Tables (content captions and references in the text - see editor and referee comments), request to add more evidence on socioeconomic content (RC2);
- EU science diplomacy: The EU is very active in science diplomacy across EU Member States and Associated countries and this could be referred to in terms of SLR governance and through connecting researchers as broad as possible on a neutral basis;
- English language (grammar etc) check this throughout – see Editor comments from 20th December 2023
I have sent you all an email with further information on the time-line. In short, the anticipated target deadline for all Chapters in final post-review form is 22nd March. However, I believe you may wish/benefit from more time, and please do let me know if I should request an extension until the end of this working month (29th March) for Chapter 5.
Best wishes,
Kate
Handling Editor, Chapter 5
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-EC4 -
AC4: 'Reply on EC4', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
Dear Kate,
first of all thank you for your input and suggestions. We went through all the comments and tried to address them in the best possible way.
Please find in the attached table all the comments and the specific answers.
On behalf of all the authors
Giulia Galluccio
-
RC4: 'Comment on sp-2023-37', Anonymous Referee #4, 14 Mar 2024
Thank you to the authors for an interesting and useful read
My overarching comments are below with detailed comments attached.
Style - the paper reads like a 'chapter' of a report. It should be recast as a standalone as a science paper.
Conciseness - The text is overly long. Brevity would improve readability in places.
Referencing all assertions - sometimes the evidence in support of an assertion is unclear. Greater referencing or methods statements are needed.
Social justice - great to see, but this section reads a bit as an add on. Less general introduction to the theory and more what policies exist in which countries and how they are implemented would be very interesting to see.
Good luck with the revisions - the basis of a nice paper!
-
EC5: 'Reply on RC4', Kate Larkin, 14 Mar 2024
Dear referee,
Many thanks for your referee comment, which is well received.
Best wishes,
Kate Larkin, Chapter Handling editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-EC5 -
AC5: 'Reply on EC5', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
Dear Reviewer,
thank you the very detailed review , we went through all the comments you left in the document and addressed them accordingly.
Your suggestions were vey helpful to improve the final version of the text.
Kind regards
Giulia Galluccio, on behalf of all the authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-AC5
-
AC5: 'Reply on EC5', Giulia Galluccio, 04 Apr 2024
-
EC5: 'Reply on RC4', Kate Larkin, 14 Mar 2024
-
EC6: 'Comment on sp-2023-37 April 2024 version', Kate Larkin, 22 Apr 2024
The handling editor thanks the authors for their timely submission of the April 2024 version of Chapter 5 “Sea Level Rise in Europe: Governance Context and Challenges” and for their revisions of the paper based on comments from reviewees and the handling editor.
Based on my review of April 2024 manuscript, I recommend that this manuscript still requires some further minor – moderate corrections before finalization.
Firstly, it is noted that the authors have addressed many of the reviewee and editor comments satisfactorily. The manuscript has been shortened to some degree and the geopolitical context has been updated to remove and/or update certain sentences that were identified as requiring a more balanced formulation. It remains long and less connected to SLR and the rest of the content. However, it is shorter, and it is understood that the authors consider this section to be an integral one to the chapter, and that section 5.2 should come before SLR related content. Key policy instruments have also been updated e.g., The Interreg Baltic Sea Region program 2021-2027, and the addition of the EU Maritime Security Strategy (EUMSS). Reference to the fact that the North Sea has no formal strategy (RC2) has been added. The request add green bonds (RC1) has been added/addressed to the section on costal adaptation financing instruments.
The corrections to implement in this finalization round are detailed below according to specific comments. In addition, several minor edits are identified throughout e.g., typos, grammar errors, for which the line and recommended edit is provided.
I thank the authors for their work to-date and for consulting and addressing the comments below, after which we can move to finalization of the manuscript.
Specific comments:
The revised manuscript dated April 2024 has been shortened, particularly reducing text and sections relating to the wider geopolitical context e.g., section 5.2 which is less directly connect with SLR. The resulting reduction in length of the manuscript (e.g., around 1.5 pages less for the Introduction and section 5.2 combined) is a positive. This is welcomed, together with the authors’ actions to update the text to use more balanced formulations. However, the paper remains overly long. Can the authors identify ways to further reduce text across all sections, removing duplication? As identified by reviewee RC4, brevity would improve readability in places;
It is noted that due to a reduction in text for section 5.2 “Geopolitical and socio-economic context” now only covers 3 Sea Basins, namely the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Arctic Ocean. It is noted that this may be a reflection a removal of text that was previously flagged as magnifying negative impressions e.g., for the Black Sea. Nonetheless, since this paper is pan-European and the introduction states that it covers 6 Sea Basins, it is recommended to add back in at least 1-2 sentences of the other 3 Sea Basins that are named in the Introduction as being in scope, namely the Atlantic Ocean, Noth Sea and Black Sea, to ensure this section is complete in terms of the geographical scope of the paper. It is noted that all 5/6 Sea Basins are introduced in lines 120-131. For this reason, can 5.2 be slightly restructured so that each Sea Basin is only introduced once and all text related to that Sea Basin is presented in a single text? For instance, for the Arctic Ocean lines 110-114 could be merged with lines 111-114 into one section on the Arctic. This text on the Arctic does not refer to SLR and is therefore largely outside the scope. Can this be at least supplemented by 1-2 lines on SLR related Arctic Ocean issues, as done for the other Sea Basins in this section? In addition, the North Sea does not yet feature in section 5.2 and could be at least mentioned in the short section on the Atlantic Ocean (that should be rephrased to NorthEast Atlantic Ocean since this is the scope of the European paper);
In addition, since this is a European assessment and is predominantly an EU output, it is encouraged wherever possible to add more focus on EU efforts to nurture positive cooperation in the region. For section 5.2. it is recommended to add a short addition after line 92 “European Sea basins have become geopolitical hotspots in recent years” to further nuance this to explain that the EU continues major efforts to nurture positive cooperation in these regions to boost continued connectivity in these regions, particularly which are particularly challenging where there is a mix of EU Member States and Associated Countries (e.g., Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea);
There remains some repetition that could be further assessed to reduce duplication and shorten the text more. In addition to section 5.2 already mentioned, section 5.3.1. page 8 lines 235-238 seems to repeat the section before (lines 228-235). His should be checked and where possible consolidated;
It is recommended to move the text from Box 2 into standard text (i.e. remove the box 2 outline and keep the text rather as standard text, as for other nations so that section 5.3.2 specifically pages 20-22 includes many national examples, of which Italy is one example amongst other nations. Otherwise, there could be a perceived bias (or increased visibility) towards Italy case studies (multiple examples e.g., Box 2, and references to MOSE Venice, Ravenna etc);
Although references include those related to the EU Green Deal, there remains no mention of the EU Green Deal in the manuscript. This was requested by a reviewee as it is an important ongoing EU policy framework;
Reviewee RC3 requested that the manuscript identifies more objectives/research questions and also explores possibilities are of transboundary cooperation. Could the authors consider this again so that objectives of the paper are outlined more and at least the conclusions refer to future research questions/areas to explore including transboundary cooperation in the area of SLR governance;
Reviewee RC4 noted the reference to social justice and recommended that more could be added on what policies exist in which countries and how they are implemented. It is understood that adding new sections at this point may not be possible, however can the authors consider to add 1-2 sentences in the conclusion about what be further elaborated in future studies?;
Cross-reference to other Chapters in the European SLR Assessment need to be further considered. For this, the authors are asked to consult directly with the JPI Oceans/Climate coordination team to see how other Chapters have done this, so there is as much consistency in approaches across all chapters.There are a few minor edits which should be addressed throughout that include correcting typos, grammar and syntax:
Line 74: update to: Mediterranean Sea and Arctic Ocean
Line 133: update to: …relies on service sectors
Table 1 North Sea Column: Current economic sectors
“…one of the world’s…..
“Oil and gas: Western Europe’s…..
Line 155: Table 1 caption/title. What does the ‘i’ link to at the end of the Table title. Can this be more clear, e.g., putting in brackets a reference ‘see section X’? And also add a source of the statistic into the Table caption/title, as requested by a reviewee?Line 204: “…..Besides, except for UNCLOS….”
Line 239: There are also other important initiatives at the level of sea basins (this edit is needed as the previous section on RSCs are also operating at the scale of sea basins).
Table 2: This Table remains very long. Can the format be further optimized to reduce space e.g., reducing some column widths where there is small amounts of text e.g., “ Sea Basin” and others, to allow for an increase in column width for text-heavy columns “Main objectives” and “specific information on SLR”? This would further reduce the paper length.
Table 2 line “the EU Arctic Policy”: “Aims to help preserve….”
Line 242: “…..makes available country progress….” (check that country/nation is meant, not county = sub-national in some countries e.g., UK)
Line 329: Check what is meant as it looks like a word(s) missing? “……that sea level rise already affects some countries and is expected to impact…..
Line 255: replace relevant with “…however this remains relatively low…”
Line 368-369: this part does not yet make full sense. See proposed edit: “…most measures address the need for consolidated knowledge and reduced uncertainty”
Line 377-378: update to “…Member States differ substantially….”
Line 420: update to “……a key role in coping with short-and long-term…..”
Line 519: Be consistent with reference to countries changing NL to The Netherlands “e.g., The Netherlands, Spain….”
Line 631: If this the first time the MoSE barrier is referred to, it is recommended to add “Venice, Italy” to inform the reader as this text comes before Figure 1.
Line 648-649: The authors are asked to respond to RC 1reviewee that requested authors to add a define “low-regret” approach and/or justification to the sentence “Most countries are adopting a low-regret approach and considering SLR estimates that occur in all projections independent of climate and emission scenarios - i.e., between 0.15 and 0.35m by 2050, including Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway, 650 Portugal, Spain, Ukraine. (McEvoy et al., 2021b)
Line 710: “Cross-cutting challenges also arise with respect…..”
Line 719: If this is the first time Texel is referred to, it is recommended to add “The Netherlands” to inform the reader as this text comes before Box 8.
Line 827: Remove additional bracket “…in Europe (see Riera-Spiegelhalder…)
Box 8 and Line 1081: The term “distributive justice” is used. Reviewee RC1 requested this to be defined.
Box 9 title: 1) There is repetition at the end of the Table with the Table title/caption twice with different titles. It is proposed to remove the first reference. Then, for the main Box 9 title, it is recommended to rephrase since the term “in crosshairs of the courts” is very colloquial and may not translate well in different languages. Suggested update is “Box 9 – Examples of sea level rise related climate litigation cases .”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/sp-2023-37-EC6
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 598 | 192 | 52 | 842 | 21 | 22 |
- HTML: 598
- PDF: 192
- XML: 52
- Total: 842
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 22
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1