Context and Framing

Context and framing Coordinating Lead Authors: Anna PIRANI (Italy), Agustín SÁNCHEZ-ARCILLA (Spain) Lead Authors: Elham ALI (Egypt), Ana IGLESIAS (Spain) Contributing Authors: Mounir GHRIBI (Italy), Katarzyna MARINI (France/Poland), Daria POVH ŠKUGOR (Croatia) This document should be cited as: Pirani, A., Sánchez-Arcilla, A., Ali, E., Iglesias, A., 2024: Context and Framing. In: Climate and Environmental Coastal Risks in the Mediterranean. [Djoundourian, S., Lionello, P., Llasat, M.C., Guiot, J., Cramer, W., Driouech, F., Gattacceca, J.C., Marini, K. (eds.)]. MedECC Reports. MedECC Secretariat, Marseille, France, pp. 41-70, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15096118 1 Chapter 1 Context and framing Executive summary 43 1.1 Introduction 44 1.1.1 Mediterranean coastal risks 44 1.1.2 The science-policy context 46 1.1.3 The Mediterranean coastal region 47 Box 1.1 Core concepts 49 1.2 Climate and environmental change and impacts in the Mediterranean region 50 1.2.1 Observed and future climate change 50 1.2.2 Environmental change 50 1.2.3 Vulnerability, exposure, and impacts 52 1.3 Coastal risks and adaptation in the Mediterranean Region 54 1.3.1 The risk framing of the report 54 1.3.2 Adaptation pathways 55 1.4 A guide to the assessment 56 1.4.1 Common dimensions of integration 56 1.4.2 Communicating assessment findings consistently 57 1.4.3 Values and the interplay with nature and society 58 1.4.4 Ethical considerations 59 References 62 Informations about the authors 68 42 1 Executive Summary The Mediterranean is often referred to as a ‘hotspot’ of climate and environmental change given the high exposure and vulnerability of human societies and ecosystems and interconnected risks in this region (MedECC 2020a; Ali et al. 2022). A third of the Mediterranean population lives close to the sea and depends on infrastructure developed within the coastal zone. Policies to manage coastal risks and adaptation strategies in the context of sustainable development are therefore important for the whole region. Policy development together with regional cooperation support greater integration of knowledge, applied to more sustainable and integrated Coastal Zone Management and its proper communication. • Risk assessments for Mediterranean coastal zones address the specific features of climate, variability and extremes, and the often narrow and overpressured coastal zones of the Mediterranean Basin. Coastal risk levels, estimated with explicit treatment of uncertainties can inform adaptation pathways and support coastal sustainability decisions. Coastal hazards, vulnerabilities, and exposure are assessed together with climate and environmental management scenarios. This combined information provides useful support for a transition towards risk reduction, building long-term resilience and sustainability in coastal governance, policies, as well as social perception. • Adaptation pathways provide a sequenced set of actions to sustain coastal zones and control risk levels, including change stations (indicating shift in adaptation pathways) and tipping points (indicating a threshold in adaptation pathways) to guide coastal decisions. The preparation of adaptation pathways favours objective discussions among stakeholders to co-decide preferred adaptation options and deadlines for their implementation, which in turn facilitates the generation of sufficient funding and supportive policies. • Coastal risks have consequences for biophysical values and social activities. Understanding how risks are distributed within and among communities can inform adaptation policy development. A valuebased approach guides the understanding between nature and society, placing the social and cultural values in context within the region. • Adaptation plans designed by local and regional administrations typically focus on the need to protect communities, and minimise impacts on the natural environment, such as ensuring ecosystem resilience. Including ethical considerations would lead to informed and more sociallyand ecosystems-oriented adaptation policies. Context and framing 43 1.1 Introduction The First Mediterranean Assessment Report (MAR1) on the current conditions and expected risks of climate and environmental change in the Mediterranean Basin was published on 17 November 2020 by the network of Mediterranean Experts on Climate and environmental Change (MedECC) (MedECC 2020a). It was prepared by 190 scientists from 25 countries. To produce this report, more than 3800 articles and reports in the scientific literature were assessed. The overarching goal for the development of MAR1 was to cover all major risks associated with environmental change as comprehensively as possible, regarding the major drivers of risk, the major systems impacted and as much as possible the sub-regions of the Mediterranean Basin. During this assessment, several important issues emerged that require deeper analysis, often associated with progress published in new scientific studies. It was therefore proposed that the MedECC community, and the approach developed for MAR1, could be used to produce a Special Report, during the 2021–2024 period, addressing coastal risks in the Mediterranean region. The coastal zone is generally defined as the interface between land and sea including the land area affected by marine processes, and the part of the sea affected by terrestrial processes, considering relevant biophysical and socioeconomic criteria, well-illustrated by low lying deltas subject to marine flooding, erosion and salinisation. The Special Report on Climate and Environmental Coastal Risks in the Mediterranean is structured with an opening introductory chapter (Chapter 1) that provides readers with the context, background and key dimensions, particularly the risk framework, of this assessment. The report has three central chapters: the first assesses the drivers of coastal risks in the Mediterranean and their interactions (Chapter 2); the second addresses coastal climate change and environmental impacts and risks for human and natural systems in the Mediterranean (Chapter 3), and the third explores the existing and prospective responses and management approaches to managing climate change and environmental risks, the existing policy-research interface, and presents best practices across the Mediterranean region (Chapter 4). The final chapter (Chapter 5) summarises the available knowledge about climate resilient sustainable development pathways for Mediterranean coasts, building on the outcomes of Chapters 2 to 4. This introductory chapter sets the context for the Special Report in terms of the policy, natural environment and societal context of the report, focusing on the general risk framing, as well as key definitions, including context-specific nuances that are relevant across the report. It identifies what is assessed in the report, building on recent developments, and considering the latest relevant international assessments both at global scale and with a special focus on the Mediterranean. The introduction establishes a common assessment framework to facilitate the communication and synthesis of the results for stakeholders and users more broadly. 1.1.1 Mediterranean coastal risks As explained above, the Mediterranean is often considered as a ‘hotspot’ of climate and environmental change, with a third of the Mediterranean population (around 150 million people) living ‘close’ to a dynamic shoreline (e.g. public domain zones with a width of a few to hundreds of metres) or in a low elevation coastal zone (e.g. below 10 m with respect to sea level). This population depends on infrastructure developed within the coastal zone and is therefore significantly affected by marine drivers. As assessed in the MAR1 report (MedECC 2020a), 40% of Mediterranean coastal areas are built-up or otherwise modified, often rendering them particularly vulnerable to: (1) coastal flooding and erosion, caused by sea level rise in combination with extreme climate events and reduced riverine solid transport producing sediment starvation in deltas and estuaries; (2) infiltration of seawater into coastal aquifers (seawater intrusion); (3) general degradation of coastal habitats, including wetlands, seabed meadows and agricultural systems; (4) coastal squeeze and loss of water and sediment quality; and (5) cumulative pollution effects at selected sites, whose concentration of human and economic activities has resulted in increasing degradation of coastal ecosystems. The combined result is a disturbance in sediment supply and exchange between the different compartments of coastal systems, aggravated by additional environmental disturbances due to salinisation, pollution, urbanisation, and lack of accommodation space (Wolff et al. 2020). 44 1 Mean sea level in the Mediterranean Basin has risen by 1.4 mm yr—1 during the 20th century and it has accelerated to 2.8 mm yr—1 recently (1993–2018), with sea level rise expected to continue accelerating in the Mediterranean with regional differences. This rise will reach the expected global rate of 43–84 cm above current levels by 2100, but with a significant risk of exceeding 1 m in the case of further ice-sheet destabilisation in Antarctica (MedECC 2020a). Sea level rise will intensify most coastal risks through the increase in frequency and intensity of coastal floods and erosion events. Until 2100, coastal flood risks, which are mainly of marine origin but are compounded in river mouth areas by combined marine-riverine flooding, may increase by more than 50% and the erosion risk by more than 10% across the Mediterranean region (Reimann et al. 2018). Damaging flash floods are expected to increase in many countries including France, Italy, and Spain, mainly affecting coastal areas and river mouth areas where population and urban settlements are growing in flood-prone areas, becoming more frequent and/ or intense due to climate change and land surface sealing by urbanisation. Important challenges to groundwater quality in coastal areas are expected to arise from saltwater intrusion driven by enhanced extraction of coastal groundwater aquifers and sea level rise. Reduced precipitation and prolonged droughts will reduce the water discharge and sediment flow of Mediterranean rivers and catchments, leading to the risk of land loss in estuarine river mouths and deltas. The agricultural sector will be affected by direct impact (e.g. due to salinisation) or loss (e.g. due to eroded land) in agricultural areas within coastal zones, defined considering biophysical and socioeconomic criteria, as explained above. Coastal zones feature significant increases in salinity due to sea-level rise and decreasing freshwater availability, progressive sediment starvation due to river regulation, reduced catchment basin erosion and dam barriers, and enhanced flooding due to relative sea level rise (eustatic rise plus subsidence) that affect deltas and estuaries. The impacts are more severe on the less mobile and resilient species, although mitigated by improved irrigation practices, use of recycled waters or more nature-based solutions for coastal areas. Coastal erosion due to sea level rise and urban development will also likely affect tourism. The effect of sea level rise, together with changes in storm features are likely to seriously impact port operations, slowing down trade operations and productivity levels. Parts of the rich Mediterranean cultural heritage, notably the World Heritage Sites (WHS) implemented by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), are threatened directly by sea level rise, energetic storm events (e.g. medicanes), concentrated precipitation (e.g. Mediterranean flash floods) and other aspects of environmental change (Ribas et al. 2020; Sarkar et al. 2022). Proactive adaptation to these hazards is essential for maintaining functioning coastal zones. Coastal adaptation practices can be classified into the following broad categories: protect, accommodate, advance, and retreat. Nature-based protection solutions, such as beach and shore nourishment, dune or wetland restoration, reforestation in upstream areas, and adequate agricultural practices to retain water, present an implementation gap despite recent advances in techniques and policies. These practices, supported by advanced information such as from Early Warning Systems (EWSs), contribute to reducing flood fatalities and preparing societies to live with natural hazards. The MAR1 report assessed multiple risks faced in the Mediterranean region, defined as a ‘climate change hotspot’ due to the interconnected combination of hazards with high exposure and vulnerability. The report will compile new information and thereby update the assessment of MAR1 about coastal risks and identify potential for adaptation and risk reduction. This report will inform Mediterranean policies on the development of an overarching framework to address the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of particular importance to the whole Mediterranean region, such as combating climate change, increasing food security, managing natural resources, reforming health systems, creating opportunities for social inclusion, economic prosperity, and human equality or reducing risks of geopolitical instability. Sciencepolicy dialogue can support this framing together with a multi-stakeholder approach, strengthened research cooperation mechanisms, and institutional partnerships, together in a shared ownership approach for the benefit of our Mediterranean (Mare Context and framing 45 Nostrum). By recognising the value of countries’ specificities as a strength for the region, there is the opportunity for a cultural transformation to create a proud community sharing the Mediterranean Sea as a common value. 1.1.2 The science-policy context The Mediterranean has seen the development of various initiatives and activities that seek to impact policymaking by introducing a more systematic approach. Since 1975, Mediterranean countries have established an institutional framework for cooperation in addressing marine and coastal environmental degradation — Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), under the auspices of the Regional Seas Programme of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). In 1976, in Barcelona (Spain), a framework convention dedicated to the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution was adopted (Barcelona Convention)8. Other initiatives followed, such as the BLUEMED initiative and its Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA)9; the EU COST Action on ‘Ocean Governance for Sustainability’10; the EU COST Action on ‘Unifying Approaches to Marine Connectivity for improved Resource Management for the Seas (SEA-UNICORN)’11; the UN decade of ocean science for sustainable development and various training on the science-society-policy interface in the Mediterranean promoted by UNESCO12; the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM)13 and other actors. At a national level, various Mediterranean countries are implementing national adaptation plans. All these policy developments and regional cooperation initiatives are supported now by the EU Green Deal (EC 2019), which provides an important policy piece for the Mediterranean combining climate adaptation, biodiversity and zero pollution ambitions. This new policy framework should be 8 https://www.unep.org/unepmap/who-we-are/barcelona-convention-and-protocols 9 https://www.bluemed-initiative.eu/bluemed-initiative/ 10 https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA15217/ 11 https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA19107/ 12 https://www.unesco.org/en/decades/ocean-decade 13 https://ufmsecretariat.org/ 14 https://www.unep.org/unepmap/what-we-do/ecosystem-approach 15 https://www.unep.org/unepmap/who-we-are/contracting-parties/iczm-protocol 16 In 2023, the Member States of the Barcelona Convention are: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, the European Union (EU), Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, and Türkiye. applied for synergies with other initiatives such as the UNEP/MAP Barcelona Convention Ecosystem Approach14 and the relevant EU Directives, aiming to achieve and maintain Good Environmental Status (GES) for Mediterranean Sea and coastal areas linked to more sustainable and integrated Coastal Zone Management. Therefore, the proposed thrust to support a new generation of policymakers through dedicated capacity building, timely science advice on policy and fostering dialogue within the knowledge triangle (academia-society-policy). The UfM’s policy dimension is structured around regional dialogue platforms involving representatives from governmental institutions and experts, regional and international organisations, local authorities, civil society, the private sector, and financial institutions. The UfM is also advancing regional and sub-regional cooperation by supporting integration and partnerships within shared objectives, including strengthening cooperation on blue economy and maritime governance, and facilitating the transition to a sustainable blue economy. In 2008, fifteen Mediterranean countries signed the 7th Protocol of the Barcelona Convention, Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management for the Mediterranean.15,16 For the past six years, the countries have been negotiating the text of this Protocol, which is still innovative in many aspects. Its flagship article, Article 8, is the first international legal instrument that lays down the requirement for use of coastal setback zones, a buffer area where certain or all types of development ar6e prohibited or significantly restricted. It identifies a setback zone of a minimum 100 m from the shoreline as an agreed measure to protect coastal settlements and infrastructure from the negative impacts of coastal processes, including in particular, climate change 46 1 consequences. Since 2008, this protocol has been ratified by twelve Mediterranean countries and the EU.17 The MedECC was launched in 2015 with the objective to assess the available scientific knowledge on climate and environmental change and associated risks in the Mediterranean Basin to render it accessible to policymakers, stakeholders and citizens. Interactions between MedECC and decisionmakers and stakeholders are developed through a science-policy interface built mainly on close collaboration with UNEP/MAP, its Regional Activity Centre Plan Bleu, and the UfM. The MAR1 (MedECC 2020a) was an important step to further develop science-policy dialogue in the Mediterranean. During the second UfM Ministerial Meeting on Environment and Climate Action held in October 2021 in Cairo (Egypt), the 42 Ministers recognised in their declaration the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of MAR1 (MedECC 2020b) ‘as an important input of the scientific community to inform future climate and environment actions in the region’ (UfM 2021, pp. 1-2). During the 22nd meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention COP 22 (December 2021, Antalya, Türkiye), the SPM was endorsed by the Contracting Parties (UNEP/ MAP 2021b) and reflected in the Antalya Ministerial Declaration (UNEP/MAP 2021a). 1.1.3 The Mediterranean coastal region The land-sea coastal border has been defined above, using objective and subjective criteria for the coastal zone boundaries, although these criteria often present variable levels of uncertainty or fuzziness. Depending on the technical, economic or legal implications (e.g. public domain coastal zone) the extent of the coastal border may vary significantly and the variation of these borders with time (e.g. with sea level rise or with background erosion) is seldom explicitly considered in coastal management. Both the land boundary and the sea boundary of this coastal zone are normally associated with gradients, illustrated by the urbanisation or geomorphological characteristics of the coastal land zone or by 17 See the UN Glossary of terms relating to Treaty actions for more details on signature and ratification. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Overview.aspx?path=overview/glossary/page1_en.xml the dominance of nearshore and wave breaking processes for the ocean coastal zone. With the advent of new satellite data, providing spatially structured information, new definitions have started to appear such as the characterisation of the coastal zone sea boundary in terms of geological spatial gradients and variability (Sánchez-Arcilla et al. 2019). These definitions contrast with approaches for the land coastal zone, which define the coastal boundary in terms of elevation or width (e.g. coastal zone as a low elevation swathe). In the Mediterranean, the land boundary can often be defined by mountain chains (land border) and narrow continental shelves (sea border), leading to different coastal zones depending on the application purpose. From a risk assessment standpoint, land and sea coastal zones should be considered as a single system, where the land and water parts interact at different scales. In summary, coastal zones, for risk assessments, should: • Explicitly define land, sea, and lateral boundaries, considering the applicable European and national legislation; • Address how these boundaries vary with time, considering the continuous land shifting of the public domain land-sea border due to sea level rise compounded by subsidence; • Discuss the uncertainty in defining these boundaries, notably due to meteo-oceanographic variability and the difficulties in establishing a rigid delineation for a naturally dynamic boundary. The following is a high-level summary of the aspects of the Mediterranean coastal system assessed, including cross-references to chapters in the report where the related detailed assessment is presented. The Mediterranean coastal zone is characterised by high exposure to erosion and flooding due to cities and infrastructure being built close to the shoreline, in horizontal or vertical distance as defined above, within one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change (MedECC 2020a). Such closeness and the Context and framing 47 features of Mediterranean weather, associated with micro-tidal ranges, flash floods and shortduration wave storms (Chapter 2) also increase coastal pollution and environmental degradation, which make Mediterranean coasts highly vulnerable to climate change impacts (Chapter 3) due to the high concentration of populations, maritime traffic, infrastructure (ports, coastal and offshore), cultural values and ecosystems in a narrow coastal fringe. High population pressure and coastal squeeze result in high risks for populations, the economy and cultural heritage that will increase with sea level rise and increasing temperatures (air and water) due to global warming. This includes negative impacts of population growth, coastal urbanisation, coastal fisheries and agriculture, as well as coastal tourism, which is particularly relevant for Mediterranean coasts (Chapters 2 and 3). Weather patterns are highly variable, with rapid development of precipitation (e.g. flash floods) and wave storms (e.g. medicanes). Another Mediterranean specificity is sharp gradients in chemical water properties, illustrated by offshore oligotrophic conditions and high concentrations of nutrients, plastics, and emerging contaminants near the coast due to socioeconomic activities (Chapter 2), particularly near river mouths, coastal cities, and port domains (Samper et al. 2022). Rich coastal geodiversity, with sharp gradients in topography (e.g. mountain chains with river valley openings that condition weather patterns) and bathymetry (e.g. narrow continental shelves with submarine canyons) modulate meteooceanographic drivers and affect the impact of geohazards (Chapter 2). Important differences in institutional capacity, social perception, and socioeconomic commitment to sustain coastal zones appear among different Mediterranean countries. In spite of this diversity in socioeconomic and institutional conditions (Chapter 4), there is a need for common actions within sustainable adaptation pathways (Chapter 5). 48 1 Definitions of key terms, required for coordinated interpretation of coming chapters, as used in the report (Source: IPCC 2022a) • Scenarios A plausible description of how the future may develop based on a coherent and internally consistent set of assumptions about key driving forces (e.g. rate of technological change, prices) and relationships. Note that scenarios are neither predictions nor forecasts but are used to provide a view of the implications of developments and actions. • Risk The potential for adverse consequences for human or ecological systems, recognising the diversity of values and objectives associated with such systems. In the context of climate change, risks can arise from potential impacts of climate change as well as human responses to climate change. Relevant adverse consequences include those affecting lives, livelihoods, health and well-being, economic, social, and cultural assets and investments, infrastructure, services (including ecosystem services), ecosystems and species. In the context of climate change impacts, risks result from dynamic interactions between climate-related hazards with the exposure and vulnerability of the affected human or ecological system to the hazards. Hazards, exposure, and vulnerability may each be subject to uncertainty in terms of magnitude and likelihood of occurrence, and each may change over time and space due to socio-economic changes and human decisionmaking. In the context of climate change responses, risks result from the potential of such responses not achieving the intended objective(s), or from potential trade-offs with, or negative side-effects on, other societal objectives, such as the SDGs. Risks can arise, for example, from uncertainty in the implementation, effectiveness or outcomes of climate policy, climaterelated investments, technology development or adoption, and system transitions. • Adaptation In human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, the process of adjustment to actual climate and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate and its effects. • Adaptation pathways A series of adaptation choices involving trade-offs between short-term and long-term goals and values. These are processes of deliberation to identify solutions that are meaningful to people in the context of their daily lives and to avoid potential maladaptation. • Resilience The capacity of interconnected social, economic and ecological systems to cope with a hazardous event, trend or disturbance, responding or reorganising in ways that maintain their essential function, identity and structure. Resilience is a positive attribute when it maintains capacity for adaptation, learning and/or transformation. • Climate resilient development pathways Trajectories that strengthen sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities while promoting fair and cross-scalar adaptation to and resilience in a changing climate. They raise the ethics, equity and feasibility aspects of the deep societal transformation needed to drastically reduce emissions to limit global warming (e.g. to well below 2°C) and achieve desirable and liveable futures and well-being for all. • Governance The structures, processes, and actions through which private and public actors interact to address societal goals. This includes formal and informal institutions and the associated standards, rules, laws, and procedures for deciding, managing, implementing and monitoring policies and measures at any geographic or political scale, from global to local. • Social justice Just or fair relations within society that seek to address the distribution of wealth, access to resources, opportunity, and support according to principles of justice and fairness. • Climate justice Links development and human rights to achieve a human-centred approach to addressing climate change, safeguarding the rights of the most vulnerable people and sharing the burdens and benefits of climate change and its impacts equitably and fairly. • Equity The principle of being fair and impartial, and a basis for understanding how the impacts and responses to climate change, including costs and benefits, are distributed in and by society in more or less equal ways. Often aligned with ideas of equality, fairness and justice and applied with respect to equity in the responsibility for, and distribution of, climate impacts and policies across society, generations, and gender, and in the sense of who participates and controls the processes of decisionmaking. Box 1.1 Core concepts Context and framing 49 1.4 A guide to the assessment 1.4.1 Common dimensions of integration The MedECC assessments, as with other international and national assessment processes, are based on the available, relevant evidence in the published literature. This includes different lines of evidence such as observational products, model-based findings and other information based on different types of data and analyses. To aid the communication of the report findings, in particular for the preparation of figures and to formulate executive summary statements of the assessment, a common set of key dimensions are used across the chapters to the extent possible. These dimensions are defined timeframes, common baselines for past changes and conditions, a subset of representative scenarios of future changes, and the use of wellknown frameworks, such as the SDGs. 1.4.1.1 Timeframes Three common time frames have been adopted by the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report to report key findings in time frames that are relevant for policymakers: near term — the period from 2020–2040 in the context of the timelines for current national emissions reduction pledges as part of the implementation of the Paris Agreement, and the implementation of the SDGs; the medium term — the period by 2041–2060, the mid-century timeframe relevant in the context of infrastructure planning; and the long term — the possible outcomes by 2080–2100 and beyond the end of the 21st century. 1.4.1.2 Baseline period Changes in climate and in social and natural systems are compared to conditions that existed prior to the advent of rapid industrialisation in terms of fossilfuel consumption and land-use changes. The period 1850–1900 has been assessed to be suitable as a proxy for pre-industrial conditions, a baseline against which observed historical changes in the climate system can be compared (see Cross-Chapter Box 1.2 in IPCC 2021). 1.4.1.3 Future scenarios Possible future scenarios form the basis of modelling and analytical studies to explore how socioeconomic conditions, emissions of greenhouse gases, land use, the response of the climate system as well as natural and human systems may change in the 21st century and beyond. The international scientific community has developed different scenario frameworks over time with the aim to produce coordinated simulations across the community where datasets and findings can be compared. The latest generation of scenarios — the Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs) framework (O’Neill et al. 2017; Riahi et al. 2017) — is used to explore the climate response to humancaused drivers of climate change as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). The experimental design is built around a matrix of simulations that consider different socioeconomic developments and different levels of radiative forcing in the year 2100 levels (see CrossChapter Box 1.4 in Chen et al. 2021). The assessment of future climate change, impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation actions can be compared for scenarios with high emissions (SSP3-7.0), based on futures with ‘no-additional-climate-policy’ (in the set of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), the equivalent no additional-climate-policy’ scenario was RCP8.5). The new SSP3-7.0 ‘noadditional-climate-policy’ scenario, with intermediate greenhouse gas emissions (SSP2-4.5), and scenarios with very low and low greenhouse gas emissions (SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6). Scenarios with very high greenhouse gas emissions (SSP5-8.5) have been assessed as being less likely in terms of future outcomes, so are not considered to be ‘businessas-usual’ scenarios any longer, based on today’s climate policies (IPCC 2022c), though these scenarios cannot be ruled out altogether and are useful to explore low-likelihood, high-risk outcomes. 1.4.1.4 Sustainable Development Goals The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was established to focus international efforts on the multiple intersectionality between different development objectives, including for climate change, for the pursuit of the seventeen SDGs by 2030 (UN DESA 2015; UN General Assembly 2015). The Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable Development (MSSD) 2016-2025 (UNEP/MAP 2016) 56 1 provides an integrative policy framework for all stakeholders, including MAP partners, to translate the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs at the regional, sub-regional, national and local levels in the Mediterranean region. The SDGs are used in this report to relate the assessment to different development goals. 1.4.2 Communicating assessment findings consistently. Within the intergovernmental context of the IPCC and MedECC, the assessment of the latest available climate science, environmental and socioeconomic knowledge is solicited by policymakers through a science-policy interface to support the development of evidence-based policy development and communications activities in different sectors and contexts. The use of agreed terms that are calibrated to quantify the strength and quality of the available information distinguishes an assessment from a review of the available scientific and technical literature. The framework of calibrated terms that communicate the robustness and certainty of assessment findings either qualitatively or quantitatively have been used across the IPCC since the 5th Assessment Report (AR5). This terminology was agreed on as an outcome of a Cross-Working Group Meeting on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties convened in July 2010 for the consistent treatment of uncertainties in the assessment across all IPCC assessment reports (Mastrandrea and Mach 2011; Mastrandrea et al. 2011). It builds on previous applications in earlier reports (Moss and Schneider 2000; IPCC 2005). Mach et al. (2017) reported on the lessons learned from the AR5 and provided further guidance on the systematic use of the calibrated terms, considering challenges in communicating findings where there are considerable uncertainties or considering subjectivity in expert judgement. The transparent use of calibrated terms to build a shared understanding of the assessment outcomes is all the more important when evidence-based policymaking is set in the context of multiple 20 The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or result: virtually certain 99–100% probability; very likely 90–100%; likely 66–100%; about as likely as not 33–66%; unlikely 0–33%; very unlikely 0–10%; and exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95–100%; more likely than not >50–100%; and extremely unlikely 0–5%) are also used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, for example, very likely. influences including different value systems (see discussion in Chen et al. 2021). The terms are calibrated to have the same meaning for a consistent presentation of the assessment across different chapters of a report, or topics assessed in a report or across different reports, in order to a consistent and comparable picture on the state of knowledge to policymakers. The terms are italicised in the text to clearly identify when they are used and that the meaning is intended to be distinct from an everyday use of these words. This is a powerful communication tool that is able to clearly transmit the key assessment findings to policymakers or other users more broadly, overcoming the complexity of the underlying literature, which may be based on different disciplines or methodologies, and in an assessment carried out by a diverse set of experts that will also come from different disciplines, contexts and countries. The calibrated terms quantify: • Confidence: a qualitative measure of the robustness of a finding, based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence and the degree of agreement across different lines of evidence or studies. Levels of confidence can be very low, low, medium, high and very high. • Likelihood: a quantitative measure of uncertainty in a finding, expressed probabilistically, for example the likely outcome of a process20. This can be quantified based on statistical analyses, expert judgement by the author team or a formal quantitative survey of expert views (expert elicitation). Figure 1.2 (Box 1.1 Figure 1 in Chen et al. 2021 adapted from Mach et al. 2017) illustrates the step-by-step process authors use to evaluate and communicate the state of knowledge in their assessment (Mastrandrea et al. 2010). The authors start by considering the relevant evidence in the published literature. They evaluate the different types of evidence, and the agreement in the findings therein Context and framing 57 (Steps 1 and 2). From this, authors decide whether they can assign a level of confidence (Steps 3 and 4), likelihood (Step 5) of the assessed information to communicate their expert judgement of the robustness of the findings. Example statements of assessment conclusions drawn from the report are presented in the box at the bottom of Figure 1.2. Each chapter subsection on a topic presents a traceable account of the assessment, starting with an introduction of the topic, what previous assessments had concluded, then discusses the relevant body of literature, including what methods have been used, the understanding of processes and mechanisms and the relevance of these findings, then concluding in an assessment statement that summarises the state of knowledge on this topic. The terms are attributed to the assessment outcome by the author team following an evaluation of the available evidence. They are agreed on through a consensus-building discussion of the evidence, reflecting all expert views that are expressed. 1.4.3 Values and the interplay with nature and society Risk of sea level rise along the coastline impacts physical locations and social activities. To inform adaptation policy, it is necessary to understand how risks are distributed within and among communities. 1• What evidence exists? EVALUATION AND COMMUNICATION OF DEGREE OF CERTAINTY IN AR6 FINDINGS 4• Evaluate confidence based on evidence and agreement 6• Evaluate likelihood 5• Sufficient confidence and quantitative or probabilistic evidence? 2• Evaluate evidence 3• Sufficient evidence and agreement to evaluate confidence? Examples of assessments No Yes No Yes Observations Experiments Theory Statistics Models Quality Consistency Likelihood Virtualy certain Extremely likely Very likely Likely More likely than not About as likely as not Unlikely Very likely Extremely unlikely Exceptionally unlikely Statement of fact Very high confidence High confidence Medium confidence Low confidence Very low confidence Outcome probability 99-100% 95-100% 90-100% 66-100% >50-100% 33-66% 0-33% 0-10% 0-5% 0-1% Type Quantity and scientific agreement Assessed evidence and agreement Past projections of global temperature and the pattern of warming are broadly consistent with subsequent observations (limited evidence, high agreement) {1.3.6}. Assessed fact It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred {SPM.A.1} Assessed confidence The probability of low-likelihood, high impact outcomes increased with higher global warming levels (high confidence) {SPM.C.3.2}. The last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850-1900 was over 3 million years ago (medium confience). {SPM.B.1.1} There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones. {SPM.A.3.4} Assessed likelihood It is virtualy certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s... {SPM.A.3.1} Based on multiple lines of evidence, the very likely range of equilibrium climate sensivity is between 2°C (high confidence) and 5°C (medium confidence). The AR6 assessed best estimate is 3°C with a likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C (high confidence)… {SPM.A.4.4} 66% 90% 95% 66% Likelihood ranges Likelihood outcomes Probability Cumulative probability Agreement Evidence (type, amount, quality, consistency Certain/fact 90% Likely range Very likely range Extremely likely Very likely Likely High agreement Limited evidence Medium agreement Medium evidence High agreement Robust evidence Low agreement Robust evidence Low agreement Limited evidence Figure 1.2 | Characterising understanding and uncertainty in assessment findings. Adapted from Box 1.1, Figure 1 in IPCC (2021). 58 1 Responding to this need, a value-based approach guides the understanding between nature and society, placing social and cultural values in the geographic space. The approach explores what people value most about their everyday lives, and how these social values are likely to be affected by environmental changes and the policies developed to respond to such changes (Persson et al. 2015). In the context of parts of the Mediterranean coastlines that are densely populated and built up, it is essential to follow a value-based approach to examine the interplay between nature and the potential social impacts of sea level rise. Some essential social values highly important to residents include scenery, livelihoods, and safety. However, local communities have unique social values. Recent studies are facilitating the interplay of social values and natural risks. There is great potential to further integrate natural and social approaches to better inform adaptation policy about how lived and landscape values are distributed among communities (Ramm et al. 2017). 1.4.4 Ethical considerations Some adaptation plans for Mediterranean coasts have been designed by local and regional administrations typically focusing on the need to protect local communities, and to minimise short-term impacts on the natural environment, such as ensuring local ecosystem resilience. A notable absence from many plans, in the Mediterranean and elsewhere, is the ethical approach needed to present the inherent uncertainties in any assessment, particularly for climates like the Mediterranean, where extreme samples are more limited in size than for other coastal areas. Such an ethical dimension is particularly relevant for Mediterranean assessments, which affect coastal areas with a high level of vulnerabilities due to conflicting uses and limitations of natural resources. This ethical approach should lead to better informed and more widely accepted adaptation policies. However, there are knowledge gaps on the risks and vulnerabilities of many non-material social and environmental values. While values-based approaches are receiving increased attention by scholars, it is unclear to what extent they are being adopted by decision-makers (Ramm et al. 2017) and this applies to all coastal zones. However, the urgency for filling that gap is more acute in the Mediterranean due to the combination of climate and human pressures. Systemic links to societal needs Changes in behaviour Long term visions and stronger partnerships Timely solutions for sustainability Solutions Innovation towards carbon neutrality L i n k s t o e t h i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s Resilient Green Fair Circular Healthy Figure 1.3 | A framework for coastal risk management that includes the systemic evaluation of the solutions and the ethical considerations of the assessment process. In the inner circle the attributes of the solutions: resilient, healthy, circular, fair, and green. In the outer circle, the ethical considerations: systemic links to societal needs, innovation towards carbon neutrality, changes in behaviour, long term visions and stronger partnerships and timely solutions towards sustainability. Context and framing 59 Graham et al. (2014) proposed that values-based approaches could direct policymakers towards ethical considerations in the adaptation process, giving voice to the impacted communities and their social and cultural landscape values. Because of these reasons, the ethical approach should be inclusive and collaborative, enabling decisions that consider diverse values and priorities (Ramm et al. 2017). The ethical considerations within coastal assessments under climate change and management scenarios can only be addressed in a systemic approach that includes fairness, resiliency, health, circularity, and carbon neutrality. These values establish clear connections to systemic links for the main elements to be considered in an ethically-based assessment: societal needs, innovation, behavioural change, and long-term visions of society, including the active participation of women and marginalised and/or vulnerable groups. Clearly, the process is complex, as summarised schematically in Figure 1.3, and demands additional multidisciplinary data to better characterise Mediterranean coastal zones under the impact of future climate scenarios. 60 1 Context and framing 61 Abadie J., Dupouey J. L., Avon C., Rochel X., Tatoni T., and Bergès L. (2018). Forest recovery since 1860 in a Mediterranean region: drivers and implications for land use and land cover spatial distribution. Landscape Ecology, 33(2), 289– 305. doi: 10.1007/s10980-017-0601-0 Ager A. A., Preisler H. K., Arca B., Spano D., and Salis M. (2014). Wildfire risk estimation in the Mediterranean area. Environmetrics, 25(6), 384–396. doi: 10.1002/env.2269 Agulles M., Melo-Aguilar C., and Jordà G. (2022). Risk of loss of tourism attractiveness in the Western Mediterranean under climate change. Frontiers in Climate, 4. doi: 10.3389/fclim.2022.1019892 Ali E., Cramer W., Carnicer J., Georgopoulou E., Hilmi N. J. M., Le Cozannet G., and Lionello P. (2022). Cross-Chapter Paper 4: Mediterranean Region. In H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, & B. Rama (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2233–2272. doi: 10.1017/9781009325844.021 Ali E. M., and El-Magd I. A. (2016). Impact of human interventions and coastal processes along the Nile Delta coast, Egypt during the past twenty-five years. The Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research, 42(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ejar.2016.01.002 Chen D., Rojas M., Samset B. H., Cobb K., Diongue-Niang A., Edwards P., Emori S., Faria S. H., Hawkins E., Hope P., Huybrechts P., Meinshausen M., Mustafa S. K., Plattner G.-K., and Tréguier A. M. (2021). Framing, context, and methods. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, Ö. Yelekçi, R. Yu, & B. Zhou (Eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 147–286. doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.003 Cherif S., Doblas-Miranda E., Lionello P., Borrego C., Giorgi F., Iglesias A., Jebari S., Mahmoudi E., Moriondo M., Pringault O., Rilov G., Somot S., Tsikliras A., Vila M., and Zittis G. (2020). Drivers of change. In W. Cramer, J. Guiot, & K. Marini (Eds.), Climate and Environmental Change in the Mediterranean Basin–Current Situation and Risks for the Future. First Mediterranean Assessment Report. Union for the Mediterranean, Plan Bleu, UNEP/MAP, Marseille, France, pp. 59-180. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7100601 Chu Y., Salles C., Tournoud M. G., Got P., Troussellier M., Rodier C., and Caro A. (2011). Faecal bacterial loads during flood events in Northwestern Mediterranean coastal rivers. Journal of Hydrology, 405(3–4), 501–511. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.05.047 Colloca F., Scarcella G., and Libralato S. (2017). Recent Trends and Impacts of Fisheries Exploitation on Mediterranean Stocks and Ecosystems. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, 244. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2017.00244 Corrales X., Coll M., Ofir E., Heymans J. J., Steenbeek J., Goren M., Edelist D., and Gal G. (2018). Future scenarios of marine resources and ecosystem conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean under the impacts of fishing, alien species and sea warming. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 14284. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-32666-x Dayan U., Ricaud P., Zbinden R., and Dulac F. (2017). Atmospheric pollution over the eastern Mediterranean during summer - a review. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17(21), 13233–13263. doi: 10.5194/acp-17-13233-2017 De Montis A., Martín B., Ortega E., Ledda A., and Serra V. (2017). Landscape fragmentation in Mediterranean Europe: A comparative approach. Land Use Policy, 64, 83–94. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.028 Ding Q., Chen X., Hilborn R., and Chen Y. (2017). Vulnerability to impacts of climate change on marine fisheries and food security. Marine Policy, 83, 55–61. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.011 Dogru T., Bulut U., and Sirakaya-Turk E. (2016). Theory of Vulnerability and Remarkable Resilience of Tourism Demand to Climate Change: Evidence from the Mediterranean Basin. Tourism Analysis, 21(6), 645–660. doi: 10.3727/108354216x14713487283246 Dogru T., Marchio E. A., Bulut U., and Suess C. (2019). Climate change: Vulnerability and resilience of tourism and the entire economy. Tourism Management, 72, 292–305. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.010 EC Secretariat-General (2019). European Green Deal. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — The European Green Deal (COM(2019) 640 final, 11.12.2019). doi: 10.2775/373022 Fader M., Shi S., Von Bloh W., Bondeau A., and Cramer W. (2016). Mediterranean irrigation under climate change: more efficient irrigation needed to compensate for increases in irrigation water requirements. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 20(2), 953–973. doi: 10.5194/hess-20-953-2016 References 62 1 Farahmand S., Hilmi N., Cinar M., Safa A., Lam V. W. Y., Djoundourian S., Shahin W., Ben Lamine E., Schickele A., Guidetti P., Allemand D., and Raybaud V. (2023). Climate change impacts on Mediterranean fisheries: A sensitivity and vulnerability analysis for main commercial species. Ecological Economics, 211, 107889. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107889 Ganor E., Osetinsky I., Stupp A., and Alpert P. (2010). Increasing trend of African dust, over 49 years, in the eastern Mediterranean. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115(D7), 7201. doi: 10.1029/2009jd012500 Gomes Da Costa H., De Rigo D., Liberta` G., Durrant T., and SanMiguel-Ayanz J. (2020). European wildfire danger and vulnerability in a changing climate: towards integrating risk dimensions: JRC PESETA IV project: Task 9 - forest fires. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi: 10.2760/46951 Graham S., Barnett J., Fincher R., Hurlimann A., and Mortreux C. (2014). Local values for fairer adaptation to sea-level rise: A typology of residents and their lived values in Lakes Entrance, Australia. Global Environmental Change, 29, 41–52. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.013 Gutiérrez J. M., Jones R. G., G.T. Narisma G. T., Alves L. M., Amjad M., Gorodetskaya I. V., Grose M., Klutse N. A. B., Krakovska S., Li J., Martínez-Castro D., Mearns L. O., Mernild S. H., Ngo-Duc T., van den Hurk B., and Yoon J.- H. (2021). Atlas. In V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, & B. Zhou (Eds.), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1927–2058. doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.021 Hansen M. C., and DeFries R. S. (2004). Detecting Long-term Global Forest Change Using Continuous Fields of TreeCover Maps from 8-km Advanced Very High-Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) Data for the Years 1982-99. Ecosystems, 7(7), 695–716. doi: 10.1007/s10021-004-0243-3 Hidalgo M., Mihneva V., Vasconcellos M., and Bernal M. (2018). Climate change impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptations: Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea marine fisheries. In M. Barange, T. Bahri, M. C. M. Beveridge, K. L. Cochrane, S. Funge-Smith, & F. Poulain (Eds.), Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture: synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options. (pp. 139–157). FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 627. Rome, FAO. https://openknowledge.fao. org/handle/20.500.14283/i9705en/ IPCC (2005). Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on addressing uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/ uploads/2018/02/ar4-uncertaintyguidancenote-1.pdf IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, & B. Zhou, Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157896 IPCC (2022a). Annex I: Global to Regional Atlas [Pörtner, H.-O., A. Alegría, V. Möller, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, S. Götze (eds.)]. In H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, & B. Rama (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2811-2896. doi: 10.1017/9781009325844.028 IPCC (2022b). Annex II: Glossary [Möller, V, J.B.R. Matthews, R. van Diemen, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, J.S. Fuglestvedt, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, & B. Rama (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 2897–2930). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 28972930. doi: 10.1017/9781009325844.029 IPCC (2022c). Annex III: Scenarios and modelling methods [Guivarch, C., E. Kriegler, J. Portugal-Pereira, V. Bosetti, J. Edmonds, M. Fischedick, P. Havlík, P. Jaramillo, V. Krey, F. Lecocq, A. Lucena, M. Meinshausen, S. Mirasgedis, B. O’Neill, G.P. Peters, J. Rogelj, S. Rose, Y. Saheb, G. Strbac, A. Hammer Strømman, D.P. van Vuuren, N. Zhou (eds)]. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.022 Context and framing 63 IPCC (2022d). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E. S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, & B. Rama, Eds.). Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056 pp. doi: 10.1017/9781009325844 IPCC (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, H. Lee, & J. Romero, Eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115. doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647 Kallis G. (2008). Droughts. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 85–118. doi: 10.1146/annurev.environ.33.081307.123117 Karanasiou A., Querol X., Alastuey A., Perez N., Pey J., Perrino C., Berti G., Gandini M., Poluzzi V., Ferrari S., de la Rosa J., Pascal M., Samoli E., Kelessis A., Sunyer J., Alessandrini E., Stafoggia M., and Forastiere F. (2014). Particulate matter and gaseous pollutants in the Mediterranean Basin: Results from the MED-PARTICLES project. Science of The Total Environment, 488–489, 297–315. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.04.096 Katsanevakis S., Tempera F., and Teixeira H. (2016). Mapping the impact of alien species on marine ecosystems: the Mediterranean Sea case study. Diversity and Distributions, 22(6), 694–707. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12429 Keramaris E., De Paola F., Guida C., Gargiulo C., Papa R., and Carpentieri G. (2022). Vulnerability and Exposure of Mediterranean Coastal Cities to Climate Change-Related Phenomena. Environmental Sciences Proceedings 2022, Vol. 21, Page 79, 21(1), 79. doi: 10.3390/environsciproc2022021079 Kutiel H. (2019). Climatic Uncertainty in the Mediterranean Basin and Its Possible Relevance to Important Economic Sectors. Atmosphere, 10(1), 10. doi: 10.3390/atmos10010010 Lasanta T., Arnáez J., Pascual N., Ruiz-Flaño P., Errea M. P., and Lana-Renault N. (2017). Space–time process and drivers of land abandonment in Europe. CATENA, 149, 810–823. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2016.02.024 Lieutier F., and Paine T. D. (2016). Responses of mediterranean forest phytophagous insects to climate change. In T. Paine & F. Lieutier (Eds.), Insects and Diseases of Mediterranean Forest Systems (pp. 801–858). Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24744-1_28 Linares C., Sánchez R., Mirón I. J., and Díaz J. (2015). Has there been a decrease in mortality due to heat waves in Spain? Findings from a multicity case study. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 12(2), 153–163. doi: 10.1080/1943815x.2015.1062032 Mach K. J., Mastrandrea M. D., Freeman P. T., and Field C. B. (2017). Unleashing expert judgment in assessment. Global Environmental Change, 44, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.02.005 Manoli P. (2021). Economic Linkages across the Mediterranean: Trends on trade, investments and energy. Policy Paper # 52/2021, Hellenic Foundation for European & foreign policy (ELIAMEP), Greece, Athens. https://www.eliamep. gr/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Policy-paper-52Manoli-final.pdf Mastrandrea M. D., Field C., Stocker T., Edenhofer O., Ebi K., Frame D., Held H., Kriegler E., Mach K., Matschoss P., Plattner G.-K., Yohe G., and Zwiers F. (2010). Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on consistent treatment of uncertainties. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 7 pp. www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/ uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf Mastrandrea M. D., and Mach K. J. (2011). Treatment of uncertainties in IPCC Assessment Reports: Past approaches and considerations for the Fifth Assessment Report. Climatic Change, 108(4), 659–673. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0177-7 Mastrandrea M. D., Mach K. J., Plattner G.-K., Edenhofer O., Stocker T. F., Field C. B., Ebi K. L., and Matschoss P. R. (2011). The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Climatic Change, 108(4), 675–691. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0178-6 MedECC (2020a). Climate and Environmental Change in the Mediterranean Basin – Current Situation and Risks for the Future. First Mediterranean Assessment Report (W. Cramer, J. Guiot, & K. Marini, Eds.). Union for the Mediterranean, Plan Bleu, UNEP/MAP, Marseille, France, 632 pp. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.4768833 MedECC (2020b). Summary for Policymakers. In W. Cramer, J. Guiot, & K. Marini (Eds.), Climate and Environmental Change in the Mediterranean Basin – Current Situation and Risks for the Future. First Mediterranean Assessment Report. Union for the Mediterranean, Plan Bleu, UNEP/ MAP, Marseille, France, pp 11-40. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5513887 Moss R. H., and Schneider S. H. (2000). Uncertainties in the IPCC TAR: Recommendations to lead authors for more consistent assessment and reporting. In R. Pachauri, T. Taniguchi, & K. Tanaka (Eds.), Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC [Pachauri, R., T. Taniguchi, and K. Tanaka (eds.)]. World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 33–51. https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/ PDF_PapersUncertainties GuidanceFinal2.pdf 64 1 Negev M., Paz S., Clermont A., Pri-Or N. G., Shalom U., Yeger T., and Green M. S. (2015). Impacts of Climate Change on Vector Borne Diseases in the Mediterranean Basin - Implications for Preparedness and Adaptation Policy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6745–6770. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120606745 O’Neill B. C., Kriegler E., Ebi K. L., Kemp-Benedict E., Riahi K., Rothman D. S., van Ruijven B. J., van Vuuren D. P., Birkmann J., Kok K., Levy M., and Solecki W. (2017). The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Global Environmental Change, 42, 169–180. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.004 Paravantis J., Santamouris M., Cartalis C., Efthymiou C., and Kontoulis N. (2017). Mortality Associated with High Ambient Temperatures, Heatwaves, and the Urban Heat Island in Athens, Greece. Sustainability, 9(4), 606. doi: 10.3390/su9040606 Paz S., Negev M., Clermont A., and Green M. S. (2016). Health Aspects of Climate Change in Cities with Mediterranean Climate, and Local Adaptation Plans. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(4), 438. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13040438 Pernek M., Lacković N., Lukić I., Zorić N., and Matošević D. (2019). Outbreak of Orthotomicus erosus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) on Aleppo Pine in the Mediterranean Region in Croatia. South-East European Forestry, 10(1), 19–27. doi: 10.15177/seefor.19-05 Persson J., Sahlin N. E., and Wallin A. (2015). Climate change, values, and the cultural cognition thesis. Environmental Science & Policy, 52, 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.001 Radhouane L. (2013). Climate change impacts on North African countries and on some Tunisian economic sectors. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development (JAEID), 107(1), 101–113. doi: 10.12895/jaeid.20131.123 Ramm T. D., Graham S., White C. J., and Watson C. S. (2017). Advancing values-based approaches to climate change adaptation: A case study from Australia. Environmental Science & Policy, 76, 113–123. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.014 Randone M., Di Carlo G., Costantini M., Tzanetti T., Haferkamp D., Portafaix A., Smits M., Antoniades V., Kachaner N., and Osborne A. (2017). Reviving the economy of the Mediterranean Sea: actions for a sustainable future. WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative, Rome, Italy. https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/reviving_ mediterranean_sea_economy_full_rep_lowres.pdf Reimann L., Vafeidis A. T., Brown S., Hinkel J., and Tol R. S. J. (2018). Mediterranean UNESCO World Heritage at risk from coastal flooding and erosion due to sea-level rise. Nature Communications, 9, 4161. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06645-9 Reisinger A., Howden M., Vera C., Garschagen M., Hurlbert M., Kreibiehl S., Mach K. J., Mintenbeck K., O’Neill B., Pathak M., Pedace R., Pörtner H.-O., Poloczanska E., Rojas Corradi M., Sillmann J., Van Aalst M., Viner D., Jones R., Ruane A. C., and Ranasinghe R. (2020). The Concept of Risk in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: A Summary of Cross-Working Group Discussions. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. https:// www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/02/Riskguidance-FINAL_15Feb2021.pdf Riahi K., van Vuuren D. P., Kriegler E., Edmonds J., O’Neill B. C., Fujimori S., Bauer N., Calvin K., Dellink R., Fricko O., Lutz W., Popp A., Cuaresma J. C., KC S., Leimbach M., Jiang L., Kram T., Rao S., Emmerling J., … Tavoni M. (2017). The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Global Environmental Change, 42, 153–168. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009 Ribas A., Olcina J., and Sauri D. (2020). More exposed but also more vulnerable? Climate change, high intensity precipitation events and flooding in Mediterranean Spain. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 29(3), 229–248. doi: 10.1108/dpm-05-2019-0149 Rizzo A., Vandelli V., Gauci C., Buhagiar G., Micallef A. S., and Soldati M. (2022). Potential Sea Level Rise Inundation in the Mediterranean: From Susceptibility Assessment to Risk Scenarios for Policy Action. Water, 14(3), 416. doi: 10.3390/w14030416 Rohat G., Flacke J., Dosio A., Pedde S., Dao H., and van Maarseveen M. (2019). Influence of changes in socioeconomic and climatic conditions on future heat-related health challenges in Europe. Global and Planetary Change, 172, 45–59. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2018.09.013 Samper Y., Liste M., Mestres M., Espino M., Sánchez-Arcilla A., Sospedra J., González-Marco D., Isabel Ruiz M., and Álvarez Fanjul E. (2022). Water Exchanges in Mediterranean Microtidal Harbours. Water, 14(13), 2012. doi: 10.3390/w14132012 Sánchez-Arcilla A., Cáceres I., Roux X. Le, Hinkel J., Schuerch M., Nicholls R. J., Otero D. M., Staneva J., De Vries M., Pernice U., Briere C., Caiola N., Gracia V., Ibáñez C., and Torresan S. (2022). Barriers and enablers for upscaling coastal restoration. Nature-Based Solutions, 2, 100032. doi: 10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100032 Sánchez-Arcilla A., Lin-Ye J., García-León M., Gràcia V., and Pallarès E. (2019). The land–sea coastal border: a quantitative definition by considering the wind and wave conditions in a wave-dominated, micro-tidal environment. Ocean Science, 15(1), 113–126. doi: 10.5194/os-15-113-2019 Context and framing 65