Coastal planning
begins here

Statutory basis – where relevant, the national law, governing body resolutions or strategic mandate under which the plan is prepared (ex. The Coastal Law No. 81-12 in Morocco)

The broader regional legal context, notably in the Mediterranean the implementation of the ICZM Protocol, and other relevant regional drivers such as the EU MSP Directive.

The international legal context, in particular the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992, Article 4.

The international, regional or local programme(s) under which the plan is being prepared.

Non-statutory basis – coastal planning may be a non-statutory plan, policy, programme or action that is not legally required by law but is developed to guide decisions, coordinate stakeholders, or provide strategic direction.

Non-statutory plans are advisory, take-up is voluntary, and they rely on consensus. best practice and a strong evidence base.

Although lacking the force of law, they can fill gaps between the formal regulations of spatial plans – allowing flexibility, innovation, and stakeholder input. They can cross administrative boundaries, notably in the Mediterranean linking land and sea. High-level political sign-off lends authority and legitimacy to a non-statutory plan, signalling clear political commitment and institutional backing. It encourages uptake by agencies and stakeholders, supports alignment with existing policies and funding decisions, and increases accountability, even without legal force.

Who is the lead – who has the ultimate legal and financial responsibility? A deceptively simple question, but the lead body has very important responsibilities including financial and staff management, reporting and legal accountability. It is vitally important that this role is handled by a body with the appropriate capacity, flexibility, and institutional patience.

Coastal planning requires and level of institutional capacity and purpose corresponding to the scope and ambition of the Plan – it is likely that the process may be based on a partnership, such as local and regional authorities, academic institutions, NGOs, or external agencies. Whatever the mix, roles and responsibilities must be absolutely clear.

Who is the host – where will the planning staff be based, who will employ them and who will they report to?

Article 3 of the ICZM Protocol defines the geographical boundary of the coastal zone as follows:

1. the seaward limit of the coastal zone, which shall be the external limit of the territorial sea”; and
2. the landward limit of the coastal zone, which shall be the limit of the competent coastal units. »

Exceptions to this are defined where:

1. the seaward limit is less than the external limit of the territorial sea;
2. the landward limit is different, either more or less, from the limits of the territory of coastal units as defined above, in order to apply, inter alia, the ecosystem approach and economic and social criteria and to consider the specific needs of islands related to geomorphologic characteristics and to take into account the negative effects of climate change. »

The maximum seaward limit is, therefore, relatively straightforward – the external limit of the territorial sea. There is unlikely to be a strong reason for reducing this maximum.

The landward limit is, however, less straightforward – the type and nature of “competent” coastal units varies greatly around the Mediterranean in terms of both their geographical scale (from small municipalities to extensive counties and regions), and in terms of their functions, competencies and capacities. One common element identifying the « competent » units is that all of them are bordering the sea.

Geographical Scale The geographical scale of the area cannot be predefined in this guide, and one or more of the following should determine it:

National guidance or the allocations of responsibilities to individual administrations, or to levels of administration such as coastal regions, counties or municipalities.

Bottom-up initiatives from individual or groups of coastal administrations.

The physical nature of the area and its landscape.

Local and traditional perceptions of the coastal area or its issues.

Functional areas that share common infrastructure, transport and access.

The marine area should always be included

Plan preparation process should take place with a reasonable degree of financial certainty.

The majority of planning projects and programmes have relied on time-limited, external grant funding from national and transnational bodies (typically 3- or 5-years duration). Without such funding valuable experience and lessons, and good practice would not have developed. However, such time-limited funding can lead to a ‘cliff-edge’ scenario at the end of the eligible period, and early planning is required to maintain momentum beyond this period. More detail of financing and sources is set out in Steps 4 & 5.

The Steering Committee is responsible for guiding and overall decision-making to oversee progress, and provide strategic direction, along with resource allocation, reporting, and evaluation. The Steering Committee should function – it is simply not enough to have a structure and names on paper – the Steering Committee should have the administrative infrastructure and a secretariat to enable it to hold regular meetings, be accountable and to take and implement decisions.

Membership of this core Steering Committee should be based on partners’ abilities to contribute funds, staff time or technical support, not only to attend meetings.

The Steering Committee should be established with clear terms of reference, co-chairs, explicitly chosen for geographic, gender and technical balance. Typically, such an effective group would consist of 10 to 15 committed core members. This structure means the core group can act decisively, but can be supported by a wider Consultation Group for input and legitimacy.

Importantly, while the membership should be both representative of those organisations with a decisive decision-making role, it should also be proportionate to the scale and nature of the area and the resources available to support it.

Statutory actors may include:

• National or sub-national agencies responsible for protected and important areas Agencies and staff from various government sectors concerning natural resources (e.g.agriculture, forestry, fisheries, research) Relevant enforcement agencies (e.g. fisheries, ports, hunting) State commercial enterprises (e.g. water, energy) Local appointed authorities (e.g. prefects or governors) Local elected authorities.

Non-statutory actors may include:

• Representatives of users of the coastal area, including those who directly depend on naturalresources (e.g. farmers and fishers) Civil society groups and organisations concerned with sustainable development andenvironment (e.g. local, national and international NGOs) Faith and cultural organisations Business sectors with a direct interest, such as ports, tourism, water companies, agriculturalcompanies or companies that own or manage land.
• Those with user rights (e.g. for hunting, fisheries, water extraction, grazing or cutting) Customary rights to the land and resources as above (even if they are not legally recognized).

The challenge is to design a governance body that is of a size to operate efficiently, yet encompassing all those with a legitimate interest in the governance of the area.

The Steering Committee operates through regular, time-bound meetings aligned with key steps in your coastal planning. Meetings focus on clear agendas, concise briefing notes, and defined decisions rather than technical detail. Decisions are normally taken by consensus, with formal voting used only where necessary. The Steering Committee validates outputs at agreed milestones, resolves conflicts between sectors, and provides direction between meetings through a small chairing team or secretariat. Clear records of decisions and actions ensure continuity, accountability, and followup.

The Steering Committee is accountable for guiding the process, validating key outputs, and ensuring your coastal planning reflects agreed priorities. Accountability is maintained through transparent decision-making, documented resolutions, regular reporting to the responsible authority, and clear links between Steering Committee decisions and subsequent implementation actions.

Here’s a quick check list to consider when setting up your Steering Committee

• Core partners should have a mandate or a financial stake (government, local authorities, technical agencies, universities, NGOs etc)
• Define a clear role, responsibilities, and decision-making power
• Hold regular meetings and continuity of membership
• Ensure representational balance (geographic, sectoral, technical, gender, ethnic etc.)
• Provide support for coordination, technical or thematic working groups, consultative groups etc.
• Seek commitment to shared outcomes and resources
• Avoid over-representation – the Steering Committee can become top-heavy, hinder progress and obscure accountability
• Do they have power, responsibility, and resources – accountable as well as advisory?
• Can they approve budgets/workplans, setting strategy, overseeing performance – not just passive oversight?.
• Avoid gaps, ensuring institutional memory; developing commitment through visible results and follow-up.
• Ensure legitimacy, ensure diverse perspectives; (but keep small enough to be functional)
• Partners should align their activities and promote integration and interdependencies
• Partners should contribute something (funds, staff time, technical capacity), not only attend meetings.

Who are the coastal planners? Are they ‘in-house’ existing staff? If so, do they have the appropriate skills-set and experience? Or will additional experts be brought in? If so, will they be directly employed and on what terms, or will consultants be employed? Or will the reality be a combination of these options? In all cases the lines of management and reporting must be very clear.

Potential Inception Report template:

1. Purpose & Geographic Scope The title and subject geographic area (see guidance in 4 above on how to define the geographic scope according to the ICZM Protocol)
   The title and subject geographic area (see guidance in 4 above on how to define the geographic scope according to the ICZM Protocol)
2. The core aim(s) and the vision of your coastal planning including the time scale for implementation – what is the plan for – what is the primary aim?
3. Importance & Legal Mandate
   Where relevant, the national law, governing body resolutions or strategic mandate under which the plan is prepared (ex. The Coastal Law No. 81-12 in Morocco)
4. Regional legal context, notably in the Mediterranean the implementation of the ICZM Protocol, and other relevant regional drivers such as the EU MSP Directive.
5. International legal context, in particular the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992, Article 4.
6. International, regional or local programme(s) under which the plan is being prepared. For example, the GEF’s MedProgramme SCCF (Special Climate Change Fund) and ChildProject 2.1, focusing on coastal zones: water security, climate resilience, habitat protection.
7. Plan Preparation Logistics and Reporting
   The host organisation for the planning team
8. Staffing structure and organogram
9. Governance structure – see 4 above
10. Funding
    Identified funding sources for coastal planning. Identifying potential financing sources and institutional arrangements to implement adaptation actions.
11. Preparatory Work already carried out
    This could include for example: stakeholder workshops – bringing together national/regional governments, environmental agencies, local authorities; to agree the vision, define priority issues, gather inputs, and establish the process.Vulnerability assessments of the coastal planning area – to climate change such as coastal erosion, sea-level rise and saline intrusion, including coastal populations and groups particularly at risk.

Agreed and signed among the core partners in the coastal planning process to help establish the collective purpose. Such an agreement may be variously titled as a Mission Statement, Mandate, Contract, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), or other appropriate title.

The agreement should be concise and clear – consisting of clear, unambiguous statements, diagrams and maps to which partners can sign-up to.

1. The shared vision – what is the plan for – what are its primary aims? (Article 5 of the ICZM Protocol, Objectives of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, provides a useful checklist – see Annex 3.
2. The list of signatories
3. The background and context of the plan process, including the « trigger” factors for the process (the trigger may be a political decision, a strategic priority, or a response to a specific local problem or issue)
4. The larger macro, or high-level policies abstracted from the individual partners including the international and/or national context
5. Sources of funding and financial responsibilities
6. The geographical boundaries of the coastal planning area including both the terrestrial and marine boundaries (see Step 3 above)
7. Core governance structure – in the form of the Host (or Lead) body, the Steering Committee, including its objectives, tasks, mode of operation etc., staffing, lines of responsibility, any technical, advisory or consultative groups, and their terms of reference. Further guidance to membership and operating the perfect Steering Committee are set out in Annex 1.
8. Technical or thematic working groups, consultative and user groups etc. – the number and range of such groups may change over time, but should be proportionate to the resources available to support them.
9. Logistical support in terms core resources, including for example IT support, administration, financial administration, and office space.
10. Timeline and milestones for the preparation, delivery, and review of the Coastal Plan a work plan (see below)
11. Reporting process
12. Formal adoption of the plan – by whom, and how will your Coastal Plan be legally adopted?

Once this document is agreed, obtain sign off by the relevant sponsoring bodies.

Scoping Report – the baseline snapshot

The purpose is to map the likely range of human and natural forces, the existing sectoral policies, and their potential interrelationships to be used as a trigger for the process and a focus for discussion, full analysis and identification of priorities in subsequent steps – this is the Scoping Report. Think of this also as a prospectus for the plan. The analysis in the Scoping Report is not the same as the fuller issue and more detailed analysis that will follow in later steps.

A Scoping Report should contain the preliminary assessment of the problems, a snapshot of the issues, drivers, pressures and risks along with their relative importance, policy context, and interrelationships. Typically prepared by experts, but workshops can be valuable to raise issues from stakeholders.

Preliminary Assessment – questions it may begin to answer

• How can the strengths of the coastal zone be mobilized to take advantage of opportunities for sustainable development and the protection of coastal ecosystems?
• How can these strengths be used to address threats such as climate change or urbanization?
• How can existing weaknesses be overcome in order to benefit from economic, tourism, or environmental opportunities?
• How can vulnerabilities be reduced to minimize the impact of potential threats on the coast?
• How can weaknesses be corrected to anticipate risks and implement preventive measures adapted to Mediterranean specificities?
• Who does what – the coastal governance baseline – defining institutional, legal and policy context, as well as detailed analysis of the key stakeholders to identify their real competencies/roles, their capacity and importance/relevance for the Process. The ICZM Protocol specifies the range of stakeholders to be included in the Process: “…the territorial communities and public entities concerned; economic operators; non-governmental organizations; social actors; the public concerned.”

Communication and Engagement Strategy

Purpose

• Build the communication infrastructure to communicate with stakeholders and the public in the coastal planning process. If necessary, seek advice from a communication specialist the success or failure of coastal planning will rely on the key audiences being inspired by the process and its objectives
• Set realistic aims for community participation and engagement, be clear about just how ambitious you are with regard to engaging the local community in the planning process. Funding, staffing, and time will limit the scope of the community engagement process, as will the capacity of voluntary community groups to engage.

Contents

• Branding and identity – professional branding and identity specification, along with a writing style guide, will ensure consistency of presentation across media and the web, throughout the process and strengthen the wider recognition of the plan. Claim your domain names, launch pages on social media.
• Identify your community – this could follow from a stakeholder analysis (see Task 11 below), but should include a list of relevant interest groups. Identify community-based organizations, bodies representing local economic interests, governmental agencies, technical experts, NGOs and other partners that need to be engaged in the Plan. Key individuals may also be identified who may become ambassadors or champions for the Plan. Remember those marginalised groups traditionally excluded from decision-making and consider focused measures to include them.
• Project Champion or Ambassador – is there a local, well-respected and supportive individual and their organisation in the Plan area who is prepared to act as the lynchpin and spokesperson for the Plan?
• Moderators – the management and moderation of community and stakeholder workshops involves very specific skills such as facilitation through active listening and neutrality, conflict management synthesising and summarizing, along with excellent communication skills. These skills may need to be sourced externally to the planning team.

Communication and promotion mix – how the message is conveyed. This will include press and TV, online, print, events and conferences. Internally this will include meetings, printed and electronic media. Training in communication may be required. Innovative methods of communication and visualisation should be considered.

Participation

• Be clear and realistic about how far on the spectrum of community engagement your ambitions extend between simply informing the community through to empowering the community to take a lead role in the process (see Figure).
• Be ambitious, but don’t overpromise.
• Remove barriers to participation – not just through good communication, but also through opportunities to build the capacity of the community to participate in targeted workshops, and even lead through local champions.
• Include measurable targets include where possible the number and frequency of meetings, press releases, printed material such as brochures, posters, exhibition banners, number and type of meetings, etc. along with measures of effectiveness (e.g. hits on web-site, attendance at meetings, etc).
• Budget – identify the funds required within the programme and what external support can be offered by partners (for example web hosting and meeting venues).

The Ladder of Participation below has been used to identify and increase the amount of citizen power in decision-making processes. It serves to evaluate whether engagement is meaningful or simply a « window-dressing » exercise that maintains the status quo. The objective therefore is to seek to move well beyond the simple “inform” level towards the “Co-create”.

• Stakeholder workshops – bringing together national/regional governments, environmental agencies, local authorities; to agree the vision, define priority issues, gather inputs, and establish the process.
• Stakeholder mapping – to ensure successful co-creation and later implementation of coastal planning, it is essential to identify all stakeholders who must be engaged in coastal governance, including those who manage the coast, influence or are affected by its use, or depend on coastal resources for their livelihoods and well-being. Stakeholder mapping should begin with institutions holding formal management responsibilities and expand to all groups with an impact on, dependence on, or legitimate interest in the coastal zone, and before invitations are issued for the initial workshop, the preliminary list should be shared with those identified so they can validate and complete it – an important step that promotes transparency, inclusiveness, and broad ownership while ensuring that no key voices are overlooked.

Coastal Vulnerability Assessment (CVA) – the process of making climate change at the coast visible, identifying both who and what is at risk from climate impacts, and why – so that adaptation actions can be targeted most effectively. A form of Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA) is essential to the setting of priorities to improve climate resilience. Mapping will be an essential tool to:

• locate risk areas (erosion, flooding, forest fires, salinisation, etc.)
• climate projections (sea level rise, temperature and precipitation, storm and drought, etc.)
• identify sensitive ecosystems and exposed urban areas
• cross-reference these data with socio-economic and demographic dynamics.
• collecting input from the local stakeholders – in the participatory workshops (ex. Climagine)

Your coastal planning will include the analysis of the interactions of natural and human processes between land and sea – Land Sea Interactions (LSI).

One of the key differentiators of coastal planning over conventional terrestrial and marine spatial plans, therefore, is the ability to consider the interactions of uses and activities across the boundary between land and sea – the impacts from sea to land and from land to sea of activities – LSI.

In the Mediterranean region, compound flooding – the simultaneous effect of multiple flood drivers – demonstrates how interconnected land and sea processes are. The drivers of compound flooding, including storm surges, rainfall extremes, sea-level rise, and river discharge, all cross the land-sea boundary. The Mediterranean is particularly vulnerable to this form of flooding because of its unique combination of geographic, climatic, and socio-economic factors. Narrow, low-lying, heavily urbanised coastal plains have little space for water to drain or for natural buffers. Intense, short-lived storms bring torrential rainfall and strong winds. Short river catchments respond rapidly to these storms as storm surges severely inundate coastal land. Rising sea levels amplify flood risk. Managing these drivers separately will fail to mitigate or prevent flooding.

Land-based measures such as urban drainage systems, river embankments, and land-use regulation cannot work properly if they ignore what’s happening at sea. Conversely, sea-based measures such as coastal defences, port design, or ecosystem protection are incomplete if they ignore river and rainfall inputs. Their interactions define both the climate risks and the sustainable solutions.

Under the ICZM Protocol, the consideration of LSI is mandated through the definitions of the coastal zone (Figure XX) and ICZM as involving interlinked land-marine ecosystems and human activities. The ICZM Protocol articulates objectives such as preserving coastal ecosystems, preventing natural hazards like erosion and flooding, and applying the ecosystem approach – all inherently involving LSI.

LSI involve both natural processes (e.g., sediment transport, coastal erosion) and human-induced socio-economic activities (e.g., agriculture runoff, infrastructure) crossing the land–sea interface. A more detailed description of LSIs offering a detailed 14-step approach to guide planners, based on tested Mediterranean pilot cases can be found on PAP/RAC’s Marine Spatial Planning Platform.

Recognise recent events or experiences, and the lived experience of the local community -particularly climate change events such as flooding, severe heat, etc., or the adverse impacts of tourism on society and the environment. Where communities struggle for basic needs for example, their capacity to engage with plans to adapt to long-term climate hazards, or to restrict further development may be severely compromised.

Break down silos, build trust, and bring professionals and academics together across geographic and institutional boundaries. Ensure that assessments are unique and customised to the community, including gender, ethnic group, and other relevant cultural or socio-economic identities.

In assessing resilience to climate change in particular, quantitative analysis of risk and exposure are not the same as the assessment of vulnerability which requires a real understanding of practical, real-world factors. Examples of this are legion, from the differing cultural or generational interpretations of threat to misleading or inadequate assessments of the condition of protective infrastructure against floods.

Scenarios are ‘what if?’ visions of the future, and mapping possible futures is the bridge between the early steps of coastal planning – mapping the present – and the foresight to underpin a resilient and sustainable future.

Participatory methodologies such as Climagine combine collective visioning, action planning, and indicator development within a single, scenario-making process. – and the process of generating them through a participative process is a key part of coastal planning.

Climagine systematically integrates local knowledge, increases awareness and develops solutions through broad partnerships. In this way, coastal planning is co-created by all relevant authorities and stakeholders.

Engaged stakeholders become owners of the coastal plan and, consequently, key actors in its implementation.

More specifically, scenarios are used to:

• raise awareness on coastal issues, in particular climate change
• enable the inclusion of local knowledge and perspectives in the plan
• develop a shared vision among diverse stakeholders
• identify practical and locally owned solutions
• integrate expert and local knowledge for indicators and targets
• strengthen implementation potential, i.e. the chance of success, through stakeholder engagement, ownership and wide partnership.

AI and remote sensing can help turn uncertainty into actionable insight, enabling Coatsl planning to be flexible, proactive, and resilient.

Remote sensing provides high-resolution, near-real-time monitoring of shoreline change, erosion, ecosystems, and human activity.

AI may assist in analysing climate, ocean, and other data to forecast risks, identify vulnerable areas, test future scenarios, and support rapid hazard detection and response. Visualisations and predictive maps also make complex information accessible to communities.

In the Mediterranean, remote sensing, GIS, and geomatics are now essential for analysing climate-driven change, including land use, coastline dynamics, floods, urban expansion, lagoons, and marine processes. Satellite imagery supports the monitoring of erosion-prone coasts, fragile lagoon ecosystems, marine traffic, pollution, storms, and habitats such as Posidonia meadows, with AI increasingly automating analysis and mapping.

Three caveats apply:

1. Remote sensing has technical limits, uncertainties, and processing challenges;
2. Technology can be oversold – high costs, weak infrastructure, limited capacity, and reliance on external expertise may reduce local relevance.
3. Local knowledge remains indispensable, grounding scientific insight in lived experience and ensuring coastal decisions are credible and trusted, practical, and locally owned.

With the above cautions in mind, these are the vital areas of work to underpin the development of your Coatsl planning in the Mediterranean

Sustainability Indicators may identified jointly by the experts and stakeholders. These indicators should provide a better understanding of the evolution of sustainability and associated challenges. Selected indicators need to be SMART — meaning Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound.

Indicators to measure plan success will track both the coastal planning process and its outcomes. These will be refined in later steps, and form the basis of the monitoring framework in Step 5.

Achieving consensus using the Climagine participatory methodology.

Bring experts and stakeholders together in a workshop setting to agree on the vision and explore the future of your coastal zone, using scenarios that highlight the impacts of the changing climate, trends in coastal issues and conflicts associated with the use of natural resources.

In this step, a sustainable numerical range, known as the Band of Equilibrium, needs to be defined for all selected indicators. This will enable the description of the current state and the (un)sustainable trajectory of the dimensions it represents. The obtained data will be presented in the Climagine amoeba diagram (see below). Among the key conditions for the success of the method is the availability of data needed for developing an amoeba diagram. Otherwise, different participatory methods need to be proposed. (Example taken from the Coastal Plan for Šibenik-Knin County, Croatia, 2015).

The amoeba diagram is produced to show all indicators simultaneously, using points that indicate their known values. The green area represents the band of equilibrium. After this, creating an amoeba diagram of a past situation can be used to show changing trends. Scenarios can be developed starting from the two amoeba diagrams and a third amoeba diagram can be produced with projections by players concerning the future of their territory. Finally, all three diagrams can be combined into a single image.

Adapted from the Plan Bleu Policy Notes #37

A single Vision Statement includes priorities and objectives, along with supporting interpretive material and reports of the participation process. It can be considered as a visionary interpretation of the Objectives of ICZM (Article 5 of the ICZM Protocol).

A vision must be both rational and inventive – this is foresight. Such foresight thus lies at the intersection of three dimensions:

• the probable (what is known),
• the desirable (what is wanted) and,
• the possible (what can be done).

Foresight differs from forecasting in two ways. Firstly, it is as interested in uncertainties as certainties. Secondly, it focuses as much on what is going to happen (exploratory foresight) as on what one might want or not want to happen (normative foresight).” – The Mediterranean by 2050 (Plan Bleu 2025)

Applied to the coast, foresight allows a plurality of potential futures. The coastline is not a fixed space, but a territory to be explored, anticipated, and collectively shaped with all relevant stakeholders.

In a rapidly changing world, characterized by accelerating changes, unstable contexts, multiple influences, diverse and sometimes contradictory expertise, and interdependent actors, this “plurality of potential futures” means there are many possible ways the coast could change – just like in quantum physics, where different outcomes are possible at the same time.

What actually happens depends on the choices people make today: how we build, protect nature, prepare for storms, or use the shoreline. Our decisions guide which future becomes real. It relies on the diverse mobilization of field actors, the establishment of a monitoring system, and the adoption of a long-term strategic vision.

Here is the Vision Statement for the Kaštela Bay (Croatia) from the Horizon DesirMED project (2025):

“Kaštela Bay as an urban area adapted to climate change, with clean sea and air, green spaces and restored agro-ecosystems. Efficient infrastructure, public transport and stormwater management ensure a better quality of life. Residents are connected, aware of the value of their space and actively participate in its preservation and development.”

There is no one-size-fits-all; a living Coastal Plan adapts its priorities and actions to specific local conditions rather than relying on generic models. Importantly, in addition to science and data, it builds on the community’s traditional knowledge, daily experience, and sense of place – understanding how people use, protect, and depend on the coast.

The measures are not used in isolation; for example, measures identified under Blue-Green options rely on enabling governance measures listed in the Societal options. No single type of measure is sufficient – effective Coatsl planning require a mix of Societal, Blue-Green, and Grey options tailored to the local environment, society, and institutional capacity. In practice, therefore the majority of measures in the plan will be hybrids of two or more of the Societal, Blue-Green, and Grey options.

Potential measures to be included in a Coastal Plan should thus combine physical protection, adaptation of human activities, and ecosystem conservation, while relying on local and scientific knowledge, stakeholder participation, and a long-term forward-looking vision.

These measures use ecosystems to buffer climate impacts, support biodiversity, and community wellbeing. Blue-Green measures provide multiple co-benefits such as flood reduction, cooling, biodiversity conservation, recreation, and carbon storage. In the Mediterranean, where tourism and ecosystems coexist, these measures align environmental and economic priorities.

The main options may include:

• Protection & Restoration of Wetlands, Dunes and Coastal Ecosystems – manage wetlands, lagoons and Posidonia seagrass beds to absorb carbon and dissipate storm energy, store floodwaters and trap sediments. Maintain and reinforce sand dunes as natural storm barriers.
• Adaptive Management of Natural Habitats – iterative, monitored management of habitats that evolve under climate pressures.
• Marine Habitat Protection – including creating marine protected areas (MPAs), restoring seagrass, coral, and wetland habitats, regulating fishing, and promoting sustainable tourism. Monitoring, enforcement, and good stewardship to ensure long-term protection and recovery of marine ecosystems.
• Water Resource Management – Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), including the protection of freshwater sources, the promotion of efficient use and recycling, controlling pollution and runoff, implementing rainwater harvesting, restoring wetlands and aquifers, and monitoring water quality. Integrated planning to ensure resilient and sustainable supply for communities, ecosystems, and economic activities.
• Agriculture – including the promotion of sustainable farming practices to protect coastal ecosystems, maintain productivity, and enhance resilience to climate change and erosion. Actions could include reducing chemical runoff, conserving soil and water, restoring terraces and traditional landscapes, supporting organic and climate-resilient crops, and incorporating sustainable farming practices into coastal management.
• Public Health and Social Resilience – prevent health risks, including waterborne diseases, heatwave impacts, and direct effects of flooding. This includes monitoring and managing water pollution (chemical and microbiological) and air pollution (particulate matter, atmospheric pollutants), whose effects can be exacerbated by human activities.
• Urban Green Infrastructure – trees, parks, green roofs, and corridors that cool cities, absorb runoff, and improve liveability.
• Built and Architectural Heritage of Traditional Landscapes – traditional Mediterranean passive building design and urban form retained comfort with minimal energy use. Learning from these passive features can inspire modern, climate-friendly solutions rooted in local heritage.
• River and Floodplain Restoration – reconnect rivers with floodplains to reduce downstream flooding.
• Forestry Management – reduce fire and pest risks, soil erosion, and flood risk through the prevention of forest fires and enhanced monitoring, involving communities through citizen science. Promote reforestation and the maintenance of vegetation cover, to protect soils on slopes and watersheds, to combine ecological corridors, transition zones, and restore ecosystems.

These measures may require space and time to mature, and performance can decline under severe or prolonged stress (e.g., drowning wetlands from sea-level rise, excessive development, tourism pressure). Regular monitoring and maintenance are needed.

Grey measures are primarily designed to protect people and assets from climate hazards where retreat or nature-based solutions are impractical. ‘Hard’ measures such as seawalls or breakwaters are often combined with other urban infrastructure such as esplanades or road or rail corridors. Grey measures deliver immediate, visible protection and are often indispensable in dense, high-value coastal areas. However, they are generally costly, require ongoing maintenance, and can damage coastal ecosystems or shift erosion elsewhere. They may also create “false security” if climate conditions exceed their design thresholds.

Examples:

• Seawalls, Groynes, Breakwaters and Quays – reduce wave energy and coastal erosion.
• Beach Nourishment – replenish sand on eroded beaches to maintain natural buffers.
• Storm-Surge Barriers and Flood Gates – control water levels during storms and high tides.
• Elevating or Reinforcing Existing Infrastructure – adapt roads, ports, and urban drainage to withstand floods and higher temperatures.

Grey measures may be combined with blue-green (nature-based) solutions to create sustainable, resilient hybrid solutions, leveraging the strengths of both nature-based and engineered solutions, reducing maintenance costs, and supporting ecosystem services.

Examples that combine blue-green measures with hard, concrete infrastructure for coastal protection include:

• Living shorelines combined with seawalls or breakwaters – establish sand dunes or saltmarshes in front of hard structures to reduce wave energy, stabilize sediment, and support biodiversity.
• Beach nourishment with submerged reefs – replenish sand on eroded beaches and add offshore artificial reefs to slow erosion, reduce wave energy, and create marine habitat, while maintaining the beach as a natural buffer.
• Flood gates with wetland buffers – combine storm-surge barriers or flood gates with restored wetlands or lagoons, allowing wetlands to absorb water and filter pollutants while gates protect critical infrastructure during extreme events.

The ambition of your Coastal Plan will be tempered by the financial and other resources available to deliver it. Coastal planning differ critically from their land and marine spatial plans counterparts in that the Coastal planning rely primarily on practical implementation rather than regulation – this in turn relies on the resources available for that implementation.

It is not realistic to set out in detail the financial arrangements for the delivery of all the individual measures – this is the task of the Action Plan set out in Step 5 – but the Coastal Plan should set out financial detail at a strategic and indicative level.

The Coastal Plan should indicate:

• Broad financial principles – such as indicative cost categories including core-staffing and administration, projects, infrastructure, monitoring, etc., and potential funding sources including international sources, national budgets, private foundations and partnerships, revenue income from use-charging etc. but not providing itemized costs at this stage.
• Outline financing mechanisms – including co-financing (where two or more partners, such as governments, donors, NGOs, contribute funds to the same project or objective), and blended finance (leveraging public money to mobilise or attract private finance to projects), single source funding from national or local sources, financial incentives such as grants or subsidies.

Your Coastal Plan should also consider local financial management capacity to match its ambition, identifying where necessary the need for capacity development, including:

• Institutional responsibilities and capacity for financial management – including the capacity in terms of systems for budgeting, accounting, procurement, and reporting; transparent monitoring and auditing to ensure compliance; the ability to manage multiple funding streams efficiently; and with the legal framework to enable fund absorption, cash-flow, and long-term maintenance of investments.
• Financial mobilisation capacity – including the knowledge of funding sources (international funds, donors and private sector); the skills to prepare proposals and co-financing and blended finance models. The objective is to maximise the financial multiplier effect – the increase in total investment in coastal management by leveraging initial public or other funding to attract additional private, community, and institutional co-financing, multiplying total financial resources and amplifying the overall impact of the measures.

The realisation of the ambitions of your Coastal Plan depends not only on direct public investment but, as the World Bank (2025) and others point out, Coatsl planning can strengthen investor confidence, help reduce poverty, and promote gender equality. In designing measures.

Coastal planning should therefore apply, where possible, the following principles:

• Strengthen investor confidence – promoting sustainable development that reduces environmental risks to coastal assets. By improving coastal resilience against climate change impacts like sea-level rise and extreme weather events, reduce investment vulnerability and build confidence.
• Reduce poverty – promoting sustainable economic development for coastal communities; managing coastal resources to prevent overexploitation and ensure long-term economic potential. It also strengthens community resilience by assisting adaptation to changing conditions and mitigating risks to livelihoods.
• Bridge the inequality gap – promote gender equality by actively involve women in coastal management and decision-making in an inclusive approach especially in sectors like fisheries where women are often underrepresented in leadership roles and supporting industries like processing. Initiatives can include providing equal opportunities for education, leadership, and financial resources, and addressing the disproportionate impacts of climate change on women. Mainstreaming gender ensures equitable, sustainable development benefits all stakeholders.

Formal Approval – allow time and resources to achieve political approval of the plan. The engagement and support of stakeholders and the community established through the preparation process will pay dividends at this step. The legal basis of a Coastal Plan will vary according to its administrative context – it may have a firm basis in national law, in which case high-level approval is required.

Alternatively, it may be initiated at a local level and considered a voluntary, non-statutory document. In this latter case, consider the appropriate level of political sign-off to lend your Coastal Plan authority and legitimacy, signalling clear political commitment and institutional backing – even without legal force.

See the political sign-off as an opportunity rather than a chore – an opportunity to elevate a plan’s perceived status as an endorsed statement of strategic intent rather than a purely advisory or bureaucratic necessity. Public launch events, ministerial forewords, and formal adoption statements signal priority and commitment, encouraging agencies to align policies, funding, and decisions with the Coastal Plan. Over time, repeated citation in official strategies and approvals reinforces its perceived authority and weight.

Dissemination – disseminate the plan and its vision widely long after its completion to ensure that it plays a central role in the future sustainable development of the plan area.

Governance arrangements for delivering your Coastal Plan may differ from those for its preparation – delivery needs to be firmly embedded into local institutional and social structures, and designed for the long-term. Effective governance ensures institutions and stakeholders work coherently across land and sea to deliver real measures.

Without integrated, well-resourced governance, even the best-designed coatsl planning risk remaining unimplemented or fragmented, leaving coastal communities vulnerable to climate and development pressures, as well as disillusioned with the process.

Revisit the guidance for setting up a successful Streering Committee set out in Step 1. Moving from Plan to Action it’s time revisit and redesign those governance measures set out at the very beginning of the planning process – the “Prelude” and “Initiate” stages.

Consider:

• Governance for plan delivery provides the space where ministries, agencies, municipalities, users and civil society jointly negotiate trade-offs – the coordination mechanisms required by the ICZM Protocol. This allows the identification of where objectives align (e.g., nature-based solutions benefiting climate and biodiversity) and where conflicts must be managed (e.g., port expansion versus Posidonia protection, tourism growth versus shoreline retreat).
• Governance structures for delivery of plan measures should be proportionate to the scale and complexity of the plan area and its social, economic, and political context. The preparation of your Action Plan requires a level of institutional capacity and purpose corresponding to your coastal planning’s scope and ambition.

Just as at the plan preparation stages, the roles and responsibilities must be absolutely clear, these include:

• The governance structure – in the form of the Steering Committee for delivery, including its objectives, tasks, mode of operation, reporting, staffing, lines of responsibility. Along with review and monitoring of the progress.
• Technical or thematic working groups, coastal fora and user groups etc. – the number and range of such groups may change over time, but should be proportionate to the resources available to support them.
• Logistical support in terms of core resources – including, for example, IT support, administration, financial administration, and office space.

Three simple principles are the keys to the successful engagement of partners’ passions in coastal planning governance:

Connect the plan’s vision and measures to values – embracing culture, community, economy, and environment.

Foster ownership – through genuine participation, visible results, and shared success stories.

Celebrate collaboration – build trust, and show how joint action protects or enhances what people care about most – their coast.

Governance structures range in a spectrum from centralised “top-down” models, remotely dictated from a distant central national or regional government, to devolved “bottom-up”models, locally-managed at a municipal or local county level.

Experience from coastal management around the Mediterranean shows that those structures closest to the locally-managed ‘bottom-up’ model have the most potential to be liberating – connecting, enabling, evolving, and adaptive, being:

• Inclusive – enabling communities and institutions to co-create solutions
• Shared decision-making – across government, experts, and local actors
• Flexible – coordination mechanisms that can evolve with experience
• Accountable – combined with local autonomy
• Open and transparent – fostering communication to empower participation and trust.

Be smart – Mediterranean ICZM experience shows that Coatsl planning is most effective when treated as living agreements – periodically adjusting priorities in response to climate risk, socio-economic change, and shared learning. As the IPCC put it, “Adaptation is an iterative process of learning, adjustment, and response to change” or, most simply, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?” (attributed to John Maynard Keynes).

Firstly, consider the following critera for each measure when deciding the Plan’s short-list of measures:

• Urgency – is an action needed urgently in response to a dramatic increase in, for example, climate change impacts, significant infrastructure failures leading to critical pollution or safety risks?
• Protective Perspective – focus on actions that safeguard people, ecosystems, and assets from climate risks while minimizing harm. Prioritises low-regret, resilient actions that reduce vulnerability now and avoid creating new risks in the future.
• Co-benefits – a complex area, but do the actions support broader goals such as habitat conservation, public health, safety, or economic growth?
• Pilot (or demonstration) actions – to build support for the delivery of the coastal plan. See Task 3 below.
• Funding – provides specific cost estimates for each action or project (e.g., dune restoration, flood protection, monitoring systems). Identifies confirmed and potential funding sources, budget allocations, and timelines for expenditure (see Table in Step 4 and annex 4). Includes the responsible entities for funding and implementation, sometimes with performance indicators or cost–benefit links. Can be updated periodically as funding becomes available or priorities shift.
• Feasibility – an effective program will be a balance of ambition and pragmatism. Is the desired faction program feasible in terms of the local technical, legal, and financial capacity? If not, what are the key areas to address? The securing and delivering of funded programs is a very important skill and should go hand in hand with the technical design of actions.
• Social & political acceptability – increasing coastal resilience, particularly in the face of climate change can involve extremely difficult choices, the examples range from the building of sea walls versus a form of managed retreat or re-alignment, to the choice of green infrastructure over conventionally engineered stormwater management – the Action Plan may face formidable political and social barriers to soft options over traditional hard, engineered solutions. Engagement, awareness-raising, and transparency are therefore vital to achieve the community and political buy-in.
• Social Equity – ensure that vulnerable and traditionally excluded populations have been adequately considered and engaged so they benefit appropriately, and are not negatively burdened by the actions. Such unforeseen burdens could include loss of traditional grazing or fishing areas, or the disproportionate increase in costs from financial measures.

Secondly, adopt a simple, widely understood set of priority classes. Asign each measure to one pf the following:

• Urgent

• High Priority

• Medium Priority
• Low Priority

Urgent actions override normal sequencing and are activated by clear, existential triggers rather than planning cycles. Once stabilised, urgent actions should be reviewed and either scaled, adapted, or incorporated into Medium or High priority measures.

High Priority actions signal measures that are critical to achieving agreed objectives, address immediate or escalating risks, and are feasible within existing capacities. High priority actions typically address immediate or foreseeable risks or needs, and are implemented without waiting for further signals. High-priority actions help delay or avoid approaching crisis triggers or tipping points. Given their value in building support for the delivery of your coastal plan, potential pilot projects (see Task 3 below) could also be considered as a High Priority.

Medium Priority actions may depend on additional resources, enabling conditions, or further learning. Additionally, they may be linked to defined trigger points. Triggers may include thresholds in flood frequency, erosion rates, ecosystem condition, socio-economic vulnerability, or policy changes. Medium-priority actions therefore remain “on the shelf” but ready for activation when monitoring indicators signal that conditions are shifting.

Low Priority actions remain valid, but are deferred due to lower urgency, higher uncertainty, or limited current capacity.

Phasing is all about “when” – the timeline and target for the actions. This is a roadmap to initiate the actions to implement the measures in the coastal plan – providing a sound institutional and operating foundation. At the bottom of this box

is a link to a downloadable Roadmap template

Climate change adaptation measures in particular will need continuous review in part due to the uncertainties in projected warming and the range of potential impacts (e.g. sea-level rise, storminess, and flooding). Decisions in adaptation, therefore, need to take place with recognition of uncertainties over long timescales (i.e. 50 years plus). Making robust near-term decisions is therefore crucial – balancing the urgent needs of today while keeping options open to adapt in the more distant future.

Due to these shifting hazards we need pathways that will accommodate the unavoidable reality of climate change – a planning framework that organises actions over time under uncertainty; maps adaptation pathways, identifies tipping or trigger points, and allows switching strategies as conditions change, ensuring long-term, flexible, low-regret decisions.

Most importantly, your Action Plan should be designed to change course before risks become unmanageable – designed to act early, adjust priorities, and avoid crisis decisions.

Download an Action Plan example and Word template here:

Action Plan example (pdf)

Action Plan template (MS Word)

A more sophisticated methodology, the “Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways” (DAPP) provides a a structured planning approach for decision-making under deep uncertainty in climate and water management, producing metro-style pathway maps to visually show how policy choices can evolve over time, making complex, uncertain futures intuitive. It is however limited in its application to complex, multi-themed coatsl planning.

These are the three foundations stones of progress measuring and monitoring:

Indicators track progress and detect change.

Tipping or trigger points activate pathway change

Milestones translate objectives of your coastal plan into observable points of progress.

Indicators have twin purposes: tracking both progress in general and warning of declining performance:

1. Track progress – they combine quantitative indicators – such as the number of vulnerable households benefiting from risk reduction measures, jobs created through nature-based solutions, area of restored coastal habitats, number of municipalities integrating adaptation measures, or funding leveraged – with qualitative indicators capturing empowerment, participation and stakeholder engagement, and institutional coordination.
2. Signal declining performance in coastal adaptation – in the Mediterranean these could typically include hazard indicators – or adaptation tipping points – are reached when existing coastal policies no longer deliver safety, ecological integrity, economic viability, or social acceptability under changing climate conditions, including:

• Sea-level rise and storm surges resulting in urban waterfronts or ports experiencing flooding more frequently than existing protection standard assume,
• System performance failures such as escalating maintenance costs becoming unsustainable, for example when the costs of maintaining hard defences or drainage systems exceeds available budgets or agreed cost–benefit thresholds. Or nature-based solutions losing effectiveness, for example wetlands or dunes no longer keeping pace with sea-level rise, reducing their capacity to attenuate waves or flooding below acceptable levels.
• Conservation, economic, or safety thresholds such as salinity levels in lagoons or aquifers exceeded due to sea -level rise or reduced river flow invalidating both conservation and livelihood objectives, and threatening potable water-use standards.

Socio-economic tipping points such as repeated disruption to communities or local authorities to the point where they no longer accept repeated damage, emergency repairs, or unequal protection outcomes and the loss of trust in the voluntary Coatsl planning approach.

Tipping or trigger points – activate pathway change – providing a basis for adaptive coastal governance under uncertainty, the point where carrying on as planned no longer works – the risks, costs, or impacts have changed enough that the action – and even the coastal plan itself – needs a rethink, not just a minor tweak.

Milestones translate your objectives into observable points of progress. Milestones track progress in governance, coordination, knowledge development, spatial planning, ecosystem management, and socio-economic action.

In practical terms, a balance needs to be struck between milestones being frequent enough to support learning and adjustment, but not so frequent that it becomes burdensome or impractical. A suggested structure:

1. Short-term operational milestones

Frequency: Annual (or continuous monitoring with annual review)

Purpose:

• Track delivery of actions and coordination processes
• Monitor funding, partnerships, and institutional arrangements
• Identify early implementation barriers

Examples:

• Establishment and functioning of coordination bodies
• Progress on studies, monitoring systems, pilot projects
• Budget commitments and resource mobilisation.

2. Medium-term strategic milestones

Frequency: Every 3–5 years

Purpose:

• Assess whether the plan remains on track to meet its objectives
• Review trends in key indicators (hazards, pressures, governance capacity)
• Test assumptions underpinning chosen pathways

Examples:

• Review of shoreline change, flooding frequency, and ecosystem condition
• Assessment of integration with spatial plans and sectoral policies
• Evaluation of stakeholder engagement and social acceptability.

3. Long-term pathway milestones

Frequency: Linked to tipping points or scenario thresholds, rather than fixed dates

Purpose:

• Anticipate when existing policies or measures may no longer meet objectives
• Prepare alternative options before critical thresholds are reached

Examples:

• Sea-level rise reaching a defined range
• Repeated exceedance of protection or service standards
• Escalating costs or declining ecosystem performance.

Download an overview of the monitoring and a review cycle here:

Monitoring, milestones and a review cycle for a Coastal Plan (pdf)

Pilot actions – building confidence and credibility

Pilot (or demonstration) actions play a crucial role in building support for the effective delivery of coastal planning – they turn the abstract of your coastal plan into tangible, real-world experiences. Primarily, they build confidence and credibility among the partners (and

Pilot actions need not be the most important or urgent, rather they are likely to be small-scale, strategic initiatives that demonstrate quick solutions to recognised problems or issues. With pilots, small may be beautiful – small enough to control, large enough to be meaningful. Pilots should be supported by local stakeholders to ensure ownership and success. To the experts they may seem to be of marginal importance, but to the local community – and the sceptics in particular – they demonstrate that things can change as a result of the Plan.

Whilst their short-term impact may be limited, their cumulative, long-term impact in terms of building trust and credibility can be enormous. Pilot actions have multiple benefits, including:

Demonstrate Feasibility and Impact

Pilot actions show that the proposed measures work in real conditions

• Pilot actions show that the proposed measures work in real conditions
• Confidence among decision-makers and funders – seeing results brings confidence, reducing perceived risks.

Confidence among decision-makers and funders – seeing results brings confidence, reducing perceived risks.

• Confidence among decision-makers and funders – seeing results brings confidence, reducing perceived risks.
• Pride and momentum – successes (even modest ones) create a sense of ownership.
• Visible symbols – of collaboration and commitment.

Learning Laboratories – turning learning into practice

• Generate practical insights – on capabilities, coordination, and adaptive management.
• Mistakes are small-scale and manageable – offering lessons before larger rollout.
• Feedback – experience from pilots feeds directly into refining the coastal plans.

Attract Funding and Partnerships

Funders and policymakers prefer to invest in initiatives with visible results.

• Confidence-building – making future phases easier to finance.
• Scaling and replication – showcase potential for turning small-scale local successes into coastal planning or region-wide programmes.

Foster Cross-Sector Collaboration

Pilot projects often require cooperation between multiple institutions – local governments, ministries, NGOs, and private actors.

• Build relationships and coordination mechanisms – essential for the ICZM approach.
• Clarify roles, responsibilities, and governance gaps – in a low-risk setting.

Communicate Change Effectively

Pilots make adaptation visible and relatable.

• Communicate complex concepts – showcasing the meaning of resilience, nature-based solutions, adaptive governance, etc., in practical terms.

Storytelling – pilots provide visible examples to engage the public and media, encouraging political support.