1269. Establishment of the national IMAP, monitoring programme that will systematically collect statistically significant data of the hydrographic parameters is required – first, to allow modelling of hydrographic alterations of the planned structures at the very local scale in the EIA/SEA and second, to provide subsequent monitoring data once the structures have been built. A close cooperation has to be established with the authorities that are responsible for planning of such structures including those responsible for EIA. In parallel, mapping of habitats in a surrounding area that could possibly be impacted by such hydrographic alterations should be prepared (link to EO1 and EO6).

1270. Creation of a digital spatial database of all data from EIA/SEA including spatial coverage and location of the intervention, existing and planned structures and marine habitats. The Copernicus Marine services, the EMODnet service and the spatial planning information system of individual countries (via WMS or WFS layers) (Baučić et al., 2022b) should be used, thus providing necessary data for the CI 15 assessments and monitoring.

1271. As the rational possibility, a revision of the existing indicator Factsheet should be considered that will simplify the method to allow countries to report on the physical loss of habitats, i.e., the structure’s footprint only.

1272. Considerations should also be given to the possibility of proposing a set of climate change related indicators in the frame of IMAP. This could include monitoring of hydrographic parameters (e.g., salinity, temperature, waves and currents) that are changing rapidly due to climate change. The use of hydrographic parameters reported within EO 5 on eutrophication should be taken into account with the use of remote sensing and other available sources for climate change in order to determine the hydrographic alterations in the Mediterranean region. In-situ data are equally important and should be used to monitor changes in variables due to climate effects that is required also by the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Such alterations may have much stronger impacts on marine habitats and ecosystems than those monitored by the CI 15 itself.

1273. EO8 focuses on the terrestrial part of the coastal areas where human activities are continuously altering coastal ecosystems and landscapes. The objective of EO 8 is to ensure that the natural dynamics of coastal areas are maintained and coastal ecosystems and landscapes are preserved. The monitoring under EO 8 addresses coastal artificialisation: construction of buildings and infrastructure along the coastline (such as defence structures, ports and marinas, etc.) and land cover change in accordance with the Guidance factsheet (UNEP/MAP, 2019). Two CIs are established for monitoring coastal artificialisation:

• • Common indicator 16 (CI 16): Length of coastline subject to physical disturbance due to the influence of human-made structures; and
  • Candidate common indicator 25 (CCI 25): Land cover change.

1274. The assessment of CI16 in the 2017 Med QSR was rather subjective as no monitoring data was available at the time. The current assessment is based on the data provided by the majority of the countries and gives a good insight into the baseline status. It will be with the second set of monitoring data when changes could be assessed with regard to GES that is country-specific. A Guiding document has been prepared that includes a list of criteria which may be used by the countries when defining their GES (PAP/RAC, 2021). It was successfully tested in Morocco (PAP/RAC, 2022). The Candidate CI 25 has not been presented in the 2017 Med QSR.

1275. The relationship with other EOs is important with relation to land sea interactions and communication between the terrestrial and marine habitats. Within the Ecological Objective 8 (EO8) however, there is no possibility for integration between the two indicators, i.e., land cover and the coastline, because there is no firm correlation.

1276. For CI 16 data is aggregated from the national reports (seventeen out of twenty Mediterranean countries reported). Assessment results for the candidate CI 25 Land cover change is presented for the Adriatic sub-region.

1277. The UN Environment/MAP emphasizes the integrated nature of the coastal zone, particularly through consideration of marine and terrestrial parts as its constituent elements required by the Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Protocol. The aim of monitoring the EO8 common indicator 16 “Length of coastline subject to physical disturbance due to the influence of human-made structures” is twofold: to quantify the rate and the spatial distribution of the Mediterranean coastline artificialisation; and to provide a better understanding of the impact of those structures to the shoreline dynamics.

1278. GES for Common Indicator 16 can be achieved by minimizing physical disturbance to coastal areas close to the shoreline induced by human activities. Definition of targets, measures and interpretation of results regarding this common indicator is left to the countries, due to strong socio- economic, historic and cultural dimensions in addition to specific geomorphological and geographical conditions.

1284. Aggregation of national assessments for CI 16 parameters for the Mediterranean reported here provides the first set of monitoring data. CI 16 assessments are provided for 57% of the Mediterranean coastline or 31 283 km out of which 14.8% or 4,625 km revealed as artificial coast. The proportion (percentage) of artificial coast vary a lot among countries: from 4% to 75% which clearly demonstrates the necessity for country specific GES definitions in terms of percentages or thresholds. Looking at the length of artificial structures, their length is 8 109 km of which 49% have maritime use as ports and marinas (as structures are mapped with all details, they have much longer length then artificial coast itself. Looking at the trend, even for only three countries, there is a slight increase of artificial coast in percentage terms. Still, in a monitoring period of 6 or 10 years, it amounted to a total of 50 km.

1285. Detailed baseline data at the country level is illustrated by Figure 129 . The countries that have uploaded the data to the INFO/MAP System, i.e. validated the results through an elaborated and agreed procedure of data submission are: Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Italy, Libya, Malta, Montenegro, Morocco, Slovenia, Spain and Türkiye (status as of 30 June 2022).

1286. As data has various reference years, scales, mapping methods and data sources one should take these into consideration before interpreting the values, particularly if comparing data among the countries. However, in terms of proportion of artificial coastline, Slovenia stands out with 75% and Lebanon with 64%, while Libya has only 4% of artificial coastline.

1287. Artificial coastline infrastructure is further mapped showing all details of the structures and described as Breakwaters, Seawaters/Revetments/Sea dike, Groins, Jetties, River mouth structures and Port and marinas. Lengths and artificial structures’ proportion of total artificial coastline are aggregated at the Mediterranean level (Table 49). Artificial structure of Ports and marinas dominates with 49% or 3 955 km.

1288. It should be emphasised that there are well-known difficulties in unambiguously defining the coastline and its length. A coastline is a geographical feature that can change significantly over time, and its length significantly depends on the level of detail with which the coastline is depicted.
Additionally, the national assessments were made for different reference years and with different mapping techniques, caused by different national data sets and geographic specifics, but also by different interpretation of instructions given in the Guidance factsheet (UNEP/MAP, 2019) and related Data Dictionaries and Data Standard (UNEP/MAP, 2019a). Thus, countries’ data cannot be completely compared. However, applying the same criteria as provided at the regional level to ensure synchronization of national efforts to set GES and threshold, and therefore, to prevent biased treatment of countries within regional assessment will allow a more objective assessment of trends once the second monitoring datasets are provided for the next QSR. The GES in the Guidance Factsheet is defined in a descriptive manner as minimised physical disturbance (negative impacts) to coastal areas induced by human activities. Future sets of monitoring data will allow more objective assessments of coastline status: whether it has been further artificialised or it has stayed within GES. This need for a systematic monitoring in Mediterranean regarding the physical disturbance of coastline due to the influence of human-made structures was also a major conclusion in the 2017 QSR.

1289. First, technical issues that have to be considered in future monitoring and assessments of CI 16 are as follows:

1. 1. Monitoring of the coastline (second and following assessments) should use the same level of details and spatial resolution as the initial assessment (baseline data). Otherwise, monitoring results could be compromised by the fact that coastline length increases by using larger scales, more so on more indented coasts.
   2. The calculation of the length of the coastline varies also due to deformations caused by the choice of the cartographic projection (i.e., calculated in plane by using one of the cartographic projection or by using the ellipsoid). It is recommended to use the ellipsoid lengths calculated on WGS84 as required by the Guidance Factsheet and related Data Dictionaries and Data standards.
   3. Methods of mapping coastline vary between the national reports which results in semantic differences of assessed CI 16, in particular with regard to mapping of the length of artificial structures. This should be taken into account while interpreting aggregate data for the Mediterranean. Classification of artificial structures should be unambiguous, regardless of the monitoring period, country or the method used (visual inspection of aerial images or field survey). A manual that will elaborate on various situations should be prepared so that interpretation is unambiguous, i.e., harmonised.
      

1290. Second, measures and actions to achieve GES include the following:

a. The country-specific GES should be defined based on the first set of monitoring data in order to allow assessment of changes for the next QSR. Country specificities could significantly affect the assessment, i.e., interpretation of calculated CI 16. Therefore, issues such as the following need to be taken into For example, a country with a significant length of coastline on uninhabited islands, islets and rocks and with a small proportion of artificial coast can be interpreted as a very good condition, while in fact there is a lot of construction on the mainland part of the coast. Another issue is the total length of the coastline per country. If a country has a short coastline than it is expected that the proportion of the artificial coastline will be larger to provide facilities for all human coastal and maritime activities. When defining GES thresholds, these should be considered; i.e., different thresholds could be defined for different parts of coastline. For the definition of country specific GES, the list of assessment criteria and the Guiding document prepared by PAP/RAC can be utilised (PAP/RAC, 2021), including the results of testing the Guiding document in Morocco (PAP/RAC, 2022).

1291. Also, measures and actions to achieve GES should be specified and may, in general, include the following three types:

1. 1. Particular management actions needed in order to move towards
   2. Measures aimed at obtaining new knowledge for assessing and achieving GES (e.g., scientific research, application of innovative solutions at pilot locations).
   3. Measures with the aim of disseminating knowledge to all stakeholders and involving them in defining measures and actions for achieving GES.

1292. Particular management actions regarding coastline artificialisation could include:

1. 1. Analysis of existing artificial coastlines and their categorization into those that are necessary, those that can be reduced and those that can be returned to nature (e.g., abandoned jetties, ).
   2. When planning new artificial structures on the coastline, first analyse whether human needs can be achieved through better management of existing artificial structures and their functional transformations.
   3. Along existing artificial coastlines: improve monitoring of environmental impacts and implement measures to reduce negative impacts (such as pollution, habitat fragmentation, noise, light pollution, water cycle).
   4. For new artificial coastlines, examine the use of nature-based solutions and ensure financial or other benefits for their implementation.
   5. Encouraging the use of coastline in a way that consumes spatial/natural resources as little as possible: e.g., restricting land-take for the second homes.
   6. Protect, restore, conserve and enhance threatened and degraded coastal habitats.

1293. Results of above measures and actions could be measured by km of reversed coastline (from artificial to natural), km of recovered coastal habitats, % of nature-based solutions used in e.g., coastal protection, number of innovative projects tested (e.g., beach nourishments without impacts on coastal habitats), number of people involved in GES awareness, number of people actively working on the measures, and alike.

1294. Due to the candidate status of this indicator, it was not included in the 2017 Med QSR. Since then, the indicator has been tested through the implementation of several projects such as the EcAp MED II and III, the GEF MedProgramme and alike. With the active support of the CORMON meetings the Guiding Factsheet was improved and upgraded. So, it is now for the first time that this indicator is presented; however, it still at the sub-regional scale (Adriatic Sea) where data was available from the open sources and therefore, required no major contribution from the countries.

1295. Good environmental status for CCI 25 is specified in the Guidance Factsheet (UNEP/MAP, 2019) as “Linear coastal development minimised, with perpendicular development being in balance with integrity and diversity of coastal ecosystems and landscapes. Mixed land-use structure achieved in predominantly human-made coastal landscapes”.

1304.   Figure 133, Figure 132 illustrates land-take in km² (increase of built-up areas) from year 2012 to 2018 per coastal strips on country level. Looking at the distribution of land-take among the coastal strips, in Croatia, followed by Albania the narrower coastal strip (by absolute area the smallest among other coastal strips), has the largest amount of land-take. This clearly identifies that urban sprawl is located at the nearest vicinity to the coastline e.g., 0-300 m and that the Article 8 of the ICZM Protocol on the setback zone should be better respected. In Albania, Italy and Montenegro, the coastal strips 1-10 km have the largest land-take meaning that majority of urban areas have not been constructed in the narrow strip along the coastline.

1305. The reporting unit of LECZ, i.e. areas with highest risk to be impacted by flooding, shows that large areas of coastal zones are located in the low-lying terrain and that the built-up areas continue to increase there as well. This sheds new light on the problem of coastal artificialization, which will lead to a decrease of resilience to climate change. A detailed analysis at the level of municipalities and cities could help address the problem and set new requirements for urban planning, e.g., no land-take in LECZ (Figure 132).

1306. The assessment reveals also that land cover change (2012-2018) within LECZ goes towards an increase of built-up areas in all countries within the Adriatic sub-region (increase of 6km² that corresponds to 1% relative to built-up area in 2012). Figure 133 illustrates land-take in countries per coastal strips. Albania has the largest increase of built-up areas within LECZ and most of the land- take took place in the coastal strip 1-10 km, while in Croatia in the narrowest coast strip.

1307. A plethora of GIS data was prepared for the elaboration of this assessment report and is available to be used for other statistics and analyses, and for further GES assessment and setting up measures and actions.

1308. The methodology applied in this study confirms that the CCI 25 assessment can be made with open-source data such as OpenStreetMap, World Database on Protected Areas and Forest and Buildings removed Copernicus DEM (FABDEM) global elevation map. All these datasets are available for the whole Mediterranean. The key data for CCI 25 is land cover data, here the Copernicus Land Monitoring – Coastal zones service was used. Currently, it is not available for the entire Mediterranean. However, the best available data for the future could be the ESA World Cover Project providing global land cover maps at 10m spatial resolution, in particular if national most updated and accurate datasets are not available. As new global land cover maps are emerging monthly, having better and better spatial, thematic and temporal resolution land cover monitoring is becoming feasible for the whole Mediterranean at relatively low cost.