Ocean & Coastal Management 54 (2011) 943e950

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

The role of coastal setbacks in the context of coastal erosion and climate change
M. Sanò a, g, *, J.A. Jiménez b, c, R. Medina a, A. Stanica d, A. Sanchez-Arcilla b, c, I. Trumbic e, f
a
Environmental Hydraulics Institute “IH Cantabria”, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain
b
Laboratori d’Enginyeria Marítima, ETSECCPB, Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
c
International Centre for Coastal Resources Research, Barcelona, Spain
d
National Institute of Marine Geology and Geo-ecology e GeoEcoMar, Bucharest, Romania
e
UNEP/MAP Priority Actions Programme, Regional Activity Centre, Split, Croatia
f
UNEP/MAP GEF Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Large Marine Ecosystem, Athens, Greece
g
Griffith Centre for Coastal Management and Griffith Climate Change Response Program, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Coastal erosion and storms represent a source of risk for settlements and infrastructure along the coast.
Available online 29 June 2011 At the same time, coastal natural assets, including landscape, are threatened by increasing development
mainly driven by tourism. The Mediterranean coast is especially vulnerable to these processes, consid-
ering its high biological and cultural diversity. An additional challenge is represented by climate change,
as it will force coastal communities to apply more or less drastic adaptation strategies. Coastal setbacks,
used to protect coastal communities and infrastructure from storms and erosion, and to preserve coastal
habitats and landscapes from degradation, is one of the main instruments suggested by the Protocol on
Integrated Coastal Zone Management of the Barcelona Convention, entered into force on the 24 of March
2011. Its implementation has the potential to influence coastal policies in other regions, such as the
neighbouring Black Sea.
The CONSCIENCE project has formalized concepts and conducted specific studies to provide new tools
for coastal erosion management practice. The objective of this paper is to present a synthesis of the
research conducted into coastal setbacks for coastal erosion management and climate change adaptation.
This is done by analysing the requirement of the Protocol, current processes and management practices
in two case study areas (Costa Brava Bays in Spain and Danube Delta, in Romania) and the new challenges
posed by climate change.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction concentration of human settlements and strategic economic

A coastal setback is a buffer space where permanent construc-
tions are not allowed, defined by a specific distance from the
shoreline’s highest water mark. The use of coastal setbacks is
a controversial measure to deal with coastal hazards, public use of
the coast and natural and cultural landscape protection and pres-
ervation. At the same time it has undoubtedly a relevant role in (i)
protecting human settlements from current and future coastal
processes and (ii) preserving cultural and natural assets and
traditional landscapes (Sanò et al., 2009). Its application to the
Mediterranean coast is particularly complex, considering the
* Corresponding author. Griffith Centre for Coastal Management e Griffith
University, Gold Coast Campus Griffith University, 4222 Queensland, Australia.
Tel.: þ61 07 55 528520, þ61 0412579502 (mobile); fax: þ61 07 55 528067.
E-mail address: m.sano@griffith.edu.au (M. Sanò).
sectors on a highly dynamic and fragile environment.
The coastal region hosts 154 million people, or one third of the
whole population of Mediterranean coastal states, along approxi-
mately 46,000 km of coastlines, 54% of which is rocky and 46% is
sedimentary (UNEP/MAP/PAP, 2001). The latter includes important
and fragile ecosystems such as beaches, dunes, lagoons and deltas
(UNEP/MAP/Plan Bleu, 2005, 2009). At the same time, adminis-
trative frameworks and stakeholders’ values and perceptions vary
across 22 Mediterranean coastal states (González-Riancho et al.,
2009). In terms of climatic changes, the Mediterranean coastal
zone embodies both causes and consequences of global warming:
high carbon emissions, sea level rise, extreme storms and wave
climate variability, plus other consequences affecting also non-
coastal areas (increased average temperatures, heat waves, long
droughts or heavy precipitation).
The implementation of a setback policy appears to be critical
today, in the light of the increasing pressure on coastal environments

0964-5691/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.06.008
944 M. Sanò et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 54 (2011) 943e950
by a constantly growing population, expected to increase by around
20% in the next 20 years (UNEP/MAP/Plan Bleu, 2005), and by the
threat posed by climate change on sedimentary systems. One of the
latest successes in the harmonization of Integrated Coastal Zone
Management (ICZM) across the Mediterranean basin is the signature
of the Protocol on ICZM of the Barcelona Convention, entered into
force on 24 of March 2011 (UNEP, 2008). In addition to general
provisions on ICZM and coastal environmental conservation,
protection and restoration, the Protocol identifies a 100 m setback as
the agreed measure to protect coastal settlements and infrastructure
from negative impacts of coastal processes, and explicitly mentions
climate change as a major issue to be addressed. The implications of
the implementation of the provision covering coastal setbacks
(Article 8 of the Protocol) are likely to vary depending on the coastal
management settings of different countries across the basin: this was
one of the critical issues faced during the negotiations leading to the
approval of its final text.
The situation can be considered even more complex in the
neighbouring Black Sea, geographically similar but with a weaker
ICZM system, still under development.
In this context, the objective of this paper is to open a discussion
and to address some questions regarding the implications of the
implementation of coastal setback policies in the Mediterranean,
including some ideas to address this issue in the Black Sea, focusing
on their role in addressing beach erosion management and climate
change adaptation policies, especially those related to a rising sea
level.
The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 thoroughly
analyses the preparation process of the ICZM Protocol over the last
decade and the role of coastal setbacks for its implementation.
Sections 3 and 4 report two case studies on the current use of
coastal setbacks for coastal erosion management. The first one
analyses the advantages and shortcoming of the setback policy to
the Spanish coast and its implications for the beach of S’Abanell in
the Costa Brava, on the NW Mediterranean coast. The second
analyses the current setback policy applied to the coast of Romania
and its implications for a highly vulnerable environment such as
the Danube Delta. Finally, Section 5 analyses some of the implica-
tions of a changing climate to coastal management and the
potential role of coastal setbacks along the Mediterranean and the
Black Sea coast.
2. The role of coastal setbacks in the Mediterranean Protocol
on ICZM
The Mediterranean Protocol on ICZM, adopted in January 2008
and entered into force in March 2011 the framework of the Bar-
celona Convention (all Mediterranean countries and EU are parties
to the Convention), establishes the first international legal instru-
ment that provides a clear definition of the coastal zone and the
requirement for use of coastal setbacks. The text of the Protocol
defines the coastal zone as “.the geomorphologic zone on either
side of the seashore in which the interaction between the marine
and land parts occurs in the form of complex ecological and
resource systems made up of biotic and abiotic components coex-
isting and interacting with human communities and relevant
socioeconomic activities”. Then, the setback is defined as “.a zone
where construction is not allowed. Taking into account, inter alia,
the areas directly and negatively affected by climate change and
natural risks, this zone may not be less than 100 m in width.”
(UNEP, 2008).
This innovative legal document has been, for a number of
reasons, in the making for almost seven years. When launched in
late 2001 during the Barcelona Convention’s Conference of the
Parties in Monaco, many Parties felt that the issue of ICZM was too
complex and a new Protocol could raise potential legal conflicts
across the Mediterranean region, while the EU ICZM Recommen-
dation 413/2002/EC was about to be adopted (however, a clear
distinction should be made between the legal status of a recom-
mendation and an international protocol; the former recom-
mending actions without formal obligations, while the latter
impels countries to strict implementation). During the process,
some Mediterranean EU countries actively opposed the idea of an
ICZM protocol as a result of negative past experiences with the
implementation of similar instruments. It is also now clear that
where southern Mediterranean countries did not actively oppose
the protocol it was more likely that they were not aware or the
consequences than that they were supporters.
By adopting the Protocol, the parties confirmed that control of
coastal development is a major issue in the Mediterranean basin,
and that the problems in coastal areas still persist. The Protocol is
expected to be instrumental for national administrations burdened
with implementation of ICZM. It provides a practical tool which
may overcome challenges of institutional alignment where
national governments are responsible for regional - sub national -
or local coastal problems (Trumbic, 2008).
The text of the Protocol emphasises that the Parties should
define a common regional framework for integrated management
of the Mediterranean coastal zone and should take the necessary
measures to strengthen regional cooperation for this purpose. The
Protocol aims to ensure sustainable development of the coastal
zone, sustainable use of natural resources and integrity of coastal
ecosystems, landscapes and geomorphology. It should help protect
the coastal zone, prevent the effects of natural hazards, and achieve
coherence between public and private initiatives. The innovative
character of the Protocol is reflected, inter alia, in the inclusion of
a separate section which deals with the “Risks Affecting the Coastal
Zone”: coastal erosion, flooding and response to natural disasters.
During the negotiation process, carried out by the Parties’
designated experts (2006e2007) and set up by the United Nation
Environment Programme’s Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), by
far the most contested article was the one covering coastal setbacks
(Article 8). The rationale for its inclusion in the Protocol was
twofold: to prevent and/or minimise the extent of the linear
development along the coastline, and to adapt to expected climate
changes in the coastal zone (in particular sea level rise). Indirectly,
this provision also aimed to minimise coastal erosion impacts.
The issue of the setback, however, is not new in the Mediter-
ranean or elsewhere, though dealt with mainly at the national level,
with a number of Mediterranean countries having setbacks inte-
grated in their coastal legislation (Markandya et al., 2008). The
exact definition of the setback zone is not an easy question and any
proposal, which is not the result of a well thought formula, could be
seen to lack credibility. However, the current practice in countries
that have enacted a setback zone is 100 m on average. This was one
of the reasons why Mediterranean countries have adopted this
width in their ICZM Protocol. In connection with this, it is inter-
esting to note that largest loss of life during the 2004 Asian tsunami
occurred within 100 m from the coastline. This argument was also
mentioned during the Mediterranean ICZM Protocol negotiations. It
should not be forgotten that the Mediterranean is a Tsunami prone
region with a potential for significant damage.
Cognisant of the implementation difficulties and political
sensitivities of the setback issue, the Mediterranean countries have
adopted several exceptions to the establishment of the setback
zone along their coastlines. In the abovementioned Article 8 it is
stated that the Parties “May adapt, in a manner consistent with the
objectives and principles of this Protocol, the provisions mentioned
above: (i) for projects of public interest; (ii) in areas having
particular geographical or other local constraints, especially related
 M. Sanò et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 54 (2011) 943e950
to population density or social needs, where individual housing,
urbanisation or development are provided for by national legal
instruments.” This provision offers a way out in situations where
there is a physical barrier to establish the 100 m zone, and where
spatial plans have already envisaged development within this zone.
Even with this exception to the setback provision to address the
practicalities of implementation, the Protocol offers a significant
advance in ICZM for the region.
The next two sections report the results of two case studies,
explaining the current use of coastal setbacks and issues related
with coastal erosion and inundation. The first is located on the
Mediterranean coast of Spain, a purely Mediterranean system; the
second on the Danube Delta on the Black Sea, a neighbouring basin
sharing numerous issues and policy approaches with the
Mediterranean.
3. Case study I: the use of coastal setbacks in the Spanish
Mediterranean beaches
The Spanish Coastal Law of 1988 (Law 22/1988) defines costal
setbacks of at least 100 m behind the limit of the Maritime-
Terrestrial Public Domain (MTPD) (or 20 m in urban areas devel-
oped before 1988), plus other specific regulations to protect the
coastline and to grant public use of the shore (Sanò et al., 2010a,b).
The Coastal Directorate General of the Ministry of Environment,
Rural & Marine Affairs is responsible of the identification and
control of the MTPD limit and its setbacks. At present (June 2009),
the limit of the MTPD and the setbacks has been identified for the
87.2% of the Spanish coast. Fig. 1 shows a representation of the
MTPD and its setbacks on an ideal coast urbanised after 1988.
According to the Spanish Coastal Law of 1988 the limit of the
MTPD is mainly defined as the landward most distant location
reached by the most extreme storms of the historical record
(Barragán-Muñoz, 2003). This approach, based on physical
processes, had intrinsic limitations as much of the coast was
already occupied by urban developments. As a result, its real impact
has been limited to the 100 m fringe bordering the MTPD in non
Fig. 1. The Spanish Coastal Act of 1988 identifies specific setbacks behind the high water mark line - the border between the public (MTPD) and private domain-. In general, it is not
allowed to build in the first 100 m from this line. From Sanò et al. 2010.
945
developed areas and to some specific cases where development
was found within the MTPD. Typical examples of these issues are
found in most beaches along the Spanish Mediterranean coast, with
the surrounding land occupied by urban development or by
a promenade. In most of these cases the limit of the MTPD - from
where the 100 m setback should be applied from - is found along
the seaward limit of the promenades, most of them built during the
1970s when the tourist boom and coastal development took off. In
that period beaches along the Spanish Mediterranean coast were
not experiencing erosion and, in fact, many of the beaches were
significantly wider than today. As a consequence, municipalities
tended to get as close as possible to the shoreline when defining the
position of the promenade and, in fact, many of them were built on
the beach. At that time, since the beach was wide enough, no
interactions were foreseen between coastal dynamics and
infrastructure.
However, in the 1980s the shoreline evolution trend changed in
many of the Mediterranean beaches due to increasing human
action in drainage basins (reducing sediment sources) and in the
coastal zone (e.g. affecting littoral transport by marinas and other
structures). As a result, beaches started to narrow and promenades
became closer to the shoreline. As an example, Fig. 2 shows the
envelope of all width changes of the S’Abanell beach during the last
50 years. In this case, the initial configuration of the beach allowed
the manager to assume that the surrounding urban area was
effectively protected from wave action by a wide beach. However,
beach width showed a large variation and, in addition, it has
decreased in such a way so that currently, it presents its narrowest
configuration and thus, it fails to provide the required protection
(Jiménez et al., 2011).
This change in shoreline behaviour has potentially strong
implications for the position of the limit of the MTPD, which, in
theory, is determined by coastal dynamics criteria, such as the
highest water mark on a sedimentary system. The practical
consequence is that the public domain will locally disappear if no
adaptation to the new conditions is considered, by either holding
the line with massive nourishment or by retrofitting the limit of the
946 M. Sanò et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 54 (2011) 943e950
Fig. 2. The Envelope of width fluctuation along the s’Abanell beach from 1958 to 2009.
MTPD to higher ground. But retrofitting the limit of the MTPD can
have major consequences to urban areas which will lie inside the
100 m protection zone.
For example, in the southern part of S’Abanell beach - where
the largest erosion rates are found - the forecasted shoreline
retreat in 10 years (assuming present evolution rates and without
any additional climatic or anthropogenic influence) is about
25e30 m. This should imply that unless we consider these figures
for development planning, this activity could be severely affected.
In other words, if the setback is going to be used as a planning tool
for delineating safe areas, it has to account for processes
controlling its time evolution. As an example of the potential
problems, Fig. 3 shows the consequences of erosion in the S part
of the S’Abanell beach. In the 2000 configuration, the hinterland
of the beach was occupied by a camping area whose limit was
situated about 25e30 m from the shoreline. In 2004 this limit had
to be moved landwards by 15 m to adapt to the new conditions
because the outer locations of the camping area were affected by
wave action. In 2006 the influence of waves in the camping area
was detected 50 m inland of the original limit of 2000 (Fig. 3). In
this case, the camping ground was retreated to safer grounds,
while no formal change was applied to the limits of the MTPD and
the consequent setback.
The implementation of a setback policy that considers coastal
processes in urbanised areas is a challenging task. If the limit of the
MTPD is updated and redefined landward, unless it is done solely in
administrative terms, it implies a modification to the urban plans
close to the beach, which in many cases affects promenades, roads
and houses. Municipalities are very reluctant to modify their plans
and, any retreat is considered as a loss of their territory, especially if
buildings or infrastructures are to be affected. Thus, the usual way
to approach to beach erosion management is essentially to-hold-
the-line, where local stakeholders request the intervention of the
Coastal General Directorate to implement coastal protection works
without considering the planned retreat option.
In summary, coastal setbacks in most of Spanish Mediterranean
urban beaches are simply playing an administrative role by delin-
eating public and private domains. Thus, during extreme storms,
waves are able to overtop the beach and the promenade and, to
temporary inundate the adjacent infrastructures landward of the
limit of the MTPD (Fig. 4). This implies that their application to this
environment has the following characteristics: (i) the identification
of the coastal setback was not done strictly applying the formal
definition but by adapting to an urbanised environment, and/or (ii)
its validity has been superseded by coastal dynamics and evolution.
This situation is likely to be exacerbated by climate change, espe-
cially sea level rise, as noted in Section 5.
4. Case study II: the use of coastal setbacks for the Danube
Delta, Romania
The Romanian legislation (special ICZM Law No. 202/2002)
specifies that no permanent buildings are allowed in a “strictly
protected area” with a width ranging between 50 and 150 m from
the shoreline, which depends on local characteristics and is
measured following periods of calm conditions. These setbacks aim
at protecting coastal communities from the effects of extreme
events. Unfortunately the Law contains no details on the circum-
stances where the minimum (50 m), maximum (150 m) or inter-
mediary widths should be used on various stretches of the
Romanian coast. The positioning of the strictly protected areas was
foreseen to be developed in a separate study which would
complete the national ICZM Law. Until now, this study has only
been undertaken for the southern section of the coast and not the
northern part of the Romanian littoral, which is part of the Danube
Delta Biosphere Reserve.
In order to precisely position the setback lines in the southern
part of the Romanian coast, where most of the human activities are
concentrated (shipping, heavy industry, tourism, cities, etc.),
a methodology was developed involving natural (morphology,
sedimentology, coastline evolution, morphodynamics), economic
and social criteria. Weighting and prioritisation for each of the
criterion were developed by researchers from GeoEcoMar (Roma-
nian National Inst. of Marine Geology and Geo-ecology) eand their
values were established through interviews with the managers of
the entire southern part of the Romanian littoral (Dobrogea e
Littoral Water Directorate e “Romanian Waters” National Admin-
nic
istration) (Sta a et al., 2008). The methodology has been applied
to an area between the Danube mouths of Sulina and Sf. Gheorghe
(Fig. 5).
This 34 km coastline consists of low-lying beaches made of
Danube e borne fine sands. Towards the central part of the case
study area, these beaches separate the sea from typical freshwater
environments (marshes, lakes, channels, etc.).
 M. Sanò et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 54 (2011) 943e950 947

Fig. 3. Variations in the inner limit (managed retreat) at the south part of the s’Abanell beach (left: 2000; right: 2004). Lines represent the limit between the camp site and the
beach at different years.

Fig. 4. Inundation of the promenade and adjacent street - landwards of the legally defined high water mark - in the Lloret de Mar beach during a storm in November 2001.
948 M. Sanò et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 54 (2011) 943e950
Fig. 5. The Danube Delta and its location in Black Sea. The dotted rectangle indicates
the coastal cell used as for the case study reported in this paper.
Fig. 6. Current coastal dynamics trends along the littoral between Sulina and Sf.
Gheorghe. from Stanica
 & Panin, 2009.
The coastal dynamics of this area are presented and discussed in
nic
Sta a et al. (2011) (Fig. 6). In essence, the coast between Sulina
and Sf. Gheorghe is, on average, retreating, but each beach sector
has its particularities. Just south from the Sulina jetties (for about
5 km) the shoreline is advancing at a rate, observed and computed,
of 5e8 m/year. Further south, a beach sector of approximately 2 km
is stable being the transition to the central part (w20 km) of the
coastal cell where the shoreline is rapidly eroding at rates ranging
between 5 and 20 m/year. Sf. Gheorghe (6 km) is reported to be in
dynamic equilibrium, with periods of erosion alternating with
periods of accretion (Sta nica
 et al., 2007; St  and Panin, 2009).
anica
The southern limit of the coastal cell is the Sahalin spit-like island
which emerged in the late 1890s and evolved rapidly by elongation
towards south-west and migration towards the mainland (west).
The beach bordering the village of Sf. Gheorghe has no perma-
nent buildings (except for occasional tents for small summer
commercial activities). An attempt from the Sulina municipality
was made to develop coastal tourism along the beach in front of the
town. Nevertheless, these efforts were blocked by the Danube Delta
Biosphere Reserve Administration, which cancelled any permit for
permanent buildings along the Sulina beach. Therefore, the only
existing structures are the concrete and metal cores of one disco
and 2 bar, all situated at more than 150 m from the shoreline. The
ownership of the beach is now subject of legal action between the
Sulina municipality and the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve
Administration. Except for these two locations, where for a few
kilometres there are several hundreds of tourists during summer
(mainly JulyeAugust), the beaches are pristine.
Thus, for the Sulina and Sf. Gheorghe beaches, due to the lack of
permanent buildings and the coastline evolution trends (stable in
Sf. Gheorghe, accretion in Sulina) it is suggested that, in case the
local municipalities decide to develop these areas for tourism, the
setback should be positioned at a minimum of 150 m from the
shoreline (maximum distance by the Romanian ICZM Law). The
setback for the central part of the coast, which is vulnerable to
erosion driven by episodic storm events, should be positioned at
the inland limit of the dune zone. A more conservative approach is
suggested if considering future sea level rise and coastal conser-
vation needs. In this case, the Sulina e Sf. Gheorghe road should be
used as a landward limit of the coastal setback, approximately
1.5 km from the current shoreline position.
These setback criteria do not apply to the northern part of the
coastline, included in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. The
spatial planning of the Biosphere Reserve, which encompasses also
the coastal part of the delta, divides strictly between the protected
areas (where no human presence is allowed without specific
permits from the Biosphere Administration), buffer zones neigh-
bouring the strictly protected areas, and areas of economic use. The
areas of economic use allow the human communities to develop
a strictly controlled list of mainly traditional activities (fishing,
reed-harvesting, also agro- and eco-tourism) but restrict the
development of coastal mass tourism. In these areas of economic
use the setback line is supposed to respect the Romanian ICZM Law.
5. Coastal setbacks and climate change adaptation in the
Mediterranean and implications for the Black Sea
The case studies reported here demonstrates some of the
implications of coastal setback policies on sedimentary environ-
ments at risk from coastal erosion. While these examples focused
on the consequences of erosive processes, recent studies show that
relative sea level rise and climatic variability are some of the major
causes of coastal erosion in the Mediterranean (Sánchez-Arcilla
et al., 2008; Snoussi et al., 2008; Alpar, 2009; Simeoni and
 M. Sanò et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 54 (2011) 943e950
Corbau, 2009) and these impacts are likely to exacerbate in the
future (Méndez et al., 2004).
Global averaged sea levels have accelerated in the last century
from 1.7 mm per year (Church and White, 2006) to an average of
3 mm per year across the last two decades (Fenoglio-Marca and
Telb, 2010). Current best estimate for the Mediterranean mean
sea level rise during the last century are approximately 0.7 mm/
year while this figure has increased to an average 4 mm/year during
the last two decades based on satellite altimeters observations
(Calafat and Gomis, 2009). Global models show that it is very likely
that this trend will continue in the next centuries. But, while the
IPCC’s worst- case scenario indicates a rise of 59 cm by the end of
this century, corresponding to an average 6 mm/year, regional
projections in sea level rise, especially in the Mediterranean area,
are still uncertain (Marcos and Tsimplis, 2008). If we look at trends
in wave climate and extreme storms, recent studies show that (i)
the wave climate has been changing in the last century resulting in
an average decrease in extreme waves (Ratsimandresy et al., 2008),
(ii) other relevant parameters, such as the mean swell direction,
which can potentially affect net sediment transport rates and the
shape of the coast, have been changing in the recent past (Méndez
et al., 2004). While projections suggest a milder storm climate with
reductions in wave heights (Lionello et al., 2008), a precautionary
approach should be applied if they are to be translated into plan-
ning measures, as these scenarios are likely to change in the future
based on advances in modelling.
Even without significant changes in wave climate and storms,
sea level rise alone can exacerbate erosion processes which could
lead to recession of sedimentary coastlines, based on two well
known assumptions: (i) the relationship between the sea level and
the return period of extreme events and (ii) the so-called Bruun
rule:
(i) The frequency of extreme sea levels will increase with a higher
sea level, in parallel to a reduction of the return period of
extreme sea levels: under current sea level rise scenarios this
reduction can be of one order of magnitude or higher. This
means that a 100 year return period event will have a return
period of less than 5 years under a 0.5 m sea level rise
(Sánchez-Arcilla et al., 2008; Mc Innes et al., 2009).
(ii) The Bruun rule indicates a ratio of shoreline retreat versus sea
level rise of 50e100 (Fitzgerald et al., 2008). This means that
a 1 m sea level rise may induce a 100 m coastal retreat. Even if
the Bruun approach may be considered obsolete, as more
complex coastal processes may alter its results (Cooper and
Pilkey, 2004), this is still a commonly used rule of thumb for
coastal climate risk assessment and communication.
Climate change trends and projections and their potential
impacts on coastal systems suggest the necessity for implementa-
tion of adaptation strategies for the Mediterranean coast, with
special attention to the most sensitive sedimentary coastlines.
Strategies to cope with climate change impacts in the coastal zone
have been discussed and addressed in parallel to the evolution of
climate projections (see e.g.Nicholls and Hoozemans, 1996), and
approaches are generally framed into three broad categories: (i)
hold the line by strengthening coastal defences; (ii) accommodate
sea level rise and storms through innovative designs; and (iii)
planned retreat towards safer areas. In the context of these three
options coastal setbacks provide an interim tool that allows time
for policy makers to work through more detailed assessments to
identify the best option for adaptation. This can be carried out by
combining information on the exposure to climate drivers, the
sensitivity of the coastline and the adaptive capacity of coastal
communities (Sanò et al., 2010a,b), the latter being critical for the
949
identification of adaptation options for the Mediterranean coastal
areas, exacerbated by North-South economic disparities and socio-
cultural differences.
Regardless of the chosen policy option e hold the line, accom-
modation or planned retreat - the Mediterranean ICZM Protocol is
calling for a common 100 m setback for the whole basin. This
Mediterranean-wide moratorium of constructions inside the 100 m
buffer zone can be an effective measure to accommodate sea level
rise and potential wave climate changes, and limit environmental
impacts of development. However, it should be noted that it has
a strong dynamic component as the highest water mark from
which coastal setbacks are calculated is likely to shift landward in
the future.
These ideas and experiences should be transferred to the Black
Sea coastal zone, similar to the Mediterranean in many aspects. Sea
level rise trend in the Black sea, approximately 2.5e2.8 mm/year in
the last century (Alpar, 2009), is similar to the Mediterranean, and
global projections for the next century also apply to this region. The
Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution
(Bucharest Convention) still lacks a specific ICZM legislation,
however this could be developed and adopted in the future as part
of a broad ICZM strategy in the basin (Antonidze, 2009). This should
be informed by the lessons learnt during the Mediterranean ICZM
Protocol preparation and by the emerging issues related with
coastal setbacks and climate change adaptation identified for the
Mediterranean context.
6. Discussion and conclusions
The design and implementation of a setback policy to manage
chronic coastal erosion and floods associated with extreme events
is a complex issue, which should take into consideration coastal
dynamics, including climate change, and the protection of natural
and cultural landscapes, while providing public access and use of
the shore.
From a technical perspective, the identification of the high water
mark line - and the size of the setback behind it - should depend on
erosion rates and the exposure to storms using specific return
periods for extreme events (e.g. the 1 in 100 year storm). In addi-
tion, if current climate change projections are correct, sea level rise
and changing erosion and storm patterns are likely to shift land-
ward the position of the high water mark line by several meters.
The current 100 m (behind the high water mark) setback policy
included in the ICZM Protocol for the Mediterranean provides an
average value based on the analysis of current practices at the
international level and on the results of dynamic studies and it will
play a relevant role in applying a general precautionary principle
across the basin, especially in pristine areas. However the cost of its
implementation to urban settings suggests the need to protect these
areas with soft or hard solutions, or to look for solutions accom-
modating sea level rise and extreme events in the future. This issue
is fully considered in the text of the Protocol, as no retroactive
setback policy will be applied to developed coastal stretches.
The two case studies reported in this paper showed some of the
issues currently faced in the implementation of a setback policy. In
Spain, the Coastal Law of 1988 has contributed to the protection of
parts of the Spanish coastline over the past two decades. However,
it has also triggered complex spatial planning problems often
resulting in legal proceedings. The reported case study shows that
the identification of the high water mark probably underestimated
the impact of coastal erosion and major storms and was adapted to
an urbanised environment. These kinds of problems are likely to
increase in the future and a hold the line policy may be applied if
the costs of a planned retreat are much higher than engineering
solutions designed to protect coastal communities.
950 M. Sanò et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 54 (2011) 943e950
The issues described in the case study in the Danube Delta are
common to many other locations across the Mediterranean, such as
the Ebro Delta and the Nile Delta. While in most cases major impacts
are associated with the reduction of the sediment supply, deltas are
also extremely vulnerable sites to changes in sea level and storm
patterns which can trigger erosive processes in the order of tens of
meters per year. In these areas, subsidence - often caused by water
and hydrocarbons extraction or natural land consolidation - is also
a major cause of a net rise in relative rise in sea level and shoreline
retreat. In these cases, a 100 m coastal setback can be reductive and
wider coastal setbacks should be considered for the future.
In summary, the implementation of the ICZM 100 m policy
should be considered a starting point to manage coastal develop-
ment across the Mediterranean basin and to prevent the impacts of
erosion and floods in a changing climate. This provision should be
considered as a reference value but it should be integrated with
more deterministic approaches in the future, used to identify both
the future high water mark position and setbacks, to (i) defend and
adapt human settlements (ii) provide space for dynamic environ-
mental processes (iii) protect sensitive coastal ecosystems and
landscapes, both in sedimentary and rocky coasts and (iv) provide
public use and accessibility to one of the last commons.
Acknowledgements
This paper had been prepared in the framework of the EU 6th FP
Project CONSCIENCE - Concepts and Science for Coastal Erosion
Management. The first author would like to acknowledge: Dr Marcel
Marchand from Deltares, the Netherlands, for providing support to
develop the initial steps of this investigation; Mr. Daniel Ware from
Griffith University for proof reading the final manuscript.
References
Alpar, B., 2009. Vulnerability of Turkish Coasts to Accelerated Sea-level Rise
Geomorphology 107, 58e63.
Antonidze, E., 2009. ICZM in the Black Sea region: experience and perspectives.
Journal of Coastal Conservation. doi 10.1007/s11852-009-0067-6.
Barragán-Muñoz, J.M., 2003. Coastal zone management in Spain (1975-2000).
Journal of Coastal Research 19, 314e325.
Calafat, F.M., Gomis, D., 2009. Reconstruction of Mediterranean sea level fields for
the period 1945e2000. Global and Planetary Change 66, 225e234.
Church, J.A., White, N.J., 2006. A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise.
Geophysical Research Letters vol. 33, L01602. doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
Cooper, J.A.G., Pilkey, O.H., 2004. Sea-level rise and shoreline retreat: time to
abandon the Bruun Rule. Global and Planetary Change 43, 157e171.
Fenoglio-Marca, L., Telb, E., 2010. Coastal and global sea level change. Journal of
Geodynamics 49, 151e160.
Fitzgerald, D.M., Fenster, M.S., Argow, B.A., Buynevich, I.V., 2008. Coastal impacts
due to sea-level rise. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 2008 (36),
601e647.
González-Riancho, P., García Aguilar, O., Sanò, M., Medina, R., 2009. A contribution
to the implementation of ICZM in the Mediterranean. Ocean & Coastal
Management 52, 545e558.
Jiménez, J.A., Gracia, V., Valdemoro, H.I., Mendoza, E.T., Sánchez-Arcilla, A., 2011.
Managing erosion-induced problems in NW Mediterranean urban beaches.
Ocean & Coastal Management 54 (12), 907e918.
Lionello, P., Cogo, S., Galati, M.B., Sanna, A., 2008. The Mediterranean surface wave
climate inferred from future scenario simulations. Global and Planetary Change
63, 152e162.
Marcos, M., Tsimplis, M.N., 2008. Comparison of results of AOGCMs in the Medi-
terranean sea during the 21st century. Journal of Geophysical Research 113,
C12028, 21 Pp., 2008. doi:10.1029/2008JC004820.
Markandya, A., Arnold, S., Cassinelli, T., 2008. Protecting coastal zones in the
Mediterranean: an economic and regulatory analysis. Journal of Coastal
Conservation. 12, 145e159 (2008). doi 10.1007/s11852-008-0038-3.
Mc Innes, K.L., Macadam, I., Hubbert, G., O’Grady, J.G., 2009. A modelling approach
for estimating the frequency of sea level extremes and the impact of climate
change in southeast Australia. Natural Hazards 51, 115e137 (2009) doi 10.1007/
s11069-009-9383-2.
Méndez, F.J., Medina, R., Losada, I.J., Olabarrieta, M., Tomás, A., Liste, M.,
Menéndez, M., Abascal, A.J., Agudelo, P., Castañedo, S., 2004. Estudio de los
impactos en la costa española por efecto del cambio climático. In: El clima,
entre el mar y la montaña. Asociación Española de Climatología.
Nicholls, R.J., Hoozemans, F.M.J., 1996. The Mediterranean: vulnerability to coastal
implications of climate change. Ocean & Coastal Management Vol. 31 (2e3),
10.5e132.
Ratsimandresy, A.W., Sotillo, M.G., Carretero Albiach, J.C., Álvarez Fanjul, E., Hajji, H.,
2008. A 44-year high-resolution ocean and atmospheric hindcast for the
Mediterranean Basin developed within the HIPOCAS Project. Coastal Engi-
neering 55, 827e842.
Sánchez-Arcilla, A., Jiménez, J.A., Valdemoro, H.I., Gracia, V., 2008. Implications of
climatic change on Spanish Mediterranean low-lying coasts: the Ebro delta
case. Journal of Coastal Research 24 (2), 306e316.
Sanò, M., Baum, S., Crick, F., Low-Choy, D., Serrao-Neumann, S., Tomlinson, R., 2010a.
An Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change in South East
Queensland, Australia. Proceedings from Littoral 2010. Adapting to Global
Change at the Coast. Leadership, Innovation, and Investment, London. 21/09-
23/09 2010.
Sanò, M., Marchand, M., Medina, R., 2009. Setback lines for the Mediterranean and
Europe: an integrated approach. Journal of Coastal Conservation, Planning and
Management Springer. doi 10.1007/s11852-009-0075-6.
Sanò, M., González-Riancho, P., Areizaga, J., Medina, R., 2010b. The Spanish Strategy
for Coastal Sustainability: An Initiative for ICZM. Coastal Management, 38.
Taylor & Francis. 76e96, 2010.
Simeoni, U., Corbau, C., 2009. A review of the Delta Po evolution (Italy) related to
climatic changes and human impacts. Geomorphology 107, 64e71.
Snoussi, M., Ouchania, T., Niazia, S., 2008. Vulnerability assessment of the impact of
sea-level rise and flooding on the Moroccan coast: the case of the Mediterra-
nean eastern zone. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 77 (2), 206e213. 10
April 2008.
St
anica, A., Panin, N., 2009. Present evolution and future predictions for the deltaic
coastal zone between the Sulina and Sf. Gheorghe Danube River Mouths
(Romania) Geomorphology 107, 41e46.
St
anica, A., Caraivan, G., Maximov, G., 2008. Methodology for the positioning of the
western limit of beaches between Cape Midia and Vama Veche. GeoEcoMar
Unpublished Report (in Romanian).
St
anica, A., Dan, S., Jiménez, J.A., Ungureanu, G.V., 2011. Dealing with erosion along
the Danube Delta coast. The CONSCIENCE experience towards a sustainable
coastline management. Ocean & Coastal Management 54 (12), 898e906.
St
anica, A., Dan, S., Ungureanu, G., 2007. Recent sedimentological processes and
coastal evolution as effects of human activities in the area of the of Sulina
mouth of the Danube - Black Sea, Romania. Marine Pollution Bulletin 55
(10e12), 555e563.
Trumbic, I., 2008. New protocol on integrated coastal zone management. Envi-
ronmental Policy and Law 38 (3), 145e153.
UNEP, 2008. Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the
Mediterranean.
UNEP/MAP/PAP, 2001. White paper: coastal zone management in the mediterra-
nean. Split, priority actions programme.
UNEP/MAP/Plan Bleu, 2005. A sustainable future for the Mediterranean. The blue
plan’s environment and development outlook. Earthscan, London.
UNEP/MAP/Plan Bleu, 2009. State of the Environment and Development in the
Mediterranean. UNEP/MAP-Plan Bleu, Athens.