# Sea-level scenarios aligned with the 3rd adaptation plan in France

Gonéri Le Cozannet, Rémi Thiéblemont, Jeremy Rohmer, Cécile Capderrey

► To cite this version:

Gonéri Le Cozannet, Rémi Thiéblemont, Jeremy Rohmer, Cécile Capderrey. Sea-level scenarios aligned with the 3rd adaptation plan in France. Comptes Rendus. Géoscience, 2025, 357 (G1), pp.105 - 123. 10.5802/crgeos.290. hal-05122766

HAL Id: hal-05122766

https://brgm.hal.science/hal-05122766v1

Submitted on 20 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Comptes Rendus
## Géoscience
### Sciences de la Planète

Gonéri Le Cozannet, Rémi Thiéblemont, Jeremy Rohmer and Cécile Capderrey

**Sea-level scenarios aligned with the 3rd adaptation plan in France**

Volume 357 (2025), p. 105-123

https://doi.org/10.5802/crgeos.290

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

This article is licensed under the

CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL LICENSE.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Research article

Sustainable development, landscaping

# Sea-level scenarios aligned with the 3rd adaptation plan in France

Gonéri Le Cozannet<sup>●,*<sup>a</sup></sup>, Rémi Thiéblemont<sup>●,<sup>a</sup></sup>, Jeremy Rohmer<sup>●,<sup>a</sup></sup> and Cécile Capderrey<sup>●,<sup>a</sup></sup>

<sup>a</sup> BRGM, 3 avenue Claude Guillemin, 45060 Orléans Cédex, France

E-mail: g.lecozannet@brgm.fr (G. Le Cozannet)

**Abstract.** As part of its third national adaptation plan to climate change, France is developing new scenarios approximately aligned with the current commitments of states to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and anticipating 3 °C of global warming by 2100. Here, we present sea-level projections aligned with this assumption. New methodological developments include a statistical treatment to ensure the continuity of trends and uncertainties before and after 2100. Our results show that there is a probability of approximately 50% that the sea-level rise guidance of 60 cm—used for coastal risk prevention in France—will be exceeded by 2100 at 3 °C global warming levels (GWL). This no longer provides safety margins expected in 2011 based on the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC, suggesting an update is now needed. The sea-level scenarios presented here might support the 3rd National Adaptation Plan, published in March 2025. While the publication of the plan was generally welcomed, concerns were raised regarding the lack of specific adaptation objectives in coastal areas and uncertainties regarding the potential use and enforcement of the new climate change scenario. We argue that an open debate on the political choices involved in coastal adaptation would build an opportunity to create more resilient coastal zones for the benefits of human communities and for economic activities and coastal ecosystems.

**Keywords.** Sea-level rise, Coastal, Adaptation coastal, Climate resilient development.

**Funding.** European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grants agreements No 869304, 101003598 and 101180125; PROTECT contribution number 85, French National Research Agency under FUTURISKS (ANR-22-POCE-0002) project.

Manuscript received 27 September 2024, revised 1 April 2025, accepted 7 April 2025.

## 1. Introduction

Sea-level rise is one of the most certain consequences of anthropogenic climate change (Fox-Kemper et al., 2021). Due to global warming, glaciers and ice-sheets are melting and adding mass to the ocean, and the ocean is accumulating heat and expanding. Additionally, surface water and groundwater management also contributes to sea-level changes, albeit to a lesser magnitude. Globally, sea level is projected

to rise at rates between 5 to 30 mm/year by the end of the 21st century depending on greenhouse gas emissions and the response of ice-sheets to climate change (ibid.). In fact, sea levels are projected to continue rising for decades and centuries. Hence, mitigating climate change can only increase the probability of slower rates of sea-level changes, but sea-level rise itself cannot be stopped over the foreseeable future.

Contemporary sea-level change is taking place in an unprecedented context in human history because the ongoing urbanization of coastal zones has resulted in higher than ever exposure to coastal hazards

<footnote>* Corresponding author</footnote>
such as coastal flooding, erosion and salinization. Globally, approximately 900 million people, or 11% of the world's population, are currently living below 10 m above sea levels (Haasnoot et al., 2021). In France, the focus of this article, the population density in coastal municipalities is 2.5 times greater than the national average (MTECT, 2023a). Exposure to sea-level rise is not only a concern for coastal regions: it is also projected to affect human and economic activities indirectly due to trade being highly dependent on ports and harbors (Hanson and Nicholls, 2020; Verschuur et al., 2022).

To summarize, both the certainty of future sea-level rise and the growing exposure to coastal hazards contribute to increase coastal risks and adaptation needs.

To support coastal adaptation planning, sea-level scenarios are increasingly considered (Nicholls, Hanson, et al., 2014). In Europe, such scenarios support a large panel of adaptation strategies, including the production of maps to limit urban expansion in high-hazard areas or virtual stress tests of critical coastal infrastructures such as estuarine barriers (Bednar-Friedl et al., 2022; McEvoy et al., 2021). Designing and adopting such scenarios is not that simple. On the one hand, sea-level rise displays regional and local variability due to ocean density and circulation changes, atmospheric pressure variations and due to the gravitational, rotational and deformational effects of water and ice mass redistributions as well as vertical land motions that can affect some areas locally (Slangen, Adloff, et al., 2017). On the other hand, the utility of sea-level scenarios can be increased by considering their intended application. For example, adaptation planning of nuclear plants may consider scenarios involving an early collapse of the west Antarctica ice-sheet, even if their likelihood is very low, because damages to such infrastructures cannot be accepted. Recognizing the variety of needs, previous national scenarios have considered a spread of scenarios rather than a single value (McEvoy et al., 2021; Palmer et al., 2024; Weeks et al., 2023).

In this paper, we present sea-level scenarios in support of the third French adaptation plan to climate change. Since 2011, France is considering a unique sea-level scenario of 60 cm with respect to the end of the 21st century in order to support the implementation of its coastal risk prevention

plans (Le Cozannet and Cazenave, 2024). To support its third adaptation plan, the Ministry in charge of Environment requested an update of this unique scenario considering regional sea-level variations. Interestingly, the ministry requested a unique scenario aligned with global warming levels (GWL) reaching 3 °C above the preindustrial era by 2100 (MTECT, 2023b). One reason for selecting a specific scenario instead of a range of values could have been to simplify the message for users, as suggested in the document presenting the proposed national scenario (ibid.). Thus, this choice could aim to maximize stakeholder engagement in adaptation planning, including those without advanced knowledge of climate change.

A first research question is therefore to understand, contextualize and refine this national scenario of 3 °C of global warming (Cabana et al., 2023), in order to design a method that responds to the needs of this policy. This is addressed in Section 2.

A second question is to develop the sea-level scenario itself, which requires regionalizing sea-level rise scenarios dependent of global temperatures, including beyond 2100. While such scenarios have been delivered in the 6th Assessment report (AR6) of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), their projections are not directly useable for two reasons: (1) first, vertical land motions other than those due to the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment are computed using the non-climate signal in tide gauges; this approach misses local ground motions not captured by tide gauges and reduces the confidence in coastal projections, as acknowledged page 1301 of the Working Group 1 report (Fox-Kemper et al., 2021); (2) the processing of uncertainties in AR6 is not similar before and after 2100, leading to breaks in rates and uncertainties of sea-level rise projections at this time horizon. This difficulty needs to be addressed as the French regulation explicitly requires to consider sea-level rise over the coming century, that is, up to 2125. The methods used to produce sea-level scenarios are presented in Section 3 and the results are shown in Section 4.

A final question related to the production of these scenarios is to understand to what extent they can support coastal adaptation effectively. The utility of sea-level scenarios can be compromised due to their intrinsic limitations or by ambiguities in their intended use. In Section 5, we discuss the decision
and policy context in which they will be used and show that the lack of shared and explicit objectives of coastal adaptation is a major issue that will require policy decision.

## 2. Methods and data

### 2.1. Refining the French climate scenarios

The third national adaptation plan of France is being prepared since 2022. One of the elements supporting this plan is a climate scenario (TRACC, for “ trajectoire de réchauffement de référence pour l’adaptation au changement climatique ” or “ reference warming scenario supporting climate change adaptation ”, hereafter “ French climate scenario ” or “ TRACC ”). The TRACC is currently described in the technical document supporting the consultation on the French climate scenario that was opened in 2023 (MTECT, 2023b). In this document, two scenarios were considered:

* A first scenario in which global climate warming is stabilized at 1.5 °C GWL above preindustrial levels. This scenario is aligned with the objectives of the Paris agreement.

* A second scenario in which global climate warming reaches 3 °C GWL above preindustrial levels by 2100 and then is stabilized at this level. This scenario is presented as an average between the commitments made by the countries and the policies in place in 2020. It is referred to as the “3 °C scenario” hereafter, though the ministerial communication also refers to a “4 °C scenario”, which is approximately the level of warming in France for 3 °C of global warming.

This 3 °C scenario was selected by the ministry to serve as a reference for adaptation.

It can be noted that as it is presented in the consultation document (ibid.), the 3 °C scenario is not fully aligned with the current scientific knowledge. First, the Working Group III of the 6th Assessment report of the IPCC and the 2022 emission gap report shows that unconditional nationally determined contributions, and, a fortiori, the policies in place, are not sufficient to reach net-zero emissions by 2100 (IPCC, 2022; UNEP, 2022). Consequently, the climate will continue to warm after 2100 if these policies and contributions are implemented. This also poses practical

issues to design sea-level scenario because most climate scenarios available today that reach 3 °C GWL in 2100 assume further warming beyond 2100. Based on these arguments, we removed this constraint of a stabilization of climate change at 3 °C GWL and developed sea-level scenario that make no assumption regarding warming beyond 2100.

One assumption underlying these scenarios is that impacts of climate change will be similar for a given level of warming whatever the precise time horizon by which that level of warming is reached and as long as climate change is stabilized at that particular global warming level. This assumption is true for many impacts of climate change, as illustrated by the burning embers in the IPCC reports (Zommers et al., 2020), but it does not hold for sea-level rise due to the latency of the response of the ocean and ice to global warming. To resolve this issue, we tied each level of global warming to specific time horizons. The refinements to these scenarios are presented in Table 1 below.

### 2.2. Methods to produce sea-level scenarios consistent with the French climate scenarios

The approach to develop sea-level scenarios presented in this paper is shown in Figure 1. The overall principle is to select model outcomes that meet the assumptions of Table 1 for each contribution to sea-level rise, to regionalize these contributions and finally sum them up (Jackson and Jevrejeva, 2016). This subsection presents the details of this approach.

#### 2.2.1. Selection of simulations compliant with the French climate scenarios (TRACC)

Climate scenarios currently do not deliver results for a given level of global warming but follow assumptions on future greenhouse gas concentrations. Depending on the climate sensitivity of each climate model, the same concentration of greenhouse gas may result in different levels of global warmings. Hence, we proceeded by selecting climate model simulations or emulator realizations that have a global mean surface temperature trajectory consistent with those provided in Table 1, considering a margin of 0.3 °C around each temperature threshold. For the sterodynamic component of sea-level rise (i.e., ocean density and circulation changes corrected
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Approach used in this study to regionalize sea-level scenarios. “O(10)” models means “roughly 10” models.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Climate scenarios used in this study</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Time horizon</th><th colspan="4">Global warming above the pre-industrial period (1850–1900)</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">“1.5 °C” scenario</th><th colspan="2">French “3 °C” adaptation scenario</th></tr><tr><th>Global mean</th><th>Mainland France</th><th>Global mean</th><th>Mainland France</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2030–2040</td><td>1.5 °C</td><td>2 °C</td><td>1.5 °C</td><td>2 °C</td></tr><tr><td>2050</td><td>1.5 °C</td><td>2 °C</td><td>2 °C</td><td>2.7 °C</td></tr><tr><td>2100</td><td>1.5 °C</td><td>2 °C</td><td>3 °C</td><td>4 °C</td></tr><tr><td>2150</td><td>1.5 °C</td><td>2 °C</td><td>Not specified</td><td>Not specified</td></tr></tbody></table>

These scenarios are refined from the French climate scenarios. Because the ministerial and media communication has used levels of warming in mainland France instead of global warming levels, we present both global warming levels and their implications in France to help the French readers find their way.

from the inverse barometric effect, which therefore includes the thermal expansion) (Gregory et al., 2019), we selected temperature trajectories compliant with the French climate scenarios. For climate-dependent mass components, an additional level of complexity results from the fact that glaciers and ice-sheet models must be forced with climate scenarios to obtain the resulting melting, which is computationally demanding. For example, the Greenland ice-sheet melting experiments of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6) considers 14 ice-sheet models (with up to 2 or 3 different initial conditions), 2 greenhouse gas emission scenarios and 6 climate models. This is not sufficient to cover all potential climate scenarios of interest (Goelzer et al., 2020). To overcome this difficulty, emulators of ice melting models have been produced (Edwards et al., 2021). Emulators are statisti-

cal approximations of the response of glaciers or ice-sheet models trained over a limited set of computer experiments.

Figure 2 presents a selection of glacier model projections from the Emulandice emulator (ibid.), based on the French 3 °C climate scenario. Among the ~3000 emulated simulations, about 250 reach 2 °C GWL in 2050 and 3 °C GWL in 2100. This selection of 250 emulated simulations gives a median glacier contribution to sea-level rise of 5.5 ± 1.0 cm in 2050 and 14.0 ± 2.5 cm in 2100 with respect to the reference period 1995–2014.

### 2.2.2. Climate and emulated ice-melting projections and the case of Antarctica

The specific datasets used in this study are listed in Supplementary Material 1. Specifically, we use CMIP6 and the emulated sterodynamic component
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Subset of emulated glacier melting projections meeting the French climate projection assumptions. The right panel displays the projected temperature of emulated model projections meeting these assumptions. The left panel shows the resulting contribution of glaciers to sea-level rise to 2100. Note that simulations meeting the constraints are not limited to RCP4.5 or SSP2-4.5 scenarios, because some climate models have lower climate sensitivity and only reach 3 °C by 2100 despite higher greenhouse gas emissions.</figcaption></figure>

(Fox-Kemper et al., 2021), GlacierMIP simulations for glaciers (Marzeion et al., 2020), ISMIP6 emulated projections of Greenland ice-sheet melting (Edwards et al., 2021; Goelzer et al., 2020), projections of land water contributions from the AR6 (Fox-Kemper et al., 2021) and the GIA model results of Caron et al. (2018). For Antarctica, two datasets are used: emulators of ISMIP6 simulations (Seroussi et al., 2020) and LARMIP-2 simulations (Levermann et al., 2020). In addition, we use separately simulations considering the potential for an early onset of the Antarc-tica ice-sheet (De Conto et al., 2021). These simula-tions consider the possibility of an onset of Marine Ice-Cliffs Instability (MICI), a low-likelihood but high impact event that cannot be excluded according to the 6th assessment report of the IPCC (Arias et al., 2021).

### 2.2.3. Projections beyond 2100

Coastal risk prevention plans in France consider coastal impacts of sea-level rise over the coming 100 years, that is, 25 years beyond 2100. Yet many datasets used in this study are only available until 2100. Illustrative model simulations beyond 2100 start to be available in the literature, including for intermediate scenarios extending the SSP2-4.5

scenario (Turner et al., 2023). However, given that the policy need holds only until 2125, we use a quadratic extrapolation of Emulandice and LARMIP-2 simulations to deliver projections beyond 2100. This approach allows avoiding discontinuities in the trends around 2100. Note that the emulator uncertainties are also extrapolated to avoid a spurious reduction of the uncertainty envelop beyond 2100 (see Supplementary Material 2 for details). Notwithstanding, the confidence in the results decrease as the projections are extrapolated farther in the future. Hence, we limited these projections to 2120 and referred to SSP projections of the AR6 to deliver indicative values to 2150 (see Supplementary Material 3).

### 2.2.4. Regionalization and probabilistic aggregation

The methods to regionalize sea-level rise have been established about 10 years ago (Slangen, Katsman, et al., 2012; Slangen, Carson, et al., 2014; Kopp, Horton, et al., 2014) and taken over in the 5th and 6th assessment reports of the IPCC. The principle is to regionalize the impacts of each component first, then sum these components to deliver regional sea-level projections. The physical mechanisms to be considered are different for sterodynamic sea-level
changes, for sea-level changes involving a mass com-
ponent, and for relative sea-level changes due to
vertical ground motions (Gregory et al., 2019):

* Sterodynamic sea-level changes represent-
ing the thermal expansion plus the ocean dy-
namic corrected from the inverse barometer
effects are obtained from climate model sim-
ulations (i.e., CMIP6) with adjusted climate
sensitivities as in the 6th Assessment Report
of the IPCC.

* For mass components, that is, those related to glaciers and ice-sheet melting as well as land water, the principle is to consider the gravitational, rotational and deformational effects induced by the mass redistributions.

* Vertical ground motions include the glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), the response of the solid Earth to the last deglaciation, for which models exist already (Caron et al., 2018), as well as other subsidence and uplift processes due to, e.g., groundwater pumping, seismic processes or variations of the water content in recent sedimentary layers (Nicholls, Lincke, et al., 2021).

In this work we follow this standard approach, us-
ing codes developed in R whose details have been
presented in previous articles (Dayan et al., 2021; Le
Cozannet, Thiéblemont, et al., 2019; Thiéblemont, Le
Cozannet, Toimil, et al., 2019). The main change is
that we use the static fingerprints used in AR6 to re-
gionalize the mass components (Fox-Kemper et al.,
2021; Kopp, G. G. Garner, et al., 2023), instead of
those used in previous report (Church et al., 2013;
Oppenheimer et al., 2019). As in previous work, we
exclude local vertical ground motions (besides GIA),
because they can be assessed in various ways, e.g.,
using tide gauge records as in the 6th Assessment
Report of the IPCC, using Global navigation satellite
system GNSS data, levelling data or satellite Interfer-
ometric synthetic aperture radar (Woppelmann and
Marcos, 2016; Thiéblemont, Le Cozannet, Nicholls,
et al., 2024). These processes are typically best un-
derstood and quantified locally where geologists can
interpret the processes taking place in their region
of interest, and more research is needed to be able
to include them in regional projections without de-
creasing the confidence in these projections (Slan-
gen, Palmer, et al., 2023).

We apply a Monte-Carlo approach to provide
probabilistic projections. Specifically, we randomly
select (sampling with replacement) simulations out
of those available, for example one out of the 250 sim-
ulations available from Emulandice for the 3 °C sce-
nario. Dependencies between components can have
an impact to uncertainties (Le Bars, 2018), especially
at the tail of the distribution (Le Cozannet, Thiéble-
mont, et al., 2019). Here we assume perfect depen-
dence between the different glaciers regions and in-
dependence with other contributions. Since we se-
lect models reaching the same levels of global warm-
ing, this choice has limited impacts to the uncer-
tainties of projections, especially within the 5–95th
range of percentiles. For the Antarctic component
of the TRACC scenarios without MICI, two datasets
are available: LARMIP-2 and Emulandice. We ex-
tract the simulation that has the greatest deviation
from the mean of the medians of the two datasets.
This procedure leads to maximizing the uncertainties
of the Antarctica ice-sheet component, which is in
line with the high uncertainties surrounding Antarc-
tica’s response to global warming. A total of 5000 ran-
dom samples was carried out for each global warm-
ing level and time horizon.

3. Results

The sea-level scenarios corresponding to a stabiliza-
tion of climate change at 1.5 °C GWL, and a warming
leading to 2 °C GWL by 2050 and 3 °C GWL by 2100
are presented in Figures 3 and 4 below, respectively,
as well as in Table 2. These scenarios are consistent
with the assumptions of the French climate scenarios
presented in Section 2.1 above.

3.1. *Regional projections by 2050, 2100 and 2120*

By 2050, sea-level at 1.5 °C or 2 °C GWL are pro-
jected to rise by approximately 20 to 30 cm above
1995–2014 levels in mainland France and inhabited
overseas territories. Yet, in some other regions, sea-
level projections lie outside this range. For exam-
ple, off the eastern coast of the United States, sea
levels are projected to rise above 30 cm due to the
combination of sterodynamic effects (Couldrey et al.,
2021) and background subsidence due to the glacial
isostatic adjustment (Love et al., 2016). Sea levels
are still projected to decrease in Scandinavia due to
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

**Figure 3.** Median regional sea-level projections for a stabilization of climate at 1.5 °C GWL. Projections are given in meters with respect to the reference period 1995–2014. Pink triangles indicate the location of sites given in Supplementary Material 3. These projections follow the French climate scenario that is indicatively given to remind the climate mitigation objective of the Paris agreement (see Section 2.1).

the GIA effects. The gravitational, rotational and de-
formational effects caused by the melting of ice in
Antarctica, Greenland and in the arctic glaciers are
already visible by 2050: our projections display a

drop in sea-level changes visible close to the region
of mass loss by that time horizon already. By 2050,
the differences between the 1.5 °C and 2 °C GWL sce-
narios are small, because sea-level changes for the
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

**Figure 4.** Median regional sea-level projections for climate change scenario reaching 3 °C GWL in 2100 as assumed in the French Climate Scenario (TRACC). Projections are given in meters with respect to the reference period 1995–2014. Pink triangles indicate the location of sites given in Supplementary Material 3.

coming three decades are very much constrained by past greenhouse gas emissions (Hinkel et al., 2019).

In 2100, the disparity between the 1.5 °C and 3 °C GWL scenarios is more evident. Under the 1.5 °C

GWL scenario, the median sea-level rise for metropolitan France and inhabited overseas territories is projected to lie in the range of 40–50 cm. In contrast, the median sea-level rise exceeds 60 cm for 3 °C
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Global mean sea-level rise projections, in cm with respect to the reference period 1994–2015 (50th [17th–83rd] percentiles)</caption><thead><tr><th>Scenario and time horizon</th><th>2050</th><th>2100</th><th>2120</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.5 °C</td><td>18 [15–22]</td><td>41 [29–54]</td><td>49 [33–68]</td></tr><tr><td>3.0 °C</td><td>21 [17–25]</td><td>60 [48–77]</td><td>80 [61–104]</td></tr><tr><td>3.0° (with models including MICI)</td><td>20 [17–22]</td><td>63 [53–76]</td><td>86 [71–107]</td></tr></tbody></table>

GWL. Even by 2120, the 1.5 °C scenario indicates that the median sea-level rise would remain below 60 cm along most of the French coastlines.

## 3.2. *Impacts of an early onset of ice-sheet collapse in Antarctica*

As explained in Section 2.2.2, we explore the potential contribution of an early collapse of the Antarctica ice-sheet by replacing the contribution of Antarctica from Emulandice and LARMIP-2 (Edwards et al., 2021; Levermann et al., 2020) by a dataset implementing the MICI (De Conto et al., 2021), that is, following the same approach as in AR6 (Fox-Kemper et al., 2021). The 83rd percentiles of these simulations are presented and compared in Figure 5. We present the 83rd percentile of simulations to be consistent with the narrative of the “low-likelihood high impact” event presented in AR6.

In 2100, sea-levels are projected to lie between 80 and 90 cm along most coastal areas of mainland France and inhabited overseas territories and regions (83rd percentile of projections). By 2120 the projections are 10 to 15cm higher in tropical overseas regions and territories than in mainland France due to the gravitational and rotational effects of ice-melting. They exceed 1.20 m in La Réunion island, where both the gravitational and rotational effects of ice melt are maximized. Importantly, the simulations with and without MICI are similar, reflecting that 3 °C GWL is too low to significantly activate the MICI in the simulations of De Conto et al. (2021) and that different statistical processing of uncertainties have been performed for the simulations with and without MICI (see Section 2.2.2).

## 3.3. *Relation with the adaptation policy*

In France, the primary adaptation policy that explicitly incorporates sea-level projections is the implementation of coastal risk prevention plans (Le

Cozannet and Cazenave, 2024). These plans use numerical flood simulations to prescribe accommodation measures in urbanized areas and to limit further urbanization in the most exposed areas that have not been developed yet (DGPR, 2014). Since 2011, a sea-level scenario of 60 cm sea-level rise with respect to the end of the 20th century is considered and added in flood simulations representing potential flooding in 2100 (MEDDTL, 2011).

For national authorities, a first difficulty arises due to inconsistencies in the time horizons considered in the various articles of law, decree and technical guidance. The regulation on the coastal prevention risks (Article R562-11-5 of the Environmental Code, available https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000038733755) requires considering coastal hazard changes in 100 years. However, the decree of 2011 gives a scenario of sea-level rise to 2100 (ibid.). Yet the two time horizons—2100 and in 100 years—have been confused in the technical guidelines of 2014 delivered to practitioners and coastal consultants in charge of implementing the regulation (DGPR, 2014). While this did not make a big difference in the early 2010s, considering a scenario in 2120 or 2125 now adds immediately about 20 cm to the national sea-level rise guidance. For national authorities, resolving these inconsistencies might be seen as a sensitive challenge due to the potential implications for land use development in the low lying coastal plains.

A second challenge for national authorities will be to decide how the new climate change scenario will be enforced in the area of coastal risk prevention. A most immediate outcome of the adoption of the TRACC as a reference scenario for coastal adaptation in France would be to update the uniform guidance of 60 cm of sea-level rise used within the coastal risk prevention plan policy. Importantly, we note that the decree that established this guidance in 2011 considered this 60 cm sea-level rise
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Regional sea-level projections in 2050, 2100 and 2120 (in meters) corresponding to the 83rd percentile of the 3 °C GWL level scenario with respect to 1995–2014 with MICI (left) and without MICI (right).</figcaption></figure>

scenario as “pessimistic” (MEDDTL, 2011). Furthermore, the second national adaptation plan explicitly mentioned that its aim was to adapt to 2 °C GWL (MTES, 2018—see page 1). At that time, the 60 cm sea-level rise scenarios could still be justified by the fact that these 60 cm corresponded to the upper limit of the likely range of sea-level projections for the RCP2.6 scenario shown in the 5th Assessment report of the IPCC. This would now correspond to a 83rd percentile of probabilistic projections.

As sea-levels are projected to rise well above 60 cm sooner or later, a key question raised by the French coastal risk prevention plans is to determine when the sea-level guidance will be exceeded and the benefits of this particular policy would be lost. In fact, once the sea-level scenario will be exceeded, areas unaffected by development restrictions will start to be exposed to flooding. According to the sea-level scenarios shown above, there is approximately a 50–50 chance that the 60 cm sea-level guidance is exceeded between 2120 and 2150 in mainland France and overseas regions and territories at 1.5 °C GWL (see Supplementary Material 3). For the 3 °C GWL scenario, the probability to exceed the 60 cm sea-level guidance is above 50% in 2100. This gives little

security margin, especially if we consider that global warming levels above 3 °C GWL cannot be excluded.

Based on this analysis above, we note that selecting the 83rd percentile of the 3 °C GWL scenario (without MICI) as a new guidance would preserve the same security margins that were originally anticipated when the national scenario was adopted in 2011 and when the second national adaptation plan was published in 2018. As shown in Section 3.2, the 83rd percentiles of the simulations with and without MICI are very similar at 3 °C GWL. If sea levels rise according to the median in the real world, having chosen a higher percentile as the reference scenario will provide one or two extra decades to prepare for sea levels that will be exceeded in any case. This decision belongs to the ministry in charge of Environment and has not been announced yet at the date of submission of this article.

One advantage of choosing a unique climate change scenario of 3 °C GWL could be to give a simple signal to the numerous actors who are still in the early stages of engaging into adaptation. However, for advanced users, higher scenarios (e.g., 5 °C GWL) can be more relevant if their time horizon and average to uncertainties justifies it (Hinkel et al., 2019).
# 4. Discussion

## 4.1. *Limitations of this study*

The sea-level projections developed within this study rely on state-of-the-art modeling of each component of sea-level rise and used, e.g., in AR6. These projections could be challenged in the future. Yet, it can be noticed that the likely range of sea-level projections has been remarkably consistent across assessments since 40 years (A. J. Garner et al., 2018). In contrast, high-end, or low-likelihood/high-impact sea-level projections have shown considerable variations (Piecuch and Das, 2022). Hence it cannot be ruled out that future projections of polar ice sheet melting are revised upward in the future.

The main limitations related to the regionalization are threefold: first, coastal processes at higher resolutions than 1° × 1° are not represented in our projections, although they can alter sterodynamic sea-level projections by about 20% on the continental shelf or in the Mediterranean (Chaigneau et al., 2024; Jevrejeva et al., 2024; Sannino et al., 2022). Second, the regionalization of ice mass losses could be improved a bit with a better characterization of the specific locations of melting areas in Greenland (Meyssignac et al., 2017). Lastly, vertical land motions other than GIA can also add a sizeable contribution to relative sea-level change. In mainland France, these processes are much less critical than in Asia, but they still exceed 1 mm/year over more than half of the low-lying coastal flood plains (Thiéblemont, Le Cozannet, Nicholls, et al., 2024). It can be noted that the national guidance of coastal risk prevention plans leaves the possibility to consider local knowledge on vertical land motions and revise the national sea level rise scenario upward. To our knowledge, this has never been done in a regulatory prevention plan. Based on the literature above, we estimate that the final impacts to the total mean relative sea-level projections in mainland France would be limited to 20 or 30 cm in the worst case. In overseas regions and territories, vertical land motions are less well characterized. Thus, we are not able to bound uncertainties of relative sea-level projections in these overseas regions and territories.

A final difficulty of these projections is their use for the coming decades for problems such as the adaptation to high-tide flooding events that have started to emerge due to sea-level rise (Sweet and Park, 2014;

Thiéblemont, Le Cozannet, D'Anna, et al., 2023). Making sure that the projections can make sense locally and are calibrated accurately with observations will require further observations, reanalysis of historical sea levels and research.

## 4.2. *Bridging the gap from sea-level scenarios to coastal adaptation: the need for a clear strategy*

While the limitations listed above are important, they are clearly not the main barrier preventing coastal adaptation to advance in France. Understanding these barriers requires explaining the policy and regulatory context in which these scenarios are developed (Cabana et al., 2023).

Since June 2022, the Ministry in charge of environment repeatedly postponed the publication of the national adaptation plan (See Supplementary Material 4). During the preparatory work and consultations, from 2022 to 2024, the governmental communication generally focused on the levels of warming required for the national scenario supporting the plan rather than on the specific measures of the plan themselves. This is evidenced in the selection of articles shown in Supplementary Material 4 illustrating this statement. Very few objectives, political choices and financing mechanism supporting adaptation can be identified in these articles. Yet, the climate scenario itself was extensively discussed. When the national adaptation plan was finally published in March 2025, its publication was welcomed by the French Climate Council, which also raised concerns about its legal fragility and how the new national climate change scenario would be used and enforced (Haut Conseil pour le Climat, 2025).

We argue that the discussion around the choice of global warming scenarios is a technical one that is intended to support adaptation professional and requires accurate knowledge of their decision context. In the short term, a discussion around scenarios could stimulate technical measures such as infrastructure reinforcement or accommodation or adjustments in the regulation. Yet, we found no evidence that this discussion facilitated adaptation stakeholders in engaging in an informed process clearly highlighting the benefits and trade-offs involved in upcoming coastal adaptation decisions. We argue that scenarios support coastal adaptation in
a useful way, but that they cannot replace a strategy with clear and realistic objectives and shared by all stakeholders.

There is a risk of locking-in coastal areas in current development patterns if no clear strategy toward sustainability is set out. This also increases the risks of social conflicts around coastal adaptation. For example the newspaper article dated 9th April 2023 in Supplementary Material 4 suggests that the stage is set for conflicts to emerge between social groups in favor of relocation and those supporting engineered protection. Such a conflict could emerge after the next major storm or while discussing any coastal adaptation decision in favor of any of these options. An additional risk is that by focusing on sea-level scenarios rather than on the policy choices involved in coastal adaptation (Perherin and Meur-Ferec, 2022), we miss the opportunity to take advantage of the inevitable land use changes induced by rising sea levels to create more resilient coastal systems, which would be ultimately beneficial for human communities and for economic activities and coastal ecosystems.

### 4.3. The national adaptation plan: an opportunity to progress toward coastal resilient development?

At timescales of centuries, sea levels are projected to rise by several meters (Fox-Kemper et al., 2021). In low-lying areas, responses to such large sea-level changes will either involve relocation or engineered protection (Le Cozannet, Nicholls, et al., 2023; Mucione et al., 2024). This is because in the majority of cases, accommodation and nature based solutions will lose effectiveness with larger and quicker sea-level changes (Bednar-Friedl et al., 2022). Both options change will involve large costs and stringent changes in land use, but they can be anticipated to minimize the negative impacts of current decisions for future generations (Le Cozannet, Nicholls, et al., 2023).

One obvious opportunity is to take advantage of the unavoidable investments in coastal adaptation to protect and restore coastal and estuarine ecosystems and improve their management, in order to enhance their structure and functioning and then their ability to cope with sea-level rise and other anthropogenic pressures. Figure 6 provides a selection of such actions, widely grouped under the umbrella

term Nature Based Solution (NBS), and their co-benefits relevant to coastal environments that can be found in mainland France and overseas regions and territories. Table 3 shows that such management actions are already implemented in many coastal locations in Europe. A challenge in this area is to up-scale local experiments in order to progress toward resilient coastal zones management (Bednar-Friedl et al., 2022).

Nature based solutions are often associated with projects involving some planned relocation. In fact, relocations provide space that is presently lacking for coastal sediments and ecosystems in many anthropogenized coastal zones. However, nature based solutions can also be combined with coastal engineering projects, a practice referred to as “hybrid nature-based solutions” (Sowińska-Świerkosz and García, 2022).

Typical barriers to the implementation of coastal nature based solutions include a perceived lack of effectiveness, lack of ecological knowledge, lack of comparative economic scenarios of benefits, insufficient funding and the inability of current governance to manage such complex projects and address the related social challenges. Research projects supporting ongoing experimentations and implementations can help better assessing the effectiveness of different options and move from a reactive adaptation to a strategic planning approach anticipating the meters of sea-level rise that are projected at multi-centennial timescales while also addressing other challenges of resilient development (Le Cozannet, Nicholls, et al., 2023; Lepage et al., 2022; Moraes et al., 2022; Philippenko and Le Cozannet, 2023; Schibalski et al., 2022). Examples shown in Table 3 can inspire new projects. For example, the Sigma plan conducted in Belgium is known already by many French practitioners, but it could also inspire new adaptation actions at least in the Seine, Loire, Gironde estuaries and Rhône delta. The Sigma plan implemented a number of different adaptation options along the Scheldt estuary, including protection works, managed realignment, flood control area, temporary storage area for overflow areas (aka control reduced tide areas) while allowing for large areas of tidal wetlands and their associated ecosystem services. Such an implementation ultimately creates more space for hydro-sedimentary processes and ecosystems in the estuary while offering sufficient protection at least for a few decades
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Examples of NBS already implemented across Europe and an insight of their associated level of transformative change</caption><thead><tr><th>Project name and location</th><th>Ecosystem</th><th>Ecosystem services targeted</th><th>Co-benefits of the project</th><th>Drivers of decision</th><th>Type of actions</th><th>Current and projected effectiveness</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Scheldt estuary: Hedwig-Prosper polder dike-retreat (Belgium)</td><td>Saltmarhes and freshwater marshes</td><td>Flood risk reduction</td><td>Biodiversity (educational and recreational)</td><td>Catastrophic floods and deaths</td><td>Flood control areas Managed realignment</td><td>Consideration of ecosystem adaptation capacity until 2100</td><td>https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/fr/metadata/case-studies/are-transboundary-depoldered-area-for-flood-protection-and-nature-hedwige-and-prosper-polders</td></tr><tr><td>Scheldt estuary: Lippenbrok polder, Kruibeke polder (Belgium)</td><td>Saltmarhes and freshwater marshes</td><td>Flood risk reduction</td><td>Biodiversity (educational and recreational)</td><td>Catastrophic floods and deaths</td><td>Controlled reduced tide (temporary storages areas for overflow water)</td><td>Consideration of ecosystem adaptation capacity until 2100</td><td>https://www.viliz.be/imisdocs/publications/366209.pdf</td></tr><tr><td>Humber estuary: Alkborough Flats Managed Realignment (United Kingdom)</td><td>Saltmarhes and freshwater marshes</td><td>Flood risk reduction</td><td>Biodiversity: compensation site for habitat loss elsewhere in the estuary</td><td>Exposed human activities: major part of the Environment Agency's flood risk management strategy on the estuary</td><td>Managed realignment</td><td>Reduction of effectiveness expected due to accretion at the site</td><td>https://www.sigmplan.be/en/projects/polders-kuuibekе until 2100</td></tr><tr><td>Hondsbossche and Pettemer Sea Dike (The Netherlands)</td><td>Beach and dune systems</td><td>Flood risk reduction</td><td>Biodiversity Educational and recreational</td><td>Decrease of the safety levels provided by the traditional engineering structure</td><td>Removal of dikes and creation of a "soft barrier" as a new beach dune system</td><td>Currently effective, the natural dune growth is predicted to keep up with sea level rise up to 2050</td><td>https://www.ecoshape.org/en/cases/sand-nourishment-hondsbossche-dunes-nl/</td></tr><tr><td>Urban hybrid dunes in Barcelona (Spain)</td><td>Beach and dune systems</td><td>Erosion risk reduction</td><td>Biodiversity Awareness</td><td>Destruction caused by urbanization</td><td>Beach nourishment and planting dunes with pioneer grass (Ammophila sp.)</td><td>Not measured</td><td>https://oppla.eu/casestudy/17283</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 3. (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Project name and location</th><th>Ecosystem</th><th>Ecosystem services targeted</th><th>Co-benefits of the project</th><th>Drivers of decision</th><th>Type of actions</th><th>Current and projected effectiveness</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mud motor Port of Harlingen-Koehoal (The Netherlands)</td><td>Saltmarshes</td><td>Biodiversity: restoration, conservation</td><td>Erosion reduction</td><td>Loss of saltmarshes in the Wadden Sea</td><td>Dredging and disposing fine sediments to stimulate the growth of salt marshes</td><td>Currently effective: high sediment transport rates</td><td>https://www.ecoshape.org/en/cases/re-use-of-dredged-sediment-mud-motor-in-port-of-harlingen-koehoal-nl/</td></tr><tr><td>Coastal erosion control in Paphos (Cyprus)</td><td>Beach and dune systems</td><td>Regulating Erosion risk reduction</td><td>Water quality Recreation</td><td>Local threat (resort)</td><td>Removal of groynes</td><td>Currently effective; observed accretion and a newly formed beach</td><td>https://disomap.eea.europa.eu/map/Data/Milieu/OURCOAST_172_CY/OURCOAST_172_CY_Case_CoastalErosion_OverstructuredBeach.pdf (Dolbeth et al., 2010)</td></tr><tr><td>Mondego estuary (Portugal)</td><td>Saltmarshes</td><td>Water quality</td><td>Erosion reduction</td><td>Increased eutrophication and ecological losses</td><td>Reduction nutrient inputs from the catchment<br>Improving water circulation through connexion of formerly embanked channels</td><td>Currently effective; no harmful bloom recorded, healthy seagrass beds</td><td>(Lepage et al., 2022)</td></tr><tr><td>Mortagne polder in the Gironde estuary (France)</td><td>Saltmarshes</td><td>Biodiversity</td><td>Water quality and nutrient cycling</td><td>Accidental depoldering after Martin storm (1999)</td><td>Willingness to let the system evolve with no other intervention</td><td>Currently habitats with important ecological functions</td><td>(Lepage et al., 2022)</td></tr><tr><td>Adaptive restoration of the former saltworks in Camargue (Rhône delta) (France)</td><td>Saltmarshes</td><td>Biodiversity</td><td>Flood protection Erosion reduction Tourism</td><td>Delta vulnerable to flooding and ecological loss (intense salt production and polders)</td><td>Dyke removal and restoration of gravitational flows</td><td>Currently development of beaches but no quantitative data on erosion effectiveness</td><td>Life adapto project<br>https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/case-studies/adaptive-restoration-of-the-former-saltworks-in-camargue-southern-france</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Marine and coastal ecosystems</th><th rowspan="2">Main ecosystem services</th><th colspan="2">Examples of NBS actions</th></tr><tr><th>Restoration & Creation</th><th>Sustainable management & Protection</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sand beaches and dune systems</td><td></td><td><ul><li>Dune reconstruction and revegetation (stabilizing species):</li><li>Remove riprap rock revetments</li><li>Reprofiling</li><li>Trap sand and seeds by installation of wooden fences</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Protect and sustainably manage by reducing environmental pressures:</li><li>Fencing, access and frequentation regulation, relocation of activities</li><li>Differenciated beach cleaning (manual over grooming) / protect beach wrack</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Wetlands (marshes and tidal flats, mangrove forests)</td><td></td><td><ul><li>Managed Realignment to allow natural exchange of water, sediments and organisms:</li><li>Coastal infrastructures removal (riprap, seawalls, groynes...)</li><li>Punctual breaching of the original defence</li><li>Regulated tidal exchange</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Accidental destruction of defences (un-managed realignment) and associated active management</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Seagrass beds</td><td></td><td><ul><li>Vegetalization (seeding, planting, transplanting)</li><li>Encouraging sedimentation by using dredged sediments</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Protect and sustainably manage by reducing environmental pressures:</li><li>Water quality (nutrients inputs and chemical pollutions) and quantity,</li><li>Sediment inputs</li><li>Invasive species</li><li>Access and frequentation regulation, relocation of activities</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Coral and shellfish reefs</td><td></td><td><ul><li>Vegetalization (seeding, planting, transplanting, relocation of beds)</li><li>Passive restoration through removal of existing physical and physico-chemical pressures</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Protect and sustainably manage by reducing environmental pressures:</li><li>Water quality (nutrients inputs and chemical pollutions)</li><li>Sediment inputs</li><li>Invasive species</li><li>Boat anchoring regulation, relocation of activities</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td><ul><li>Nursery and larvae seeding</li><li>Transplanting</li><li>Mineral accretion through electrolysis in seawater</li><li>Creation of artificial reefs (artificial structures, shells)</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Protect and sustainably manage by reducing environmental pressures:</li><li>Water quality (temperature, nutrients inputs and chemical pollutions)</li><li>Sediment inputs</li><li>Invasive species</li><li>Access and frequentation regulation, relocation of activities (snorkeling paths, fishing regulation, ...)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td>Flood protection</td><td>Food supply</td><td></td><td>Water and nutrient cycle</td></tr><tr><td>Erosion protection</td><td>Carbon storage</td><td></td><td>Climate regulation</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Flood protection

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

Food supply

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

Water and nutrient cycle

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

Erosion protection

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

Carbon storage

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

Climate regulation

<caption>**Figure 6.** Examples of coastal Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) and their co-benefits for different types of coastal environments relevant to mainland France and overseas regions and territories. NBS refer to a range of established approaches (restoration, protection, ecosystem management) simultaneously providing societal and environmental co-benefits (Figure adapted from “Geochronique”, N°164, Société Géologique de France).</caption>

(Boerema and Meire, 2017; Jacobs et al., 2018; Lepage et al., 2022). This may avoid either developing costly estuarine barriers with potentially large adverse impacts to coastal ecosystem (Orton et al., 2023) or large human and economic losses due to storm surges if sea-level rise adaptation is not sufficiently anticipated.

While there is an increasing number of such actions, including in France with the adapto project of the Coastal Conservation Agency (Conservatoire du Littoral) and the nationally-defined coastal adaptation strategy (Le Cozannet and Cazenave, 2024), the implementation of nature based solutions has been slower in marine and coastal and estuarine ecosystems than in other ecosystems so far (O'Leary et al., 2023). The forthcoming regulatory context in Europe

offers opportunities to accelerate in this area and implement transformative actions that are required for scaling up coastal nature based solutions. The EU Nature Restoration Law that entered in force on August 18th 2024 has a long term objective to restore >90% of degraded ecosystems by 2050, with an immediate target in 2030 of restoring at least 30% of them. A success in this area will require specific attention to loosely defined objectives, such as those referring only to surface areas and not specific levels of quality ecosystem functioning. It will also require research to learn as these solutions are implemented (ibid.).

Overall, we argue that an essential aspect of a successful coastal adaptation should be on enabling system-wide actions to reduce direct and indirect
drivers of biodiversity loss and environmental degrada-
dation and restore healthy ecosystems for the ben-
efits of all. Such a success can obviously neither be
guaranteed by the publication of a sea-level scenar-
ios such as those provided within this study, nor by
any adaptation plan avoiding any substantial discus-
sion about the strategic objectives of adaptation. On
the contrary, the success of coastal adaptation will
require clear objectives, a transparent debate on the
opportunities of coastal adaptation and political will.

**5. Conclusions**

The decision on the sea-level guidance to be consid-
ered after the 3rd adaptation plan belongs to the Min-
istry in charge of Environment. However, the future
of the 3rd adaptation plan is uncertain due to polit-
ical instability in France marked by the absence of a
societal consensus on climate change responses, de-
spite their being assessed in scientific reports such
as those of the IPCC. More problematically, the pub-
lic debate from 2022 to December 2024 has often fo-
cused on the climate change scenarios rather than
the adaptation measures themselves. The consul-
tation of the national adaptation plan in December
2024 created an opportunity to discuss coastal adap-
tation measures and strategies, but then the issue of
the legal fragility of the climate scenario emerged.
Obviously, defining a sea-level scenario is not suffi-
cient to decide whether, e.g., relocation or protection
is more appropriate. Previous adaptation plans sug-
gest that such political decisions could be left to re-
gional authorities in France, but it is unsure that their
current governance and finance is sufficiently robust
to plan efficiently for relocation plans or infrastruc-
tures that cost billions of Euros.

As stated by the national court of auditors in its annual report 2024 (Cour des Comptes, 2024), there is a danger that a narrow vision of adaptation limited to technical choices and regulation application eludes any strategic ambition for coastal development. In the worst case, this can result in a lock-in in unsustainable practices and large damage and human losses during coastal disasters. By avoiding a clear debate on coastal adaptation, France may be missing the opportunity to take advantage of the upcoming investments in adaptation to create more resilient coastal and estuarine ecosystems and generally more resilient coasts.

**Declaration of interests**

The authors declare no specific conflict of interest
that would result in any benefit from the publication
of this research. The first author initially contributed
to a study funded by the ministry in charge of Envi-
ronment linked to the topic of this manuscript, with-
drew from this project to resolve conflicts of interests
due to him also being member of the French Climate
Change Committee in charge of evaluating climate
policies in France. Hence, this work is published in-
dependently of any political or administrative influ-
ence, under the provisions of the European contracts
that funded this research and in accordance with the
Article L411-3 of the French Research Code.

Acknowledgements

GLC, JR, and RT are supported by the CoCliCo, PRO-
TECT and SeaClim projects. These projects received
funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 re-
search and innovation program under grants agree-
ments No 869304, 101003598 and 101180125; PRO-
TECT contribution number 85. GLC and JR are also
supported by the French National Research Agency
under FUTURISKS (ANR-22-POCE-0002) project. CC
was supported by the Adapto project. We thank Jean
Jouzel and Etienne Ghys for organizing the workshop
at the Academy of Sciences in March 2024 and this
special issue. We used artificial intelligence to correct
grammatical errors in the manuscript.

**Supplementary data**

Supporting information for this article is available on
the journals website under https://doi.org/10.5802/
crgeos.290 or from the author.

**References**

Arias, P. A., N. Bellouin, E. Coppola, et al., "Technical summary", in *Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change* (Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, et al., eds.), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, 2021, pp. 33–144.

Bednar-Friedl, B., R. Biesbroek, D. N. Schmidt, et al., “Europe”, in *Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change* (Pörtner, H.-O., D. C. Roberts, M. Tignor, et al., eds.), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, 2022, pp. 1817–1927.
Boerema, A. and P. Meire, "Management for estuarine ecosystem services: a review", *Ecol. Eng.* **98** (2017), pp. 172–182.

Cabana, D., L. Rölfer, P. Evadzi and L. Celliers, "Enabling climate change adaptation in coastal systems: a systematic literature review", *Earth's Future* **11** (2023), article no. e2023EF003713.

Caron, L., E. R. Ivins, E. Larour, S. Adhikari, J. Nilsson and G. Blewitt, "GIA model statistics for GRACE hydrology, cryosphere, and ocean science", *Geophys. Res. Lett.* **45** (2018), pp. 2203–2212.

Chaigneau, A. A., A. Melet, A. Voldoire, G. Reffray, S. Law-Chune and L. Aouf, "Dynamic projections of extreme sea levels for western europe based on ocean and wind-wave modelling", *Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.* **24** (2024), pp. 4031–4048.

Church, J. A., P. U. Clark, A. Cazenave, et al., "Sea level change", in *Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change* (Stocker, T. F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, et al., eds.), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, 2013, pp. 1137–1216.

Couldrey, M. P., J. M. Gregory, F. Boeira Dias, et al., "What causes the spread of model projections of ocean dynamic sea-level change in response to greenhouse gas forcing?", *Clim. Dyn.* **56** (2021), pp. 155–187.

Cour des Comptes, *Rapport Public Annuel 2024*, 2024. Online at https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications/le-rapport-public-annuel-2024 (accessed on April 29, 2025).

Dayan, H., G. Le Cozannet, S. Speich and R. Thiéblemont, "High-end scenarios of sea-level rise for coastal risk-averse stakeholders", *Front. Mar. Sci.* **8** (2021), article no. 569992.

De Conto, R. M., D. Pollard, R. B. Alley, et al., "The Paris Climate Agreement and future sea-level rise from Antarctica", *Nature* **593** (2021), pp. 83–89.

DGPR, *Guide Méthologique, Plan de Prévention des Risques Littoraux [Methodological guidance, coastal risk prevention plans]*, 2014. Online at https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/Guide_methodo_PPRL_%202014.pdf (accessed on April 29, 2025). Direction Générale de la Prévention des Risques [Risk prevention division of the ministry in charge of environment].

Dolbeth, M., P. Cardoso and M. À. Pardal, "Impact of eutrophication on the seagrass assemblages of the Mondego Estuary (Portugal)", in *Eutrophication: Causes, Consequences and Control* (Ansari, A., S. Singh Gill, G. Lanza and W. Rast, eds.), Springer: Dordrecht, 2010.

Edwards, T. L., S. Nowicki, B. Marzeion, et al., "Projected land ice contributions to twenty-first-century sea level rise", *Nature* **593** (2021), pp. 74–82.

Fox-Kemper, B., H. T. Hewitt, C. Xiao, et al., "Ocean, cryosphere and sea level change", in *Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change* (Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, et al., eds.), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, 2021, pp. 1211–1362.

Garner, A. J., J. L. Weiss, A. Parris, R. E. Kopp, R. M. Horton, J. T. Overpeck and B. P. Horton, "Evolution of 21st century sea level rise projections", *Earth's Future* **6** (2018), pp. 1603–1615.

Goelzer, H., S. Nowicki, A. Payne, et al., "The future sea-level contribution of the Greenland ice sheet: a multi-model ensemble study of ISMIP6", *Cryosphere* **14** (2020), pp. 3071–3096.

Gregory, J. M., S. M. Griffies, C. W. Hughes, et al., "Concepts and terminology for sea level: mean, variability and change, both local and global", *Surv. Geophys.* **40** (2019), pp. 1251–1289.

Haasnoot, M., G. Winter, S. Brown, R. J. Dawson, P. J. Ward and D. Eilander, "Long-term sea-level rise necessitates a commitment to adaptation: A first order assessment", *Clim. Risk Manag.* **34** (2021), article no. 100355.

Hanson, S. E. and R. J. Nicholls, "Demand for ports to 2050: climate policy, growing trade and the impacts of sea-level rise", *Earth's Future* **8** (2020), article no. e2020EF001543.

Haut Conseil pour le Climat, *Avis sur le plan national d'Adaptation au changement climatique*, 2025. Online at https://www.hautconseilclimat.fr/publications/avis-sur-le-plan-national-d-adaptation-au-changement-climatique-pnacc-3/ (accessed on April 29, 2025).

Hinkel, J., J. A. Church, J. M. Gregory, et al., "Meeting user needs for sea level rise information: a decision analysis perspective", *Earth's Future* **7** (2019), pp. 320–337.

IPCC, "Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change", in *Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change* (Shukla, P. R., J. Skea, R. Slade, et al., eds.), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, 2022.

Jackson, L. P. and S. Jevrejeva, "A probabilistic approach to 21st century regional sea-level projections using RCP and High-end scenarios", *Glob. Planet. Change* **146** (2016), pp. 179–189.

Jacobs, J. M., L. R. Cattaneo, W. Sweet and T. Mansfield, "Recent and future outlooks for nuisance flooding impacts on roadways on the US East Coast", *Transp. Res. Rec.* **2672** (2018), pp. 1–10.

Jevrejeva, S., F. M. Calafat, M. De Dominicis, et al., "Challenges, advances and opportunities in regional sea level projections: the role of ocean-shelf dynamics", *Earth's Future* **12** (2024), article no. e2024EF004886.

Kopp, R. E., G. G. Garner, T. H. J. Hermans, et al., "The framework for assessing changes to sea-level (FACTS) v1.0: a platform for characterizing parametric and structural uncertainty in future global, relative, and extreme sea-level change", *Geosci. Model Dev.* **16** (2023), pp. 7461–7489.

Kopp, R. E., R. M. Horton, C. M. Little, J. X. Mitrovica, M. Oppenheimer, D. J. Rasmussen, B. H. Strauss and C. Tebaldi, "Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites", *Earth's Future* **2** (2014), pp. 383–406.

Le Bars, D., "Uncertainty in sea level rise projections due to the dependence between contributors", *Earth's Future* **6** (2018), pp. 1275–1291.

Le Cozannet, G. and A. Cazenave, "Adaptation to sea level rise in France", *Rendiconti Lincei. Scienze Fisiche e Naturali* **35** (2024), pp. 381–393.

Le Cozannet, G., R. J. Nicholls, G. Durand, A. B. A. Slangen, D. Lincke and A. Chapuis, "Adaptation to multi-meter sea-level rise should start now", *Environ. Res. Lett.* **18** (2023), article no. 091001.
Le Cozannet, G., R. Thiéblemont, J. Rohmer, D. Idier, J.-C. Manceau and R. Quique, "Low-end probabilistic sea-level projections", *Water* **11** (2019), no. 7, article no. 1507.

Lepage, M., C. Capderrey, M. Elliott and P. Meire, *Citation for: Estuarine Degradation and Rehabilitation [WWW Document]*, 2022. Online at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1002/2F9781119705345.ch8 (accessed on September 26, 2024). Wiley Online Library.

Levermann, A., R. Winkelmann, T. Albrecht, et al., "Projecting Antarctica's contribution to future sea level rise from basal ice shelf melt using linear response functions of 16 ice sheet models (LARMIP-2)", *Earth Syst. Dynam.* **11** (2020), pp. 35–76.

Love, R., G. A. Milne, L. Tarasov, S. E. Engelhart, M. P. Hijma, K. Latychev, B. P. Horton and T. E. Törnqvist, "The contribution of glacial isostatic adjustment to projections of sea-level change along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America", *Earth's Future* **4** (2016), pp. 440–464.

Marzeion, B., R. Hock, B. Anderson, et al., "Partitioning the uncertainty of ensemble projections of global glacier mass change", *Earth's Future* **8** (2020), article no. e2019EF001470.

McEvoy, S., M. Haasnoot and R. Biesbroek, "How are European countries planning for sea level rise?", *Ocean Coast. Manag.* **203** (2021), article no. 105512.

MEDDTL, *Circulaire du 27 Juillet 2011. Relative à la Prise en Compte du Risque de Submersion Marine Dans les Plans de Prévention des Risques Naturelles Littoraux*, 2011. Online at https://www.bulletin-officiel.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/documents/Bulletinofficiel-0025182/met_20110015_0100_0021.pdf (accessed on April 29, 2025).

Meyssignac, B., X. Fettweis, R. Chevrier and G. Spada, "Regional sea level changes for the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries induced by the regional variability in greenland ice sheet surface mass loss", *J. Clim.* **30** (2017), pp. 2011–2028.

Moraes, R. P. L., B. G. Reguero, I. Mazarrasa, M. Ricker and J. A. Juanes, "Nature-based solutions in coastal and estuarine areas of Europe", *Front. Environ. Sci.* **10** (2022), article no. 829526.

MTECT, *Environnement littoral et marin en France-Synthèse des connaissances en 2023*, 2023a. Online at https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/environnement-littoral-et-marin-en-france-synthèse-des-connaissances-en-2023 (accessed on April 29, 2025).

MTECT, *La trajectoire de réchauffement de référence pour l'adaptation au changement climatique (TRACC)*, 2023b. Online at https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/document-reference-TRACC.pdf (accessed on April 29, 2025). France Nation Verte.

MTES, *2e plan national d'adaptation au changement climatique*, 2018. Online at https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/2018.12.20_PNACC2.pdf (accessed on April 29, 2025).

Muccione, V., M. Haasnoot, P. Alexander, B. Bednar-Friedl, R. Biesbroek, E. Georgopoulou, G. Le Cozannet and D. N. Schmidt, "Adaptation pathways for effective responses to climate change risks", *WIREs Clim. Change* **15** (2024), article no. e883.

Nicholls, R. J., S. E. Hanson, J. A. Lowe, R. A. Warrick, X. Lu and A. J. Long, "Sea-level scenarios for evaluating coastal impacts", *WIREs Clim. Change* **5** (2014), pp. 129–150.

Nicholls, R. J., D. Lincke, J. Hinkel, et al., "A global analysis of subsidence, relative sea-level change and coastal flood exposure", *Nat. Clim. Change* **11** (2021), pp. 338–342.

O'Leary, B. C., C. Fonseca, C. C. Cornet, et al., "Embracing Nature-based Solutions to promote resilient marine and coastal ecosystems", *Nat.-Based Solut.* **3** (2023), article no. 100044.

Oppenheimer, M., B. C. Glavovic, J. Hinkel, et al., "Sea level rise and implications for low-lying islands, coasts and communities", in *IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate* (Pörtner, H.-O., D. C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, et al., eds.), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, 2019, pp. 321–445.

Orton, P., D. Ralston, B. van Prooijen, et al., "Increased utilization of storm surge barriers: a research agenda on estuary impacts", *Earth's Future* **11** (2023), article no. e2022EF002991.

Palmer, M. D., B. J. Harrison, J. M. Gregory, H. T. Hewitt, J. A. Lowe and J. H. Weeks, "A framework for physically consistent storylines of UK future mean sea level rise", *Clim. Change* **177** (2024), article no. 106.

Perherin, C. and C. Meur-Ferec, "Les cartes d'aléas littoraux: quand la technique occulte des conceptions différentes de la politique française de gestion des risques", *VertigO* **22** (2022), pp. 1–25.

Philippenko, X. and G. Le Cozannet, "Social science to accelerate coastal adaptation to sea-level rise", *Camb. Prisms: Coast. Futures* **1** (2023), article no. e37.

Piecuch, C. G. and S. B. Das, "Through an ice sheet, darkly", *Earth's Future* **10** (2022), article no. e2022EF003310.

Sannino, G., A. Carillo, R. Iacono, E. Napolitano, M. Palma, G. Pisacane and M. Struglia, "Modelling present and future climate in the Mediterranean Sea: a focus on sea-level change", *Clim. Dyn.* **59** (2022), pp. 357–391.

Schibalski, A., M. Kleyer, M. Maier and B. Schröder, "Spatiotemporally explicit prediction of future ecosystem service provisioning in response to climate change, sea level rise, and adaptation strategies", *Ecosyst. Serv.* **54** (2022), article no. 101414.

Seroussi, H., S. Nowicki, A. J. Payne, et al., "ISMIP6 Antarctica: a multi-model ensemble of the Antarctic ice sheet evolution over the 21st century", *Cryosphere* **14** (2020), pp. 3033–3070.

Slangen, A. B. A., F. Adloff, S. Jevrejeva, P. W. Leclercq, B. Marzeion, Y. Wada and R. Winkelmann, "A review of recent updates of sea-level projections at global and regional scales", *Surv. Geophys.* **38** (2017), pp. 385–406.

Slangen, A. B. A., M. Carson, C. A. Katsman, R. S. W. van de Wal, A. Kohl, L. L. A. Vermeersen and D. Stammer, "Projecting twenty-first century regional sea-level changes", *Clim. Change* **124** (2014), pp. 317–332.

Slangen, A. B. A., C. A. Katsman, R. S. W. van de Wal, L. L. A. Vermeersen and R. E. M. Riva, "Towards regional projections of twenty-first century sea-level change based on IPCC SRES scenarios", *Clim. Dyn.* **38** (2012), pp. 1191–1209.

Slangen, A. B. A., M. D. Palmer, C. M. L. Camargo, et al., "The evolution of 21st century sea-level projections from IPCC AR5 to AR6 and beyond", *Camb. Prisms: Coast. Futures* **1** (2023), article no. e7.

Sowińska-Świerkosz, B. and J. García, "What are nature-based solutions (NBS)? Setting core ideas for concept clarification", *Nat.-Based Solut.* **2** (2022), article no. 100009.
Sweet, W. V. and J. Park, "From the extreme to the mean: acceleration and tipping points of coastal inundation from sea level rise", *Earth's Future* 2 (2014), pp. 579–600.

Thiéblemont, R., G. Le Cozannet, M. D'Anna, D. Idier, A. Bel-madani, A. B. A. Slangen and F. Longueville, "Chronic flood-ing events due to sea-level rise in French Guiana", *Sci. Rep.* 13 (2023), article no. 21695.

Thiéblemont, R., G. Le Cozannet, R. J. Nicholls, et al., "Assessing current coastal subsidence at continental scale: insights from Europe using the European Ground Motion Service", *Earth's Future* 12 (2024), article no. e2024EF004523.

Thiéblemont, R., G. Le Cozannet, A. Toimil, B. Meyssignac and I. J. Losada, "Likely and high-end impacts of regional sea-level rise on the shoreline change of european sandy coasts under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario", *Water* 11 (2019), no. 12, article no. 2607.

Turner, F. E., V. Malagon Santos, T. L. Edwards, A. B. A. Slangen, R. J. Nicholls, G. Le Cozannet, J. O'Neill and M. Adhikari, "Illus-trative multi-centennial projections of global mean sea-level

rise and their application", *Earth's Future* 11 (2023), article no. e2023EF003550.

UNEP, *Emission Gap Report 2022–The Closing Window–Climate Crisis Calls for Rapid Transformation of Societies*, 2022. Online at https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022 (accessed on April 29, 2024).

Verschuur, J., E. E. Koks and J. W. Hall, "Ports' criticality in inter-national trade and global supply-chains", *Nat. Commun.* 13 (2022), article no. 4351.

Weeks, J. H., F. Fung, B. J. Harrison and M. D. Palmer, "The evolution of UK sea-level projections", *Environ. Res. Commun.* 5 (2023), article no. 032001.

Woppelmann, G. and M. Marcos, "Vertical land motion as a key to understanding sea level change and variability", *Rev. Geophys.* 54 (2016), pp. 64–92.

Zommers, Z., P. Marbaix, A. Fischlin, et al., "Burning embers: towards more transparent and robust climate-change risk assessments", *Nat. Rev. Earth Environ.* 1 (2020), pp. 516–529.