The authors have presented a new database of coastal flood protection measures in Europe, in alignment with FLOPROS. 

Given the focus on sharing this database through this Brief Communication, I would encourage the authors to include the following, along with some minor comments thereafter:

1. Please further describe the methodology for constructing this database. The only description in this manuscript is the one sentence at Line 104, which leaves a lot of questions about the methodology and its reliability, and the quality of this data.
2. Please comment on the quality of this dataset, and how it compares with that of FLOPROS and its coastal update by Tiggeloven et al. (2020). What further advantages does this dataset provide over the existing dataset?
3. Line 17 - It is prominently mentioned in the abstract that “a new community-driven effort is needed to develop a more complete [coastal flood protection] dataset”. However in the remainder of the manuscript, it did not appear that such a community driven effort was employed for developing COASTPROS-EU. Additionally, no information was provided about how such a community driven effort may be implemented.
4. Is COASTPROS an acronym?
5. Line 37 - The phrase “assessing current flood protection levels” is unclear. Are the authors referring to flood protection measures?
6. Line 37 - It would be helpful if the authors included some examples of the complexity and challenges, along with their respective references.
7. Line 51 - What is the difference between sub-country units and “regions” in Line 53?
8. Line 52 - What complexities are the authors referring to?
9. Line 54 - The second comma seems unnecessary.
10. Line 60 - *and* UNEP.
11. Line 67 - It would be helpful if the authors provided some supporting evidence regarding the “limitations in FLOPROS, especially the limited number of observations for coastal flood protection”.
12. Line 76 - What “new observations” are the authors referring to?
13. Line 83 - *and* USA.
14. Line 98 - What is a NUTS2 region?
15. Line 99 - The 3 layers appear quite similar to those of FLOPROS. What are the differences between this methodology and FLOPROS?
16. Line 105 - What is the CoCliCo network?
17. Fig 1 - The clarity of the figure could be improved by using more contrasting colors.

The authors present a new initiative to fill an existing gap on global coastal protection data, and showcasing a new coastal protection dataset for Europe, while making the call for a global joint effort to fill the coastal protection information gap.

The reviewer asks for a few changes and clarifications:

a) it is not clear to the reviewer whether this Brief Communication is intended as (needs clarifying):

a.1 - a call for a global joint effort in building such database, while showcasing an early stage coastal protection database for Europe.

a.2 - a call for a global joint effort in building such database, while presenting a ready-to-use European coastal protection database.

If this is intended as a presentation of an European coastal protection database (a.2), the reviewer asks for clarification on contributions by country in building this database. Europe is a very data dense region in coastal protection and the reviewer is not impressed with the level of detail presented here. If this paper presents an early stage of an European database, please clarify this point in the text.

b) Please expand on methodology.

c) Please provide a reference to the Workshop mentioned in lines 106-107.

d) Please add a discussion on the use of Return Periods vs defense heights

e) Please provide references to all data points in the zenodo database, "grey literature" as well.

f) Please introduce the following terms in the text: NUTS2

g) Table S1, cited in line 97, is missing

h) Line 71 needs formatting or joining the main text

i) Line 124 Furthermore instead of Further. Comas after the one following Furthermore are not needed.