EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 12.11.2018 SWD(2018) 461 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change {COM(2018) 738 final} - {SEC(2018) 472 final} - {SWD(2018) 460 final}



Table of contents 1.Introduction Purpose and scope 2.Background to the intervention Description of the intervention and its objectives Need for action Intervention logic 3.The Strategy, external policies and the international context for adaptation Integration of adaptation in external policies Development cooperation Foreign and security policy (including migration) Disaster risk reduction, including emergency response The international context and the EU adaptation strategy 4.Baseline / Implementation / state of Play Objective 1: Promoting action by Member States Action 1 Member State strategies Action 2 LIFE

Action 3 Covenant of Mayors Objective 2: Better informed decision-making Action 4 Knowledge gaps Action 5 Climate-ADAPT Objective 3: Promoting adaptation in key vulnerable sectors Action 6 ESIF / CAP / CFP, including general mainstreaming Action 7 Infrastructure Action 8 Insurance and finance 5.Method Methods for gathering evidence Evaluation method Limitations and robustness of the findings 6.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 6.1.Relevance 6.1.1.To what extent do the objectives and actions of the Strategy (still) respond to needs within the EU and at international level? 6.1.2.How relevant is the Strategy for the different stakeholders at local, regional, national and supra-national level? 6.2.Effectiveness 6.2.1.To what extent have the objectives been achieved during the period 2013-2018? 6.2.2.To what extent has each of the eight actions of the Strategy contributed to these achievements? 6.2.3.What drivers and barriers (expected or unexpected) contributed to or stood in the way of implementation of the EU Adaptation Strategy and how did they affect it?

6.2.4.What effects has the Strategy produced so far for different stakeholders, e.g. according to socio-economic background and vulnerability? 6.3.Efficiency 6.3.1.How adequate were the resources for the overall implementation of the EU Adaptation Strategy and how proportionate were those resources across its eight actions? 6.3.2.How do the different stakeholders view the monitoring of the implementation of the EU Adaptation Strategy? Which aspects are perceived as an unnecessary burden, if any, and to what extent? 6.4.Coherence 6.4.1.How well does the Adaptation Strategy fit together with other relevant EU legislation and policies, or similar initiatives at international, national or regional level? Are there any gaps or inconsistencies between policies? Are there components to be further developed or added to increase coherence of actions? 6.5.EU added value 6.5.1.What is the added value of addressing climate adaptation at EU level, in addition to the vertical and horizontal cooperation at national level? 7.Conclusions Annex IProcedural information Annex IIStakeholder consultation 1.Objectives of the consultation 2.Consultation activities and methodology 2.1.Activities 2.2.Stakeholder groups participating 2.3.Methodology 3.Results 3.1.Targeted Stakeholder Survey 3.2.Stakeholder interviews 3.3.Open Public Consultation

3.4.Stakeholder Workshops 4.Identified campaigns and ad-hoc contributions 5.Feedback from the roadmap Annex IIIAcronyms Annex IVList of SWDs supporting the Strategy Communication in 2013 Annex VIntervention logic of the EU’s Adaptation Strategy (reconstructed) Annex VIOperational objectives and performance indicators in the 2013 impact assessment Annex VIIInputs, activities and outputs related to the 8 actions of the Strategy Annex VIIIComplementary information on the initiatives under the Strategy 1.LIFE 2.Covenant of Mayors 3.Monitoring and evaluation on adaptation action at EU and Member State level 4.Bridging the knowledge gaps 5.Climate-ADAPT 6.Key policy initiatives where adaptation was mainstreamed 7.Carbon Disclosure Project survey results on companies and climate risks 8.EU funds for climate resilience 9.Adaptation-related work in the European Standardisation Organisations 10.Insurance and financial services 11.Summary of costs related to the Strategy

12.Coherence with other EU policies 13.Coherence with international policies Annex IXHorizontal assessment of the adaptation preparedness country fiches Annex XEU adaptation preparedness scoreboard indicator list and methodology Annex XIList of EU policy initiatives where adaptation is mainstreamed Table XI-1. Initiatives where climate adaptation is mainstreamed into EU policy (in force), including updates Table XI-2. COM legislative proposals currently with European Parliament and Council Annex XIIAssessment of the quality of the evidence gathered in the evaluation support study Annex XIIIEconomic costs of climate change Annex XIVCase studies Case Study 1Fire preparedness and the impact of climate change Case Study 2Spillover effects from climate change impacts occurring outside the EU Case Study 3The Danube macro-regional strategy and its contribution to action at Member State level Case Study 4Adaptation of infrastructure in the energy sector 1.Introduction Purpose and scope This document sets out the results of the evaluation of the 2013 EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change (the Strategy). The Strategy indicates that in 2017, the European Commission had to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the state of its implementation and propose its review, if needed. This evaluation intends to inform future work on the Strategy on the progress made, and to serve as background to the Report it accompanies. It assesses whether the Strategy is fit for purpose, based on its performance up-to-date, to deliver on its 3 objectives and 8 actions in different policy sectors at local, national and transnational level. In accordance with the Better Regulation Guidelines, the following evaluation criteria are used: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value.

It covers the period 2013 to mid-2018 and all EU Member States. The document is largely based on an external evaluation carried out by consultants, complemented by internal assessments, recent evaluations (e.g. of the LIFE and Covenant of Mayors programmes and of the Climate-ADAPT platform), and a broad consultation process described in Annex II. The evaluation focuses on the direct results of the Strategy (e.g. the extent to which adaptation has been mainstreamed into EU financing of projects) rather than on the activities triggered by those results (for instance the outputs of the financed projects). 2.Background to the intervention Description of the intervention and its objectives Need for action In Europe, land temperatures in 2007-2016 were around 1.6°C warmer than in pre-industrial times. Particularly high warming has been observed since 1960 over the Iberian Peninsula, in mountain areas across central and northeastern Europe and over southern Scandinavia. The Pyrenees region is already 1.5ºC hotter than in 1960. Winter temperatures have increased the most in northern Europe, while higher summer temperatures have affected southern Europe. In addition, there has already been a substantial increase in climate-related extreme events in recent years: the number of heatwaves, droughts, storms, wildfires has doubled, the number of floods has quadrupled since 1980. Climate change makes such events more likely. There are also slower on-setting impacts like coastal erosion caused by sea level rise, or drought caused by changes to precipitation patterns. Areas such as the EU Outermost Regions are particularly exposed to climate-related extreme events (e.g. cyclones, hurricanes, tropical tempests) and vulnerable to sea-level rise. Climate change impacts in third countries can also have spillover effects on Europe, for example by affecting trade routes and patterns and triggering climate-induced migration. Adaptation is the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. It seeks to moderate or avoid harm and to exploit beneficial opportunities. Well planned, early adaptation action saves lives, livelihoods, biodiversity and money later. It focuses on building response capacity, prevention and on limiting the damage as it occurs, rather than on dealing with consequences (disaster relief). At the time of the formulation of the Strategy, the economic, environmental and social costs of not adapting to climate change were estimated to range from EUR 100 billion a year in 2020 to EUR 250 billion a year in 2050 for the EU as a whole. Recent studies confirm that the frequency and economic costs of extreme events are continuing to rise for specific sectors. Intervention logic The general objective of the Strategy is to contribute to a more climate-resilient Europe by enhancing the preparedness and capacity to respond to the impacts of climate change at local, regional, national and EU levels, developing a coherent approach and improving coordination. In order to achieve this, it set out the following three specific objectives: Objective 1 – Promoting action by Member States: to promote adaptation action at sub-EU level, and support and facilitate exchange and coordination, including through cross-border measures. Objective 2 - Better informed decision making: to further the understanding of adaptation, to improve and widen the knowledge base where knowledge gaps have been identified and to enhance dissemination of adaptation-related information. Objective 3 - Climate-proofing EU action: promoting adaptation in key vulnerable sectors: to develop initiatives to consistently and comprehensively integrate climate change adaptation considerations into sectors at EU level through EU policies. These objectives were intended to be delivered through the implementation of 8 actions as summarised in Table 2-1 (below). The table also lists the performance indicators foreseen in the 2013 impact assessment. Objectives Actions (including abbreviated title) Performance indicators 1. Promoting action by Member States (Increasing the resilience of the EU territory) 1.Encourage all Member States to adopt comprehensive adaptation strategies (Member State strategies) 2.Provide LIFE funding to support capacity building and step up adaptation action in Europe (LIFE) 3.Introduce adaptation in the Covenant of Mayors framework (Covenant of Mayors) 1.Number of national adaptation strategies (NASs) and action plans and national climate change risk assessments 2.Number and amount of LIFE grants used for experience transfer and lighthouse projects respectively 3.Number of cities pledging to develop an adaptation strategy and of cities with more than 150 000 inhabitants in vulnerable areas with an adaptation strategy 2. Better informed decision-making 4.Bridge the knowledge gap (Knowledge gap) 5.Further develop Climate-ADAPT as the ‘one-stop shop’ for adaptation information in Europe (Climate-ADAPT) 4.List of knowledge gaps now, in 2017, and in 2020 + number of Horizon 2020 (H2020) and Joint Research Centre (JRC) research projects dealing with adaptation and associated budget allocated 5.Number of visitors to Climate-ADAPT, pages most visited, number of registered users, assessment of the content, databases and metadata + Number of conferences, workshops, adaptation events registered in Climate-ADAPT 3. Climate-proofing EU action: promoting adaptation in key vulnerable sectors (Increasing the resilience of key vulnerable sectors) 6.Facilitate the climate-proofing of the Common Agricultural Policy, the Cohesion Policy, and the Common Fisheries Policy (ESIF/CAP/CFP) 7.Ensuring more resilient infrastructure (Infrastructure) 8.Promote insurance and other financial products for resilient investment and business decisions (Insurance and finance) 6.List of policies and legal acts where adaptation has been mainstreamed + adaptation activities by private organisations as reported in the Carbon Disclosure Project surveys 7.Amount of adaptation infrastructure investments (co-) financed by EU funds and/or public financial institutions + progress on the mapping exercise by European Standardisation Organisations (ESOs) 8.No associated performance indicator in the impact assessment. The impact assessment also set out operational objectives in the form of aspirational targets for 2020, to be measured through the performance indicators. The Strategy itself did not reiterate those operational objectives. The specific activities under each action are listed in the intervention logic graph in Annex V and detailed in Annex VII. In terms of the expected impacts, the activities, performance indicators and operational objectives make it clear that the strategy’s core mechanism is a leveraging effect through multiplier actions under the different objectives. These actions range from promoting the adoption and implementation of strategies at all levels of governance to funding research and demonstration projects, setting infrastructure standards and mainstreaming into other policies (including funding programmes). External factors that have emerged since 2013 and have had an influence on the Strategy’s impacts include the growing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events in recent years (that may be linked with global warming and which is likely to increase the costs of inaction, see section 6.1.1), and the adoption of several relevant international frameworks, in particular the Paris Agreement on climate change which could affect the ambition level of EU adaptation policies in the future (see further discussion in Chapter 3).

The Strategy and its impact assessment were developed without prior intervention logic. Nevertheless, on their basis, the intervention logic in Annex V can be reconstructed to reflect the approach underlying the Strategy. 3.The Strategy, external policies and the international context for adaptation Integration of adaptation in external policies The Strategy focuses on the adaptation to the impacts of climate on the EU territory. As such, it follows the approach adopted by most countries when developing national adaptation strategies. However, this also means that it does not make reference to any international policies or initiatives, nor does it emphasise the role of the EU’s external policies in supporting adaptation actions in non-EU countries. The 2013 impact assessment considered that international issues were covered under the development and cooperation policy and through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations. There was a concern that the adoption of an EU adaptation strategy setting objectives and actions relevant for discussions on adaptation in the international framework prior to the Paris Agreement would pre-empt the EU position in negotiations. Moreover, in order to push for higher mitigation ambition among Parties, the EU international climate policy was deliberately focused on mitigation, to the extent that even the EU’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) includes only mitigation. The strategic choice of focusing the Strategy on domestic issues has not however reduced the importance that the EU attributes to international support for adaptation and resilience. On the contrary, the importance of mainstreaming adaptation in EU international policy has been increasingly recognized and much has been done with this purpose, in particular in the following key areas. Development cooperation Adaptation is recognized as one of the key cross-cutting issues in the 2017 EU's response to the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the European Consensus on Development 'Our world, our dignity, our future' , which sets out the main principles for the approach of the EU and the Member States to cooperation with developing countries over the next 15 years, as well as a strategy for reaching the Sustainable Development Goals. Climate change resilience in vulnerable countries is considered as an important element of sustainability. Moreover, climate change adaptation has been integrated in the EU's development programmes, be it national, regional or thematic, at all stages of the planning and implementation process. In addition to dedicated projects and programmes, climate change is systematically addressed as a cross-cutting issue to identify and address the associated risks and opportunities. The most prominent example of EU support to policy dialogue and climate action in developing countries is the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA+) initiative. Lessons learnt in planning for and implementing the Strategy, including scientific knowledge and tools gained, provide input for these processes. Foreign and security policy (including migration) During the period covered by the evaluation, recognition of the link between climate change, EU external relations and security has increased. The 2016 Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy and the 2017 Joint Communication on Resilience mention climate change explicitly as a threat. Moreover, concrete steps have been taken to integrate and recognize climate change as a threat multiplier which, if not addressed, can contribute to a downward spiral of fragility and conflict. Concretely, climate change has been included amongst the 10 criteria used by the EU for assessment of early warning of conflict risk, in addition to water stress and food security. For the prioritised countries, an in-depth conflict analysis is conducted which also considers climate change impacts. Relevant to the security angle is also the progress made on recognizing and further analysing the link between climate change and human displacement, as demonstrated at the international level by the establishment of a Task Force on Displacement in the context of the UNFCCC. Since 2013, EU policies on migration and external relations have increasingly taken into account climate-related disasters as potential triggers to displacement, and the increasing challenges posed by climate change in this context. Climate change adaptation is seen as an effective tool to tackle root causes of migration. Examples include: Council conclusion on Climate diplomacy in 2013 , 2016 and 2018 and the 2016 Communication on Forced Displacement and Development . Better understanding, on the one hand, the role of climate change and environmental degradation as factors in decisions to migrate and, on the other hand, the potential role of migration as an adaptation option, continue to be a priority under the EU's external cooperation instruments for the period 2014-2020, both through dedicated thematic lines and targeted projects to develop knowledge and practices to address climate induced migration. Disaster risk reduction, including emergency response As part of the post-2015 development agenda, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 was developed with a strong focus on risk prevention. To translate this framework into EU action, in July 2016 the Commission published an Action Plan on the implementation of the Sendai Framework. Climate change adaptation and its links with disaster risk reduction are well integrated both in the Sendai framework and in the Action Plan. An additional example include the New Urban Agenda, adopted in Quito in 2016 which recognizes the contribution of cities to mitigating climate change, and commits to improve the resilience of cities to disasters and climate change – these objectives are well aligned with the core vision of the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. Synergies between the Covenant of Mayors and United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction's Making Cities Resilient campaign are also being sought to maximise the impact, including on monitoring, reporting and indicators. All these achievements/developments are not a direct outcome of the Strategy: they were triggered by external developments which have leveraged the importance and urgency of adaptation and its close relation to sustainable development, disaster risk reduction, security etc. The main triggers are: -The importance for the EU to show leadership in international climate policy and actions including by adequately responding to the increasing demands from developing countries (in political dialogues and within UNFCCC negotiations) to support climate change resilience as a component of sustainable development. -The growing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events affecting EU 's partners and the likely link with global warming have put the need to address climate change (both mitigation and adaptation) and its impacts higher on the EU political agenda. -The Arctic's relevance in climate change adaptation and mitigation has increased, due to recent scientific evidence on accelerated Arctic sea ice melt and its consequences for extreme weather events elsewhere on the planet. The 2016 Joint Communication on an integrated EU policy for the Arctic recognised the relevance of the region for climate action. -The adoption of other major international frameworks in 2015, and in particular the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi targets, and Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the New Urban Agenda in 2016. On its side, the implementation of the Strategy has contributed to a strengthening of EU's external action on climate resilience by, for instance, improving the knowledge base, and offering a test-base for adaptation options and responses that could be relevant outside EU territories.

The international context and the EU adaptation strategy The evaluation support study highlights that the context of international adaptation policy has changed: the initial assumptions on the basis of which the international setting was not included in the Strategy might not hold any more. The study points to a need to reflect on whether a clearer strategic framework is necessary to better enhance coherence and alignment between international policies, actions and processes of relevance to climate change adaptation. And in this context, whether the Strategy is the appropriate channel where this strategic framework should be included. The following elements could bring useful insight in this direction: -Already in 2010, the adoption of the Cancún adaptation framework foretold the importance that adaptation would gather in the future, with the adoption of the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement raises adaptation ambition, putting it on equal footing with mitigation in our collective response to climate change.The Paris Agreement moreover changes the narrative: climate change affects all countries and therefore adaptation needs to be a goal to which all Parties need to contribute. Specifically Art 7 of the Agreement asks Parties to engage on adaptation e.g. by developing plans/strategies, assessing vulnerabilities, monitoring adaptation policies and actions, sharing knowledge and lessons learnt, strengthening the scientific knowledge on climate etc. It also requires regular monitoring and revision of adaptation policies. Moreover the Paris Agreement includes adaptation in the 'ambition cycle', and in 2023: the EU, as a Party, will be asked to report on progress and actions on adaptation and eventually, if relevant, redefine ambition, by reviewing its strategies and policies. Our adaptation policy should ensure adequate alignment to this framework. -Climate change worldwide will have consequences on the EU in the area of trade (including food security), migration, and ecosystems, among others. Stakeholders expressed concern that the Strategy does not meet the EU’s needs with regard to climate change impacts beyond its borders. Our adaptation policy should consider how to prepare the EU for the effects of climate change in third countries and to some extent already does, via all the policies and measures mentioned above in the area of international adaptation. The possible scope for alignment with international policy developments since 2013 would therefore merit to be examined, as well as the potential implications for the EU of transboundary effects of climate impacts in third countries via value chains, migratory flows, trade and financial flows, for instance. Some further details on the above-mentioned international frameworks are provided in Annex VIII section 13. 4.Baseline / Implementation / state of Play The Commission’s 2009 White Paper “Adapting to climate change: towards a European framework for action” identified a number of possible areas for EU action and was already instrumental in triggering reaction in the Member States. For example, the number of countries with vulnerability assessments and national adaptation strategies (NAS) started to increase already before the 2013 Strategy. The Strategy built on these dynamics, its objectives and actions covered all of the areas identified in the White Paper, except international policy as explained in Chapter 3. Objective 1: Promoting action by Member States Action 1 Member State strategies Situation in 2013 15 Member States had adopted an adaptation strategy and/or plan. The level of detail of these adaptation strategies or plans differed widely among Member States and there were important gaps. In particular: ·The funding of adaptation options remained vague in many cases; ·Only a third of Member States had assessed impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation options to support policy; and ·Only two Member States had made substantial progress in developing indicators and monitoring methodologies. ·Almost none of the adaptation strategies in place dealt with transboundary issues, or employment or social issues; · Of those Member States with no NAS at that time, most were in the process of developing one, whereas Southern and Central European countries were least advanced in the process.

Baseline According to the Impact Assessment it was expected that without intervention, the adaptation strategies would continue varying in terms of scope (in particular on trans-boundary issues), level of ambition and agreed financing of adaptation measures. Barriers in human or financial resources to the adoption of further strategies would remain. Implementation / State of play The Strategy was endorsed by the Environment Council who recognised the importance of NASs and called upon all Member States to shape their adaptation policies in the light of the guidelines of the Commission. Guidance for Member States on preparing NASs was published alongside the Strategy. The guidance is integrated in the Climate-ADAPT adaptation tool. In collaboration with the Member States, the Commission developed the proposed ‘adaptation preparedness scoreboard’ largely based on the process and approaches recommended in the guidance. Using the scoreboard, the Commission prepared country fiches on each Member State in an iterative consultation process. The country fiches assess the Member States’ adaptation policy, including the content of NASs and plans, for the following aspects: §Institutional structure §Quality of national vulnerability assessments §Knowledge creation (national observation systems in relevant sectors and climate modelling), transfer and use §Action plans: -Quality (incl. the basis used for assessment of adaptation options) -Actual implementation mechanisms §Funding mechanisms §Mainstreaming into sectoral policies, in particular: -Disaster risk reduction -Spatial planning -Environmental impact assessment (EIA) (how the Directive is transposed nationally) -Insurance policy §Transboundary cooperation §Monitoring mechanisms in different sectors and governance levels The final versions of the fiches accompany this evaluation report in a separate Staff Working Document (SWD).

The scoreboard’s assessment of the Member State’s adaptation preparedness is summarised in section 6.2.2 and is also the subject of a more detailed horizontal assessment in Annex IX. Performance indicator: Number of NASs and action plans and national climate change risk assessments 25 of the 28 Member States had adopted NASs by early 2018. Strategies are being developed in the remaining three Member States (Latvia, Bulgaria and Croatia) but have not yet been adopted. Action 2 LIFE Situation in 2013 There was no LIFE sub-programme specifically allocated to climate action prior to the Strategy. However, between 2000 and 2015, EU support of EUR 152 million (EUR 307 million with co-financing) was provided to nearly 150 projects focusing fully or partly on climate change adaptation, including to the development of Cyprus’ and Malta’s NASs and some cross-border projects. Baseline Without intervention in the form of a further reinforced adaptation component in the LIFE programme, it was expected that many authorities would find it difficult to find the necessary financial resources to develop adaptation strategies, organise cross-border cooperation and identify best practice across the EU. Implementation / State of play The budget under the LIFE Regulation 2014-2020 and the Multiannual Work Programme 2014-2017 is split between the Environment and Climate Action sub-programmes. The Regulation foresees that 25% (i.e. EUR 864 million) of the LIFE budget would be assigned to Climate Action, with a fairly even split between adaptation and mitigation. Since 2014, four calls for proposals were launched (2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017) and the projects from the last call started in the summer of 2018. Performance indicator: Number and amount of LIFE grants used for experience transfer and lighthouse projects respectively Action 3 Covenant of Mayors Situation in 2013 Around a quarter (24%) of 100 surveyed cities in 2012 reported they had already adopted an adaptation strategy, while under half believed they were still in the very early stages of work on adaptation. Cities within several Member States had formed their own networks, as a result of either national or international initiatives, but no EU-level network existed for adaptation. Baseline It was expected that without additional actions, regional and local adaptation strategies would continue to develop as previously. Barriers related to legal competence, and human or financial resources to the adoption of further strategies would remain.

Implementation / State of play Performance indicator: Number of cities pledging to develop an adaptation strategy and of cities with more than 150 000 inhabitants in vulnerable areas with an adaptation strategy. Mayors Adapt (the Covenant of Mayors Initiative on Adaptation to Climate Change) was launched by the Commission in March 2014 and merged into the Covenant of Mayors initiative in 2015, introducing an integrated approach on mitigation and adaptation. Signatories to the Covenant voluntarily commit to develop a climate vulnerability and risk assessment and an action plan for targeted adaptation options, including reporting every two years, within two years of signing up to the initiative. The Covenant office (implemented and funded by the Commission) informs, mobilises and supports local authorities, in cooperation with the Commission’s JRC who prepare guidelines for the local authorities’ actions. The Commission also ensures that the relevant EU funds and financial instruments can support the Covenant signatories in their actions. By 30 April 2018, 1076 Covenant signatories from 25 EU Member States, covering around 60 million inhabitants, had committed to conduct vulnerability and risk assessments, and develop, implement and report on adaptation plans. According to recent surveys, it is estimated that about 26% of all EU cities (both Covenant cities and non-Covenant) and 40% of EU cities of more than 150.000 inhabitants have already adopted adaptation plans. In general, cities in Eastern and Southern Europe have fewer local adaptation plans, whereas Central and Northern European cities often have such plans. Building on the success of the Covenant, the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy was launched in 2017 bringing together the Compact of Mayors and the Covenant of Mayors in a worldwide campaign. More details on the Covenant of Mayors are provided in section 2 of Annex VIII. Objective 2: Better informed decision-making Action 4 Knowledge gaps Situation in 2013 In spite of progress achieved through national, EU and global research in addressing relevant knowledge gaps, the following gaps persisted : 1.Information on projected costs and benefits of impacts and adaptation 2.Regional and local-level analyses and risk assessments 3.Frameworks, models and tools to support decision making under uncertainty and to assess the effectiveness of adaptation measures 4.Monitoring and evaluation of past adaptation efforts Baseline Without coordinated research efforts among EU and national institutions, overlaps in research projects and knowledge gaps would not be addressed, resulting in an inefficient use of public funding for research. Implementation / State of play

Performance indicator: List of knowledge gaps now, in 2017, and in 2020, plus number of H2020 and JRC research projects dealing with adaptation and associated budget allocated. Regarding the indicator “List of knowledge gaps now, in 2017, and in 2020”, since the knowledge gaps were formulated in an open-ended way (rather than as focused or sector-specific questions), it is difficult to assess if they have been closed. Nevertheless, evidence indicates that despite a substantial increase in the knowledge base, none of the priority knowledge gaps have been fully closed, and new gaps have emerged in sectors such as ecosystem-based adaptation, relationship to sustainable development goals, global transboundary (spillover) effects of climate change impacts and risks, adapting infrastructure and mountainous areas, long-term lack of water resources, high-end climate change, health, coastal areas, biodiversity. Regarding the indicator ‘Number of Horizon 2020 and JRC research projects dealing with adaptation and associated budget allocated’, in total 124 research projects, reports and articles were identified on adaptation under Framework Programme 7 (FP7) and H2020 as well as originating from JRC, European Environment Agency (EEA), service contracts of the Commission and other EU sources, involving a total budget of EUR 285 million. The most frequently addressed topics were water, nature, and agriculture. More details on bridging the knowledge gaps are provided in section 4 of Annex VIII. Action 5 Climate-ADAPT Situation in 2013 Prior to the Strategy, Climate-ADAPT was already launched in March 2012 as a web portal in common ownership of the Commission and the EEA with the objectives to build a consistent and updated knowledge base, in particular: -To facilitate the collection, sharing and use of information on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation in the EU; -to assist an effective uptake of the relevant knowledge by decision-makers; and -to contribute to a greater level of coordination among sectors and institutional levels. At the time of the launch, the various other relevant EU services and platforms, such as the Copernicus Climate Change Service or the Disaster Risk Knowledge Management Centre did not yet exist. While Climate-ADAPT experienced a high volume of users immediately after its launch in 2012, as compared with other EEA products, users needed more encouragement to make use of it, to upload relevant information and to collect data and information from local and regional levels, including private sector initiatives. National adaptation portals existed in six Member States and more limited adaptation portals in eight others, but the information transfer between national and local levels was not optimal. The Strategy noted the need to improve access to information and develop interaction between Climate-ADAPT and other relevant platforms, including national and local adaptation portals. Baseline Funding for Climate-ADAPT was expected to continue regardless of the Strategy, but it was not expected that the portal’s coverage gaps on local or regional issues would be addressed without intervention. There would also be additional costs of quality control of reporting of adaptation-related findings from EU-funded research projects. It was expected that mainstreaming of adaptation in sectoral science-policy interfaces would remain limited, affecting the accessibility of adaptation research to decision makers, particularly in those sectors where no science-policy interface was identified, such as energy or transport. Implementation / State of play Performance indicator: Number of visitors to Climate-ADAPT, pages most visited, number of registered users, assessment of the content, databases and metadata + Number of conferences, workshops, adaptation events registered in Climate-ADAPT Climate-ADAPT had 409 565 visitors between 1 March 2013 and 31 March 2018, the most visited pages being the database, the adaptation support tools, the case studies, EU policy pages and the country pages. The number of registered users (recipients of the newsletter) amounted to about 5 000 in April 2018. The core of Climate-ADAPT are its knowledge database and webpages, which currently comprise of about 2 400 items in total. A detailed assessment of the content, databases and metadata is provided in the EEA mid-term evaluation report on Climate-ADAPT. The total number of conferences, workshops and adaptation events registered was 107 between 29 April 2014 and 31 March 2018. More details on Climate-ADAPT are provided in section 5 of Annex VIII. Objective 3: Promoting adaptation in key vulnerable sectors Action 6 ESIF / CAP / CFP, including general mainstreaming Situation in 2013 Adaptation had been mainstreamed into a broad range of sectors listed in the introduction to Objective 3 in the Strategy (with legislation and policy documents adopted or Commission proposals tabled by 2013). Some policy initiatives in the pipeline were also listed for imminent mainstreaming. However, adaptation had yet to be mainstreamed into social and education policies, tourism, fisheries, insurance and trade, while further work was deemed necessary in energy, transport, the EU’s outermost regions, disaster risk reduction, health and in particular funding programmes under the 2014-20 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF).

Baseline Without the Strategy, mainstreaming activities would continue on an ad hoc basis with no adequate prioritisation. Implementation / State of play Performance indicator: List of policies and legal acts where adaptation has been mainstreamed In terms of the general mainstreaming under Objective 3, it is clear that significant progress has been made in increasing awareness and explicit consideration of adaptation issues where foreseen in the Strategy, while falling short of adaptation mainstreaming that would be fully “consistent and comprehensive”. In section 6 of Annex VIII, more details are given on the degree of mainstreaming in the following key sectors: ·Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) ·Outermost Regions ·Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) ·Water policy ·Urban policy ·Energy Union Although not within the scope of the Strategy, adaptation is actively mainstreamed also in some areas of the EU’s international policy (see Chapter 3). A full list of policy initiatives where adaptation is mainstreamed or where the Commission has made a legal proposal for mainstreaming is provided in Annex XI. The list includes information on all those initiatives that were mentioned in the introduction to the Strategy’s Objective 3 “Increasing the resilience of key vulnerable sectors”. Performance indicator: Adaptation activities by private organisations as reported in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) surveys In spite of the fact that the 2013 impact assessment included this performance indicator in the monitoring framework of the Strategy, none of its actions targeted the adaptation activities of private organisations in general. The CDP surveys filled in by companies in the period covered by the evaluation did not include reporting concretely about climate adaptation activities. Still, the surveys allowed measuring the extent to which companies regard climate change as a risk to their business (84 to 91% do), and at least in some sectors, they also hint at what kind of risk reduction measures they have applied (supplier diversification and engagement 41%, infrastructure and technological investment 26%). More detailed results from CDP surveys are presented in section 7 of Annex VIII. Mainstreaming into the EU funds The Strategy devoted its Action 6 entirely to mainstreaming in the areas of EU funds (ESIF which include the following five funds: European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Cohesion Fund (CF), European Social Fund (ESF), European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), and related policies such as cohesion policy, CAP and CFP), although no specific performance indicator or operational objective was linked to this action. The following advancements were made in the period covered by the evaluation: 1.Legal provisions on climate change were included in the framework governing the ESIF funds, the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR), notably:

a.A 20% EU mainstreaming objective for climate mitigation and adaptation, 20% earmarking of funding for low-carbon economy (TO4) b.Horizontal provision for mainstreaming sustainable development, including climate change adaptation in all programmes and investments c.A thematic objective (TO5) on “climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management” d.An ex-ante conditionality which fixed the existence of national/regional risk assessments (also of climate risks) as a pre-condition to funding under TO5, taking into account also the NAS where available e.detailed climate tracking methodology and common output indicators f.The requirement to assess and address the climate change adaptation needs and disaster resilience of major projects. Of the points above, only paragraph b) was applied in the case of the European Social Fund. It has to be recalled that the funds are under shared management between the Commission and the Member States, so the implementation of the these provisions relies largely on national action. 2.Three guidance documents were published alongside the Strategy to help Member States authorities to consider climate adaptation effectively within the programming cycles of ESIF, CAP and CFP. 3.Several guiding factsheets were produced on mainstreaming both mitigation and adaptation, listing also a set of possible adaptation actions with examples. 4.The Commission provided extensive climate-related comments on all of the ESIF Partnership Agreements and most of the fund-specific programmes. In the implementation phase, it only approved major projects (those that receive more than € 50 or 75 million EU support) that were climate-proofed. In terms of direct funding, a recent study provides an overall estimate of all ESIF allocations to climate adaptation at EUR 62.1 billion. It estimates that allocations to TO5 (“Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management”) are EUR 6.3 billion and EUR 1.1 billion from the ERDF / CF and the EAFRD, respectively. It also estimates that allocations to adaptation actions through other Thematic Objectives amount to EUR 4.9 billion for the ERDF and the CF and EUR 49.8 billion for the EAFRD. However, given the nature of ESIF, there is also a significant time lag effect in this policy area, so that results and impacts cannot be fully assessed yet. Besides, the eventually realised amounts will depend on the implementation of climate action during the period 2014-2020. From the amendment of various programmes, the general impression is that the climate related expenditure including for adaptation will increase compared to the outset (i.e. at the end of the programming process in the beginning of the period 2014-2020). Beyond the direct funding there are a number of advancement in terms of horizontal mainstreaming, such as climate-proofing of major projects and increased used of green infrastructure solutions (as opposed to grey infrastructures) across different thematic areas. Detailed observations about the status of mainstreaming adaptation into the funds are presented in section 8 of Annex VIII. Action 7 Infrastructure Situation in 2013 There was no substantive requirement across sectors to consider climate risks in the analysis of the vulnerabilities and costs/benefits of projects, and in their technical characteristics, in particular due to a lack of a common methodology. Work on design standards was uneven because of the resources required to incorporate consideration of climate change adaptation in the thousands of design-standards potentially affected. Baseline It was expected that without further EU action, only vague consideration would be given to climate change by new infrastructural investments. Many small and medium-sized enterprises would be unable to implement necessary adaptation measures and become increasingly vulnerable to the effects of unavoidable climate change. Implementation / State of play Performance indicator: Amount of adaptation infrastructure investments (co-)financed by EU funds and/or public financial institutions

The key expenditure programmes funding adaptation infrastructure are the ERDF and CF. Budget allocations (compared with total budget) to Thematic Objective 5 (Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management) are detailed in the table below. Fund TO5, 2017 (million EUR) Total, 2017 (million EUR) TO5, 2018 (million EUR) Total, 2018 (million EUR) ERDF 430.2 5387.3 445.7 5581.5 CF 342.7 2503.0 355.4 2596.5 There are 548 major projects currently foreseen of which 178 have been approved. The eligible cost of the 178 approved projects is EUR 29.6 billion, which points towards a total eligible cost of the 548 major projects of about EUR 90-95 billion. The EU contribution for the 178 approved projects is EUR 20 billion, which points towards a total contribution for the 548 major projects of about EUR 60-65 billion. The major projects are subject to climate proofing. However, it should be noted that some relevant climate adaptation infrastructure may be funded under other Thematic Objectives, particularly TO4 (Low-carbon economy), TO6 (Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency) and TO7 (Promoting sustainable transport). The legal basis does not provide a tracking methodology distinguishing between mitigation and adaptation spending under these TOs. Equally, not all investments recorded under TO5 will be relevant to climate adaptation. As to adaptation infrastructure financed by public financial institutions, the EIB reports that in 2017, out of total climate action finance of EUR 19.4 billion, EUR 0.8 billion was spent on climate adaptation, an amount slightly inferior to two years before (EUR 20.7 billion and EUR 0.8 billion, respectively). The EIB also reports that a total of EUR 4.5 billion was spent on adaptation over the five years 2011-2015, suggesting a steady level of financing. Performance indicator: progress on the mapping exercise by CEN-CENELEC (Comité Européen de Normalisation and Comité Européen de Normalisation en Electronique et en Electrotechnique) On a mandate from the Commission, the ESOs compiled a list of 12 industry standards to be revised and 1 standard to be written in order to ensure that new major infrastructure projects are climate resilient. They also adopted a 'Guide for addressing climate change adaptation in standards'. More information on the work of the ESOs is available in section 9 of Annex VIII. Other relevant initiatives The EIA Directive was updated in 2014 to include vulnerability to climate change among the aspects to be considered in project impact assessments, where relevant. As mentioned above under Action 6, the CPR also requires that climate change adaptation needs and disaster resilience of the funded projects are assessed and the projects are climate-proofed. Mandatory sectoral guidelines were adopted in 2013 for Trans-European Networks for Energy and Transport (TEN-E / TEN-T), with several provisions aiming at climate-proofing. 8 European financing institutions, including the Commission, the EIB and the European Bank for Reconstitution and Development (EBRD), have created a Working Group on Adaptation to Climate Change (EUFIWACC). They published a guide in 2016 designed to help practitioners assess climate change risks and vulnerabilities and better integrate adaptation measures into project planning, design and implementation. The Commission also published or updated several other EU guidance documents for planning infrastructure projects to include consideration of climate risk in the planning phase, including in cost-benefit analysis. Action 7 of the Strategy announces guidance on the mobilisation of ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation of infrastructure. A fact sheet was published in 2016 in the context of the implementation of the Green Infrastructure Strategy, discussing costs and benefits of green infrastructure in relation to adaptation and presenting good practice examples. Further, work on voluntary guidelines for the design and implementation of ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction is ongoing at international level. Action 8 Insurance and finance While significant effort is placed at the national and European level on preventing damage caused by weather and climate related disasters, for example through adaptation strategies, climate proofing of investments, national risk assessments and other disaster and climate risk policies, not all risks can be averted. This residual risk affects all areas of society and can be addressed in different ways, through self-insurance, public aid, voluntary insurance schemes or mandatory insurance required by law. Insurance policies raise awareness of climate risks and may also provide the right incentive to invest into preventive action. Situation in 2013 Disaster risk insurance had a low market penetration rate, which negatively affected not only the insurance sector but also the economic value of the insured and non-insured assets that remained vulnerable. Insurance aimed towards natural and manmade disasters was addressed by the Commission in a Green Paper published alongside the Strategy. The aim of the paper was to raise awareness and to assess whether action at EU level could be appropriate to improve the market for disaster insurance in the EU. Baseline It was assumed that without further policy intervention, the market penetration rate of disaster risk insurance in Member States would remain low. A JRC Technical Report that was published before the launch of the Strategy indicates that for floods only a fifth of the Member States had high insurance penetration rates, and almost half of the Member States had a low to medium insurance penetration rate.

Implementation / State of play There was no associated performance indicator in the 2013 impact assessment against which progress could be measured. From the Strategy itself, it can be inferred that progress was to be achieved by: 1)Encouraging insurers to support climate risk reduction and climate risk management measures; 2)Improving the market penetration of natural disaster insurance; 3)Using insurance pricing and other financial products I)for risk-awareness, prevention and risk mitigation; II)for long-term resilience in investment and business decisions. Insurance The Commission completed a study in 2017 on the insurance of weather and climate related disaster risk. The study has increased the knowledge of insurance as a tool in adaptation and disaster risk reduction, by mapping the national insurance markets in 12 Member States. Observed trends According to this study, currently, risk transfer does not constitute an integral part of adaptation approaches in many Member States, in spite of the fact that the insurance industry’s risk pricing can allow efficient scoping in terms of where risk reduction is required. Member States apply diverse systems of insurance, which represents a challenge to an increased market-penetration of risk transfer mechanisms across Europe. Two studies commissioned by the EU looked into insurance as a risk management tool in agriculture. The studies recommend the integration and further support to risk management instruments in the framework of the agricultural policy, to strengthen capacity to implement, manage and control such instruments, and to better link vulnerability, funding and insurance as a risk management tool. With regard to DRR and adaptation to climate change, the EU Action Plan on the Sendai Framework includes actions on insurance, which foresee, inter alia, to follow up to the Green Paper on the insurance of natural and man-made disasters, published together with the EU Adaptation Strategy. There were some concrete activities in relation to insurance and climate adaptation, notably an expert group was created to consider how to collect better data on losses, as it is easier to convince people to take adaptation actions when shown that this can reduce losses. Other financial products and services Insurance companies are important institutional investors into climate resilient infrastructure. The Capital Markets Union (CMU) aims to enable new forms of funding including for infrastructure, by bridging the information gap between investors and businesses and ensuring the flow of private capital to sustainable projects. Through amendments to delegated acts under the Solvency II Directive in 2015 and 2017, the Commission facilitated the risk-based investments of insurance companies into infrastructure projects. In March 2018, the Commission’s action plan on financing sustainable growth announced EU legislation on a classification system for sustainable economic activities, on the labelling of green financial products, on investors’ and asset managers’ duties on sustainability and transparency on risks, and on insurer’s duties to take into account their clients’ sustainability preferences when advising them. Institutional risk management policies and banks’ capital requirements would also have to consider climate risks. Insurance and financial markets are also addressed in the adaptation preparedness scoreboard described under Action 1 above, where an indicator checks whether “adaptation is mainstreamed in insurance or alternative policy instruments, where relevant, to provide incentives for investments in risk prevention”. More information on the role of insurance and financial services is available in section 10 of Annex VIII.

5.Method The evaluation of the Strategy was based on ten evaluation questions linked to the five criteria defined by the Better Regulation Guidelines. These questions were broken down into sub-questions and developed as operational questions appropriate for stakeholder responses. An evaluation matrix describing this process is included in Appendix 4 of the evaluation support study. In addition, the analysis of the criteria built on the intervention logic represented graphically in Annex V. The external support study collected data and provided an analysis of the evidence from the consultation activities and the literature. Methods for gathering evidence Evidence for the evaluation support study was gathered through a wide combination of data sources: a literature review, a targeted survey and an open public consultation, interviews, workshops and 4 case studies. A summary of methods used for gathering evidence is provided in Appendix 3 of the evaluation support study and a synopsis of the consultation activities can be found in Annex II. The original plan for the consultation activities were described in the stakeholder consultation strategy; the plan was generally followed, except for some changes in the timeline. In drafting this document, the Commission services also relied on internal data collection and on the Member States' adaptation preparedness scoreboard foreseen in the Strategy, including a horizontal assessment of Member States adaptation strategies. Evaluation method A significant amount of information was gathered through the consultation activities. This information was triangulated i.e. cross-checked against other evidence, and analysed to provide for as solid as possible results. These results and subsequent recommendations, contained in the draft external report, were presented to stakeholders in the context of the Open Public Consultation and during the 2nd stakeholder workshop. This "reality-check" provided additional robustness to the final results of the evaluation. The Impact Assessment identified the situation in 2013 before the Strategy was launched. It also identified planned inputs, outputs and activities, expected results and operational objectives. It did not quantify in terms of the performance indicators what the future position would be in the absence of the Strategy, and therefore it did not prepare the ground for a quantitative counterfactual analysis. Furthermore, the impacts of the Strategy are expected to arise as a result of voluntary actions being taken by multiple actors. In this context, the evaluation had to rely as much as possible on measuring the progress in the indicators foreseen in the Impact Assessment. Thus, the method used to address the evaluation questions is a theory-based approach, comparing the current state of play to points of comparison derived from the expected results and operational objectives of the Impact Assessment. There is no possible comparison with what would have been the situation in the absence of the Strategy. It should also be noted that the analysis has used both qualitative and quantitative data to determine the progress of the different indicators and the impact of certain actions considered in the evaluation. Limitations and robustness of the findings The main limitation of the evaluation was the lack of a quantified counter-factual scenario, i.e. what would have happened in the absence of the Strategy. The Impact Assessment included some statements on the expected future situation if the Strategy had not been adopted. However, due to the nature of adaptation policies, and notably the fact that measures are mostly taken at local or regional level, it would not be possible to present a robust quantitative counterfactual scenario that would only reflect the absence of EU action.. Attempts were made to develop an ad hoc counterfactual for the evaluation, but they did not provide a solid comparison tool. This is due to the broad scope of the evaluation (8 diverse and wide-ranging actions), the large amount of factors affecting implementation, the voluntary nature of the commitments under the Strategy and the lack of extensive data sets on policy outcomes. However, the lack of counterfactual did not prevent the evaluation to be robust in its analysis and findings. The evaluation was underpinned by a large number and variety of evidence gathering methods, which provide a solid basis for drawing conclusions. The number of individual views collected on specific issues was sometimes low, because adaptation is a relatively new and marginal topic in many areas, so there are a limited number of experts in the field able to formulate opinions on technical and specialist questions. Still, the quality of the evidence collected during the evaluation support study can be considered mostly as medium to high, with some variance across the different evidence-gathering actions. Moreover, the original objectives of the Strategy focused on setting processes and procedures, while the evolving context and progress in climate adaptation strategies point to the need for effective implementation and quality adaptation strategies resulting in effective impacts on society and economy. The Strategy did not include appropriate performance indicators to measure its effectiveness in terms of societal and economic impacts and no such indicators exist currently at EU scale. This limitation has hampered the measurement of the overall impact of the Strategy’s effects, including on the different stakeholders. The evaluation did not develop ad hoc indicators since they require long-term collection of data. The EEA and also the Commission in the context of the new Multiannual Financial Framework have started some preparatory work on indicators that could be useful input to future monitoring of adaptation action (more information in section 3 of Annex VIII). 6.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 6.1.Relevance 6.1.1.To what extent do the objectives and actions of the Strategy (still) respond to needs within the EU and at international level? Since the adoption of the Strategy, evidence has continued to accrue that climate-related extremes are more frequent and intense in Europe: the total reported economic losses caused by climate-related extremes in Europe during the 1980–2015 period amounted to over €433 billion. Inaction would result in large economic costs, even under conservative climate change scenarios. These and other cost estimates are detailed in Annex XIII.

Projections of impacts of climate change in Europe can vary widely, depending on the level of warming as well as socio-economic conditions that define exposure and vulnerability of our future societies. For example, in the absence of further investments in coastal adaptation, the present expected annual losses of 1.25 billion EUR due to coastal flooding is projected to increase by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude by the end of the century, ranging between 93 and 961 billion EUR depending on the socio-economic pathway. Unfortunately, comparisons across sectors and between estimates before the strategy and today are difficult as parallel studies are currently taking place with different assumptions, scopes and timelines, and some of them are only at its initial stages. Impacts to society from global warming will be largely connected to changes in extreme climate events due to their disproportionate rise compared to the corresponding change in climatological averages. Therefore, the Strategy’s objective to increase the EU’s climate resilience is more important than ever in order to limit the costs of unavoidable and projected climate change. Already the current level of climate change makes it necessary to adapt. While the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal is to keep global warming well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C, this is not matched by current commitments of the Parties (consistent with around 3°C). It is difficult to say what the 'dangerous' level of global warming may be for each region as warming is not uniform globally and impacts can vary strongly between regions. For instance, Europe generally experiences higher warming than the global average, i.e. it will experience more than 2°C of warming even if the 2°C goal is achieved. Warming over all European regions will occur, with slightly weaker warming over North-Western Europe but a more intense warming (up to +3°C) in Northern and Eastern Europe in winter and in Southern Europe in summer. As discussed in Chapter 3, the Strategy’s relevance progressed since 2013 also as a result of new international policy developments that recognise the increased importance of adaptation at EU and global level. For instance, the Paris Agreement includes adaptation in its 'ambition cycle': in 2023 the parties will be asked to report on progress and actions on adaptation and eventually, if relevant, redefine ambition, by reviewing their strategies and policies. The relevance of the strategy is also affected by the consequences on the EU of climate change in third countries through trade, migration, food security, ecosystems etc. Relevance by action Action 1 Member State strategies: Three Member States have not yet adopted adaptation strategies, and the scoreboard analysis shows that those Member States who have adopted one are mostly lagging behind on implementation and monitoring. Stakeholders agree there is a need for continued stimulus to keep the topic high on the agenda and ensure proper implementation of the national strategies. Action 2 LIFE: In the public consultation that supported the LIFE mid-term evaluation, 96% of respondents agreed that there is a need for a specific European programme for the environment and climate action financed at EU level. In its response to the mid-term evaluation, the European Committee of the Regions recommended maintaining and strengthening LIFE’s sub-programme on climate action in the 2nd LIFE Multiannual Work Programme and post-2020. Action 3 Covenant of Mayors: there is a continuing need for adaptation action to be taken at sub-national and local level, also in light of recent evidence that the impacts of climate change are already being felt across cities and urban areas in Europe. As population and infrastructure are concentrated, extreme weather tends to cause more damage in urban areas, which makes cities more vulnerable to climate change impacts. Unless action is taken soon, according to some estimates the economic costs from extreme weather events to EU cities could reach over EUR 190 billion annually by 2070. The stakeholder survey and interviews identified a continuing need for support for knowledge sharing and capacity building (e.g. conferences and workshops, online platforms, guidelines), as well as financial support for adaptation actions. Some stakeholders argue that other forms of support should also be put at work to help local adaptation, such as to assess impacts and vulnerability, or to establish communities of practice. Action 4 Knowledge gaps: As outlined in Chapter 4 and Chapter 6.2 under the effectiveness criterion, progress has been made in addressing the knowledge gaps identified in the Strategy but some key gaps remain, and new gaps have appeared, so the action remains relevant. Action 5 Climate-ADAPT: Web statistics confirm that the number of users of Climate-ADAPT have increased ever since the start of monitoring in March 2013, which is in itself a sign of the platform’s relevance. Several interviewees indicated that Climate-ADAPT is the place where people start looking for information, distinguishing itself from other such platforms by providing a broad overview of the state of play in a comparative and structured way. The Climate-ADAPT draft evaluation report finds that the website succeeds in collecting and sharing relevant information in Europe by involving a wide range of information providers, citing the case studies presented in the platform as particularly relevant tools. Action 6 ESIF / CAP / CFP, including general mainstreaming. There is a strong consensus among stakeholders that there continues to be a need to climate-proof investments supported by EU funds, research and innovation, and key vulnerable sectors such as coastal protection, energy infrastructure, agriculture, forestry, biodiversity, spatial planning, transport and communication, urban development, public health and water. It is also necessary to ensure strengthening synergies and coherence with policies that share similar objectives, like disaster risk reduction/civil protection. There is a constantly renewed need to mainstream adaptation across the policy spectrum, as it is primarily a cross-sectoral matter and as such which needs to be present both in emerging new policies and in the ones that are periodically revised or are cyclical by nature. Action 7 Infrastructure: The EEA’s latest assessment of climate change impacts and vulnerability in Europe highlights the vulnerability of construction and buildings, as well as energy and transport infrastructure to extreme events due to high temperatures, increased precipitation, sea-level rise, floods, wind and storms. This is underpinned by a 2015 JRC study which assessed the climate risks to critical infrastructure (industry, energy, transport, social, environment, tourism, and Information and Communication Technology infrastructure) in the EU, with current sectoral damages of EUR 3.4 billion per year projected to triple by the 2020s, multiply six-fold by mid-century, and rise to EUR 38 billion per year by the 2080s. Southern and south-eastern European countries will suffer the greatest impact. The study shows that benefits (or avoided damage) of climate-proofing critical infrastructure outweigh the costs. This all points to the continued relevance of adapting infrastructure, a conclusion on which there is consensus also among stakeholders. One of the case studies developed on the adaptation of energy infrastructure (see Case Study 4 in Annex XIV) reveals how both public and private stakeholders begin to think long-term and apply effective adaptation measures such as underground cabling. Action 8 Insurance and finance: Most survey respondents considered that the market of insurance and other financial products for resilient investments is still under-developed, while such products are closely related to disaster risk reduction. Of weather and climate related losses in Europe from 2011-16, only 42% were insured. The approach to disaster insurance, which is also a means to involve the private sector in adaptation, is very different in each EU country. Insurance companies have been reluctant to feed damage information into disaster risk models for use in public private cooperation, as gathering this data requires resources and expertise, and the quality and level of detail of these data provide a stronger basis for insurance companies in optimising their business model. A third party could play an enabling role in matching the knowledge that is needed for the design of preventive measures with available loss data. The sector would thus benefit from facilitative action at the EU level. 6.1.2.How relevant is the Strategy for the different stakeholders at local, regional, national and supra-national level? The consequences of climate change will significantly affect a wide range of the population both in number and in type, so preventive action is of general relevance, as it is perceived by stakeholders. However, the Strategy has been addressing particular sectors and levels of governance specifically, for whom there is more direct relevance. The Strategy is relevant for Member States (Action 1), as it has acted as a stimulus to develop NASs and helped to keep adaptation high on the political agenda. The results from the open public consultation show that encouraging Member States to take action is one of the statements for which the strongest support exists among the respondents. The strategy is relevant also for capacity building and stepping up adaptation action at the regional and local levels (Action 2 and 3), Action 3 being mainly devoted to the local level, while encouraging support from the regional and national levels. As governments at regional and local levels often have fewer opportunities for funding research, it is quite relevant to generate and disseminate knowledge to them, for example through Climate-ADAPT (Action 5). Knowledge at the supra-national level, among others on river basins and mountain ranges, can help to enhance cross-border cooperation. But research projects (Action 4) and Climate-ADAPT, as they create and disseminate knowledge, are relevant for all stakeholder groups. In particular, the Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) on Climate Change, supported by H2020, continues to make use of the Strategy as one of the main drivers in its efforts to help coordinate efforts in adaptation research amongst the Member States, and beyond, through its international collaboration, coordination and support actions (e.g. SINCERE). Climate-proofing of EU policies (Action 6) is highly relevant for the development of adaptation capacity of different sectors in the EU, such as water, agriculture and forestry sectors. Without a consistent and centralised effort across different stakeholders and levels, these sectors would experience a varying degree of readiness for the challenges of a changing climate. The Strategy was also assessed as relevant for the private sector and businesses notably by ensuring more resilient infrastructure and promoting insurance and financial products despite disagreement from some respondents to the open public consultation (Action 7 and 8). In principle, insurance and financial products have good potential to involve the private sector in adaptation, as companies can weigh the costs of insurance against the costs of taking adaptive measures themselves.

6.2.Effectiveness 6.2.1.To what extent have the objectives been achieved during the period 2013-2018? This subsection examines to what extent the objectives have been achieved within the meaning of the performance indicators established in the 2013 impact assessment. It is based on the facts and observations of Chapter 4 Baseline. While the indicators are process-oriented, in further subsections a limited analysis of the effectiveness of the actions of the Strategy in terms of results is also provided (for more information on this limitation, please refer to Chapter 5). Looking at the period 2013 to March 2018, none of the three specific objectives can be considered as fully fulfilled, although substantial progress has been made in each. With the exception of Objective 1a, all operational objectives relate to impacts to be achieved by 2020. See Annex VI for a full description of the objectives. Specific Objective 1 “Promoting action by Member States” §Operational Objective 1a was largely fulfilled by 2017 and is on track to be achieved in 2018 with regard to all Member States having adopted NASs. Ten Member States have adopted NASs since 2013, bringing the total to 25 out of the 28 Member States. Strategies are being developed in the remaining three Member States but have not yet been adopted. Information on regional and local strategies is less readily available and requires judgement of where they are “appropriate”, hence, the evaluation is inconclusive about their achievement. Objective 1a does not include targets associated with the performance indicators for number and amount of LIFE grants, so the achievement of the operational objective with respect to this indicator cannot be determined. However, as described in Chapter 4, there are numerous ongoing adaptation-related LIFE projects which all involve experience transfer and can be classified as ‘lighthouse’ projects. §Operational Objective 1b includes a target that, by 2020, all cities of more than 150 000 inhabitants have adopted an adaptation strategy. The figures presented in Chapter 4 show that there has been substantial but insufficient progress, with around one fourth of all EU cities (of all sizes) having adopted an adaptation strategy to date, suggesting the target may not be fully met by 2020. As regards cities of more than 150 000 inhabitants in particular, 40% are estimated to have adopted an adaptation strategy. Specific Objective 2 “Promoting better informed decision-making” §Operational Objective 2a seeks closure of all priority knowledge gaps identified in 2013. Although the knowledge base has increased substantially, none of the four priority knowledge gaps identified in the Strategy have been closed, strictly speaking. Knowledge increases and evolves but gaps may always exist. Furthermore, new knowledge gaps are emerging. Objective 2a does not include targets associated with the performance measures for number and value of adaptation-related H2020 and JRC projects, so the achievement of the operational objective with respect to this indicator is indeterminable. However, as described in Chapter 4, numerous adaptation-related research projects have been launched since 2013. §Operational Objective 2b has been achieved in advance of the target date of 2020, as Climate-ADAPT has made information on climate change adaptation more easily accessible for decision-makers, including Member States, local authorities and firms. Targets were not set for associated performance measures for Climate-ADAPT in relation to numbers of visitors, pages most visited and number of registered users, but in Chapter 4 evidence of substantial progress was presented from these respects. The performance measure assessing Climate-ADAPT’s content, databases and metadata will be fulfilled by EEA’s evaluation of Climate-ADAPT, which will be published in 2018. Specific Objective 3 “Promoting adaptation in key vulnerable sectors” §Operational Objective 3a establishes a target that by 2020, adaptation considerations have been mainstreamed in a consistent and comprehensive way in key EU policies. Significant progress has been made but there is still some way to go before mainstreaming of adaptation in key EU policies can be described as “consistent and comprehensive”. Objective 3a includes a performance measure that there should be a list of policies and legal acts where adaptation has been mainstreamed, which has been fulfilled by work undertaken for this evaluation (see Annex XI). Objective 3a includes a performance measure, without target, for the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) surveys, so the achievement of the operational objective with respect to this indicator is indeterminable. Besides, private organisations do not provide sufficiently detailed information in the surveys on climate adaptation action. §Operational Objective 3b, on climate-proofing new major infrastructure investments by 2020, has been achieved: in the 2014-2020 programming period, approval of major projects funded by the ESIF is subject to “an analysis of the environmental impact, considering climate change adaptation and mitigation needs, and disaster resilience”. Objective 3b includes a performance measure regarding the amount of adaptation infrastructure investments (co-) financed by EU funds and/or public financial institutions, which does not have a target, so the achievement of the operational objective with respect to this indicator cannot be determined. Evidence was presented in Chapter 4 that the key expenditure programmes likely to fund infrastructure are the ERDF and the CF. Expenditure on climate adaptation from total climate action finance reported by the EIB in 2017 suggests that financing for adaptation has not increased since 2015, an amount slightly inferior to two years before (EUR 20.7 and EUR 0.8 billion, respectively). §Objective 3b has an associated performance measure for progress on the mapping exercise by ESOs. As evidenced in Chapter 4, good progress has been achieved through the publication of a standardisers’ guide to adaptation and through the shortlisting of standards to include adaptation provisions.

As indicated in Chapter 4, there is no associated operational target or performance indicator for Action 8 on insurance and finance. The progress towards the Commission’s aim specified in the Strategy will be assessed qualitatively in the next section. 6.2.2.To what extent has each of the eight actions of the Strategy contributed to these achievements? While each of the eight actions of the Strategy has had its specific and distinguishable impact on adaptation preparedness in the EU, it should not be underestimated that the existence of a strategy at EU level also exercised a general, intangible political drive in the relevant policy fields and at all levels of governance across the EU. The effect cannot be quantified, but stakeholder feedback confirmed its existence during the consultation. Action 1 Member State strategies It is difficult to establish with certainty the extent to which the Strategy has been effective in encouraging development and adoption of new NASs, as most Member States were already developing them at the time of the Impact Assessment. Other factors may have also been important, such as the Paris Agreement (discussed in Section 6.2.3 on drivers) and ex-ante conditionalities under the EU funds (in Section 6.4.1 on coherence). Nevertheless, it might be inferred that the actions under the Strategy have been effective in encouraging Member States to adopt NASs and plans, given that 25 Member States have now adopted them and the remainder are developing them. This conclusion was supported by the majority of the interviewed stakeholders, including government experts from eight Member States who argued that the Strategy played a role in ensuring increased political interest from the Member States to adopt NASs and plans, where they were not already in place, and to revise existing strategies and plans. Some stakeholders noted an increase in quality of the plans since the publication of the guidelines accompanying the Strategy. However, there appear to be significant gaps in the effectiveness of Member States implementation of their strategies, with resources for the follow-through of commitments in some cases being reduced or withdrawn, or in other cases not identified. The review of Member States NASs and plans (both adopted and in the making) in relation to the Commission’s ‘adaptation preparedness scoreboard’ suggests that: ·Most Member States have progressed on: oCoordination (23 have horizontal coordination mechanisms involving different sectors) oStakeholder involvement (26 Member States) and oTransboundary cooperation (27 Member States). ·Half or more of Member States already have access to suitable data (14), have developed scenarios (23), and undertaken risk assessments (22), and most other Member States are making progress in these respects. ·Less than half of the Member States have built up capacity to address adaptation (14 Member States) or funding for climate resilience (9 Member States), other Member States, with few exceptions, are progressing on these issues. ·Less than half of Member States have addressed climate change in relation to many aspects of implementation and review, including consideration of climate change in disaster risk plans (9), land use planning (15), major projects (13), and national (11), sectoral (14) and sub-national (9) monitoring and reporting. As regards monitoring and reporting, only five Member States have started to develop and use a comprehensive set of process or outcome based indicators to monitor implementation of adaptation strategies and plans. A more complete overview of the adaptation scoreboard’s indicator assessments is included in Annex IX. Stakeholders generally feel that the Strategy has been more effective in encouraging preparatory activities, i.e. preparing the ground, assessing risks, identifying options, and less effective in promoting assessment of options, implementation and monitoring and evaluation. Stakeholder views on the assistance provided by the Commission were mixed, with strong agreement that the Commission had provided an online platform on adaptation, methodologies (e.g. guidelines) and technical information (e.g. research), but less agreement about support to capacity building. Views were also mixed on the question whether the developed adaptation strategies responded to the expected impacts and needs, although there was a high level of agreement that the strategies have been effective in enhancing the preparedness and response capacity of Member States. Interviewees from national authorities suggested that whether Member States have actually used the Commission’s guidelines for strategies depended largely on whether the Member States in question had pre-existing adaptation strategies and governance mechanisms. Stakeholders emphasised the role of adaptation strategies in raising awareness, supporting inter-ministerial and inter-sectoral exchange, collaboration and action, and the importance of having vulnerability assessments in place. Integration of climate change adaptation in national risk assessment and cooperation between DRR and climate change adaptation communities have not yet occurred in most of the Member States. The scoreboard suggests that NASs were in general not effective in identifying and addressing macro-regional and cross-border risks; although to some extent European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) programmes under the ESIF were able to address this shortfall.

Research suggests that the existence of national plans facilitates the adoption of plans at the local level by acting as guidance documents, although this effect is by no means always evident, as in 2018 74% of cities across Europe still had no adaptation plan. Action 2: LIFE funding The LIFE Programme and its sub-programme in Climate Action have contributed to the objectives of the Strategy. Stakeholder feedback suggests that LIFE is acting as an effective catalyst, providing and disseminating solutions and best practices. The LIFE Mid-Term Evaluation suggests this is also evident in nature projects, in addition to climate change adaptation projects. Nevertheless, in spite of the potentially large impact of the ongoing projects through replication and transfer, the LIFE funding does not match the scale of the climate change challenge according to stakeholders. This view has been supported by the Committee Of Regions (CoR), which has recommended the continuity of the programme for the period post 2020 and a significant increase in the funds for the mitigation and adaptation projects. The priorities of the ongoing LIFE climate change adaptation projects relate to the Strategy and are focused on vulnerable areas and sectors. According to the LIFE mid-term evaluation, the two integrated projects in Denmark and Spain (see Chapter 4) can potentially aid adoption and implementation of NASs and complementary regional or local strategies (objective 1). Since 2014, all LIFE projects include measures for dissemination of information and are required to demonstrate potential for transferability in line with the performance indicator identified by the LIFE Impact Assessment. Stakeholders agreed that the programme contributes to knowledge transfer and sharing of best practices (objective 2). However, monitoring focuses on projects individually and is thus ineffective in assessing the programme’s role in knowledge transfer and capacity-building across the EU. The LIFE mid-term evaluation indicated that further action is needed on the facilitation of replication and the promotion of performance indicators that would allow measurement beyond outputs in order to improve the effectiveness of the action. This is addressed in the Commission’s proposal for the new LIFE regulation under the next multiannual financial framework (2021-2027). Action 3: Covenant of Mayors Even though other drivers may also have been encouraging cities to adopt adaptation strategies or plans (see section 6.2.3), the importance of cities’ membership of the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (Covenant) appears to have been the strongest positive influence, especially in countries where autonomous local climate plans are rare and cities are not required by national legislation to adopt such plans. According to an evaluation of the Mayors Adapt initiative carried out in 2014, through consultation of several local authorities' representatives, the Covenant has been successful in securing local political commitment for adaptation beyond political election cycles. The Covenant has also improved peer-to-peer information exchange, access to information about funding for adaptation and technical assistance, for example through the Urban Adaptation Support Tool, on issues such as methods for vulnerability and risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis of adaptation measures. The Covenant's common methods for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of local adaptation plans have been effective in building the technical capacity of local authorities. While it is the cities that commit to act, the Covenant is also working on providing greater support to regional, provincial and sub-national authorities that can in turn help cities perform better. Recently, an opinion of the CoR and a resolution of the European Parliament have both expressed their support for the Covenant. The Covenant has enabled to push ahead with establishing a Global Covenant of Mayors, as described in section 2 of Annex VIII. Action 4: Knowledge gap There was strong agreement among targeted stakeholder survey respondents to the statement that “in general, the Strategy has helped to reduce knowledge gaps on adaptation in the EU". Respondents also identified sources of knowledge supported by the EU (e.g. Climate-ADAPT, LIFE adaptation projects, EEA reports, Copernicus, Coordinated Downscaling Experiment and JRC’s PESETA). Interviewees noted there will always be knowledge gaps. The conclusions of JRC’s PESETA III, which will be published by the end of 2018, will help further reduce some gaps. Some of them are already available, and are included in Annex XIII. In particular, work is still needed on the benefits of adaptation and also co-benefits in other areas, not only losses avoided. The JPI Climate, an EU-wide consortium involving 20 Member States benefiting from a H2020 grant, has mapped research gaps in relation to climate services. One key FP7 project for adaptation, High-End Climate Impacts and Extremes, has worked on a set of global and regional views of different worlds at 1.5, 2, 4 and 6°C not only for Europe, but also for Northern Sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia. The most vulnerable European regions (e.g. Outermost Regions, Mediterranean regions, mountains) warrant enhanced approaches. Fundamental gaps also persist in the identification of the expected impacts and vulnerability of sectors, for example the application of climate projections in disaster risk assessments. Regarding the knowledge gap on frameworks, models and tools to support decision-making, much work has been done in 39 studies, of which many have become available on the Climate-ADAPT website. H2020, under its Societal Challenge 5, has funded several projects and studies on "climate change services" to address these issues. Less work has been done to close knowledge gaps associated with monitoring of adaptation: only eight EU studies have been identified and monitoring of adaptation actions still seems to be in its infancy. Respondents also mentioned what has been useful for the uptake by policy makers of research results: the development of state-of-the-art reports on available knowledge, science-policy forums, workshops, events and web pages. However, there is normally a delay between research undertaken and its use by policy-makers to inform decision-making. Action 5: Climate-ADAPT The intended target audience of Climate-ADAPT are governmental organisations, and those who support them in the development and/or implementation of climate change adaptation strategies and actions such as research institutes. The EEA's separate evaluation of Climate-ADAPT has shown that the majority of the actual users are indeed from these intended target groups. The evaluation also showed that the platform is used across all governance levels in Europe from city/local level to sub-national, national, transnational to the European level. However, some specific user groups are not yet sufficiently reached, i.e. experts at EU level and across Europe who are faced with adaptation challenges in vulnerable sectors, users from Eastern and Central European countries, as well as users less experienced on adaptation.

The EEA concludes that Climate-ADAPT has been an effective source of knowledge (including the knowledge generated through FP7, H2020, LIFE and Interreg) for feeding into a variety of policy processes. It has primarily been used to inform development of supporting documents (including case studies and impact and vulnerability assessments) but also, more directly, the development of adaptation plans and strategies, as well as decision making at all stages of the adaptation policy cycle. It is used to identify the “state of the art” of adaptation in Europe, to develop tailor-made products for various policy processes, and as a starting point to extend searches. Hence, it has become a “first-stop shop” for adaptation information in Europe. A challenge for the future effectiveness of the platform is to identify its links and complementarities with other knowledge platforms at EU-level, particularly in relation to climate services, disaster risk management, biodiversity and green infrastructure. The dissemination and networking activities in relation to the platform brought about a steady increase in visitors since its creation. Finally, the EEA’s evaluation identified five core content elements (EU policy; country strategies and actions; adaptation support tools; database; case studies and adaptation options) of Climate-ADAPT that should remain a focus for future developments of the platform. The Open Public Consultation of the Strategy’s evaluation confirmed that Climate-ADAPT has been an important and useful information source in climate change adaptation work. Action 6: ESIF/CAP/CFP The review of literature and the consultation activities indicate that the Commission’s technical guidance on how to further integrate adaptation into the CAP, Cohesion Policy and the CFP has led to progress but has not yet proved effective in promoting comprehensive and consistent mainstreaming. Indeed, the legal provisions came in late 2013 and various guidance documents were prepared and published in April 2013 in parallel with Member States preparation of their Operational Programmes and Rural Development Programmes (RDPs). Because of this parallel timing the guidance documents could not be exploited to their full potential to influence the development of the Member State Operational Programmes and RDPs. Alongside the Public consultation, two recent studies on the mainstreaming of EU funds state that adaptation differs across EU funds: ·Adaptation seems to have been mainstreamed to a much larger scale than mitigation in the CAP (i.e. agriculture and forestry) despite the fact that very few measures supported by the EAFRD have an explicit adaptation objective. This is to a large extent due to the tracking methodology at priority (and related focus area) level, hence including measures such as natural resource conservation/management not directly targeted at adaptation but with adaptation co-benefits. Targeted stakeholders considered that a more robust methodology and mechanisms to monitor the extent to which the CAP and its funding are supporting climate action objectives is needed. ·Under the ERDF and CF, a substantial amount of funding was directed at adaptation-related investments. Furthermore, major projects were only approved by the Commission if they were climate-resilient. Yet, the stakeholder consultation suggested that further work on adaptation mainstreaming is needed in order to minimize negative impacts of infrastructural projects on rivers, streams and coastal areas, by prohibiting the reduction of storage capacity of flood plains and avoiding new risks in case of flooding. ·Compared to ERDF and CF, the focus on adaptation seems to be minor in the EMFF and ESF, which will be discussed in section 6.2.3. Recent mainstreaming successes in EU funds include the increase of the climate earmarking in the Commission’s proposals for the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-27 (increased from 20% to 25%), with more specific objectives per fund, e.g. 30% for ERDF and 37% for CF. The Commission also proposed to make adaptation spending more traceable in that framework (e.g. in the proposal for a Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plans Regulation, see discussion in section 8 of Annex VIII). As discussed in Chapter 4 and Annex XI, the Commission has actively worked towards mainstreaming of adaptation into the policy initiatives listed in the Strategy and also beyond, with tangible results. There are still some areas where there is scope for mainstreaming, for instance: ·Human, Plant and animal health. ·Ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation. ·As regards DRR: oThe development of a shared science/knowledge base and of a common vocabulary, for example to support the integration of climate change scenarios in risk management plans and risk assessments. oThe communication between DRR and climate change adaptation communities. oThe integration with 'build back better' policies and actions. ·Outermost Regions

·International policies (trade, security) Action 7: Infrastructure The work of the ESOs on revised and new standards is still ongoing and has not had the chance yet to contribute to the achievement of the infrastructure resilience objective. It is also too early to assess the impact of CEN-CENELEC’s guide for addressing climate change adaptation in standards adopted in April 2016. Initial feedback has been positive with several hundred views and downloads of the guide after its publication, supported by webinars and workshops in several countries. The guide was offered to the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and the International Electro-technical Commission for their possible adoption. ISO has since used several of the CEN-CENELEC guide’s approaches in drafting a new ISO guide on climate mitigation and adaptation. The Commission’s guidance documents on ensuring more resilient infrastructure that were published alongside the Strategy have been used for, among others, designing climate resilient infrastructure investments, providing advice on guidelines to developers of projects, and integrating climate in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and EIA. Some sectors are well engaged, such as the water sector and the transport sector. Others, such as the waste sector or broadband sector, are less advanced. Still, the fact that of the 21 respondents in the targeted stakeholder survey only 8 knew about the Commission’s guidance document for project managers and 2 have actually used them suggests that there is room for improvement in the awareness and actual use of these guidance documents. User feedback on the quality of the guidance was mixed: a private consultancy found them useful, while an expert providing technical assistance to project developers in the context of JASPERS considered the language was a bit too technical. The climate proofing of major projects has demonstrated that it is quite possible for infrastructure investments to include a climate vulnerability and risk assessment, and to identify, appraise and integrate relevant adaptation solutions. The approach included technical assistance (JASPERS) to the Member States combined with guidance and training from the Commission and the EIB. Additionally, there are examples from the Member States where the same approach – based on a climate vulnerability and risk assessment – has been applied at network level to address climate hotspots (e.g. main roads network). The guide from the EUFIWACC was published in 2016 and has already triggered the development of climate resilient metrics and other methodologies that facilitate the integration of adaptation in investment decision-making, mainly by Multilateral Development Banks. Evidence presented in Chapter 4 shows that the level of financing for adaptation infrastructure by public fi