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
Date: 2018-11-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Climate Action, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU strategy, adaptation to climate change, climate change, common agricultural policy, common fisheries policy, environmental cooperation, investment, migration policy, natural disaster

EN 

  EN 

   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}  
 
 
EN 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5 

Purpose and scope ....................................................................................................... 5 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 5 

Description of the intervention and its objectives ....................................................... 5 

Need for action .................................................................................................. 5 

Intervention logic ............................................................................................... 6 

3. 

THE  STRATEGY,  EXTERNAL  POLICIES  AND  THE  INTERNATIONAL  CONTEXT 
FOR ADAPTATION ............................................................................................................................ 8 

Integration of adaptation in external policies .............................................................. 8 

Development cooperation .................................................................................. 9 

Foreign and security policy (including migration) ............................................ 9 

Disaster risk reduction, including emergency response .................................. 10 

The international context and the EU adaptation strategy......................................... 11 

4. 

BASELINE / IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY .................................................................. 12 

Objective 1: Promoting action by Member States ..................................................... 12 

Action 1 Member State strategies .................................................................... 12 

Action 2 LIFE .................................................................................................. 14 

Action 3 Covenant of Mayors ......................................................................... 16 

Objective 2: Better informed decision-making ......................................................... 17 

Action 4 Knowledge gaps ............................................................................... 17 

Action 5 Climate-ADAPT ............................................................................... 18 

Objective 3: Promoting adaptation in key vulnerable sectors ................................... 19 

Action 6 ESIF / CAP / CFP, including general mainstreaming ...................... 19 

Action 7 Infrastructure .................................................................................... 22 

Action 8 Insurance and finance ....................................................................... 24 

5.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 27 

Methods for gathering evidence ...................................................................... 27 

Evaluation method ........................................................................................... 28 

Limitations and robustness of the findings ...................................................... 28 

6.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 29 

6.1.  Relevance ........................................................................................................ 29 

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? .................................................................................................. 29 

 
 
6.1.2.  How relevant is the Strategy for the different stakeholders at 

local, regional, national and supra-national level? ............................ 32 

6.2.  Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 33 

6.2.1.  To what extent have the objectives been achieved during the 

period 2013-2018? ............................................................................. 33 

6.2.2.  To  what  extent  has  each  of  the  eight  actions  of  the  Strategy 

contributed to these achievements? ................................................... 35 

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? ......................... 43 

6.2.4.  What  effects  has  the  Strategy  produced  so  far  for  different 
stakeholders,  e.g.  according  to  socio-economic  background 
and vulnerability? .............................................................................. 52 

6.3.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 53 

6.3.1.  How  adequate  were 

the  overall 
implementation  of  the  EU  Adaptation  Strategy  and  how 
proportionate were those resources across its eight actions? ............ 53 

resources 

the 

for 

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? ....................................................................................... 54 

6.4.  Coherence ........................................................................................................ 56 

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? .......... 56 

6.5.  EU added value ................................................................................................ 58 

6.5.1.  What  is  the  added  value  of  addressing  climate  adaptation  at 
the  vertical  and  horizontal 

EU 
cooperation at national level? ............................................................ 58 

in  addition 

level, 

to 

7. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 61 

ANNEX I  PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................... 64 

ANNEX II 

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION.................................................................... 73 

1. 

2. 

Objectives of the consultation ......................................................................... 73 

Consultation activities and methodology ........................................................ 73 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

Activities ............................................................................................ 73 

Stakeholder groups participating ....................................................... 74 

Methodology ...................................................................................... 76 

3. 

Results ............................................................................................................. 77 

3.1.  Targeted Stakeholder Survey ........................................................................... 77 

2 

 
3.2.  Stakeholder interviews ..................................................................................... 78 

3.3.  Open Public Consultation ............................................................................... 79 

3.4.  Stakeholder Workshops ................................................................................... 81 

4. 

5. 

Identified campaigns and ad-hoc contributions ............................................... 81 

Feedback from the roadmap ............................................................................ 81 

ANNEX III 

ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................... 82 

ANNEX IV 

IN 2013 

LIST OF SWDS SUPPORTING THE STRATEGY COMMUNICATION 
88 

ANNEX V 

INTERVENTION  LOGIC  OF  THE  EU’S  ADAPTATION  STRATEGY 

(RECONSTRUCTED) ........................................................................................................................ 89 

ANNEX VI 

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES  AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 

IN THE 2013 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................ 91 

ANNEX VII 

INPUTS,  ACTIVITIES  AND  OUTPUTS  RELATED  TO  THE  8 

ACTIONS OF THE STRATEGY ....................................................................................................... 93 

ANNEX VIII 

COMPLEMENTARY 

INFORMATION  ON  THE 

INITIATIVES 

UNDER THE STRATEGY ................................................................................................................ 97 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

LIFE ................................................................................................... 97 

Covenant of Mayors .......................................................................... 98 

Monitoring  and  evaluation  on  adaptation  action  at  EU  and 
Member State level .......................................................................... 102 

Bridging the knowledge gaps .......................................................... 104 

Climate-ADAPT .............................................................................. 109 

Key policy initiatives where adaptation was mainstreamed ............ 110 

Carbon  Disclosure  Project  survey  results  on  companies  and 
climate risks ..................................................................................... 114 

EU funds for climate resilience ....................................................... 115 

Adaptation-related  work  in  the  European  Standardisation 
Organisations ................................................................................... 119 

Insurance and financial services ...................................................... 120 

Summary of costs related to the Strategy ........................................ 123 

Coherence with other EU policies ................................................... 125 

Coherence with international policies ............................................. 126 

ANNEX IX 

HORIZONTAL 

ASSESSMENT 

OF 

THE 

ADAPTATION 

PREPAREDNESS COUNTRY FICHES .......................................................................................... 128 

ANNEX X 

EU  ADAPTATION  PREPAREDNESS  SCOREBOARD  INDICATOR 

LIST AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 155 

ANNEX XI 

LIST  OF  EU  POLICY  INITIATIVES  WHERE  ADAPTATION  IS 

MAINSTREAMED........................................................................................................................... 171 

3 

 
Table  XI-1.  Initiatives  where  climate  adaptation  is  mainstreamed  into  EU 

policy (in force), including updates ............................................................... 171 

Table XI-2. COM legislative proposals currently with European Parliament 

and Council .................................................................................................... 201 

ANNEX XII 

ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE GATHERED 

IN THE EVALUATION SUPPORT STUDY .................................................................................. 204 

ANNEX XIII 

ECONOMIC COSTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ................................................. 206 

ANNEX XIV 

CASE STUDIES ................................................................................................... 210 

Case Study 1 

Case Study 2 

Fire preparedness and the impact of climate change ....... 211 

Spillover  effects  from  climate  change  impacts 

occurring outside the EU ............................................................................... 214 

Case Study 3 

The  Danube  macro-regional  strategy  and 

its 

contribution to action at Member State level ................................................ 217 

Case Study 4 

Adaptation of infrastructure in the energy sector ............ 221 

4 

 
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).1  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 Guidelines2, the following 
evaluation criteria are used: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added 
value. 

It  covers  the  period  2013  to  mid-20183  and  all  EU  Member  States.  The  document  is 
largely  based  on  an  external  evaluation  carried  out  by  consultants4,  complemented  by 
internal  assessments,  recent  evaluations  (e.g.  of  the  LIFE5  and  Covenant  of  Mayors6 
programmes  and  of  the  Climate-ADAPT  platform7),  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 

1 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  An  EU  Strategy  on  adaptation  to  climate 
change,  COM(2013)  216  final.  The  Strategy  Communication  was  accompanied  by  a  series  of  thematic 
SWDs, listed in Annex IV. 

2 Commission Staff Working Document: Better Regulation Guidelines, SWD(2017) 350 final. 
3 The evaluation roadmap defined the period to be evaluated as 2013 to December 2016. Considering the 
large amount of recent and highly relevant evidence that became available after December 2016, in this 
document the evaluated period is extended to mid-2018. 

4 Ricardo, IEEP, Trinomics, and Alterra. Study to support the  evaluation of the EU Adaptation Strategy, 

Ricardo/ED62885 Final Report, Study for the European Commission, 2018. 

5 LIFE (L'Instrument Financier pour l'Environnement) evaluation: 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/evaluation/index.htm 

6  Covenant  of  Mayors  in  figures:  8-year  assessment,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 

Luxembourg, 2017. 

7 ‘Sharing adaptation across Europe’, EEA Report No 3/2018, European Environment Agency, 2018  

 
 
 
                                                 
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  Europe8.  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.9 There  are also  slower on-
setting  impacts  like  coastal  erosion  caused  by  sea  level  rise,  or  drought  caused  by 
changes  to  precipitation  patterns.10  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).11 

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.12 Recent studies 
confirm that the frequency and economic costs of extreme events are continuing to rise 
for specific sectors.13  

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. 

8 'Global and European Temperature', European Environment Agency, 2018. 
9 'Extreme weather events in Europe - Preparing for climate change adaptation: an update on EASAC’s 

2013 study', European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, 2018. 

10 Adverse effects of climate change include extreme weather events (heavy precipitation, strong wind, or 
heatwaves), forest fires, floods, water scarcity, sea-level-rise, biodiversity change and premature deaths 
due to heatwaves and increases in vector-borne diseases (e.g. from ticks and mosquitos) and food and 
water-borne diseases (e.g. from bacteria, viruses, parasites). 

11  Examples  of  adaptation  measures  and  tools  include:  using  scarce  water  resources  more  efficiently; 
adapting  building  codes  to  future  climate  conditions  and  extreme  weather  events;  building  flood 
defences and introducing natural water retention measures; developing drought-tolerant crops; choosing 
tree species and forestry practices less vulnerable to storms and fires; setting aside land corridors to help 
species migrate, carrying out vulnerability assessment or using insurance policy. 

12  'Climate  change,  impacts  and  vulnerability  in  Europe  2012,  EEA  Report  No  12/2012',  European 

Environment Agency, 2012.  

13 E.g. European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, ibid. More information in Annex XIII. 

6 

 
                                                 
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.14 

Table 2-1 Objectives, actions and performance indicators 

Objectives  

Actions (including abbreviated title)  Performance indicators 

1.  Promoting  action  by 
Member States  

1.  Encourage  all  Member  States 

to  adopt 
comprehensive  adaptation  strategies  (Member 
State strategies) 

1.  Number  of  national  adaptation  strategies  (NASs) 
and  action  plans  and  national  climate  change  risk 
assessments 

(Increasing  the  resilience 
of the EU territory)

15

2.  Provide  LIFE  funding 

to  support  capacity 
building and step up adaptation action in Europe 
(LIFE) 
Introduce adaptation in the Covenant of Mayors 
framework (Covenant of Mayors) 

3. 

2. 
Better 
decision-making  

informed 

4.  Bridge the knowledge gap (Knowledge gap) 

5.  Further  develop  Climate-ADAPT  as  the  ‘one-
stop shop’ for adaptation information in Europe 
(Climate-ADAPT) 

3.  Climate-proofing  EU 
promoting 
action: 
adaptation 
key 
in 
vulnerable sectors  

6.  Facilitate  the  climate-proofing  of  the  Common 
,  and 

Agricultural Policy, the Cohesion Policy
the Common Fisheries Policy (ESIF/CAP/CFP) 

16

(Increasing  the  resilience 
of key vulnerable sectors) 

7.  Ensuring  more 
(Infrastructure) 

resilient 

infrastructure 

8.  Promote  insurance  and  other  financial  products 
for resilient investment and business decisions17 
(Insurance and finance) 

2.  Number  and  amount  of  LIFE  grants  used  for 
lighthouse  projects 

transfer 

and 

experience 
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 

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 
events 
conferences,  workshops, 
registered in Climate-ADAPT 

adaptation 

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 

18

assessment. 

14 Commission Staff Working Document: Impact Assessment accompanying the Communication on an EU 

Strategy on adaptation to climate change, SWD(2013) 132 final. 

15 The Communication labelled the specific objectives slightly differently than the Impact Assessment, but 
their substance is the same. The equivalent label from the Impact Assessment is shown in brackets in the 
table to ease comparison. 

16 “European Structural and Investment Funds” (ESIF) is the name of the funds financing Cohesion Policy 

in the 2014-2020 period. 

17 Promoting insurance for adaptation was included as an action in the Strategy, but there was no associated 

operational objective, or performance indicator, in the Impact Assessment.  

18 Before the adoption of the Strategy, the European Standardisation Organisations had already expressed 
their  intention  to  revise  the  Guide  for  addressing  environmental  issues  in  product  standards  (CEN  – 
Comité  Européen  de  Normalisation  -  Guide  4).  However,  it  was  action  7  of  the  Strategy,  namely  the 
mandate from the Commission to the ESOs that initiated the identification and update of standards in the 
fields of energy, transport and construction. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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.19 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  change20  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.21 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.   

19 The operational objectives from the impact assessment are listed in Annex VI. 
20  The  Paris  Agreement  was  adopted  by  the  Parties  to  the  United  Nations  Framework  Convention  on 
Climate  Change  (UNFCCC)  on  12  December  2015  (ref.  Document  FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1)  and 
entered into force on 4 November 2016. 

21 International content (on links between climate and migration) featured only in an accompanying SWD. 
It  was  a  response  to  a  request  by  the  European  Council  to  the  Commission  in  the  context  of  the 
Stockholm Programme on citizenship, justice, security, asylum, immigration and visa policy for 2010-
2014. 

8 

 
                                                 
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'22,  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.23 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.24 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  201325,  201626  and 

22  The  new  European  consensus  on  development  'Our  world,  our  dignity,  our  future',  European 

Commission, 2017. 

23 Joint Staff Working Document: EU Conflict Early Warning System: Objectives, Process and Guidance 

for Implementation, SWD(2016) 3 final. 

https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/constituted-bodies/executive-committee-of-the-warsaw-international-

24 

mechanism-for-loss-and-damage-wim-excom/areas-of-work/migration--displacement-and-human-
mobility 

25 Council conclusions on EU Climate Diplomacy, Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Luxembourg, 24 June 

2013 

9 

 
                                                 
201827 and the 2016 Communication on Forced Displacement and Development28. 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 
lines29  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  2015-203030  was  developed  with  a  strong  focus  on  risk  prevention.  To 
translate  this  framework  into  EU  action,  in  July  2016  the  Commission  published  an 
Action  Plan31  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 Agenda32, 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 

26  Council  conclusions  on  European  climate  diplomacy  after  COP21,  Foreign  Affairs  Council  Meeting, 

Brussels, 15 February 2016 

27 Council conclusions on Climate Diplomacy, 26 February 2018  
28  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Lives in Dignity: From Aid-dependence to 
Self-reliance, COM(2016) 234 final 

29  Commision  Implementing  Decision  adopting  a  Multiannual  Indicative  Programme  for  the  Thematic 

Programme 'Global Public Goods and Challenges' for the period 2014-2020. C(2014)5072  

30  The  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  2015-2030  was  adopted  at  the  Third  UN  World 

Conference in Sendai, Japan, on March 18, 2015. 

31  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Action  Plan  on  the  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk 
      Reduction 2015-2030, SWD(2016) 205 final/2. 
33  JOIN(2016) 21 

10 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
Communication on an integrated EU policy for the Arctic recognised the relevance of 
the region for climate action.33   

-  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 targets34, and Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development 
Goals35, 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.36   

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. 

33  JOIN(2016) 21 
34  The  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  (CBD)  was  adopted  in  Rio  de  Janeiro  on  5  June  1992  and 

entered into force on 29 December 1993: https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/. 

35  The  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development  and  the  UN  Sustainable  Development  Goals  were 
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly through resolution 70/1: (ref. Document A/RES/70/1, 
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld) 

36 For instance, the 2017 EU Submission to the UNFCCC on adaptation (see footnote  Error! Bookmark 
not  defined.)  presents  how  the  Strategy  has  promoted  the  use  of  ecosystem  based  adaptation  in 
Europe,  which  can  provide  relevant  information  and  examples  to  third  countries  with  similar 
challenges or ecosystems, in particular the most vulnerable. 

11 

 
 
                                                 
-  Climate change worldwide will have consequences on the EU in the area of trade37 
(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

38 

The Commission’s 2009 White Paper “Adapting to climate change: towards a European 
framework  for  action”39  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.40 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 strategies41 

Situation in 2013 

15 Member States had adopted an adaptation strategy and/or plan.42 The level of detail of 
these adaptation strategies or plans differed widely among Member States and there were 
important gaps. In particular: 

37  See  Case  Study  2  in  Annex  XIV.  PESETA  III  assessments  by  the  JRC  also  show  that  transboundary 
climate  impacts  may  affect  the  EU  via  international  trade,  see  Preliminary  Projection  of  Economic 
impacts  of  climate  change  in  Sectors  of  the  EU  based  on  bottom-up  Analysis,  JRC,  2018.  Retrieved 
from: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/peseta   

38  Considering  that  both  the  baseline  and  the  state  of  play  need  to  be  discussed  for  all  8  actions,  it  was 
considered appropriate for readability to  merge  the  two sections. The baseline description draws  upon 
analysis carried out in preparation of the 2013 Strategy (the impact assessment, the background report to 
the impact assessment and various SWDs published alongside the Strategy) to describe the baseline both 
in  terms  of  the  actual  situation  prior  to  the  launch  of  the  Strategy  and  in  terms  of  the  future  situation 
expected  at  the  launch  without  the  implementation  of  the  Strategy.  For  Action  8,  more  limited 
information is available, as it was not addressed in the Impact Assessment. 

39  White  Paper  on  Adapting  to  climate  change:  Towards  a  European  framework  for  action,  COM(2009) 

147/4. 

40 'National climate change vulnerability and risk assessments in Europe', European Environment Agency, 

2018. 

41 The full title of the Strategy’s actions is given in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2. 
42  Different  terms  are  used  by  different  Member  States,  but  these  documents  essentially  capture  similar 
elements. In general, adaptation plans typically include more specific details on actions to be taken. 

12 

 
                                                 
  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 Council43 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.44  The  guidance  is  integrated  in  the  Climate-
ADAPT adaptation tool.45 

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.46 Using the scoreboard, the Commission prepared country 
fiches  on  each  Member  State  in  an  iterative  consultation  process.47  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 

43  3246th  Council  meeting  adapting  conclusions  on  the  Commission  communication  "An  EU  strategy  on 

adaptation to climate change": Press Release – 10876/13, Council of the European Union, 2013. 

44 Commission Staff Working Document: Guidelines on developing adaptation strategies, SWD(2013) 134 
final.  The  guidance  includes  detailed  advice  on  methods  for  preparing  an  adaptation  strategy, 
accompanied  by  practical  examples  (based  on  several  Member  States’  experience),  checklists,  and 
detailed information on the range of support available at European level. 

45 First version published in March, 2012:  https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/adaptation-

support-tool  

46  The  first  draft  was  published  on  Climate-ADAPT:  http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/eu-adaptation-

policy/strategy/index_html/resolveuid/bbc416202fd844b1a09f90a2990553ae  

47  The  first  versions  of  the  fiches,  prepared  in  2014-15,  were  unpublished  and  used  to  fine-tune  the 
scoreboard. The second drafts of the Member State fiches were published as background documents to 
the 
2017. 
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/consultations/evaluation-eus-strategy-adaptation-climate-change_en  

consultation 

evaluation 

December 

public 

this 

on 

in 

13 

 
 
                                                 
  Knowledge  creation  (national  observation  systems  in  relevant 

sectors48 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).49  

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.50  

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. 

48  These  relate  for  example  to  meteorology,  floods,  drought,  sea  level,  coastal  erosion,  biodiversity, 

human/animal/plant health etc. 

49 SWD(2018)460 
50 The most common themes were: water policy with focus on scarcity and floods (43 projects), agriculture 
(25 projects) and urban action (22 projects). Camarsa, G., Toland, J., Eldridge, J., & et al., LIFE and 
Climate Change Adaptation, Study for the European Commission, 2015. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
Implementation / State of play51 

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 projects52 respectively 

As per the 2014 LIFE regulation, all LIFE grant projects involve experience transfer and 
replication  and  are  classified  either  as  pilot,  demonstration,  best-practice  or  integrated 
projects, which were considered the criteria for lighthouse projects. 

As  of  April  2018,  there  are  at  least  60  ongoing  adaptation-related  LIFE  projects  worth 
€184  million  in  project  cost.  This  includes  two  integrated  projects  in  Denmark  and 
Spain53 that operate in a wider geographical area and serve a broader range of purposes, 
including  adaptation.  Beneficiaries  estimate  that  3-5  years  after  their  completion  the 
adaptation-related projects from 2014-2016 will impact through replication and transfer 
an area of 1.8 million km2, equivalent to one fourth of the EU territory.54 LIFE projects 
also help other actions of the Strategy, such as urban adaptation.  

In  addition,  under  LIFE,  the  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  operates  an  innovative 
financial  instrument,  the  Natural  Capital  Financing  Facility  (NCFF),  providing  loan  or 
equity financing and technical assistance to natural capital projects. These NCFF projects 
aim  to  generate  revenues  or  save  costs  while  delivering  on  biodiversity  and  climate 
adaptation  objectives.  For  this,  the  Commission  provides  financial  guarantees  in  the 
amount of €50  million and technical  support for projects  in  the amount of €10 million.  
The  NCFF  €125  million  financing  (of  which  almost  half  is  already  committed  to  two 
adaptation-related projects) is expected to generate an additional €400 million of public 
and private investment by 2021.55 

More details  on adaptation  in  the LIFE programme are provided in  section 1 of Annex 
VIII. 

51  A  separate  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  LIFE  Programme  on  environment  and  climate  was  recently 
completed (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/evaluation/index.htm). The 
results  of  the  report,  together  with  other  supporting  literature  and  findings  from  the  stakeholder 
interviews, provide a basis for our evaluation of Action 2. 

52  The  term  “lighthouse  project”  was  used  to  refer  to  pilot,  demonstration,  best-practice  or  integrated 

projects under the LIFE programme in the previous multiannual financial framework. 

53 EU LIFE IP C2C CC (LIFE15 IPC/DK/000006 and LIFE16 IPC/ES/000001) 
54  Information  extracted  from  internal  databases  of  the  Executive  Agency  on  Small  and  Medium 

Enterprises (EASME) who manage the LIFE programme. 

55  http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2018/2018-128-successful-roll-out-of-eur-400m-natural-

capital-initiative-supporting-conservation-across-europe.htm  

15 

 
                                                 
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,56 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)57 
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 
inhabitants58  have  already  adopted  adaptation  plans.59  In  general,  cities  in  Eastern  and 

56 Source: the 2013 Impact  Assessment of the Strategy. The survey covered a range of cities of variable 
size in 21 of the EU Member States. It was found that 8% of the cities surveyed had no work planned or 
begun  on  climate  adaptation,  and  22%  had  work  planned.  Of  the  70%  that  had  begun  work  on 
adaptation: 1% believed that their climate adaptation programme is far advanced, 6% are moving ahead 
of the field, 16% are well on the way, and 47% are still in the very early stages of work on adaptation. 

57 http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/about/covenant-initiative/origins-and-development.html   
58  Source:  communication  with  the  coordinator  of  the  study  D.  Reckien  et  al.,  (2018).  How  are  cities 
planning to respond to climate change? Assessment of local climate plans from 885 cities in the EU-
28,  Journal  of  Cleaner  Production,  26  March  2018.  The  coordinator  extracted  this  figure  from  the 
study's database. 

16 

 
                                                 
Southern  Europe  have  fewer  local  adaptation  plans,  whereas  Central  and  Northern 
European cities often have such plans.60  

Building on the success of the Covenant, the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and 
Energy61  was  launched  in  2017  bringing  together  the  Compact  of  Mayors62  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 persisted63: 

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  uncertainty64 

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-

59  The  proportion  of  cities  with  more  than  150  000  inhabitants  having  actually  reported  an  adaptation 
strategy to the Covenant of Mayors is only 3%. There seems to be a major reporting gap for reasons 
explained in Annex VIII section 2, and also not all cities of this size are members of the Covenant of 
Mayors. 

60  D.  Reckien  et  al.,  (2018).  How  are  cities  planning  to  respond  to  climate  change?  Assessment  of  local 

climate plans from 885 cities in the EU-28, Journal of Cleaner Production, 26 March 2018. 

61 https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/  
62 http://impact.compactofmayors.org/  
63 The Impact Assessment (page 14) suggested one more knowledge gap: ‘Socio-economic trends that are 
interrelated with climatic changes’, but in the end it was not listed in the Strategy. See Commission Staff 
Working Document: Impact Assessment, SWD(2013) 132 final. 

64 One of the key challenges for adaptation appraisal is the high uncertainty involved. The most common 
techniques used in economic appraisal have limitations in coping with this, and a suite of new decision 
support  tools  have  emerged  that  advance  decision-making  under  uncertainty.  See  a  London  School  of 
Economics and Political Science  working paper:  http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/a-
review-of-the-economics-of-adaptation-and-climate-resilient-development/  

17 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
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 Service65 or the Disaster Risk Knowledge Management 
Centre66 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 States67 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 

65 https://climate.copernicus.eu/ 
66 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/network-bureau/disaster-risk-management-knowledge-centre 
67 Austria, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

18 

 
                                                 
expected  that  mainstreaming  of  adaptation  in  sectoral  science-policy  interfaces68  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.69 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).70  Some  policy  initiatives  in  the  pipeline  were 
also  listed  for  imminent  mainstreaming.71  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). 

68  Science-policy  interfaces  aim  to  bridge  relations  between  scientists  and  other  actors  in  the  policy 
process, which allow for exchanges, co-evolution, and joint construction of knowledge with the aim of 
enriching decision-making. 

69 See footnote 7. 
70 Maritime policy, inland water, transport, biodiversity, migration and mobility, agriculture and forestry, 
maritime  spatial  planning,  integrated  coastal  management,  energy,  disaster  risk  prevention  and 
management, research, health, and the environment. In terms of transboundary cooperation, the Floods 
Directive and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) had been particularly effective in the water sector; 
and  European  and  pan-European  early  warning  and  detection  systems  for  weather-driven  natural 
disasters existed, such as the European Flood Awareness System, the European Forest Fire Information 
System (EFFIS) and the European Drought Observatory. 

71 Invasive alien species, green infrastructure, land as a resource, a new EU Forest Strategy, coastal zone 

management, and Natura 2000. 

19 

 
                                                 
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)72 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.73  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. 

72 The 2013 impact assessment designated the CDP (www.cdp.net) as the data source for the indicator on 
company  adaptation  preparedness.  The  CDP  runs  a  global  disclosure  system  that  enables  companies, 
cities,  states  and  regions  to  measure  and  manage  their  environmental  impacts,  including  aspects  that 
allow measuring their level of preparedness for climate change. The impact assessment did not motivate 
the choice of this data source. 

73  For  any  further  tracking  of  this  objective,  it  would  be  necessary  to  ensure  that  the  indicator  can  be 

properly monitored. 

20 

 
                                                 
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)74, 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.75 

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 
the 

to  consider  climate  adaptation  effectively  within 

States  authorities 
programming cycles of ESIF, CAP and CFP. 76 

3.  Several guiding factsheets were produced on mainstreaming both mitigation and 

adaptation, listing also a set of possible adaptation actions with examples.77 

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. 

74  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  17  December  2013. 
Strictly  speaking,  the  Commission  proposal  for  the  Regulation  cannot  be  considered  a  result  of  the 
Strategy,  as  it  pre-dates  it.  However,  the  implementation  of  the  CPR  clearly  worked  towards  the 
objective of the Strategy’s Action 6. 

75 A major project has a total eligible cost exceeding EUR 50 million (and EUR 75 million for transport 
projects) 
(https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/guidances/climate-change-and-major-projects). 
The  Commission  approves  such  projects  only  if  they  are  accompanied  by  “an  analysis  of  the 
environmental  impact,  considering  climate  change  adaptation  and  mitigation  needs,  and  disaster 
resilience”.  For  non-major  projects,  i.e.  projects  below  the  applicable  threshold,  the  responsibility  for 
climate-proofing investment (or the promotion of climate change adaptation stipulated by Art. 8 CPR) 
lies largely with the Member States. 

76 See Annex IV. 
77 Climate action in ESIF: Introduction to the series of Fact Sheets on the potential for mainstreaming of 
the  assessment  hereof,  European  Commission,  2015.  Retrieved  from: 

climate  action  and 
https://ec.europa.eu/.../01-climate_mainstreaming_fact_sheet-esif_introduction_en.pdf  

21 

 
                                                 
In  terms  of  direct  funding,  a  recent  study78  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.79  Budget  allocations  (compared  with  total  budget)  to  Thematic  Objective  5 

78 COWI, Mainstreaming of adaptation into the ESIF 2014-2020, Study for the European Commission, 

2017.  

79 Expenditure under other programmes particularly relevant to climate adaptation is less likely to focus on 
infrastructure  investment,  e.g.,  climate  expenditure  under  the  EAFRD  primarily  includes  support  to 
farming in areas of natural constraint, support for agri-environment-climate commitments, or support for 

22 

 
                                                 
 
(Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management) are detailed in 
the table below.80 

Fund 

ERDF 

CF 

TO5, 
2017 
(million EUR) 

Total, 
(million EUR) 

2017 

TO5, 
2018 
(million EUR) 

Total, 
2018 
(million EUR) 

430.2 

342.7 

5387.3 

2503.0 

445.7 

355.4 

5581.5 

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'.81  

More information on the work of the ESOs is available in section 9 of Annex VIII. 

organic  farming;  LIFE  programme  expenditure  on  adaptation  includes  significant  investment  in  best 
practice and knowledge sharing, and so on. 

80  From  the  Statement  of  Estimates  for  the  Financial  Year  2018.  See:  DRAFT  General  Budget  of  the 
European Union for the financial year 2018, COM(2017) 400 final, and: Statement of Estimates of the 
Commission for 2018, SEC(2017)250. 

81 CEN-CENELEC, CEN-CENELEC Guide 32:2016, Available through: 

https://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/Guides/Pages/default.aspx 

23 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
Other relevant initiatives 

The  EIA  Directive  was  updated  in  201482  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.83 

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).84  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.85   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.86 

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 Strategy87, discussing costs and 
benefits  of  green  infrastructure  in  relation  to  adaptation  and  presenting  good  practice 
examples.88 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 

82 Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 April 2014. 
83  Regulation  (EU)  No  347/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  April  2013,  and 
Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013. 
See in particular recitals 22, 23, 33 and 34, and articles 3(t), 5.1(e), 5.1(g), 5.4, 10.1(e), 33(h), 35, 47(d) 
and 50 of the latter Regulation. 

84  EUFIWACC  consists  of  the  Agence  Française  de  Développement  (AFD),  the  Council  of  Europe 
Development Bank (CEB), EBRD, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action 
(DG  CLIMA),  the  EIB,  KfW  Development  Bank  (KFW),  the  Nordic  Investment  Bank  (NIB)  and  the 
Dutch Development Bank (FMO). 

85 Integrating Climate Change Information and Adaptation in Project Development: Emerging Experience 
from  Practitioners,  EUFIWACC,  2016.  http://www.eib.org/attachments/press/integrating-climate-
change-adaptation-in-project-development.pdf 

86 Non-paper Guidelines for Project Managers: Making vulnerable investments climate resilient, European 

Commission, 2016. 
Guidance  on  Integrating  Climate  Change  and  Biodiversity  into  Environmental  Impact  Assessment, 
European Commission, 2013. 
Guidance  on  Integrating  Climate  Change  and  Biodiversity  into  Strategic  Environmental  Assessment, 
European Commission, 2013. 
Climate Change and Major Projects, European Commission, 2016. 
Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects, European Commission, 2014. 

87  Trinomics  et  al.,  Supporting  the  Implementation  of  Green  Infrastructure:  Final  Report,  Study  for  the 

European Commission, 2016.  

88 Trinomics et al., ibid. 

24 

 
                                                 
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.89  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 Paper90 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  Report91 
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. 

89 Tort law applies in case some agent can be held accountable for the damage, and entitles individuals to 
receive compensation from that specific agent; state/public aid involves a compensatory wealth transfer 
from the public sector splitting up losses among the entire society; finally, insurance involves a 
capitalization process that hedges individuals against residual risk. Source: Initiative on Climate Change 
policy and Governance, Insurance schemes in the agriculture sector to address climate change impacts. 
Reflection No. 46/March 2016, 2016.  

90 See footnote 14. 
91 'Natural Catastrophes: Risk relevance and Insurance Coverage in the EU EUR 25013 EN  - 2011', JRC, 

2012. 

25 

 
                                                 
Insurance 

The  Commission  completed  a  study  in  2017  on  the  insurance  of  weather  and  climate 
related disaster risk.92  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 EU93 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.94  

There  were  some  concrete  activities  in  relation  to  insurance  and  climate  adaptation, 
notably an expert group95 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 
infrastructure. 

important 

institutional 

investors 

into  climate  resilient 

The Capital Markets Union (CMU)96 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  Directive97  in  2015  and 
2017, the Commission facilitated the risk-based investments of insurance companies into 

92 Insurance of weather- and climate-related disaster risk: Inventory and analysis of mechanisms to support 

climate prevention in the EU, European Commission, 2017. 

93  The  study  quoted  under  footnote  92  and  a  Study  on  risk  management  in  EU  agriculture,  European 

Commission, Forthcoming. 

94 See the EU Sendai Action Plan, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/sites/echo-

site/files/1_en_document_travail_service_part1_v2.pdf 

95 The Disaster Loss and Damage Working Group 

https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/partnership/Science-Policy-Interface/Disaster-Loss-and-Damage-

Working-Group  

96 https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/growth-and-investment/capital-markets-union_en 

26 

 
                                                 
infrastructure  projects.  In  March  2018,  the  Commission’s  action  plan  on  financing 
sustainable  growth98  announced  EU  legislation99  on  a  classification  system  for 
sustainable100  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 review101, a targeted survey and an open public consultation102, 
interviews, workshops103 and 4 case studies.  A summary of methods used for gathering 

97 Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the 
taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II). The Solvency II 
Directive provides for coordination of prudential laws, regulations and markets for insurance and 
reinsurance across EU member states, with the purpose of reducing differences and supporting an 
internal EU market in these products. Prudential requirements primarily address the way financial 
institutions are governed and their liquidity and capital reserves. 

98  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  The  European  Council,  The 
European  Central  Bank,  The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions, COM(2018) 97 final. 

99 Subject to the results of a future impact assessment. 
100 Sustainability understood also in terms of resilience against climate risks. 
101  General  literature  review  complemented  by  reviews  of  adaptation  preparedness  scoreboards  for  EU 
Member States, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) relating to adaptation  for states that are 
not members of the EU, and of a list of EU legislation and guidance documents and guidelines where 
climate adaptation is currently mainstreamed, or has potential to be mainstreamed. 

102 A targeted online stakeholder survey conducted in June-July 2017 and an open public consultation in 24 

languages on the Commission’s EUROPA website from 7 December 2017 to 1 March 2018. 
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/consultations/evaluation-eus-strategy-adaptation-climate-change_en  

103  Two  stakeholder  workshops  and  an  interactive  exercise  with  the  members  of  the  Working  Group  on 

Adaptation under the Climate Change Committee of Member States 

27 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
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  strategy104;  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 

104 Stakeholder Consultation Strategy. Evaluation of the EU Adaptation Strategy, European Commission, 

2017.  

28 

 
                                                 
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.105 

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  billion106.  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, 

105 A detailed assessment of the quality of the evidence gathered in the evaluation support study is provided 

in Annex XII. All in all, there is sufficient evidence to support conclusions for the evaluation.  

106  EEA  Report  No  15/2017,  “Climate  change  adaptation  and  disaster  risk  reduction  in  Europe”  (2017), 

section 4.5 p. 110.  

29 

 
                                                 
ranging between 93 and 961 billion EUR depending on the socio-economic pathway.107 
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 summer108. 

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.109 In its response to the mid-term 
evaluation,  the  European  Committee  of  the  Regions  recommended  maintaining  and 

107  Vousdoukas  et  al.  2018,  Climatic  and  socioeconomic  controls  of  future  coastal  flood  risk  in  Europe. 

Nature Climate Change 8: 776–780, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0260-4 

108 Robert Vautard et al 2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 / 034006 
109  Ecorys,  Support  for  an  external  and  independent  LIFE  Mid  Term  Evaluation  Report:  Final  Report, 

Study for the European Commission, 2017. 

30 

 
                                                 
strengthening  LIFE’s  sub-programme  on  climate  action  in  the  2nd  LIFE  Multiannual 
Work Programme and post-2020.110  

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  2070.111  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  report112  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  Europe113  highlights  the  vulnerability  of  construction  and  buildings,  as 
well  as  energy  and  transport  infrastructure  to  extreme  events  due  to  high  temperatures, 

110  Press  Release:  Local  leaders  call  for  a  budget  increase  of  EU's  major  environment  programme  LIFE, 
European  Committee  of  the  Regions,  2017.  Retrieved  from:  http://cor.europa.eu/en/news/Pages/Local-
leaders-call-for-a-budget-increase-of-EUs-major-environment-programme-LIFE.aspx  

111 E3G, Underfunded, underprepared, underwater? Cities at risk, 2014. 
112 See footnote 7. 
113 'Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016, Report No 1/2017', European Environment 

Agency, 2017. 

31 

 
 
                                                 
increased precipitation, sea-level rise, floods, wind and storms. This is underpinned by a 
2015 JRC study114 which assessed the climate risks to critical infrastructure115 (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.116  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 cooperation117, 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 

114 'Risk assessment  methodologies  for critical  infrastructure protection. Part II: A  new approach, Report 

EUR 27332 EN', JRC, 2015. 

115 Defined as assets and systems that are essential for the maintenance of vital societal functions, health, 
safety,  security,  economic  or  social  well-being  of  people,  and  the  disruption  or  destruction  of  which 
would have a significant impact as a result of the failure to maintain those functions. 

116 NatCatSERVICE. Retrieved from: https://www.munichre.com/en/reinsurance/business/non-

life/natcatservice/index.html 

117 Under strict conditions, collaborations have been established between reinsurers and EEA, and between 

reinsurers and the JRC. 

32 

 
                                                 
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? 118 

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 

118 Contrarily to the scope of the original evaluation question as presented in the 2016 evaluation roadmap, 
the scope of the evaluation is extended to March 2018 in an effort to cover as long a period as possible. 

33 

 
                                                 
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 
34 

 
 
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.  

35 

 
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.119 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: 

o  Coordination  (23  have  horizontal  coordination  mechanisms  involving 

different sectors) 

o  Stakeholder involvement (26 Member States) and 
o  Transboundary 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.120  

  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.  

119  This  conclusion  is  also  supported  by  a  report  commissioned  by  the  European  Public  Service  Union 
to  climate  change”,  from  September  2017,  available  at: 

“Public  services  and  adaptation 
https://www.epsu.org/article/epsu-feature-adaptation-climate-change   

120  National  climate  change  vulnerability  and  risk  assessments  in  Europe,  2018,  European  Environment 

Agency.  

36 

 
 
                                                 
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 suggests121 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  Evaluation122  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)123,  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 

121  Reckien, D. F., The influence of drivers and barriers on urban adaptation and mitigation plans  — An 
empirical analysis of European cities, PLoS ONE, 10(8): e0135597. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135597.  

122 See footnote 5 
123  Opinion  Factsheet:  Mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Programme  for  the  Environment  and  Climate  Action 

(LIFE) 2014-2020, CDR 4126/2016, Committee of the Regions, 2017. 

37 

 
                                                 
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  influence124,  especially  in  countries  where  autonomous  local  climate 
plans are rare and cities are not required by national legislation to adopt such plans.125 

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.126 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 CoR127 and a resolution of the European Parliament128 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 PESETA129).  

124 See footnote 121 
125  Such  as  Cyprus,  Slovenia,  Latvia,  Belgium,  Ireland,  Italy,  Malta,  Portugal,  Romania  and  Spain, 
according  to  D.  Reckien  et  al.,  (2018).  How  are  cities  planning  to  respond  to  climate  change? 
Assessment  of  local  climate  plans  from  885  cities  in  the  EU-28,  Journal  of  Cleaner  Production,  26 
March 2018. 

126 Millieu, Mid-term evaluation of the urban adaptation initiative within the framework of the Covenant of 

Mayors: Final Report, Study for the European Commission, 2014. 

127  Communication  from  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  Towards  a  new  EU  climate  change  adaptation 

strategy – taking an integrated approach, CDR 2430/2016. 

128 European Parliament Resolution on the role of EU regions and cities in implementing the COP 21 Paris 

Agreement on climate change, 27 February 2018, 2017/2006(INI). 

129 Projection of Economic impacts of climate change in Sectors of the EU based on bottom-up  Analysis 

(PESETA), https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/peseta 

38 

 
                                                 
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 
services130.  One  key  FP7  project  for  adaptation,  High-End  Climate  Impacts  and 
Extremes,131 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.132  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.133 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-ADAPT134  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 

130 

The 

2015 

research 

European 

climate 
and 
(https://publications.europa.eu/fr/publication-detail/-/publication/73d73b26-4a3c-4c55-bd50-
54fd22752a39) refers to climate services as customised climate-related tools, products and information 
that will enable climate-smart, strategic decisions at various levels for a range of end-users (businesses, 
the public sector, and individuals), enabling a more systemic approach to risk management. 

innovation 

roadmap 

services 

for 

131 https://www.helixclimate.eu/our-research/ 
132 https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/data-and-downloads#b_start=0 
133  http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/knowledge/tools/adaptation-support-tool 
134 See footnote 7 

39 

 
                                                 
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-level135,  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 funds136 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) 
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. 

including  measures 

natural 

hence 

level, 

such 

as 

135  For  example:    Copernicus  Climate  Services  (https://climate.copernicus.eu/),  Disaster  Risk  Knowledge 

Management Centre (drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu), Oppla (https://oppla.eu),  

136  COWI.  (2016).  Mainstreaming  of  climate  action  into  ESI  Funds.  Brussels:  European  Commission;  
COWI.  (2017).  Mainstreaming  of  adaptation  into  the  ESIF  2014-2020.  Brussels:  European 
Commission. 

40 

 
                                                 
  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.137  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: 

o  The  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. 

o  The  communication  between  DRR  and  climate  change  adaptation 

communities.  

o  The integration with 'build back better' policies and actions. 

  Outermost Regions138 
 

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 

137 See footnote 75. 
138  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  The  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee, The Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank: A 
stronger and renewed strategic partnership with the EU's outermost regions, COM(2017) 623 final. 

41 

 
                                                 
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 managers139 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 JASPERS140 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 EUFIWACC141 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  financial  institutions  has  remained  steady  following  the 
publication of the Strategy in 2013. The long lead time for project finance would suggest 
that more time is necessary for immediate impact to be visible. 

Action 8: Insurance and finance 

The 2017 study issued by the Commission has provided an overview of successful cases, 
practices,  general  principles  and  recommendations  of  managing  climate  risk  in 
insurance.142  

However,  Action  8  of  the  Strategy  has  not  directly  resulted  in  increased  market 
penetration of natural disaster insurance, but improved overall resilience and implication 

139 See footnote 86. 
140 JASPERS: Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions, European Commission, EIB and 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/special-support-

2018.  Retrieved 

from: 

EBRD, 
instruments/jaspers/  

141 Integrating Climate Change Information and Adaptation in Project Development: Emerging Experience 
from  Practitioners,  EUFIWACC,  2016.  http://www.eib.org/attachments/press/integrating-climate-
change-adaptation-in-project-development.pdf 

142 See footnote 92  

42 

 
                                                 
of  the  insurance  sector  in  climate  risk  management  may  indirectly  enhance  market 
access. 

The  study  resulted  in  a  better  understanding  of  the  potential  of  risk-based  insurance 
pricing.  However,  to  unleash  this  potential,  significant  regulatory  changes  in  capital 
requirements,  solvency and insurance distribution would be necessary, and this work is 
still  in  an  early  stage  of  development.  The  promotion  of  a  market  for  disaster  risk 
insurance  may  have  led  to  the  greater  use  of  financial  products,  and  internalisation  of 
climate  costs,  but  it  is  not  possible  to  determine  how  important  the  contribution  of  the 
Strategy has been. 

Some  stakeholders,  like  the  Federation  of  European  Risk  Management  Associations 
(FERMA)143 said they were not aware of follow-up on the Commission’s side since the 
Green Paper on Insurance. Stakeholders had in general mixed views on how effective the 
Commission’s activities have been to promote insurance and other financial products for 
resilient investment and business decisions. 

The Action Plan on Financing Sustainable Growth, described in Chapter 4, was adopted 
in March 2018, and it is equally relevant for the Commission’s aim to use the potential of 
financial  products  for  risk  management  and  resilience  in  investment  and  business 
decisions. Even more recently, in May 2018, the Commission has followed up with three 
concrete proposals: a unified EU classification system of sustainable economic activities 
('taxonomy'),  disclosure 
integrate 
environmental, social and governance in their risk processes and, finally, a new category 
of benchmarks to compare the carbon footprint of investments. A technical expert group 
set  up  by  the  Commission  is  now  dealing  with  four  topics  linked  to  the  Action  Plan, 
(taxonomy,  low  carbon  benchmarks,  an  EU  green  bonds  standard  and  climate-related 
disclosures). However, as the Action Plan was only adopted in March 2018, it is too early 
to judge its effectiveness in promoting the aim. The initiative is planned to bring forward 
further  legal  proposals  until  the  2nd  half  of  2019  and  implementation  of  some  of  the 
measures will hopefully start as of 2020. 

requirements  on  how 

institutional 

investors 

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? 

Action 1: Member State strategies 

Drivers: 

  experience of extreme weather events; 
  knowledge  of  economic,  environmental  and  social  costs  of  inaction  (appears  to 

have less influence than experience of climate impacts); 
integration of adaptation and mitigation; 
the establishment of the global adaptation goal by the Paris Agreement; 

 
 
  Starting from 2007, LIFE funding included projects to turn adaptation strategies 
into plans at the national and sub-national levels, such as for Cyprus, completed 
in  April  2017.  They  acted  as  drivers  for  the  adoption  and  implementation  of 
strategies even prior to the publication of the Strategy in 2013. 

143 See for example FERMA. The association represents 22 member associations in 21 countries, with 4800 

risk managers (https://www.m.eu/).  

43 

 
                                                 
Barriers: 

  The  majority  of  the  respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation  agreed  that 
Member  States  tend  to  provide  reactive  response  to  climate  threats,  instead  of 
more long-term, proactive planning. 

  The landscape in terms of monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the 
national  strategies  is  heterogeneous  and  incomplete  at  EU  and  Member  State 
level. The issue is analysed further in section 3 of Annex VIII.  

Action 2: LIFE 

Drivers 

A  tripling  of  the  budget  for  Climate  Action  under  LIFE  (25%,  i.e.  EUR  864  million) 
compared to the LIFE+ Programme in 2007-2013.  

Barriers: 

The  LIFE  mid-term  evaluation  has  highlighted  that  integrated  projects  are  complex 
and need public-private partnership models or grant funding to be viable. 

With regard to the Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF), key barriers appear to 
be: 
  The  scarcity  of  affordable  finance  for  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises 

(SMEs); 

  Low or risky profitability of projects. It has taken time for the EIB, investors and 
project promoters to understand how adaptation projects such as flood defences or 
urban  spaces  can  generate  revenue  or  cost  savings  from  goods  that  are  freely 
available  for  people  to  use.  The  mid-term  evaluation  suggests  this  could  be  an 
area  where  support  through  the  NCFF  instrument  in  combination  with  LIFE 
grants for integrated projects or ERDF grants would merit further investigation; 
  From the perspective of the EIB, lack of technical assistance in developing viable 
business models for complex innovative projects may be a barrier to the provision 
of  loans  by  the  NCCF.  Therefore,  the  EIB  continues  to  build  its  capacity  to 
support  climate  change  adaptation,  including  through  providing  technical 
assistance for project development under the NCFF support facility. 

Stakeholders noted that: 
  The complexities of applying for applying for LIFE funding may be a substantial 

barrier to its uptake; 

  The  funds  made  available  for  adaptation  were  still  far  from  what  would  be 
needed,  and  in  particular  compared  to  the  support  available  under  the  regional 
funds.  There  is  insufficient  public  and  private  finance  to  leverage  with  LIFE 
funding. 

44 

 
 
Action 3: Covenant of Mayors 

Drivers: 

  According to  research144, while membership of the Covenant  of  Mayors has the 
highest correlation with the availability of local adaptation plans, membership of 
other climate and sustainability  city networks (such as  the  International  Council 
for  Local  Environmental  Initiatives  (ICLEI),  C40145)  as  well  as  adaptive 
capacity146 and Gross Domestic Product GDP per capita also correlate positively. 
Cities’ current capacity to engage in climate actions was a more important driver 
of  adaptation  planning 
impacts  and 
vulnerabilities.  Adaptive  capacity  was  most  strongly  associated  with  GDP  per 
capita,  which  was  in  turn  significantly  lower  in  cities  at  high  risk  of  climate 
change impacts. Nevertheless, the stakeholder survey suggests that knowledge of 
the costs of inaction may still have a greater influence on decision makers at sub-
national  or  local  level  than  at  a  national  level.  This  in  turn  suggests  that  cost-
benefit analyses may be more beneficial when they are relevant to local decisions; 
  The  larger  the  city  gets,  the  more  often  they  have  an  autonomous  adaptation 

than  anticipated  climate  change 

plan;147 

  The  presence  of  national  regulation  has  a  significant  impact  on  local  climate 
planning.  In  countries  where  local  climate  plans  are  compulsory148  there  are  5 
times more cities with adaptation plans.149  

Stakeholders noted that: 

  The  adoption  of  a  NAS  or  plan  often  catalyses  action  at  a  subnational  or  local 

level; 

  Several  adaptation-related  EU  or  national  projects  have  helped  to  foster  local 

adaptation150;  

  The experience of extreme weather events also acted as a catalyst. 

144 See footnote 121 
145 www.iclei.org; www.c40.org  
146 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines adaptive capacity as “a system's ability 
to adjust to climate change (including climate variability and extremes), to moderate potential damage, 
to  take  advantage  of  opportunities  or  to  cope  with  consequences”.  See  McCarthy,  J.J.  et  al.,  (2001). 
Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 
United Kingdom. 

147  Reckien  et  al.,  (2018).  How  are  cities  planning  to  respond  to  climate  change?  Assessment  of  local 

climate plans from 885 cities in the EU-28, Journal of Cleaner Production, 26 March 2018. 

148 Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom 
149  Even  in  countries  where  local  adaptation  plans  are  compulsory,  not  all  cities  have  had  the  time  to 
comply with this obligation. See Reckien et al., (2018). How are cities planning to respond to climate 
change?  Assessment  of  local  climate  plans  from  885  cities  in  the  EU-28,  Journal  of  Cleaner 
Production, 26 March 2018. 

150  Future  Cities,  http://www.future-cities.eu/;  Ramses,  http://www.ramses-cities.eu/;  BASE,  http://base-
adaptation.eu/; TURAS, http://www.turas-cities.org/; SEAP-Alps, http://seap-alps.eu/hp2/Home.htm 

45 

 
                                                 
Barriers: 

A report on the Mayors Adapt initiative identified the following barriers151: 

  Adopted urban and local adaptation strategies and plans are generally not shared, 

which reduces the transfer of best practice; 

  Cities  working  on  adaptation  do  not  always  become  members  of  adaptation 
initiatives,  as  they  may  perceive  that  a  need  for  additional  reporting  outweighs 
potential  benefits.  Encouraging  support  from  national  public  bodies  such  as 
ministries  or  national  energy  agencies  (the  so-called  National  Coordinators, 
within the Covenant) will, therefore, be crucial; 

  Limited  resources  meant  materials  and  tools  could  only  be  made  available  in 

English, which created language barriers. 

Stakeholders noted the existence of the following barriers: 

Insufficient financial resources; 

 
  The challenge of translating results of cost-benefit analyses to a local level; 
  Lack  of  awareness  and  relevant  technical  expertise  among  staff  of  local 

authorities; 

  Uncertainties  in  climate  change  projections,  which  would  have  to  be  further 

downscaled to be useful at the local level. 

Action 4: Knowledge gaps 

Drivers: 

The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  targeted  stakeholder  survey  agreed  that  a  range  of 
other  research  activities  supported  at  national  or  local  level,  not  directly  related  to  the 
Strategy, have also helped to address key knowledge gaps.152  

Barriers: 

 

Institutional  barriers  –  The  way  in  which  themes  are  separated  and  structured 
within  the  Commission  complicate  the  joint  design  of  research  and  innovation 
programmes,  which  has  meant  some  knowledge  gaps  have  not  yet  been 
sufficiently  addressed,  e.g.  in  relation  to  health  and  climate  change,  a  thematic 
area relevant to all four knowledge gaps identified in the Strategy; 

  Lack of interest in some Member States, for whom climate change adaptation is 
not  a political  priority.  For example, there are large differences among Member 
States in the number of proposals on climate change submitted in the context of 
H2020;  

151  Sarah  Hendel-Blackford  et  al.,  (2017).  Implementation  of  the  urban  adaptation  initiative  [Mayors 
Adapt]  within  the  framework  of  the  ‘Covenant  of  Mayors’,  12  May  2017,  unpublished,  available  on 
request. 

152  For  example,  in  the  Netherlands  there  have  been  recent  efforts  to  enhance  knowledge  on  water 
resources, including water security issues with respect to increases in water scarcity, drought and flood 
biodiversity. 
risk, 
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2018-the-geography-of-future-water-
challenges-2920.pdf 

increasing  water 

affecting  water 

temperatures 

quality 

and 

and 

46 

 
                                                 
 

Insufficient  interactions  between  scientists  and  practitioners  –  adaptation  is  still 
seen  as  a  science-led  issue.  In  the  EU15,  formal  mechanisms  for  interaction 
between scientists and practitioners exist, less so in the rest of the EU; 

  Access  to  data  –  Member  States  either  do  not  collect  data  on  past  losses,  are 
reluctant  to  share  it,  or  make  data  difficult  to  compare  due  to  methodological 
differences. The lack of data was perceived in the targeted stakeholder survey as a 
serious barrier to assess vulnerability and potential impacts; 

  A need for greater cooperation between policymakers across Member States – by 
contrast,  researchers  are  generally  willing  to  cooperate  and  work  together. 
Related points made by respondents to the targeted stakeholder survey were that 
Member  States  have  different  historical  backgrounds  and  natural  resources  and 
that there is a lack of integrated approaches and methodologies. 

Stakeholders also highlighted the following barriers: 

  Researchers  struggle  to  translate  their  research  into  results  that  can  be  used  by 
decision makers and non-specialists. In particular, it is challenging to convey and 
manage uncertainty;  

  Access  to  research  funding  at  national  level  –  direct  research  is  not  eligible  for 
funding by the LIFE programme and is limited to H2020, which (apart from the 
European  Research  Council)  is  focused  on  large  projects  with  partners  from 
different Member States. It may be difficult to secure funding for country-specific 
research; 

  The complexities of combining adaptation across sectors and with mitigation are 

challenging; 

  Sectoral  or  local  decision-makers  do  not  know  where  to  find  relevant  research 

results unless they have been involved in its development. 

Action 5: Climate-ADAPT 

The  EEA153,  who  maintains  the  Climate-ADAPT  website,  identified  the  following 
drivers and barriers. 

Drivers: 

Increasing interest from politicians and practitioners in adaptation; 

 
  The increasing importance of adaptation for the international policy agenda. 

Barriers: 

  Difficulty  in  engaging  Commission  services  which  could  contribute  to  the 
website  development  and  dissemination  other 
than  DG  CLIMA  –The 
establishment  of  an  advisory  group  for  Climate-ADAPT  is  a  positive  step  but 
came  only  in  2016,  whereas  the  platform  started  in  2012.  The  various  new 
thematic  platforms  launched  in  the  EU154  need  to  be  coordinated  with  the 
development  of  existing  platforms,  including  the  Biodiversity  Information 

153 See footnote 7. 
154 E.g. On green infrastructure and nature-based solutions 

47 

 
 
                                                 
System for Europe, Water Information System for Europe and the   Disaster Risk 
Knowledge Management Centre;  

  Evolution of the Covenant of Mayors initiative – The launch of Mayors Adapt in 
2014 and the subsequent merger with the Covenant of Mayors initiative, as well 
as extension of the latter into a global initiative in 2016, has led to difficulties in 
Climate-ADAPT implementing the specific Information Technology needs of the 
related adaptation support tool and provision of information on cities’ actions in 
collaboration with the Mayors Adapt; 

  Limited annual resources for maintaining the platform.155 

Action 6: ESIF / CAP / CFP 

Drivers: 

EU level: 
  The establishment of the 20% climate mainstreaming target and the development 
of a climate expenditure tracking methodology, even if concerns were raised that 
mainstreaming  in  all  projects  and  all  sectors  may  not  have  been  fully 
implemented by managing authorities at investment levels;156 

  The connections made between adaptation, risk prevention and civil protection in 
Cohesion policy, which have helped to raise awareness among more actors in the 
Member States; 

  The obligation in the CPR for the Commission to approve major projects only if 

they are climate resilient; 

  The  revision  of  the  EIA  Directive  in  2014  imposing  climate  vulnerability 
assessments  of  projects  where  relevant.  The  transposition  deadline  for  this 
Directive was 16 May 2017.  

National level: 
  NASs; 
  Extreme weather events, floods and forest fires. 

Barriers: 

  Many adaptation measures need to be applied at the local and regional level, and 
concern  a  multitude  of  actions  that  cannot  be  summarised  in  one  performance 
indicator.  As  such,  it  is  much  more  difficult  to  establish  high-level  political 
targets for adaptation than for mitigation; 

155  One  project  manager,  other  staff  within  EEA’s  Impacts,  Vulnerabilities  and  Adaptation  Group  for  a 
limited  amount  of  their  time,  one  person  in  information  technology,  and  EUR  200  000  annually  on 
content development through the European Topic Centre on Climate Change impacts, vulnerability and 
Adaptation  (ETC/CCA).  In  addition,  The  Commission  has  provided  various  contracts  to  support 
dissemination  and  use  of  Climate-ADAPT,  as  well  as  for  development  of  functionalities  through 
information technology contracts. 

156 Stakeholder workshop organised under the Commission’s service contract on “Climate mainstreaming 
in the EU Budget: preparing for the next MFF”. For further details, see: Ricardo, IEEP, Trinomics, and 
Alterra. Study to support the evaluation of the EU Adaptation Strategy, Ricardo/ED62885 Final Report, 
Study for the European Commission, 2018 

48 

 
 
 
                                                 
  The  lack  of  focus  on  adaptation  and  of  relevant  targets  within  the  Europe  2020 
Strategy157 has made it difficult to drive adaptation actions at the same level as for 
mitigation; 

  ESF  and  EMFF  do  not  specifically  address  TO5  (“Promoting  climate  change 
adaptation,  risk  prevention  and  management”)  in  spite  of  impacts  on  vulnerable 
population,  employment  and  fish  stocks.  The  lack  of  climate  integration  in  the 
EMFF and ESF was also emphasised by the European Court of Auditors (ECA), 
and  acknowledged  by  the  Commission  in  its  answer  (while  considering  the 
different  potential  contributions  of  each  of  the  funds  according  to  its  primary 
missions)158. 

  There  is  a  knowledge  gap  on  spill-over  effects  from  third  countries,  the 
understanding  of  which  would  be  a  first  step  towards  considering  effective 
mainstreaming  of  adaptation  into  the  EU’s  trade  policy  (see  also  section  4  in 
Annex VIII and Case Study 2 in Annex XIV). 

Stakeholders in the energy, transport and construction sectors identified the following 
barriers: 
  Uncertainties  relating  to  climate  impacts  and  extreme  events  (frequency  and 

magnitude);  

  Need for climate proofing standards; 
  No legal obligation to consider climate risk (or very limited).  

They  were  joined  by  other  vulnerable  sectors  (agriculture,  forestry,  fisheries)  in 
pointing to: 
  The  lack  of  collaboration  between  sectors.  In  one  of  the  case  studies  developed 
for  this  evaluation  (see  Case  Study  1  in  Annex  XIV),  stakeholders  in  the  fight 
against forest fires identified a need to further enhance coherence between climate 
change  adaptation  and  disaster  risk  reduction  across  all  levels  of  governance 
(global, European, national levels); 
Insufficient funding. 

 

Action 7: Infrastructure 

Drivers: 

  The obligation in the ESIF CPR for the Commission to approve major projects159 

only if they are climate resilient;  

  The revision of the EIA directive imposing climate vulnerability assessments  of 

projects where relevant; 

157  COM(2010) 2020 final. 
158  For  instance,  the  ESF  contributes  indirectly  to  this  thematic  objective  through  its  own  objectives: 
promoting  employment  and  social  inclusion,  investing  in  education  and  training  and  enhancing 
institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration. 

159 A major project has a total eligible cost exceeding  EUR 50 million (and EUR 75 million for transport 
projects)  (https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/guidances/climate-change-and-major-projects). 
The  Commission  shall  approve  such  projects  only  if  it  is  accompanied  by  “an  analysis  of  the 
environmental  impact,  considering  climate  change  adaptation  and  mitigation  needs,  and  disaster 
resilience”. 

49 

 
 
 
                                                 
  The involvement of some European cities in two non-EU initiatives, ‘100 resilient 

cities’160 initiative and the ‘Making Cities Resilient’161 campaign;  

  The  EIB’s  requirements  set  out  in  the  Bank’s  Environmental  and  Social 
Handbook162  which  all  projects  must  fulfil  to  secure  finance.  The  Handbook 
provides  that  proposed  projects  undergo  a  climate  vulnerability  assessment  and 
apply adaptation measures to ensure the sustainability of the project if necessary.  

Barriers: 

  The  translation  of  adaptation  expertise  into  local  languages  is  needed  for 

stakeholders in the private sector; 

  Apart from major projects, other EU-funded infrastructure projects under shared 

management are not subject to such prior approval by the Commission. 

Stakeholders from the energy, transport and building/construction sector listed:  

lack of awareness; 
lack of standards/guidelines; 
lack of data and the degree of uncertainty in impacts; 

 
 
 
  a  knowledge  gap  in  the  private  sector  between  high-level  projections  and  more 

specific information needs to understand the risks.  

Action 8: Insurance and finance 

This  section  is  based  on  the  views  of  two  international  organisations  in  the  insurance 
sector163 as well as on expertise available to the Commission services. 

Drivers: 

  The  presence  of  insurance  pools  and  systems  controlled  by  the  state,  which 

affects demand on the part of industry; 

  The maturity of natural disaster insurance markets. In some Member States (e.g. 
France, United Kingdom) the market is mature, as the countries have historically 
dealt  with  these  issues,  while  in  other  European  countries  relevant  insurance 
products have only been introduced more recently; 

  Cost-effective  insurance  seems  to  be  facilitated  by  a  tradition  of  collaboration 
between public and private sector risk managers, in some cases shaped by some 
form of public reinsurance support for catastrophic losses;  

  Under the Cohesion Policy, national and/or regional risk assessments for disaster 
management  (including  in  relation  to  climate  risks)  are  a  precondition  for 
funding164.  Where  relevant,  there  is  a  requirement  to  consider  the  NASs.  In 
particular,  the  EU  Solidarity  Fund  specifies  that  payments  are  limited  to  non-

160 http://www.100resilientcities.org/  
161 https://www.unisdr.org/we/campaign/cities  
162 European Investment Bank, Environmental and Social Handbook, 2013. 
163  Federation  of  European  Risk  Management  Associations  (FERMA,  see  footnote  143)  and  the  Geneva 
Association, an international think tank of the insurance industry (www.genevaassociation.org). 

164 With the exception of the European Social Fund. 

50 

 
                                                 
 

insurable  damages165.  This  way,  EU  disaster  risk  management  incentivizes  risk 
reduction; 
In  the  promotion  of  a  market  for  disaster  risk  insurance,  other  financial 
mechanisms  may  also  act  as  drivers,  for  example,  the  regulation  in  France 
obliging banks to disclose climate risks associated with their assets.  

Barriers: 

  A lack of coherence between national insurance markets, which makes  a simple 
approach  to  integrate  insurance  in  disaster  risk  reduction  and  adaptation 
challenging;166 

  Difficulty  to  compare  market  penetration  rates  among  Member  States,  as  data 
collection is not standardised, and especially data related to commercial activities 
is often unavailable;  

  There is low general awareness of climate risks; 
 

Insufficient  reliance  on  public-private  partnerships  where  governments’  risk 
prevention  and  response  can  benefit  from  the  insurance  sector’s  knowledge  of 
risks; 

  Disaster  risk  management  and  climate  adaptation  are  mostly  dealt  with  in 

different ministries in the Member States;  

  Member States often focus on extreme weather events when they happen but are 
not  necessarily  planning  ahead.  Risk  assessments  usually  only  span  2-5  years 
while climate projections are longer term. Research projects modelling short- to 
mid-term climate change could help Member States and insurers to link disaster 
risk strategies to climate change adaptation;  
Insurance  risk  models  are  traditionally  based  on  historic  trends  of  increase  of 
insured  and  non-insured  losses  related  to  climate  events,  while  they  lack  well-
developed scenarios including future increases in damage; 

 

  To  date,  insurance  companies  have  been  reluctant  to  structurally  share  detailed 
information. This problem could be overcome by appointing a third party playing 
an enabling role in designing insurance and risk transfer products that are capable 
of addressing climate related risk transfer;  

  To date, natural disasters have been covered by annual insurance contracts, while 
insurers  should  seek  to  explore  provision  of  longer-term  contracts  instead  of 
annual ones; 

  To date, there is no clear classification or typology of investments that contribute 

to adaptation to climate change; 

  The profitability of adaptation-related projects is low or risky and there is a lack 
of technical assistance to such projects (see discussion under Action 2 above).  

165 Regulation (EU) No 661/2014. The EU Solidarity Fund specifies in its article 3.3: Payments from the 
Fund are limited to financing measures alleviating non-insurable damage and shall be recovered if the 
cost of repairing the damage is subsequently met by a third party. 

166  Three  broad  types  of  insurance  markets  exist  in  Europe  (voluntary,  semi-voluntary  and  mandatory). 
Depending  on  how  risks  of  extreme  weather  events  were  historically  reflected  in  national  insurance 
markets, insurance can serve two main types of societal objectives: (1) widespread coverage at a low 
premium,  and  (2)  incentivising  stakeholders  to  manage  their  own  risk.  This  variation  has  resulted  in 
contrasting  penetration  rates  of  the  three  broad  insurance  market  types;  the  market  penetration  is  not 
high for mandatory insurance markets, for example. 

51 

 
 
                                                 
6.2.4.  What effects has the Strategy produced so far for different 

stakeholders, e.g. according to socio-economic background and 
vulnerability? 

The  Strategy’s  objectives  and  associated  actions  are  directly  relevant  to  Commission 
services,  Member  State  authorities,  regional  and  local  authorities,  researchers,  and 
private  decision  makers.  The  same  is  true  of  the  Impact  Assessment's  operational 
objectives  and  performance  measures,  which  did  not  aim  to  measure  the  Strategy’s 
societal  impacts.  This  question,  therefore,  extends  beyond  the  normal  scope  of  the 
evaluation.  

The  targeted  stakeholder  survey  elicited  too  low  a  response  to  inform  any  meaningful 
differentiation of the Strategy’s effects on different stakeholders. The public consultation 
questionnaire led to a higher response; however, it still includes answers from only 217 
private  individuals  from  22  Member  States.  This  is  too  small  a  sample  for  drawing 
societal conclusions.167 

The  actions  taken  by  the  stakeholders  directly  targeted  by  the  Strategy  are  expected  to 
exercise a multiplier effect (as explained in the Intervention Logic section of Chapter 2) 
and thus result in wide-ranging indirect impacts across society. The Strategy foresees that 
adaptation action will bring new market opportunities, jobs and benefits in such sectors 
as  agricultural  technologies,  ecosystem  management,  construction,  water  management 
and insurance. For example, mainstreaming of climate change adaptation in the CAP by 
policy  and  decision  makers  will  provide  benefits  to  farmers  through  reducing  climate 
sensitivities and increasing their adaptive capacities to cope with climate change.  

Appropriate performance indicators would be necessary to measure specific impacts on 
stakeholders  or  sectors.  They  would  also  need  to  be  monitored  over  a  longer  period  of 
time  than  the  5  years  since  the  adoption  of  the  Strategy,  because  most  of  the  effects 
envisaged  by  the  Strategy  are  longer-term.  While  the  cohesion  policy  funds  under  the 
2014-2020 MFF already include indicators on e.g. the number of people protected from 
floods and forest fires, the time lag effect with regard to reporting does not allow drawing 
meaningful conclusions on impacts. Similarly, at the time of the mid-term evaluation of 
other programmes such LIFE or H2020 that this evaluation looked at, final results from 
implemented projects  were not  yet  available, and any figures  in  those evaluations were 
based on estimated results from projects in their inception phase. After the ESIF funded 
projects of the current multiannual financial period come to an end, it will be possible to 
aggregate some societal  indicators. Still, a more  consistent  analysis with  a wider scope 
will be needed to effectively map the socio-economic impacts of adaptation policies. 

167 Also, compared to citizens contacted randomly for a survey like Eurobarometer, a significant part of the 
individuals  having  voluntarily  chosen  to  fill  in  the  public  consultation  questionnaire  likely  did  so 
because of an interest in the topic, which means that the sample may not be representative of the EU 
population’s average knowledge and interest in climate adaptation.  

52 

 
                                                 
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? 

Administrative  costs  directly  resulting  from  the  Strategy  are  low  and  mostly  limited  to 
the Commission168, with notable exception of funding programmes that are co-financed 
by other (e.g. national) entities. Costs for other stakeholders resulting from the Strategy 
are voluntary in the majority of cases and linked to access to EU funds.  

A summary of the resources spent on implementation with a focus on the administrative 
costs of the actions of the Strategy is presented in the table in section 11 of Annex VIII. It 
does  not  include  costs  voluntarily  incurred  by  stakeholders  to  benefit  from  instruments 
under the umbrella of the Strategy (such as LIFE, H2020, ESIF/CAP/CFP). 

For  Actions  1,  3,  5,  6,  7  and  8  the  costs  have  been  limited  to  preparing  guidance, 
maintaining  web  portals,  covering  the  human  resources  costs  for  coordination  (such  as 
for  the  outsourced  Covenant  of  Mayors)  and  the  organisation  of  conferences.  Much  of 
the work, such  as  mainstreaming into other policy  areas, was carried out  as part of the 
Commission’s core activity (e.g. meeting with Member State experts in the framework of 
expert groups on adaptation or Standing forestry  committee).  In these cases, due to  the 
leverage effect, the actions can be considered as highly cost-efficient.  

Actions  2  (LIFE)  and  4  (mainly  H2020)  are  making  direct  use  of  funding  programmes 
where the costs of implementation of the strategy were higher because of the financing of 
demonstration and research projects. 

in 

Overall, we can conclude that the benefits  linked to  the Strategy  (described in  detail  in 
Chapter 6.2) are tangible and are achieved at low costs thanks to the multiplier effects of 
its  actions 
terms  of  guidance,  coordination,  dissemination,  demonstration, 
mainstreaming into other policies and funds. However, most of the operational objectives 
of  the  Strategy  have  targets  fixed  for  2020,  while  the  funding  programmes  used  under 
some actions are multi-annual and subject to their own evaluation processes. This results 
in difficulty at this point in time to judge the efficiency of resource use in the different 
actions of the Strategy. 

Some specific observations can be made on the efficiency of selected Actions. 

Action 1 Member States: The cost of developing the guidance for the Member States on 
adaptation  strategies  was  negligible  compared  to  the  fact  that  several  Member  States 
highlighted  the  usefulness  of  the  guidance  and  its  political  importance  in  stimulating 
adaptation  policy.  Although  the  exact  role  of  the  Strategy  is  unclear,  being  one  of 
multiple drivers, the increased number of strategies adopted and low costs point to a cost-
efficient use of resources. 

Action  2  LIFE:  The  LIFE  mid-term  evaluation  estimated  that  for  the  entire  LIFE 
Programme,  including  the  adaptation  priority  area  under  the  Climate  Action  sub-
programme,  the  anticipated  results  of  LIFE  projects  would  have  a  societal  benefit  of 

168 In this section, of the costs incurred by the Commission, only those are considered that were estimated 
in the 2013 impact assessment. Otherwise, running EU adaptation policy is part of the core business of 
the Commission and as such is not monetised. 

53 

 
                                                 
EUR 1.7 billion, which was four times the overall LIFE budget for 2014.  The LIFE mid-
term evaluation however underlined that it is premature to determine whether the LIFE 
programme  provides  value  for  money  at  an  early  stage  of  implementation,  basing  their 
analysis on a series of projects selected under the 2014 calls for proposals. Moreover, the 
external  study  supporting  the  mid-term  evaluation  has  concluded  that  the  LIFE 
management structure appears to  be less  costly  than the management structure of other 
EU-funded programmes.    

Action 3 Covenant of Mayors: The annual resource commitments from the Commission 
are  relatively  low  and  appear  to  be  adequate  and  efficiently  used,  given  the  increasing 
number of cities committing to the adaptation aspects of the Covenant of Mayors.  

Action 4 Knowledge gaps:  As none of the knowledge gaps identified in 2013 have been 
fully  bridged,  it  is  too  early  to  more  precisely  estimate  the  adequacy  of  resources 
regarding bridging knowledge gaps. Nevertheless, stakeholders agreed that the Strategy 
has  helped  to  reduce  knowledge  gaps  on  adaptation  in  the  EU.  The  majority  of  funds 
were channelled through H2020, which was subject to an in-depth interim evaluation in 
May  2017;  that  interim  evaluation  concluded  the  research  framework  programme  is  in 
general efficient.169  

For  Action  5  Climate-ADAPT:    The  recorded  growth  in  information  materials  on 
Climate-ADAPT  and  visitor  numbers  in  the  last  years  suggest  that  the  resources  are 
having a positive impact. Further collaboration with Commission Services would help to 
improve  overall  efficiency  in  how  knowledge  inputs  are  collated  on  Climate-ADAPT. 
Overall, resources appear to be adequate at present but, to continue to grow the Climate-
ADAPT user base and accommodate the ever-growing volume of content, resources may 
need to increase in future, even if greater efficiency in collation can be achieved.   

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? 

The open public consultation also tested a preliminary conclusion that the monitoring and 
administrative burden of the Strategy  was very  light.  When  asked, 65% of respondents 
were  neutral  or  undecided,  and  most  of  the  remainder  agreed  it  was  very  light.  It  is 
difficult to judge whether the non-agreeing respondents were referring to administrative 
burden directly stemming from the Strategy (such as reporting requirements under LIFE 
projects) or to burden imposed by the mainstreaming into EU funds whose use has to be 
monitored anyway under the ESIF framework. 

In any case, no positive evidence of unnecessary burden was found. The ECA noted that 
there is a lack of adaptation-related indicators and that monitoring and audit of adaptation 
actions is both more difficult and carried out far less than for mitigation.170 171 

169 Commission Staff Working Document: In-Depth Interim Evaluation of Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 220 
final.  And:  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Executive  Summary  of  the  Interim  Evaluation  of 
Horizon 2020, SWD(2017) 222 final. 

170  'Spending  at  least  one  euro  in  every  five  from  the  EU  budget  on  climate  action:  ambitious  work 

underway, but at serious risk of falling short', European Court of Auditors, 2016.  

171 'Landscape review. EU action on energy and climate change', European Court of Auditors, 2017. 

54 

 
                                                 
The monitoring activities related to  Action 2  LIFE, Action 4 Knowledge gaps (H2020) 
and Action 6 ESIF/CAP/CFP are largely common to the respective support programmes 
they are part of. Only any adaptation-specific issues are mentioned below. Actions 5, 7 
and 8 have no monitoring carried out by stakeholders.  

Action  1  Member  State  strategies  -  Outside  the  scope  of  the  Strategy,  the  Monitoring 
Mechanism Regulation172 (Art. 15) obliges Member States to report to the Commission 
on  their  ‘national  adaptation  planning  and  strategies,  outlining  their  implemented  or 
planned  actions  to  facilitate  adaptation  to  climate  change’  by  2015  and  every  4  years 
thereafter.  This  is  a  strong  legal  obligation  on  reporting,  but  it  does  not  stem  from  the 
Strategy  itself.  This  information  is  published  on  the  country  pages  of  Climate-ADAPT 
where  Member  States  can  provide  interim  voluntary  updates.  It  serves  as  a  source  of 
information  for  the  Commission’s  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  Action  1 
primarily through the adaptation scoreboard. This is a document created and maintained 
by  the  Commission,  Member  States  are  only  asked  to  comment  on  its  draft  versions, 
which represents a light monitoring and reporting burden.  

For Action 3, the monitoring of adaptation under the Covenant of Mayors has resulted in 
costs being incurred by the managing office (funded by the Commission), by JRC of the 
European  Commission  and  by  the  cities  themselves  (voluntarily).  The  Covenant  of 
Mayors requires signatories to submit a progress report monitoring implementation every 
two years following submission of their action plan. The template for Sustainable Energy 
and Climate Action Plans (SECAP) contains an adaptation scoreboard that enables local 
authorities  to  conduct  a  self-assessment  of  their  adaptation  status.  Involvement  in  the 
Covenant  of  Mayors 
impose  mandatory 
administrative burden.  

therefore  does  not 

is  voluntary  and 

Under  Action  6  ESIF/CAP/CFP,  managing  authorities  are  required  to  provide  financial 
information to the Commission on the amount of allocations and spending for different 
types of investments (i.e. categories of intervention), each of which has specific climate-
related  weighting.  The  methodology173  for  this  differs  between  the  ERDF/CF,  EAFRD 
and  EMFF.  The  mainstreaming  methodology  for  the  European  Agricultural  Guarantee 
Fund (EAGF) is defined in another regulation. The methodology currently does not fully 
differentiate  between  allocations  for  climate  mitigation  and  adaptation  (it  provides 
detailed view of the different  categories of intervention and their climate relevance but 
there is no explicit split whether these are related to climate adaptation or mitigation as 
many times measures effecting mitigation also have a positive impact on adaptation).  

Many  measures  that  are  good  for  mitigation  also  entail  co-benefit  for  adaptation  and 
vice-versa.  Hence  an  identification  of  measures  exclusively  supporting  mitigation  or 
adaptation  objectives  would  neither  be  desirable  nor  feasible.  This  however  does  not 
prevent  from  tracking  expenditures  supportive  of  mitigation  and  adaptation  objectives 
separately, even if a certain proportion of such expenditures is then counted twice.  

Adaptation  activities  by  private  organisations  reported  to  the  CDP  do  not  provide 
sufficiently  detailed  information  on  climate  adaptation  action,  hence,  it  would  be 
valuable  to  develop  a  more  relevant  indicator  to  monitor  adaptation  mainstreaming  by 
businesses. 

172 Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013. 
173 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 215/2014 of 7 March 2014. 

55 

 
                                                 
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? 

Coherence with other EU policies and initiatives 

The array of impacts of a changing climate across all areas of human activity, and across 
all  policy  areas,  means  that  it  requires  a  cross  cutting  and  multi-sectoral  approach. 
Mainstreaming adaptation into other policy areas is a major tool in adaptation policy, and 
by  definition  is  aimed  at  ensuring  coherence.  One  of  the  Strategy  objectives  is  the 
climate-proofing  of  vulnerable  sectors,  and  most  of  its  actions  pursue  the  delivery  of 
adaptation in other policy instruments and sectors.  

Table 6-1 – Key areas of synergy between adaptation and other EU policies 

Adaptation action 

Other EU policy 

Observed synergy 

Action 1 – Member State 
strategies 

Disaster Risk Reduction 
Civil Protection 

Action 3 – Covenant of Mayors 

European Urban Water Agenda 
European Green Leaf and Green 
Capital Awards 
Disaster Risk Reduction 
Urban Agenda of the EU 

Action 6 – Climate-proofing EU 
funds 

EU budget and funding 
programmes 

Action 7 – Resilient 
infrastructure 

Energy and transport 

Long-term prevention 
Preparedness scoreboard and 
indicators 
Active coordination of the two 
policies 
Common objectives 

Common objectives 

Common indicators (urban level) 
Climate Adaptation Partnership 
Commitment for 20% climate 
spending (but issues with 
tracking adaptation separately 
and trade-offs) 
TEN (Trans-European Networks) 
Guidelines have adaptation 
provisions 

Further information on these areas of synergy is provided in section 12 of Annex VIII. 

 Coherence with international policies and initiatives 

Coherence with action at the international level was discussed in Chapter 3.  

Coherence with national and regional policies and initiatives 

Coherence  with  national  priorities  needs  to  address  both  the  wide  range  of  different 
situations  and  priorities  among  the  28  Member  States,  and  to  recognise  the 
Commission’s lower level of influence in areas of policy without detailed EU legislation. 
The  design  of  the  Strategy  clearly  helps  to  avoid  incoherence  in  the  sense  of  conflict 
between  legal  requirements,  as  it  relies  on  voluntary  measures  at  national  and  sub-
national level, supported by guidance for such measures and a monitoring of progress by 
the Commission.  

56 

 
 
Stakeholders  participating  in  a  break-out  session  of  the  first  workshop  in  April  2017 
noted that national-level coherence had in part been facilitated by the mainstreaming of 
adaptation in EU policy in a range of sectors and that sectoral coherence benefited from 
an EU-wide approach.  

The Commission’s guidance on the preparation of NASs, and the adaptation scoreboard 
developed under Action 1, include several areas which reflect on the level of coherence 
within national and sub-national policies, but also in transboundary issues. This guidance 
is  coherent  with  the  efforts  needed  at  national  level  for  more  coordination  between 
adaptation  and  other  policy  areas,  and  stakeholders  suggest  that  the  Strategy  has  had  a 
helpful impact on improving this coordination.   

Assessing coherence at sub-national level is more complicated. The Covenant of Mayors 
initiative to some extent helps to overcome this complexity, although its coverage is not 
yet sufficiently wide to ensure coherence of action at local level.  

The lack of coordination within Member States suggests that there is a need for further 
action to help administrations overcome behavioural and other barriers to coordination.  

through  cross-border  or 

One  further  area  of  added  value  stems  from  the  positive  reinforcement  of  national 
transnational  cooperation  by  simultaneous 
strategies 
implementation  of  adaptation  policies  in  neighbouring  countries.  An  example  is  in  the 
EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR)174. The specific case study on the EUSDR 
(see  Case  Study  3  in  Annex  XIV)  reveals  how  shared  biophysical  climate  risks  can 
prompt informal and lasting cooperation between administrations, without institutional or 
financial  burdens.  The  EUSDR  helped  participating  countries  identify  and  respond  to 
transboundary  adaptation  challenges,  particularly  through  improved  dialogue  and 
exchange of information.  

Internal coherence 

There  is  a  strong  evidence  of  coherence  between  several  actions  within  the  Strategy. 
Action 5 (Climate-ADAPT) is meant to present  information on adaptation action in the 
EU,  it  also  offers  information  linked  to  several  other  actions,  such  as  Action  4  on 
knowledge  gaps  and  Action  3  on  the  Covenant  of  Mayors.  Since  2007,  nine  LIFE 
projects under Action 2 have supported the development of climate adaptation strategies 
or plans under Action 1 (total budget: EUR 16 million). The coherence between efforts 
under  Action  6,  through  the  use  of  ex  ante  conditionalities  in  the  ESIF  and  the 
encouragement of NASs under Action 1 has already been noted. The focus on climate-
proofing of major projects is building on the objectives of both Cohesion Policy (Action 
6) and resilient infrastructure (Action 7). Similarly, the development of risk management 
tools  under  the  CAP  2014-2020  and  the  foreseen  emphasis  announced  in  the 
Communication  on  the  Future  of  Food  and  Farming175  is  coherent  with  the  broader 
insurance objective of Action 8. 

The  implementation  of  Action  4  has  increased  the  rate  of  development  of  climate 
services  that  identify  and  quantify  climate  risks  and  impacts.  The  Copernicus  Climate 

174 http://www.danube-region.eu/  
175  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  The  Council,  The  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The Future of Food and Farming, 
COM(2017) 713 final. 

57 

 
                                                 
Change  Services  (C3S)  is  one  such  recently  introduced  service,  which  in  synergy  with 
Action 8, can usefully complement the insurance industry’s expertise. In recent years, the 
insurance industry has also started to integrate geo-location and weather projections into 
their underwriting of risks. 

A  more  comprehensive  identification  of  links  between  actions  could  have  improved 
coherence  even  further.  There  might  have  been  greater  coherence  had  there  been  more 
centralised management of the 20% climate mainstreaming target for the 2014-2020 EU 
budget  with  greater  separate  attention  to  adaptation,  as  recommended  by  the  ECA  in 
2016.176 

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? 

The Strategy has proved effective in  making significant  progress  towards its objectives 
up  to  2020.  It  has  generated  added  value,  while  the  right  of  initiative  remained  at  the 
appropriate levels of governance, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. 
There  appears  to  be  less  added  value  where  action  was  already  underway  prior  to  the 
Strategy,  although  most  elements  of  the  Strategy  appear  to  add  at  least  some  value, 
compared with horizontal and vertical actions at Member State level. 

The  clearest  added  value  appears  to  be  in  areas  where  the  EU  is  encouraging 
identification  and  bridging  of  knowledge  gaps  and  EU  wide  research  (Objective  2  – 
Actions  4  and  5,  and  also  Action  2),  and  in  areas  where  the  EU  is  responsible  for 
integrating  adaptation  into  its  own  policies  (Objective  3  –  Action  6,  obviously,  as  no 
other entity than the EU could do this). Through climate mainstreaming into ESIF, which 
is  implemented by Member States under shared  management, it is  also possible for the 
EU to influence policy making and budget allocation in Member States towards climate 
action. There would be even more EU added value if adaptation was mainstreamed also 
in areas where the EU has exclusive competence, such as trade and fisheries (the reasons 
for the absence of mainstreaming in these areas are discussed in section 6.2.3). In relation 
to  Action 8, the main EU added value appeared to  be in taking up a facilitative role in 
overcoming  the  main  hurdles  for  public-private  cooperation,  starting  with  increased 
understanding  of  insurance  markets  in  Member  States  through  the  insurance  study  and 
two  thematic  workshops  organised  by  the  Commission.177  Thus,  increased  market-
penetration  of  risk  transfer  mechanisms  across  Europe  was  supported  by  EU  action 
without unifying or harmonising the national insurance markets. 
In  general,  the  consultation  indicates  that  while  stakeholders  such  as  governments  at 
different  levels  would  have  certainly  worked  independently  on  adaptation  without  EU 
intervention, there would neither have been equivalent progress nor a collective approach 
without its encouragement. The majority of stakeholders agreed that equivalent progress 
would not have been made in the absence of the Strategy in particular for Actions 3 to 6.  

176 See footnote 170. 
177 See footnote 92. 

58 

 
 
                                                 
Specific details on the EU added value of the Strategy’s actions are provided below. 
Action  1  Member  State  strategies.  As  pointed  out  in  Chapter  4,  adaptation  strategies 
had  been  drafted  in  15  Member  States  before  the  launch  of  the  Strategy.  A  2014  EEA 
report178 noted that 19 of the European countries surveyed identified “EU policies” as a 
driver for adaptation action, second only to extreme weather events (28 countries). While 
it is less clear what proportion of this can be attributed to the Strategy or to other policy 
drivers, it seems likely that the process of discussing the Strategy, and entering into the 
commitments  set  out  in  the  2013  Council  conclusions,  had  an  impact  on  the  political 
salience of the subject. The presence of common guidelines for national strategies and an 
assessment  framework  in  the  form  of  the  adaptation  preparedness  scoreboard  also 
provided  added  value  as  EU-level  coordination  activities.    For  example,  the  guidelines 
have been used by Member States that had not previously developed NASs or by others 
when developing subnational or sectoral adaptation plans.   

Action  2  LIFE.  The  mid-term  evaluation179  Reported  that  stakeholders  largely 
acknowledged  (95%)  the  catalytic  role  that  LIFE  is  playing  for  better  solidarity  and 
responsibility-sharing  in  preserving  the  common  good  of  the  EU’s  environment  and 
climate,  leading  to  less  costly  implementation  of  environmental  and  climate  change 
policies.  Notably,  the  added  value  of  LIFE  is  that  EU  funding  enables  project 
beneficiaries to deliver results that in most cases would either not be realised at national, 
regional and/or and in particular at local level, or would be pursued at slower pace and on 
a  lesser  scale.  This  is  especially  so  for  Member  States  that  have  fewer  financial 
mechanisms  in  place  or  when  these  mechanisms  are  difficult  to  access.  Stakeholder 
interviews  revealed  that  the  added  value  was  in  providing  funding  for  adaptation  at  a 
local  level  for  which local  authorities may have  difficulty in  finding other sources.  For 
instance,  a  specific  LIFE  integrated  project  in  Denmark  has  the  possibility  to  mobilise 
hundreds of millions of EUR of complementary funding, assisting implementation of the 
relevant adaptation strategy.  

Action  3  Covenant  of  Mayors.  The  Covenant,  as  an  EU-level  network  of  local 
authorities, enables peer-to-peer learning among European local authorities coming from 
different Member States but facing similar climate risks. It has increased local ownership 
of the EU Strategy for adaptation, providing impetus to the delivery of the EU’s climate 
and  energy  objectives  in  general.  The  Covenant  provided  access  to  Europe-wide 
adaptation  knowledge  produced  and  disseminated  because  of  the  Strategy,  and  in 
particular on the knowledge gaps the Strategy identified. Through the Covenant, the EU 
has been of direct assistance to local authorities and experts, in particular by optimising 
links  with  EU  funding  opportunities  to  carry  out  adaptation  projects.  The  Covenant  of 
Mayors  offered  a  uniform  level  of  support,  sometimes  making  up  for  gaps  in  national 
support:  the  value  of  the  Covenant  of  Mayors  is  particularly  high  in  countries  where 
similar national networks are absent180. In addition, the launch of the Global Covenant of 
Mayors for Climate and Energy, has offered European cities further benefits and a voice 
at international level. 

Action 4 Knowledge gaps Results from the targeted stakeholder survey strongly support 
that  there  is  added  value  in  H2020  and  work  undertaken  by  the  JRC  in  addressing 
adaptation knowledge gaps. The availability of EU funding supports significant research 

178 'National adaptation policy processes in European Countries – 2014', European Environment Agency, 

2014. 

179 LIFE evaluation: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/evaluation/index.htm 
180 See footnote 126 

59 

 
                                                 
calls,  complementing  and  contributing  to  global  research  and  innovation  efforts.  The 
contribution  of  H2020  funded  research  to  the  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate 
Change (IPCC) reports is significant and important.181 In addition, many climate change 
impacts  are  continent  wide  (e.g.  the  last  major  floods  in  Europe  covered  several 
countries): in this context, the action by the Commission in addressing knowledge gaps 
through  H2020  and  the  work  of  the  JRC  are  identified  as  important  in  accelerating 
progress in the understanding of the issues at hand.  

Overall,  in  combination,  the  targeted  stakeholder  survey,  literature  and  interviews 
provide  good evidence of strong added value  from  the work on knowledge  gaps at  EU 
level. There is also a continuing need for assessment reports from EEA, which are one of 
the  recognised  ways  to  disseminate  research  results  in  an  understandable  way  for 
policymakers.  Over  85%  of  157  respondents  to  the  open  public  consultation  agreed  or 
strongly agreed that one of the areas of clearest  added value of acting at EU level is in 
bridging knowledge gaps. Action 5 is linked to this endeavour. 

Action  5  Climate-ADAPT.  An  evaluation  by  the  EEA  of  Climate-ADAPT  notes  that 
Climate-ADAPT adds  value by providing an EU reference point for the state-of-the-art 
of  adaptation  in  Europe.  The  literature,  targeted  stakeholder  survey  and  interview 
evidence  gathered  under  this  evaluation  also  point  to  good  evidence  of  added  value 
through  provision  of  background  information,  peer-to-peer  learning  and  a  source  of 
inspiration.  There  is  an  indication  that  this  may  be  more  notable  at  transnational  and 
national scale, than at sub-national or city scale. 

Action 6 Mainstreaming. The EU is responsible for integrating adaptation into its own 
policies, so the added value of the Strategy is inherent to Action 6. Without the Strategy, 
an equivalent amount of progress would not have been made in climate proofing key EU 
policies such as agriculture and cohesion. However, it needs to be stressed that part of the 
responsibility lies with Member States, under the shared management of ESIF. 

Action 7 Infrastructure. European Standardisation Organisations reported in the context 
of  this  evaluation  that,  although  they  had  started  considering  standards,  the  process 
would  have  been  much  slower  and  would  not  have  been  so  coordinated  without  the 
Strategy. 

Action 8 Insurance and resilient businesses. Various stakeholders from the insurance 
and  risk  management  industry  indicated  the  importance  of  integrating  insurance  in 
climate  risk  management.  The  main  benefit  of  the  Strategy  is  the  fact  that  the 
Commission  has  the  opportunity  to  facilitate  coordination  of  this  public-private 
cooperation. Without the Strategy, the benefits of public-private cooperation, such as the 
consideration of good practices in national insurance schemes and better use of disaster 
data, would not have been as explicit as they are now.  

181  The  IPCC's  5th  Assessment  Report  included  around  1,000  quotes  to  FP6,  FP7  and  Horizon  2020 
(Societal  Challenge  5) 

projects'  outputs 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/148b3b8f-50ae-11e7-a5ca-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en (page 69) 

Interim  evaluation  of  H2020 

(papers).  See: 

60 

 
 
                                                 
7.  CONCLUSIONS 

The objective of this evaluation is to examine the actual implementation and performance 
of the EU adaptation strategy (Strategy) between 2013 and early 2018, and to report to 
the European Parliament and Council.  

The evaluation covered the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added 
value  of  the  Strategy.  These  criteria  were  examined  in  an  external  study182  based  on 
available evidence and the information gathered through consultation activities, including 
an open public consultation. Stakeholders are broadly supportive of EU action in the field 
of adaptation. They recognised the greatest added value in mainstreaming into other EU 
policies and in encouraging action at all levels of governance. They also highlighted the 
need to close knowledge gaps and to better integrate adaptation with climate mitigation 
and  external  policy.  In  general,  consultation  activities  showed  no  strongly  diverging 
views or conflicting interests between the different categories of stakeholders. 

The  evaluation  concludes  that  the  Strategy  remains  highly  relevant,  although  recent 
research  has  revealed  pressing  adaptation  needs,  for  example  with  regard  to  high-end 
climate change and the vulnerability of the EU to climate change in third countries (the 
closure  of  related  knowledge  gaps  should  receive  more  emphasis  in  the  future).  The 
Strategy is also quite coherent with policies at other levels of governance, although less 
so  as  regards  international  policies.  A  mix  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  assessment 
found that the Strategy was effective, although more work needs to be done to implement 
and monitor national strategies, promote local action, bridge newly emerging knowledge 
gaps, complete mainstreaming in EU policy and foster the use of insurance and financial 
instruments  in  adaptation.  The  analysis  of  effectiveness  was  also  hampered  by  the  fact 
that the Strategy’s performance indicators focus on processes, no indicators are available 
to assess its socio-economic impacts, and no such indicators exist currently at EU scale. 
The  Strategy  seems  efficient,  imposing  administrative  costs  only  on  the  Commission. 
Finally, there is clear added value of the Strategy at EU level. 

The Strategy delivered on its objectives, with progress recorded against each of the eight 
individual actions. In particular: 

  The  Strategy  shifted  some  political  focus  towards  adaptation  issues  and  the 
need for prevention and preparedness, and it increased awareness among a broad 
range of EU, Member State, and sub-national policymakers. As a result, a wider 
range of stakeholders acknowledges the urgency of adaptation action nowadays.  
  The  Strategy  promoted  strong  action  by  Member  States  and  was  one  of  the 
drivers  leading  25  out  of  28  Member  States  to  adopt  NASs,  most  of  them 
including  good  preparatory  provisions  such  as  horizontal  coordination 
mechanisms, stakeholder involvement and transboundary cooperation.  

  At  the  local  level,  the  Covenant  of  Mayors  increased  urban  preparedness, 
bringing adaptation actions close to the citizens and delivering on the objectives 
of  the  Strategy  by  means  of  a  bottom-up,  multilevel  governance  approach.  The 
increase  in  the  number  of  cities  having  effectively  reported  adaptation 
strategies/plans within the Covenant has been so far small, but this may be due to 
the  absence  (until  very  recently)  of  an  online  reporting  platform.  Survey-based 
estimates  indicate  that,  overall,  more  than  one-quarter  of  EU  cities  have  such  a 
policy  document.  Extreme  weather  causes  more  damage  where  population  and 

182 See footnote 4. 

61 

 
                                                 
infrastructure  are  concentrated,  and  therefore,  local  authorities  remain  at  the 
forefront of climate shocks. 

 

  LIFE’s  targeted  funds  acted  as  an  effective  catalyst,  providing  and 
disseminating solutions and best practices on the ground. Evidence points at the 
need to increase LIFE resources devoted to adaptation. 
It  increased  the  production  and  availability  of  valuable  knowledge,  in 
particular as regards high emission scenarios. Climate-ADAPT, in particular, has 
become  the  Strategy's  vehicle  to  disseminate  information  on  adaptation  to 
decision-makers at various governance levels and organisations supporting them. 
This  has  allowed  decision-makers  to  make  use  of  increasing  adaptation 
knowledge  for  developing  adaptation  strategies  and  actions  and  to  reduce 
uncertainty,  but  not  to  the  point  of  closing  all  the  gaps  identified  in  2013. 
Furthermore,  as  in  many  other  scientific  fields,  new  gaps  have  emerged.  The 
focus may need to switch from gaps to decision-making processes that integrate 
uncertainty, such as adaptation pathways.183 It would be also relevant to reinforce 
the  cooperation  between  researchers  and  decision-makers,  notably  for  practical 
solutions on the ground. 

  Mainstreaming of adaptation as part of climate objectives in key EU policies or 
sectors  was  generally  thorough  (the  most  notable  exceptions  being  the  areas  of 
trade and fisheries), including the way to track such progress. This was certainly 
the case for Disaster Risk Reduction, the European Regional Development Fund, 
the  CF  and  CAP,  even  if  a  complete  separation  of  mitigation  and  adaptation 
spending is not possible due to co-benefits and synergies. 

  As regards infrastructure, major projects are now required to be climate proof. 
Further  work  on  preparedness  and  standards  is  ongoing,  but  might  not  deliver 
results before 2020.  

  There  was  EU  added  value  in  having  a  Europe-wide  policy  instrument: 
equivalent progress would not have been possible in the absence of the Strategy. 
This was most apparent in the production and dissemination of knowledge and in 
their  integration  of  adaptation  constraints  in  key  EU  policies.  The  evaluation 
suggests that there might be further EU added value if adaptation is mainstreamed 
in areas where the EU has exclusive competences, such as trade and fisheries. 
  Finally,  in  terms  of  internal  coherence,  evidence  suggests  that  there  are 
synergies  between  several  of  the  eight  actions  of  the  Strategy,  even  though  the 
Strategy did not expressly seek synergies between its actions.  

There  are  lessons  to  be  drawn  from  the  evaluation  with  regard  to  potential  gaps  in  the 
Strategy or to step up efforts in areas where the Strategy was less successful: 

  The  focus  of  the  Strategy  adopted  in  2013  was  on  the  EU,  although  already  in 
2010,  the  adoption  of  the  Cancún  adaptation  framework184  foretold  the 
importance  that  adaptation  would  gather  in  the  future:  in  2015  the  Paris 
agreement  enshrined  adaptation  as  a  global  goal.  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 

183  The  concept  of  adaptation  pathways  focuses  on  the  processes  of  decision  making,  rather  than  the 
outcome; it emphasises the adaptive nature of the decision process itself in the face of high uncertainty 
and complexity. 

184 The Cancun Adaptation Framework was adopted in 2010 through the UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16 (ref. 

document FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1). 

62 

 
                                                 
transboundary  effects  of  climate  impacts  in  third  countries  via  migration,  trade 
and financial flows. 

  While  it  succeeded  in  spreading  the  adoption  of  national  strategies,  there  is 
margin to improve implementation and monitoring, for example by developing 
meaningful  indicators  to  monitor  the  socio-economic  impacts  of  national 
strategies  and  to  assess  the  value  of  the  prevention  and  management  of  risks 
linked to climate change. This extends also to local level and adaptation strategies 
in the context of the Covenant of Mayors. 

  Progress  in  the  adoption  of  local  adaptation  strategies  has  been  slower  than 
expected.  Better  downscaling  of  adaptation  knowledge  might  be  required, 
notably  on  socio-economic  impacts  and  possible  responses.  In  addition,  the 
national  context  may  have  an  influence,  e.g.  whether  and  how  national 
governments make urban adaptation compulsory or not, and the complexity of the 
inter-linkages between government levels. Where there were binding measures at 
national level the percentage of local authorities in the EU with a local adaptation 
strategy was higher.  

  As regards mainstreaming, there are opportunities for enhanced action in certain 

sectors and funds, such as: 

o  Coastal  protection,  green  infrastructure  and  ecosystem-based  adaptation 

measures.  

o  Disaster  Risk  Reduction,  notably  on  integration  of  climate  change,  its 
impacts  and  adaptation  practices  in  methodologies  and  indicators, 
science/knowledge  for  risk  assessment,  metrics  and  dialogue  between 
practitioners from both fields. 

o  Foreign trade (with a view to tackling possible spillover effects from third 

countries via supply chain). 

o  The EMFF and the ESF. 

  Given  the  private  investments  required  to  adapt  to  climate  change,  there  is  a 
need to involve further business and insurers in view of increasing climate risks. 
The Strategy may not have been as effective as expected in this field, but a new 
impetus  has  been  provided  by  the  recent  adoption  of  the  Action  Plan  on 
Financing  Sustainable  Growth,  whose  effects  are  not  considered  in  this 
evaluation. 

In conclusion, the Strategy has proved effective in making significant progress towards 
its objectives up to 2020, while there is still some efforts needed in a few areas. 

63 

 
 
 
Annex I 

Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

  Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG CLIMA) 
  2016/CLIMA/011 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The evaluation has been steered by DG Climate Action since 20 July 2016185 under the 
scrutiny  of  an  inter-service  group  comprising  of  representatives  of  DG  AGRI,  DG 
BUDG,  DG  COMM,  DG  DEVCO,  DG  EAC,  DG  ECFIN,  DG  ECHO,  EEAS,  DG 
ENER, DG ENV, DG FISMA, DG GROW, DG HOME, JRC, DG MARE, DG MOVE, 
DG NEAR, DG REGIO, DG RTD, SG, DG SANTE, SJ, DG TAXUD and DG TRADE. 

External consultants carried out an evaluation support study between December 2016 and 
April  2018.186  The  Inter-service  Group  followed  closely  the  drafting  of  study  in  four 
meetings during 2017 and 2018. 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

None 

4.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

Source of evidence 

Evidence for the evaluation support study was gathered through a wide range of data 
sources:  

  Literature review 
  A targeted survey (114 responses) 
  An open public survey (386 responses) 
 
  Workshops (2 workshops) 
  4 case studies 

Interviews (43 interviews with about 50 stakeholders) 

Quality of evidence 

185 Ares(2016)4032796 
186 See footnote 4 

64 

 
 
                                                 
The evaluation gathered both quantitative and qualitative data from different sources and 
stakeholders. The results are found robust through the triangulation of different data, but 
to a varying degree depending on the sources. 

The  quality  of  the  evidence  gathered  in  the  evaluation  support  study  is  discussed  in 
Annex XII.  

Quality of the evaluation support study 

The  Inter-service  Group  endorsed  the  quality  assessment  of  the  final  report  evaluation 
support study in its meeting of 17 May 2018. The inter-service group concluded that the 
report  overall  complies  with  the  contractual  conditions  and  relevant  professional 
evaluation standards. The following problems were highlighted: 

  Minor gaps can be observed, for example the situation on EU funds in 2013 was 

not covered in the Baseline section of the report. 

  The  analysis  sometimes  relies  on  views  from  individual  stakeholders,  but  given 
that  the  consultation  solicited  only  limited  feedback  on  certain  topics  not  well 
covered by literature, this was unavoidable. The report remains transparent on the 
strength on the evidence. 
It  would  have  been  preferable  to  further  improve  the  linkages  between  the 
conclusions and the recommendations. 
In spite of repeated flagging of the problem, the report is still repetitive in many 
cases. Also, more information could have been left for the appendices. 

 

 

The  identified  issues  were  tackled  in  this  SWD  by  eliminating  repetitions  and 
superfluous details from the text and adding analysis done internally by the Commission 
services, for example on modelling of future climate impacts. 

In addition, the following changes in content were implemented compared to the study: 

  The background study concluded that there have been no activities under Action 
8 (adaptation for insurance and businesses) apart from a Commission study on the 
topic of insurance. This was a difficult action to evaluate as unlike other actions, 
it  did  not  have  specific  operational  objectives  established  in  the  impact 
assessment.  However,  internal  follow-up  research  in  the  Commission  services 
revealed there were also some other activities, and most recently the Action Plan 
on  Financing  Sustainable  Growth  in  March  2018,  when  contractors  could  no 
longer  consider  its  analysis  in  the  background  report.  This  is  reflected  in  the 
discussion of Action 8 in Chapter 4 on baseline, implementation and state of play. 
  The  background  study  acknowledged  that  mainstreaming  of  adaptation  in  the 
common  fisheries  policy  had  been  more  limited  than  in  other  flagship  policies 
such  as  agriculture  and  cohesion,  but  did  not  analyse  the  possible  reasons, 
consequences  and  future  action  further.  The  SWD  provided  this  analysis  in 
section 6.2.3. 

65 

 
5.  CONSULTATION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD 

The initial draft of the evaluation was submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 30 
May 2018. Previously an informal consultation of the Board had taken place on 2 May 
2018. The Board issued a quality checklist on 22 June and held its scrutiny meeting on 
27  June  2018.  They  issued  a  positive  opinion  with  comments  on  29  June.  The  table 
below presents how the Board’s comments were addressed in the evaluation. 

In the first part of the table, paragraphs from the Board opinion and the quality checklist 
box  entries  covering  the  same  issues  are  grouped  together,  because  actions  were  taken 
that  simultaneously  respond  to  them.  In  the  second  half  of  the  table,  the  remaining 
checklist box entries are addressed in their original order. 

Source of the comments: 

Response from DG CLIMA 

  Board  opinion  paragraphs:  B(1)  to 

(4), C(1) to (5) 

  Technical boxes of Board checklist 1 

to 5 

support 

B(1) The report does not explain why it draws 
more  optimistic  conclusions  than  the  ones  of 
the 
the 
conclusions  on  relevance  do  not  take  into 
account  several  findings  of  the  external  study 
that call for changes of the current strategy. 

In  particular, 

study. 

C(3) The report should explain the reasons for 
differences  in  assessment  with  the  underlying 
study. The study seems to have a more critical 
approach to many deliverables of the Strategy, 
in particular in the area of insurance. 

Box 5. Validity of conclusions and relevance 
for further action 

Hyphen  1  The  report  should  explain  where 
and  why  it  draws  different  conclusions  than 
the support study. 

B(2)  The  report  assesses  effectiveness  on  the 
basis of processes only, and much less on the 
quality of adaptation actions, leading to overly 
positive  conclusions  on the  overall  success  of 
the adaptation strategy. 

C(2)  Consequently,  the  assessment  of  the 
effectiveness  should  be  more  nuanced.  The 
report 
the  original 
objectives  focused  on  setting  processes  and 

should  clarify 

that 

In the relevance discussion of Chapter 7 
Conclusions, reference was added to the 
further  needs  that  the  Strategy  could 
address. 

Annex  I  Procedural  information  now 
explains  what  has  changed  from  the 
study  as  compared  to  the  report,  in 
particular in the area of insurance. 

Chapter  5  Method  now  explains  the 
evaluation’s  limitation  related  to  the 
availability of process indicators only.  

A  description  was  added  to  Chapter  4 
Baseline  under  Action  1  on  how  the 
adaptation preparedness scoreboard also 
looks at the content and implementation 
of the National Adaptation Strategies. 

The  analysis  of  the  effectiveness  of 

66 

 
 
procedures  while  the  evolving  context  and 
progress  in  climate  adaptation  strategies point 
to  the  need  for  effective  implementation  and 
quality adaptation strategies. 

Action  1  under  section  6.2.2  was 
updated  to  reflect  the  latest  version  of 
the horizontal assessment of the country 
fiches. 

Box 1 Design and methodology 
Hyphen 3 The report should  elaborate on the 
general  approach  taken,  i.e.  to  only  look  at 
how  the  actions  to  develop  a  more  climate-
resilient  Europe  have  developed  rather  than 
assessing  the  actual  results  and  the  cost  of 
funding (e.g. in sectoral funding). 

Box 2 Effectiveness and efficiency 

Hyphen  2  The  report  should  more  critically 
look into the quality of national strategies, not 
only their number/existence. One of the central 
evaluation  questions  concerned  whether  a 
revision of the Strategy is necessary. While the 
Strategy does not impose anything on Member 
States, its  effectiveness  should be judged  also 
on the quality of national provisions and their 
stage of implementation. 

Box 5 Validity of conclusions and relevance 
for further action 

Hyphen  2  Why  does  the  report  not  conclude 
on  the  lack  of  effectiveness  concerning  the 
socioeconomic dimension? 

B(3) The report does not sufficiently integrate 
the  international  context  and  developments 
into its analysis. 

C(1)  The  report  should  better  present  the 
context  of  the  Strategy  and  better  link  it  to 
international  initiatives.  Building  on  that,  the 
assessment  of  the  continued  relevance  of  the 
original  objectives  of  the  Strategy  should  be 
put  in  perspective  of  the  developments  and 
evolving  knowledge  on  climate  change  and 
climate  adaptation  since  2013.  Given  these 
developments, the conclusion that the Strategy 
continues  to  be  relevant  cannot  be  justified 
solely  on 
to  establish  climate 
adaptation processes and procedures at the EU 
and Member State level. 

the  need 

Box 1 Design and methodology 
Hyphen 5 What is the rationale for excluding 
the  international  dimension  of  climate  change 

67 

Chapter 7 Conclusions was amended to 
be  more  reserved  on  achievements 
the 
under 
due 
to 
methodological  constraint 
process indicators. 

to 
linked 

effectiveness 

the 

is  now 

international 
The  analysis  of 
dimension 
regrouped  and 
streamlined  in  a  new  separate  Chapter 
3,  instead  of  being  scattered  and  less 
visible throughout the document. 

This Chapter explains better the reasons 
for  excluding  international  policy  from 
the  Strategy  and  provides  a  concise 
overview of international developments 
since 2013. 

A  reference  was  also  introduced  in  the 
relevance  discussion 
in  Chapter  7 
Conclusions   to  the problem of climate 
extremes  presented  in  the  Relevance 
section 6.1.1. 

 
 
its 

interdependence  with 

from  the  scope  of  the  Strategy,  in  particular 
the 
given 
international activities and events, such as the 
2015  Paris  Agreement  and  the  fact  that  the 
international  dimension  was  part  of  the  EU 
(SWD 
Adaptation 
2013(138))? 

Strategy 

package 

Box 5 Validity of conclusions and relevance 
for further action 

Hyphen 3 How can the report conclude on the 
need  to  examine  alignment  with  international 
policy development, if this has been taken out 
of the scope? 

B(4)  Monitoring  and  evaluation  arrangements 
are  not  properly  assessed  to  support  the 
conclusions. 

A presentation of ongoing work on new 
indicators  was  added  to  the  section  on 
limitations in Chapter 5 Method.  

and 

monitoring 

C(4)  As  the  context  of  the  Strategy  has 
evolved  substantially,  the  report  needs  to 
elaborate  on  the  monitoring  and  evaluation 
framework.  The  report  should  clarify  whether 
existing 
evaluation 
arrangements,  including  the  revision  of  the 
monitoring  mechanism  Regulation,  are  still 
further 
relevant  or  whether 
improvement 
socio-economic 
capture 
impacts, for example. This applies particularly 
to  the  new  focus  on  implementation  and 
substantive elements of the climate adaptation 
strategies at all levels. 

they  need 

to 

Under  Section  6.2.3  Drivers  and 
barriers  and  in  related  Annex  VIII 
section 3, an explanations was added on 
responsibilities  and 
the 
activities  related  to  monitoring  at  the 
EU and at the MS level. 

respective 

An  addition  to  Section  6.2.4  on  effects 
on  different  stakeholders  explains  that 
meaningful  results  from  the  ongoing 
funding  programmes  are  not  yet 
available to draw conclusions on socio-
economic impacts. 

Box 1 Design and methodology 
Hyphen  2  The  report  should  also  document 
any  efforts  to  develop  indicators  that  would 
help measure the societal impact. 

Such  indicators  would  seem  to  require  long-
term data collection efforts. As the report will 
feed into the future revision of the Strategy, it 
should include a discussion on how to  fill the 
identified data gap. 

What  is  the  role  of  the EU  vs  Member  States 
in  developing  monitoring  and  evaluation 
tools? 

Box 2 Effectiveness and efficiency 
Hyphen 4 The study acknowledges the lack of 
information  on  the  socioeconomic  dimension 
trends 
on 

the  ground.  Socioeconomic 

68 

 
 
interrelate  with  climate  change  but  were  not 
part of the Strategy's focus, when dealing with 
the  action  4  on  knowledge  gaps.  The  report 
however  builds  on  a  need  to  map  the  socio-
economic  impacts  of  adaptation  policies.  It 
seems that this mapping is (exclusively) based 
on  the  stakeholder  consultation.  Is  there  any 
other evidence of impact? 

The  report  cites  a  lack  of  socioeconomic 
performance  indicators  as  a  reason  why  this 
impact  is  not  measured.  However,  the  report 
refers to the end of the ESIF, CAP and CFP to 
aggregate  some  societal  indicators.  Can  more 
information  be  extracted  from  (mid-term) 
evaluations  of  relevant  programmes  (such  as 
ESIF,  CEF,  H2020,  LIFE,  Cohesion  policy 
programme) to serve this purpose? 

Why does the report not conclude on the lack 
of effectiveness concerning the socioeconomic 
dimension? 

C(5)  The  report  should  present  stakeholders’ 
views in more detail throughout the document. 

regard 

Box 1 Design and methodology 
Hyphen  4  The  quality  of  the  evidence  seems 
variable  with 
the  different 
objectives/actions  as  clearly  indicated  in  the 
text  and  annexes.  As  it  often  relied  on 
stakeholder  views,  these  should  be  presented 
in more detail, both in various sections and in 
conclusions. 

to 

Box 2 Effectiveness and Efficiency 

it 

Hyphen 1 The Strategy is meant to work as a 
leveraging  instrument  working  via  multiplier 
the  different  objectives. 
actions  under 
to  assess 
Therefore, 
its 
there  are  several 
contribution  given 
is  no  clear 
external  drivers  and 
counterfactual.  As 
reported  on  p.  31, 
stakeholders  find  that  the  Strategy  has  been 
more  effective  in  encouraging  preparatory 

is  difficult 
that 

there 

69 

Chapter  5  Method  now  specifies  that 
some  of  the  (newly  added)  stakeholder 
views in the study emanate from a small 
number of stakeholders. 

Stakeholder  views  were  added  to  those 
sections of Chapter 6 Analysis where so 
far  no  references  to  such  views  had 
been made. 

the  beginning  of  Chapter  7 
In 
the 
Conclusions,  we  explain  about 
specificity  of  this  policy  area  as  the 
interest  of  the  stakeholders  are  rarely 
contradictory,  so  there  is  less  scope  in 
presenting differing views. 

There  was  already  a  statement  on  the 
observed 
between 
discrepancy 
preparatory and implementing action in 
Chapter 7 Conclusions. 

 
 
 
 
activities and less in  promoting assessment of 
options,  implementation  and  monitoring  and 
evaluation.  This  view needs to  be reflected in 
the conclusions as well. 

Box 2 Effectiveness and Efficiency 

Hyphen  3    The  evaluation  could  give  more 
attention  to  the  need  for  local  adaptation 
action:  While  the  Covenant  of  Mayors  is 
counted as a success, only 26 % of cities have 
adopted  an  adaptation  plan,  independent  of 
whether they part of the Covenant or not. Only 
3 % percent of cities with more than 150 000 
inhabitants  have  registered  an  adaptation 
strategy with the Covenant. 

Box 2 Effectiveness and Efficiency 

that 

this  may  change  following 

Hyphen  5    The  report  states  that  Action  8 
(insurance)  has  so  far  not  been  very  effective 
but 
the 
adoption  of  the  very  recent  proposal  on 
sustainable  finance.  Regardless  whether  this 
initiative  makes  a  difference  to  a  climate-
resilient  Europe,  there  are  few  references  in 
recent  Commission 
the 
proposals  in  areas  that  seem  relevant  to  the 
Strategy (e.g. MFF). 

to  other 

report 

Box 3 Relevance and EU added value 

Hyphen 1 Action 6 of the Strategy focused on 
mainstreaming  climate  adaptation  in  various 
policy areas, which was the task for EU itself. 
The  report  identifies  areas  where  significant 
progress  has  been  made,  but  neither  the  main 
report  nor  Annex  VIII  mention  fisheries  or 
trade as the areas where no progress has been 
observed.  Therefore,  the  gap  analysis  seems 
not complete and the narrative of section 5.5 is 
not  consistent  with  conclusions  of  the  report. 
The 
including  climate 
adaptation  in  the  missing  areas  should  be 
explained. 

for  not 

reasons 

The  wording  in  Chapter  7  Conclusions 
now  explains  about  the  discrepancy 
between the reported  and the estimated 
number of local strategies and about its 
possible reason, which at the same time 
underpins  and  moderates  the  positive 
claims  on  the  success  of  Action  3. 
Chapter  now 
the 
discrepancy  between,  on  the  one  hand, 
Southern  European 
Eastern 
Member  States  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
Central 
and  Northern  European 
Member States regarding the proportion 
of local adaptation plans. 

also  mentions 

and 

A short description was added to Action 
6  under  Section  6.2.2  on  how 
adaptation  was  mainstreamed  into  the 
Commission  proposal  on 
the  new 
Multi-Annual  Financial  Framework 
2021-2027.    Section  6.2.2  also  gives 
more  details  under  Action  8  on  the 
future  implementation  of  the  Action 
Plan on Sustainable Finance. 

Section  6.2.3  to  drivers  and  barriers  to 
effectiveness  already  explained  under 
Action  6  the  reasons  for  insufficient 
mainstreaming into fisheries policy. An 
explanation 
of 
mainstreaming into trade was added. 

similar 

lack 

for 

The answer to Checklist Box 5 Hyphen 
4  below  explains  how  the  mismatch  of 
Section  6.5  EU  added  value  and 
Chapter  7  Conclusions  concerning  the 
mainstreaming  gap 
trade  and 
fisheries was addressed. 

in 

Box 3 Relevance and EU added value 

Section  6.1.1  on  relevance  now  gives 
the  reasons  of  the  ongoing  need  under 

70 

 
 
 
 
Action  6  for  mainstreaming  into  other 
policy areas. 

The institutional setup in relation to the 
adaptation preparedness scoreboard was 
already  presented  in  detail  Chapter  4 
Baseline under Action 1.  

The  new  Chapter  3  on  international 
policy  includes  an  explanation  of  the 
nature  of  the  EU  and  Member  State 
Paris 
under 
commitments 
Agreement. 

the 

Adjustments  were  made  to  section  6.5 
and  Chapter  7  Conclusions  to  resolve 
the  inconsistencies  identified  by  the 
Board. 

to 
Hyphen  2  The  Strategy’s  objective 
in  various 
mainstream  climate  adaptation 
policies appears to have been a kind of one-off 
type.  As  climate  adaptation  has  been 
internalised 
(has  been 
the 
mainstreamed),  one  could  question 
relevance  of  keeping  this  objective  of  the 
Strategy, at least for LIFE, ESIF and CAP. 

these  policies 

in 

Box 3 Relevance and EU added value 
Hyphen  3  Sentences  1  to  3  Given  the  partly 
voluntary  nature  of  the  Strategy,  there  is  no 
obligation for Member States to establish their 
national 
strategies. 
Nevertheless,  the  Strategy  seems  to  exert 
oversight  on  what  Member  States  are  putting 
in place. This issue could be better developed 
in the report. 

adaptation 

climate 

Box 3 Relevance and EU added value 
Hyphen 3 Sentences 4 & 5 
The  report  should  report  what  adaptation 
efforts  the  EU  and  the  member  states  have 
committed  to  under  the  Paris  Agreement.  It 
should discuss how this affects the importance 
of the adaptation strategy. 

Box 5 Validity of conclusions and relevance 
for further action 

Hyphen 4 The conclusions of the report on the 
EU value added do not reflect the narrative of 
the  analysis.  While  section  5.5  states  that  EU 
for  Action  6 
is  obvious 
added  value 
(mainstreaming  of  climate  adaptation  into 
various  EU  policies),  there  is  no  discussion 
that  this  value  added  would  have  been  even 
greater if the scope of policies considered were 
wider and included trade and fisheries as well, 
as suggested in the conclusions. 

Hyphen  5  The  statement 
in  conclusions 
related  to  the  very  positive  experience  with 
climate  mainstreaming  needs  to  be  reconciled 
with the conclusion on EU value added. 

Hyphen  6  The  conclusion  that  “the  Strategy 
promoted  strong  action  by  Member  States” 
needs to  be reconciled  with  what  is  presented 
in  section  5.3.1  (p.  47)  where  it  is  stated  that 
“the exact role of the Strategy in this respect is 

71 

 
 
unclear,  being  one  of  multiple  drivers”.  In 
addition, the national strategies seem not to be 
well developed, so the narrative on the success 
of the Strategy should be toned down. 

Box 6 Presentation 

Hyphen  1  The  report  is  proportionate,  clear 
and  reader-friendly.  It  usefully  documents 
progress since 2013, but provides only limited 
aid  to  policy  making  regarding  whether  a 
revision of the strategy is necessary. 

The  SWD  focused  entirely  on  the 
backward-looking 
evaluation.  The 
accompanying report to EP and Council 
will elaborate on the need to  revise the 
Strategy or not. 

Box 6 Presentation 

Hyphen  2  Even  though  the  report  contains  a 
glossary, acronyms should be spelled out when 
used  for  the  first  time  in  a  given  section.  To 
improve  fluency  of  the  narrative,  acronyms 
should be used sparingly. 

The  practice  of  introducing  and  using 
acronyms  was  revised  and  corrected. 
Acronyms are used more sparingly and 
at their first use they are always spelled 
out,  for  less  known  acronyms  even 
every time they first appear in a section. 

72 

 
 
 
Annex II 

Stakeholder consultation 

1.  Objectives of the consultation 

The  current  EU  Adaptation  Strategy  (the  Strategy)  was  published  in  April  2013  in 
response  to  the  climate  risks  that  Europe  is  and  will  increasingly  face.  The  Strategy 
committed the Commission to report to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
state  of  its  implementation.  The  evaluation  was  needed  in  order  to  comply  with  this 
requirement and assess the progress made since 2013. 

As  indicated  in  the  Consultation  Strategy  and  in  line  with  the  Better  Regulation 
Guidelines,  the  objective  of  the  Stakeholder  Consultation  in  relation  to  the  EU 
Adaptation Strategy evaluation is to draw upon existing evidence to deliver a high quality 
and credible evaluation study by allowing interested parties to provide their feedback and 
experiences of implementing the Strategy thus far. This includes identifying specific case 
studies  or  further  evidence,  lessons  learned,  knowledge,  financing  and  capacity  gaps, 
obstacles and factors of success, and suggestions for improvement. 

2.  Consultation activities and methodology 

2.1.  Activities 

As defined in the Consultation Strategy, a combination of in-depth surveys, interviews of 
interested  stakeholders,  an  open  public  consultation  and  stakeholder  workshops  have 
been used to gather evidence. 

a)  Stakeholder  surveys  –  The  targeted  stakeholder  survey  ran  from  July  to  August 
2017.  It  was  available  in  English  and  comprised  multiple  choice  and  free  text 
questions. Survey invitations were sent to 370 stakeholders involved, directly or 
indirectly,  in  the  implementation  of  the  Strategy.  In  addition,  the  invitation  was 
sent  to  all  registrants  for  the  3rd  European  Climate  Change  Adaptation 
Conference, held in Glasgow (850 attendees). The structure of the questionnaire 
allowed the participants to focus on the Actions under the Strategy that  were of 
primary interest to them. 

b)  Stakeholder interviews – 43 interviews were held with about 50 stakeholders who 
had  been  actively  involved  in  different  aspects  of  the  implementation  of  the 
Strategy. 35 of the interviews covered the 8 Actions with questions relating to the 
five evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU 
added value. Respondents could choose to respond on one or on more actions and 
could choose the questions on which they wished to focus. A further 8 interviews 
contributed to the development of four case studies on:  

  Fire preparedness and the impact of climate change 
  Spillover effects from climate change impacts occurring outside the EU 
  The  Danube  macro-regional  strategy  (EUSDR)  and  its  contribution  to 

action at Member State level 

  Adaptation of infrastructure in the energy sector. 

 
 
 
 
c)  Open Public Consultation  – An open public consultation was  available from 7th 
December 2017 to 1st March 2018 (12 weeks) on DG CLIMA's website187. Initial 
multiple choice questions were for all respondents including private individuals. 
Sections with multiple choice questions on interim conclusions from the study in 
support of the evaluation188 were available to expert stakeholders. All respondents 
could add comments in a free text field and upload a document or position paper. 
d)  Stakeholder workshop – Two workshops were organised to present the evaluation 

and gather new evidence to elicit further feedback on draft conclusions. 

  5  April  2017  –  Over  90  stakeholders  participated.  It  served  to  briefly 
present  the  Strategy  and  obtain  feedback  on  its  implementation  and  to 
guide the further development of the evaluation.  

  23  January  2018  –  To  present  and  discuss  interim  conclusions  and 
recommendations  from  the  study.  This  was  previously  foreseen  for 
October  2017,  but  it  was  postponed  in  order  to  discuss  the  preliminary 
results  of  the  evaluation.  Around  120  stakeholders  participated  in  this 
second event. 

2.2. 

Stakeholder groups participating 

In the context of the Strategy evaluation, a broad scope for the stakeholder consultation 
was necessary to ensure that all relevant and interested stakeholders had the opportunity 
to express their opinions and to contribute to the evaluation. 

Six groups of stakeholders were identified in the mapping of the Consultation Strategy, 
which  were  used  throughout  the  consultation  activities  in  order  to  maintain  a  balance 
between  different  stakeholders.  The  figures  below  show  the  number  of  participants  by 
consultation activity and by stakeholder type. 189  

187 Available at https://ec.europa.eu/clima/consultations/evaluation-eus-strategy-adaptation-climate-

change_en  

188 These were published alongside the open public consultation. See: Ricardo, IEEP, Trinomics, and 
Alterra. Study to support the evaluation of the EU Adaptation Strategy, Summary interim findings, 
2017. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/consultations/docs/0035/summary_interim_findings_en.pdf  
189  Please  notice  that  in  the  figure  2  local  and  regional  authorities  are  separated,  nevertheless  they  are 

generally considered together in the evaluation, except when differences exist.   

74 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure II-1. Number of respondents by consultation activity 

Source: External Support evaluation study 

Figure II-2. Participants by stakeholder type for three consultation activities 

Source:  Own  analysis  of  participation  by  consultation  activity.  Note  that,  in  addition,  217  private  individuals 
responded to the open public consultation. 

Despite  the  fact  that  interviews  were  conducted  with  all  types  of  stakeholders,  the 
majority of them were from the National government/Administration and EU institutions 
due to the technical nature of the interviews and the necessity to obtain reliable evidence 
to proceed with sections related to efficiency and effectiveness. 

In  the  case  of  the  Open  Public  Consultation,  the  large  majority  of  stakeholders  (56%) 
were private individuals and the three largest countries by representation of respondents 
were Belgium (17%), Spain (14%) and France (10%).  

Besides  the  balance  between  the  interests  of  different  stakeholders,  the  consultation 
aimed at ensuring a geographical balance by providing opportunities to all stakeholders 
across Europe to participate in the consultation activities. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure II-3. Participants by Member State for three consultation activities 

Source:  Own  analysis  of  participation  by  consultation  activity.  Note  that  the  15  EU  interviews  are  not 
ascribed to a Member State – the remaining 28 are in this figure 

2.3.  Methodology 

The  Open  Public  Consultation  was  published  in  23  languages  in  EU  Survey,  an  online 
survey-management  system,  during  12  weeks  and  actively  advertised  in  the  DG 
CLIMA's website and social networks of the Commission. 

Quantitative  information  was  collected  and  analysed  using  spreadsheets  and  the  results 
were divided by stakeholder in order to identify coincidences and contradictions between 
different  groups.  For  the  Open  Public  Consultation,  comparisons  were  made  between 
groups  with  20  or  more  responses  –  National  Governments/  Administrations,  private 
sector, university or research organisations, and NGOs. One further group combined the 
response from regional governments/ administrations and from local authorities to give a 
sub-national group (as foreseen in the Better Regulation Guidelines). 

Qualitative  information  was  received  from:  the  stakeholder  workshops,  interviews,  the 
many free text responses to the targeted stakeholder survey, the open text response to the 
open public consultation and the papers uploaded for the targeted stakeholder survey and 
open public consultation (analysed in the report).  

The  information  collected  was  analysed  according  to  the  five  evaluation  criteria: 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value. Moreover, responses 
were further assessed by Strategy Objective / Action and by stakeholder type.  

76 

 
 
 
 
 
3.  Results 

3.1. 

Targeted Stakeholder Survey 

In total, 114 stakeholders responded to the survey questionnaire of which 54 respondents 
only  indicated  their  organisational  type  and  their  country,  which  left  60  responses  to 
analyse.  The  questions  and  responses  were  organised  by  Action  and  focused  on  the 
effectiveness, coherence and efficiency criteria. 

Figure II-4. Number of respondents of the Targeted Stakeholder Survey from each 
organisational type 

Organisational type 

Number of respondents 

National Government body 

Sub-national Government 

Municipal/city Government 

Private sector 

University 

Research organisation 

EU institution or body 

Other international organisation 

NGO 

Other190 

15 

6 

2 

3 

6 

5 

4 

6 

9 

4 

On  effectiveness,  a  total  of  14  respondents  to  the  targeted  stakeholder  survey  provided 
specific  examples  of  barriers  to  EU  activities  promoting  adaptation  in  key  vulnerable 
sectors (Agriculture, Forestry, Energy, Transport, Construction, Fisheries). Overarching 
barriers that some respondents identified as applying to several sectors include: 

190  Those  that  self-identified  as  “Other”  are:  an  EU  network  of  regional  authorities,  a  local  government 
association in a Member State region, a  regional development agency; and a research institute  with a 
focus outside the EU 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Level  and  scale  of  available  information  on  climate  impacts  and  uncertainties  of 
extreme  events  (frequency  and  magnitude)  –  energy,  transport  and  construction 
sectors 

  Need for climate proofing standards – energy, transport and construction sectors 

  Attitudes  towards  climate  change,  lack  of  collaboration  between  sectors  –  all  six 

sectors 

 

Insufficient EU initiatives to promote adaptation – energy and transport sectors 

  Funding – all six sectors 

  No  obligation  to  consider  climate  risk  (or  very  limited)  –  energy,  transport  and 

construction sectors. 

The majority of stakeholders considered that the Strategy had a clear added value since 
they  affirmed  that  in  the  absence  of  the  Strategy  the  same  level  of  progress  could  not 
have  been  achieved,  mainly  for  actions  3  to  6.  For  the  rest,  only  around  20-40 
stakeholders responded per action. This gives small numbers for each stakeholder group, 
and no major difference between their views was discerned. 

3.2. 

Stakeholder interviews 

Interviews  provided  evidence  on  all  evaluation  criteria.  All  types  of  stakeholder  are 
represented in the interviews, nevertheless the majority of stakeholders came from public 
institutions (EU, Member State or sub-national). 

Figure II-5. Number of respondents of the Targeted Stakeholder Survey from each 
organisation type 

Evaluation criterion 

Organisation type 

Total 
number of 
responses 

Relevance 

Effective-
ness 

Efficiency  Coherence 

EU 
added 
value 

National, 
and 
Government bodies 

Sub-national 
Municipal 

EU Institutions or bodies 

Other stakeholders 

Total 

16 

14 

12 

42 

15 

11 

11 

37 

16 

11 

11 

38 

11 

9 

5 

25 

11 

13 

12 

6 

29 

11 

8 

32 

On  relevance,  the  stakeholder  interviews  highlighted  that  there  is  a  need  to  close  new 
knowledge gaps. Examples of such gaps highlighted by stakeholders included: adaptation 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
in mountainous areas, climate impacts outside the EU that have implications for the EU, 
long-term lack of water resources and coastal issues, biodiversity, and high-end climate 
change  (i.e.  greater  than  2ºC).  The  latter  was  also  reflected  by  responses  to  the  public 
consultation  (90%  of  158  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  there  is  a  need  to 
address the impact of high-end climate change).  

On  effectiveness,  the  interviews  provided  evidence  that  the  Strategy  played  a  role  in 
ensuring  increased  political  salience  of  the  need  for  Member  States  to  adopt  strategies 
and plans where they were not already in place. The interviewees also suggested that the 
use  of  the  adaptation  ex  ante  conditionalities  for  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds  programmes  was  an  effective  mechanism  for  ensuring  Member  States  adopted 
NASs. 

Responses  to  interviews  and  the  targeted  stakeholder  survey  provided  additional 
evidence on the adequacy of resources and how proportionate they were for each of the 
eight  actions.  Overall,  numerous  stakeholders  highlighted  the  cross-cutting  nature  of 
adaptation  and,  thus,  agreed  that  mainstreaming  of  adaptation  objectives  into  sectoral 
policies is a necessity. A recurring policy area where coherence with adaptation was seen 
as essential is disaster risk reduction.  

Recommendations included the potential value of enhanced discussion on regional-level 
adaptation challenges facing neighbouring Member States.  

Eight  further  interviews  were  conducted  to  develop  the  4  case  studies  listed  in  section 
2.1. 

3.3.  Open Public Consultation 

The survey was split between part 1 and parts 2-4, with part 1 targeted to all citizens and 
parts  2-4  targeted  to  those  with  professional  experience  with  adaptation.  There  were  in 
total 386 responses. Parts 2-4 were answered by 159 respondents (41% of the total). 

The respondents had the opportunity to explain their experience with events attributed to 
climate  change,  and  they  identified  a  total  of  1  651  events,  the  majority  related  to 
abnormally  warm  overall  temperatures.  Regarding  knowledge  of  the  EU’s  strategy  on 
adaptation  to  climate  change,  most  respondents  considered  they  had  a  good  (32%)  or 
limited  (30%)  knowledge.  Only  12%  of  the  stakeholders  thought  that  they  had  a  very 
good  knowledge  of  the  strategy  and  10%  had  never  heard  of  it.  The  knowledge  was 
significant  regarding  programmes  dealing  with  adaptation  action,  where  67%  of 
stakeholders knew about H2020. 

The  relevance  of  EU-level  action  was  found  significant  with  93%  of  respondents 
believing that it is necessary to combat adaptation to climate change. The responses on 
the  generic  aspects  of  Adaptation  were  generally  supportive.  The  strongest  agreement 
was found for the conclusions “Adaptation action is needed at all governance levels” and 
“The EU needs to encourage adaptation action by Member States”. 

The respondents found the Strategy relevant; since they see the need of further action to 
address remaining knowledge gaps and to align EU adaptation policy with international 
developments. 

79 

 
 
 
Figure  II-6  Responses  in  the  open  public  consultation  to  interim  conclusions  that 
relate to relevance of the EU Adaptation Strategy 

Source: Results from open public consultation. 160 respondents 

On  effectiveness,  there  was  disagreement  between  stakeholder's  results:  regional  and 
national authorities were more positive considering aspects as adaptation mainstreaming 
than the overall average. 

Overall,  on  coherence,  respondents  replied  positively  to  the  conclusions.  Nevertheless, 
stakeholders considered that there was still a need to better integrate adaptation concerns 
into  the  climate  mitigation  policy  or  the  EU  external  policy  areas.  NGOs  and  Private 
Sector disagreed more compared to public authorities on the consideration that ‘progress 
has been made in integrating adaptation concerns into a wide range of EU policy areas’.  

The respondents almost exclusively agreed with the conclusions about EU added-value. 
This  highlights  that  many  believe  in  the  importance  of  the  Strategy  and  EU  action  for 
adaptation  to  climate  action.  Furthermore,  most  stakeholders  more  strongly  agreed  that 
the greatest value of EU action is through mainstreaming adaptation into its own policies.  

Finally, out of the 386 stakeholders involved in the public consultation, 239 submitted an 
answer  to  the  open  question  and  27  position  papers  were  received.  An  extensive 
summary  can  be  found  in  appendix  2E  of  the  external  support  study.191  The  position 

191  Published  on 

the  website  of 

the  Evaluation  of 

the  EU’s  Adaptation  Strategy 

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/articles/0119_en  

80 

 
 
 
                                                 
papers  were  analysed  and  were  taken  into  account  during  the  evaluation  as  part  of  the 
evidence. 

3.4. 

Stakeholder Workshops 

The  first  workshop  (5th  April  2017)  provided  significant  input  on  the  three  priorities 
identified in the 2013 Strategy. There was agreement on: 

  The need for research to be made available in forms that decision-makers could 

use. 

  The need for better understanding of social and cultural barriers to adaptation.  

The  effectiveness  and  coherence  of  the  evaluation  were  the  main  elements  discussed 
throughout the workshop: it was considered that the Strategy promoted action from some 
Members States (not all) and contributed to promote coherence in action.  

The main findings of the evaluation were presented in the second workshop (23rd January 
2018). The  recommendations of the external support study were supported by the large 
majority  of  members  who  assisted  in  the  workshop,  except  on  the  alignment  with 
International  obligations  under  the  Paris  Agreement  and  its  alignment  with  the  Global 
Stocktake  in  2023  (this  recommendation  was  reconsidered  in  the  final  study).  This 
second  stakeholder  workshop  was  useful  to  promote  participation  in  the  parallel  Open 
Public Consultation. There were no major contradictions between the results provided by 
the workshop and the rest of the consultation activities. 

4.  Identified campaigns and ad-hoc contributions 

No campaigns have been identified in the context of the Open Public Consultation. 

Several documents and position papers were provided in association with the open public 
consultation.  These were noted in  the relevant  consultation  reports (appendix 2E of the 
external  support  study)  and  included  as  part  of  the  evidence  base  for  this  work. 
Nevertheless no ad-hoc documents were received outside the consultation activities. 

5.  Feedback from the roadmap 

There was no feedback received on the roadmap of the evaluation. Therefore, there were 
no  significant  changes  applied  to  the  consultation  activities  in  comparison  with  the 
original roadmap.  

In  summary,  information  from  the  consultation  forms  a  major  part  of  the  evidence 
considered  in  the  evaluation.  Evidence  is  compared  with  that  from  other  strands  of  the 
consultation and also with results of the literature review to identify the overall level of 
agreement or divergence of the evidence. The results of the open public consultation, in 
particular,  provide  sufficient  responses  from  key  groups  of  stakeholders  to  consider 
whether there is agreement or divergence by stakeholder type. 

81 

 
 
 
 
Annex III  Acronyms 

Acronym 

Meaning 

ACP 

C3S 

CAP 

CBA 

CBD 

CDP 

CEN 

African, Caribbean and Pacific states 

Climate Change Services 

Common Agricultural Policy 

Cost-benefit analysis 

Convention on Biological Diversity 

Carbon Disclosure Project 

Comité Européen de Normalisation 

CENELEC 

Comité  Européen  de  Normalisation  en  Electronique  et 
en Electrotechnique 

CF 

CFP 

CIS 

CMU 

CNCs 

COP21 

CoR 

Covenant  

CPR 

CRR/CRD  

DCI 

DG AGRI 

DG BUDG 

Cohesion Fund 

Common Fisheries Policy 

Common Implementation Strategy 

Capital Markets Union 

Core Network Corridors 

2015  United  Nations  Climate  Change  Conference, 
COP21 in Paris, France 

Committee of Regions 

Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy 

Common Provisions Regulation 

Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive 

Instrument for Development Cooperation 

Directorate  General 
Development of the European Commission 

for  Agriculture  and  Rural 

Directorate  General  for  Budget  of 
Commission 

the  European 

82 

 
 
 
DG CLIMA 

DG COMM 

DG COMP 

DG DEVCO 

DG EAC 

DG ECFIN 

DG ECHO 

DG ENER 

DG ENV 

DG FISMA 

DG GROW 

DG HOME 

DG MARE 

DG MOVE 

DG NEAR 

DG REGIO 

DG RTD 

Directorate General for Climate Action 

Directorate General for Communication 

Directorate  General  for  Competition  of  the  European 
Commission 

Directorate  General  for  International  Cooperation  and 
Development of the European Commission 

Directorate  General  for  Education,  Youth,  Sport  and 
Culture of the European Commission 

Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs 

Directorate  General  for  European  Civil  Protection  and 
Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) of the European 
Commission 

Directorate  General  for  Energy  of 
Commission 

the  European 

Directorate  General  for  Environment  of  the  European 
Commission 

Directorate  General  for  Financial  Stability,  Financial 
Services  and  Capital  Markets  Union  of  the  European 
Commission 

Directorate  General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry, 
Entrepreneurship 
the  European 
and  SMEs  of 
Commission 

Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs of 
the European Commission 

Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
of the European Commission 

Directorate  General  for  Mobility  and  Transport  of  the 
European Commission 

Directorate  General 
and 
Enlargement Negotiations of the European Commission 

for  Neighbourhood 

Directorate  General  for  Regional  and  Urban  Policy  of 
the European Commission 

Directorate General for Research and Innovation of the 
European Commission 

83 

 
 
 
DG SANTE 

DG TAXUD 

DG TRADE 

DRM 

DRR 

EAFRD 

EAGF 

EASME  

EbA 

EBRD 

ECA 

EDF 

EEA 

EEAS 

EFFIS 

EFSI 

EIA 

EIB 

Eionet 

EMFF 

ERDF 

ESF 

ESIF 

Directorate  General  for  Health  and  Food  Safety  of  the 
European Commission 

Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union of 
the European Commission 

Directorate  General  for  Trade  of 
Commission 

the  European 

Disaster Risk Management 

Disaster Risk Reduction 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 

Executive  Agency 
Enterprises  

for  Small  and  Medium-sized 

Ecosystem based Adaptation 

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 

European Court of Auditors 

European Development Fund 

European Environment Agency 

European Union External Action Service 

European Forest Fire Information System 

European Fund for Strategic Investments 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

European Investment Bank 

European  Environmental  Information  and  Observation 
Network 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

84 

 
 
 
ESOs 

ETC 

ETC/CCA 

EU 

EU15 

European Standardisation Organisations 

European Territorial Cooperation 

European  Topic  Centre  on  Climate  Change  impacts, 
vulnerability and Adaptation  

European Union 

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, 
Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands, 
Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom 

EUFIWACC  

European  Financing  Institutions  Working  Group  on 
Adaptation to Climate Change 

EUR 

EUSALP 

EUSBSR 

EUSDR 

EWS 

FERMA 

FP6 

FP7 

FRMP 

GCCA+ 

GDP 

GI 

GMES 

H2020 

ICLEI 

ICPDR 

Euro 

The European Union Strategy for the Alpine Region 

The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region 

EU Strategy for the Danube Region 

Early Warning System 

Federation of European Risk Management Associations 

Framework Programme 6 

Framework Programme 7 

Flood Risk Management Plans 

Global Climate Change Alliance 

Gross Domestic Product 

Green Infrastructure 

Global Monitoring for Environment and Security 

Horizon 2020 

International  Council 
Initiatives  

for  Local  Environmental 

International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the 
Danube River 

85 

 
 
 
Interreg 

IPCC 

ISO 

JASPERS 

JPI 

JRC 

LIFE 

MCA 

MFF 

NAP 

NAS 

NCFF 

NDCs 

NGOs 

European Territorial Cooperation 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

International Organisation for Standardisation 

Joint  Assistance  to  Support  Projects  in  European 
Regions 

Joint Programming Initiative 

Joint Research Centre 

L'Instrument Financier Pour L'Environnement 

Multi-criteria analysis 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

National Adaptation Plan 

National Adaptation Strategy 

Natural Capital Financing Facility 

Nationally Determined Contributions 

Non-Governmental Organisations 

PESETA  

Projection  of  Economic  impacts  of  climate  change  in 
Sectors of the EU based on bottom-up Analysis  

RDP 

SEA 

SEAP 

SECAP 

SG 

SJ 

SMEs 

SWD 

TEN-E 

TEN-T 

Rural Development Programme 

Strategic Environmental Assessment 

Sustainable Energy Action Plan 

Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan 

Secretariat-General of the European Commission 

Legal Service of the European Commission 

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises 

Staff Working Document 

Trans-European Networks for Energy 

Trans-European Transport Network 

86 

 
 
 
UIA 

UN 

UNFCCC 

URBACT  

Urban Innovative Actions 

United Nations 

United  Nations  Framework  Convention  on  Climate 
Change 

European exchange and learning programme promoting 
sustainable urban development 

WFD 

Water Framework Directive 

87 

 
 
 
 
Annex IV  List of SWDs supporting the Strategy 

Communication in 2013 

The  documents  provide  further  information  on  certain  elements  of  the  Strategy  and 
respond to  some specific commitments made in  the Strategy, e.g. to  prepare  guidelines 
on developing adaptation strategies. The supporting documents are:  

Impact Assessment of the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change 

 
  SWDs on 

o  Climate change adaptation, coastal and marine issues  
o  Adaptation to climate change impacts on human, animal and plant health 
o  Adapting infrastructure to climate change 
o  Climate change, environmental degradation, and migration 
o  Technical  guidance  on 

integrating  climate  change  adaptation 

in 

programmes and investments of Cohesion Policy 

o  Principles and recommendations for integrating climate change adaptation 

considerations under the 2014-2020 rural development programmes 

o  Guidelines on developing adaptation strategies. 

In  addition,  a  Green  Paper  on  the  insurance  of  natural  and  man-made  disasters  was 
launched  in  parallel  with  the  Strategy.  The  Green  Paper  sets  out  the  potential  for  the 
European  Union  to  facilitate  and  support  the  development  of  markets  for  disaster  risk 
insurance. 

The EU Adaptation Strategy package also included the ‘Non-paper Guidelines for Project 
Managers: Making vulnerable investments climate resilient’. 

88 

 
 
 
Annex V 

 Intervention logic of the EU’s Adaptation Strategy 

(reconstructed) 

89 

RelevanceObjective relevant for needs?Needs•EU will be subject to unavoidable climate impacts and their economic, environmental and social costs•EU needs to increase its resilience to these impacts and take early action to save on damage costs laterObjectivesStrategic•To contribute effectively to a more climate resilient EuropeSpecificInputsCommission resources to prepare guidelines and scoreboardFunding (LIFE) for projects that support capacity building and step up adaptation action in Europe1: Encouraging Member States to adopt comprehensive adaptation strategies  2: Provide LIFE funding to support capacity building and step up adaptation action in EuropeCommission resources to launch and implement adaptation aspects of the Covenant of Mayors framework 3: Introduce adaptation in the Covenant of Mayors framework Funding (Horizon 2020) for projects that address knowledge gaps, via the Commission’s research programmes and support for JRCCommission and EEA resources  to further develop Climate ADAPT 4: Bridge the knowledge gap5: Further develop Climate-ADAPT as the ‘one-stop shop’ for adaptation information in Europe Regulations and guidelines to support the climate-proofing of EU actions Funding  (Cohesion & CAP) for projects that address knowledge gaps, develop tools, and build up capacities for adaptation Commission resources to develop guidelines and technical standards for climate proofingCommission resources to engage with insurance and financial sector 6: Facilitate the climate-proofing of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Cohesion Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). 7: Ensuring more resilient infrastructure 8: Promote insurance and other financial products for resilient investment and business decisions Promoting action by Member States (Action 1, 2, 3)Better informed decision-making (Action 4, 5)Climate-proofing EU action: promoting adaptation in key vulnerable sectors (Actions 6, 7, 8)Mainstreaming of climate change considerations in decisions making for all sectorsCommission resources to  support mainstreaming in EU legislationActionsNote: Due to lack of space, the operational objectives under each specific objective and the performance indicators to measure them are not shown in the graph. They are listed in Annex. 
 
 
90 

 
 
 
Annex VI  Operational objectives and performance indicators 

in the 2013 impact assessment 

The Strategy did not commit to achieving the operational objectives listed in the impact 
assessment and did not mention the related performance indicators. Furthermore, it listed 
the specific objectives in a different order and numbering than the Impact Assessment. In 
order  to  be  in  line  with  the  Strategy’s  numbering  of  the  specific  objectives,  the 
operational  objectives  are  renumbered  in  the  list  below.  Their  original  number  in  the 
Impact Assessment is shown in parenthesis. 

Objective 1: Increasing the resilience of the EU territory192 
Operational  Objective  1a  (2a):  by  2017,  all  Member  States  have  adopted  adaptation 
strategies, complemented by regional or local adaptation strategies, where appropriate 
o  Number of NASs and action plans and national climate change risk assessments 
o  Number and amount of LIFE grants used for experience transfer193 

Operational  Objective  1b  (2b):  by  2020,  cities  of  more  than  150  000  inhabitants  have 

adopted an adaptation strategy 
o  Number and amount of LIFE grants used for lighthouse projects194 on adaptation 
o  Covenant  of  Mayors  (ongoing):  number  of  cities  pledging  to  develop  an 

adaptation strategy 

o  Number  of  cities  of  more  than  150  000  inhabitants  in  vulnerable  areas  with  an 

adaptation strategy 

Objective 2: Better informed decision making 
Operational  Objective  2a  (1a):  by  2020,  priority  knowledge  gaps195  identified  in  2013 

have been closed 
o  List of knowledge gaps now, in 2017, and in 2020 
o  Number  of  H2020  and  JRC  research  projects  dealing  with  adaptation  and 

associated budget allocated 

Operational  Objective  2b  (1b):  by  2020,  communication  tools  allow  for  available 
information on climate change adaptation to be more easily accessible for decision-
makers, including Member States, local authorities and firms 
o  Number of visitors to Climate-ADAPT, pages most visited, number of registered 

users, assessment of the content, databases and metadata 

o  Number  of  conferences,  workshops,  adaptation  events  registered  in  Climate-

ADAPT 

192 This objective is labelled in the Strategy as “Promoting action by Member States” but is essentially the 

same objective. 

193 These are projects that share experience and foster capacity building in relation to the development of 

national and regional adaptation strategies.  

194 See footnote 52. 
195  The  key  knowledge  gaps  that  were  identified  are:  information  on  damage  and  adaptation  costs  and 
benefits;  regional  and  local-level  analyses  and  risk  assessments;  frameworks,  models  and  tools  to 
support decision-making and to assess how effective the various adaptation measures are; and, means 
of monitoring and evaluating past adaptation efforts. 

91 

 
 
 
                                                 
Objective 3: Increasing the resilience of key vulnerable sectors196 
Operational Objective 3a: by 2020, adaptation considerations have been mainstreamed in 

a consistent and comprehensive way in key EU policies 
o  List of policies and legal acts where adaptation has been mainstreamed 
o  Adaptation  activities  by  private  organisations  as  reported  in  the  Carbon 

Disclosure Project (CDP) surveys 

Operational  Objective  3b:  by  2020,  new  major  infrastructure  investments  are  climate-

proofed 
o  Amount  of  adaptation  infrastructure  investments  (co-)financed  by  EU  funds 

and/or public financial institutions 

o  Progress on the mapping exercise by CEN-CENELEC197. 

196 This objective is labelled in the Strategy as “'Climate-proofing' action at EU level” but is essentially the 

same objective. 

197 The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical 

Standardization (CENELEC). 

92 

 
 
                                                 
Annex VII 

Inputs, activities and outputs related to the 8 actions 

of the Strategy  

Action 1: Encourage all Member States to adopt comprehensive adaptation strategies 

This action encourages all Member States to adopt comprehensive adaptation strategies. 
Encouragement  has  been  provided  through  the  following  activities,  and  associated 
outputs: 

  Provision  of  guidelines  to  help  Member  States  formulate  adaptation  strategies, 

which were published alongside the Communication  

  Development  of  an  ‘adaptation  preparedness  scoreboard’,  which  identifies  key 

indicators for measuring Member States’ level of readiness.  

  A commitment was also made that, in 2017, the Commission would assess action 
being  taken  in  the  Member  States  and  if  progress  is  deemed  insufficient,  the 
Commission would consider proposing a legally-binding instrument.  

It was expected, when the Strategy was prepared, that the encouragement provided by the 
Commission in relation to Action 1 would contribute towards all Member States adopting 
an  adaptation  strategy,  complemented  by  regional  and  local  adaptation  strategies,  by 
2017. 

Action 2: Provide LIFE funding to support capacity building and step up adaptation 

action in Europe (2013-2020).  

Action  2  concerns  the  creation  of  the  Climate  Action  sub-programme  under  the  2014-
2020 LIFE funding programme for the environment. The sub-programme covers climate 
change mitigation, climate change adaptation, and climate governance and information. 
Through the creation of the Climate Action sub-programme, the aim was to substantially 
increase the LIFE funds available to combat climate change.  

It  was  expected  when  the  Strategy  was  prepared  that  additional  funding  would  be 
directed  towards  climate  adaptation  projects  in  comparison  to  the  situation  without  the 
Strategy. It was also expected that this funding would lead to better informed decision-
making  via  the  identification  and  implementation  of  relevant  cross-sectoral  and  cross-
border  lighthouse  projects.  Other  expected  outcomes  included  the  strengthening  of 
existing  networks  and  collaborations  between  Member  States  and  associated  countries 
and other third countries.  

Action 3: Introduce adaptation in the Covenant of Mayors framework 

Action 3 focuses on cities and urban areas, as they have an important role in low-carbon 
and  climate-resilient  development  across  Europe.  The  action  concerns  the  support 
provided  by  the  Commission  to  the  launch  of  Mayors  Adapt  (the  Covenant  of  Mayors 
Initiative on Adaptation to Climate Change), through which local authorities can make a 
voluntary  commitment  to  adopt  local  adaptation  strategies  and  awareness-raising 
activities. The initiative was launched by the Commission in March 2014.  

93 

 
 
It was expected, at the time the Strategy was prepared, that the encouragement provided 
by the Commission in relation to this action would contribute towards all cities of more 
than 150 000 inhabitants adopting an adaptation strategy, by 2020. 

Action 4: Bridge the knowledge gap 

Action 4 concerns two activities undertaken by the Commission: 

  To  work  further  with  Member  States  and  stakeholders  to  refine  the  adaptation 
knowledge  gaps  identified  in  the  Strategy  and  identify  relevant  tools  and 
methodologies to address them. The findings were to be fed into the programming 
of  H2020,  the  EU’s  2014-2020  framework  programme  for  research  and 
innovation,  and  were  to  address  the  need  for  better  interfaces  between  science, 
policy making and business  

  To promote EU-wide vulnerability assessments considering, inter alia, the cross-
sectoral EU overview of natural and manmade risks that the Commission was to 
produce  in  2013.  The  Commission  was,  in  particular,  to  support  the  JRC  to 
undertake a  comprehensive review of what  global  climate change will mean for 
the EU.  

It was expected, at the time when the Strategy was prepared, that the activities led by the 
Commission  in  relation  to  this  action  would  contribute  towards  filling  the  priority 
knowledge gaps identified in 2013 by 2020. 

Action 5: Climate-ADAPT website  

Action  5  concerns  activities  by  the  Commission  and  EEA  to  further  develop  Climate-
ADAPT  as  the  ‘one-stop  shop’  for  adaptation  information  in  Europe.  This  includes 
improving  access  to  information  and  developing  interaction  between  Climate-ADAPT 
and other relevant platforms, such as national and local adaptation portals (2013/2014). 

Climate-ADAPT  started  in  2012.  It  aimed  to  facilitate  collection  and  dissemination  of 
information  to  assist  effective  uptake  by  decision  makers  and  to  contribute  to  more 
coordination between sectoral policies and between institutional levels. Climate-ADAPT 
has  since  evolved  into  an  information  portal  to  support  Europe  in  adapting  to  climate 
change, co-managed by the EEA and DG CLIMA. It provides information on adaptation 
strategies,  case  studies  and  specifically  designed  tools  that  support  adaptation  planning 
and decision making.  

As  part  of  the  further  development  of  Climate-ADAPT,  the  Strategy  describes  how 
special attention will be given to cost-benefit assessments of different policy experiences 
and to innovative funding, through closer interaction with regional and local authorities 
and  financial  institutions.  The  Strategy  also  indicates  that  work  on  the  inclusion  of  the 
future Copernicus climate services (previously known as GMES – Global Monitoring for 
Environment and Security) will start in 2014. 

It  was expected,  at  the time the Strategy was prepared, that the further development  of 
Climate-ADAPT would allow available information on climate change adaptation to be 
more easily accessible for decision-makers, by 2020. It was also expected that the further 
development  of  Climate-ADAPT,  linking  in  with  other  relevant  platforms  and 
developing  associated  guidance,  would  result  in  avoided  costs  for  both  the  EEA  and 
other  database  managers  for  data  integration  into  Climate-ADAPT.  This  was  also 
expected to reduce costs for end-users to compile and process data (the ‘one-stop-shop’ 
principle). Another expectation was that the inclusion of the Copernicus Climate Service 

94 

 
in Climate-ADAPT would allow a better assessment of local and sectoral vulnerabilities 
and, therefore, provide additional data for proper climate risk assessments. Furthermore, 
it  was  expected  that  by  supporting  the  exchange  of  information  between  science  and 
policy, Climate-ADAPT would encourage and stimulate new research and development, 
as well as innovation, in the field of climate change adaptation across a broad spectrum 
of sectors in the EU as well internationally.  

Action 6: Facilitate the climate-proofing of the Common Agricultural Policy, the 

Cohesion Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy 

Action  6  focuses  on  key  EU  financial  instruments  and  policy  areas,  which  cover:  the 
CAP,  delivered  through  the  European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGF)  and  the 
EAFRD;  Cohesion  Policy,  which  is  delivered  through  the  ERDF,  the  ESF  and  the  CF; 
and  the  CFP.  These  instruments  are  jointly  managed198  by  the  Commission  with  the 
Member States. They involve significant additional financial contributions from national 
budgets  and  an  important  role  for  Member  States  in  spending  the  funds  on  the  ground 
once the framework is decided with the Commission. 

The Strategy committed the Commission to provide guidance on how to further integrate 
adaptation  into  the  CAP,  Cohesion  Policy  and  the  CFP.  This  guidance  was  published 
alongside the Commission’s Communication on the Strategy. The guidance was designed 
for  managing  authorities  and  other  stakeholders  involved  in  programme  design, 
development and implementation during the 2014-2020 budget period.  

This  action was to  be led by  the Commission  with  the aim of contributing towards the 
comprehensive and consistent mainstreaming of adaptation in EU policies by 2020. 

Action 7: Ensuring more resilient infrastructure 

Action 7 concerns a three-pronged approach to ensure the development of more climate 
resilient infrastructure and commits the Commission to the following activities: 

To  launch  a  mandate  for  European  standardisation  organisations  to  start  mapping 
industry-relevant  standards  in  the  area  of  energy,  transport  and  buildings  and  to 
identify  standards  that  need  to  be  revised  to  achieve  better  inclusion  of  adaptation 
considerations.  

To provide guidelines to help project developers working on infrastructure and physical 
assets  to  climate-proof  vulnerable  investments.  These  guidelines  were  launched 
alongside the Strategy. 

To  explore  the  need  for  additional  guidance  on  ecosystem-based  adaptation  for 
authorities  and  decision  makers,  civil  society,  private  business  and  conservation 
practitioners. 

It  was  expected  when  the  Strategy  was  prepared  that  that  the  activities  led  by  the 
Commission  in  relation  to  Action  7  would  help  to  ensure  that  major  infrastructure 
investments are climate-proofed by 2020. 

198 Referred to as “shared management” 

95 

 
                                                 
Action 8: Promote insurance and other financial products for resilient investment and 

business decisions 

This  action  concerns  the  activities  to  be  undertaken  by  the  Commission,  as  part  of  the 
Strategy, to promote insurance and other financial products for resilient investments and 
business decisions.  

In relation to insurance, the Commission’s ‘Green Paper on the Insurance of Natural and 
Man-made Disasters’, adopted as part of the Strategy’s package, was a first step towards 
encouraging insurers to improve how they help to manage climate change risks.  

In  relation  to  other  financial  products,  the  Strategy  envisaged  further  engagement  with 
commercial banks on adaptation financing and exploring market-based approaches, such 
as payments for ecosystem services.  

No clear expectations were stated when the Strategy was prepared as to how the market 
for insurance and other financial products for resilient investment would develop as a 
result of the above activities. However, it is implicit that these activities would enhance 
the development of the market. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex VIII  Complementary information on the initiatives under 

the Strategy 

1.  LIFE 

As of April 2018, there are at least 60 ongoing adaptation-related LIFE projects targeting 
implementation across a combined area of the size of Germany (more than 350 000 km2). 
Although  some  participants  in  the  public  consultation  meeting  for  this  evaluation 
expressed  concern  that  geographical  coverage  of  LIFE  projects  since  2014  has  been 
uneven, the LIFE mid-term evaluation notes that adaptation-related projects have a wide 
geographical  coverage:  Spain,  Italy,  Greece,  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Netherlands, 
Poland,  Portugal,  Slovakia  and  Estonia.  A  total  of  44  of  ongoing  (April  2018)  projects 
under  the  LIFE  Climate  Action  sub-programme  are  categorised  to  climate  change 
adaptation  in  the  LIFE  projects  database.199  Summary  details  of  these  44  projects  are 
provided in the table below. There are also approximately 17 adaptation-related projects 
in other programme strands, such as nature, environment resource efficiency and climate 
change mitigation, with a total value of approximately 43 million EUR200.  

Table VIII-1: Breakdown of LIFE projects per theme 

Sector 

No. of 
projects 

Total project 
costs 
(EUR) 

Commission 
contribution 
(EUR) 

Agriculture/forestry/tourism 

11 

24 188 350  

14 380 392  

Ecosystem based approaches 

Health and wellbeing 

Industry 

Mountain/Island areas adaptation 

3 

1 

2 

4 

11 598 012  

6 555 248  

3 337 611  

1 938 969 

4 134 838 

2 436 391 

8 482 383 

4 959 631 

Urban adaptation/planning 

11 

37 392 556  

17 705 057 

Vulnerability  assessments/adaptation 
strategies201 

Water 
coastal areas, desertification) 

(incl. 

flood  management, 

Governance and information 

3 

6 

3 

28 565 314 

17 139 247 

23 914 899  

10 481 390 

6 343 007   

3 509 300 

Total 

44 

141 613 963  

73 657 356  

199 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm 
200 EASME calculations based on 60% of the 2014-2016 figures 
201 Includes two integrated projects 

97 

 
 
                                                 
The new LIFE programme includes ‘integrated projects’ within the action grants, which 
are  designed  to  operate  at  a  large  geographic  scale  and  “function  as  multi-purpose 
delivery mechanisms (e.g. creating environmental benefits and capacity-building) and are 
expected to exploit synergies and ensure consistency between various funding sources of 
the  EU”.202  Climate  change  adaptation  is  one  of  the  targeted  themes  for  integrated 
projects, which are intended as a vehicle for implementation of adaptation strategies and 
action  plans.  To  date,  two  adaptation-related  integrated  projects  have  been  funded  in 
Denmark and Spain. 203  

In  addition  to  integrated  projects,  LIFE  has  also  directly  supported  other  adaptation 
actions  under  the  Strategy.  For  example,  since  2014,  the  programme  has  supported 
eleven urban adaptation projects (Table VIII-1, above), six of which (total budget EUR 
15.4  million)  are  helping  to  implement  Mayors  Adapt  and  Covenant  of  Mayors 
commitments.  An innovative financial instrument, the Natural Capital Financing Facility 
(NCFF), was introduced to the LIFE programme in 2015 (Multiannual Work Programme 
2014  –  2017)  and  is  implemented  by  the  EIB.  The  NCFF  provides  financing  (loan  or 
equity) and technical assistance for natural capital projects that can generate revenues or 
save costs while delivering on biodiversity and climate adaptation objectives204.  The EIB 
aims at an investment of 100 to 125 million EUR, with the EU contribution of 50 million 
EUR for guarantees and 10 million EUR for the support facility. At the moment, two out 
of  the  three  ongoing  projects  are  related  to  climate  adaptation  with  a  total  estimated 
investment of 56.6 million euros, of which the EIB investment is 17.5 million EUR.  The 
Commission  contributes with  8.7 million  EUR for guarantees and technical  support for 
the two operations. 

2.  Covenant of Mayors 

Urban  areas  are  particularly  vulnerable  to  climate  change  impacts,  due  to  the  often 
increasing concentration of population and infrastructure, the ageing population as well 
as the high proportion of artificial surfaces (which increases the risks of floods and heat 
waves).  The  increasing  frequency  of  extreme  weather  events  (such  as  floods  or  heat 
waves) can have dramatic economic and social consequences for our cities.  

In order to address this challenge, Mayors Adapt (the Covenant of Mayors Initiative on 
Adaptation to Climate Change)205 was launched by the Commission in March 2014, as a 
flagship programme to promote and facilitate urban adaptation planning. Mayors Adapt 
drew  on  experience  and  expertise  developed  under  the  2012-2013  ‘EU  Cities  Adapt’ 
pilot project.  

In  October  2015,  Mayors  Adapt  and  the  Covenant  of  Mayors  initiatives  were  merged, 
and the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (Covenant) was officially launched, 
introducing  an  integrated  approach  on  mitigation  and  adaptation  and  a  robust 
methodology  to  assess  the  risks  and  vulnerabilities  associated  with  climate  change  and 
track effectiveness of adaptation action.  

202 See footnote 109 
203 See footnote 53 
204 http://www.eib.org/products/blending/ncff/index.htm  
205 http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/about/covenant-initiative/origins-and-development.html   

98 

 
 
                                                 
Signatories  to  the  Covenant  voluntarily  commit  to  develop  a  climate  vulnerability  and 
risk  assessment  and  an  action  plan  for  targeted  adaptation  options  within  two  years  of 
signing up to the initiative. This political commitment includes reporting every two years 
on the implementation progress of their plans. 

Between  2013206  and  2018,  the  Commission  implemented  and  funded  the  Covenant  of 
Mayors  Office  (for  the  amount  of  funding,  please  refer  to  section  11  in  this  Annex). 
These  two  actors  inform,  mobilise  and  support  local  authorities  in  taking  climate 
mitigation  and  adaptation  action.  The  Commission  and  the  Covenant  Office  raise 
to  financial  opportunities-,  encourage  political 
awareness  -including  on  access 
commitment from local authorities to take action, promote their local  commitments and 
actions via the Covenant’s communication channels, assist Covenant signatories with any 
questions  via  a  helpdesk,  technical  guidance,  including  for  monitoring  and  reporting, 
capacity-building events and webinars, facilitates peer-to-peer networks and exchange of 
experiences and good practices, implement a city twinning programme, online discussion 
forums,  and  networking  events.  The  Commission  and  the  Covenant  Office  also  engage 
other governance levels and stakeholders (States, regions, provinces, national / thematic 
agencies  or  organisations,  etc.)  and  co-ordinate  work  with 
third  parties.  The 
Commission’s  JRC  cooperates  with  the  Office  to  provide  comprehensive  technical 
the  preparation, 
guidelines, 
local  authorities 
implementation and monitoring207 of the latter's commitments.  

templates  and 

feedback 

for 

to 

More specifically on facilitating access to funding, this has been one of the key priorities 
of the Covenant. 208 Information on funding opportunities is made available on a regular 
basis  through  various  means,  such  as  website  news  items,  capacity  building  events, 
webinars, Covenant Investment Forums, as well as the informative material, such as the 
Quick  reference  guide  on  financing  opportunities  (March  2016)209,  leaflets,  fact  sheets 
and  most  recently  the  Interactive  funding  guide  available  in  23  EU  languages  since 
March 2018. 210 The pool of financial experts is established to generate more knowledge 
on innovative financing opportunities and projects to be available for local authorities.    

The  Commission  mobilises  financial  and  political  support  for  signatories  at  EU  level. 
Indeed,  regarding  financing,  part  of  the  EU  funds  and  financial  instruments  (i.e. 
European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  (EFSI),  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds,  Urban  Innovative  Actions  (UIA),  URBACT,  LIFE,  LIFE  Natural  Capital 
Financing  Facility,  and  H2020  support  the  implementation  of  the  commitments  from 
Covenant signatories on climate change adaptation. The Commission also contributes to 
providing  advice  and  technical  assistance  in  view  of  financing  local  climate  change 
adaptation  projects,  e.g.  through  the  Urban  Investments  and  Advisory  Platform  new 

206 2008, for climate change mitigation. 
207 At the start of 2017, in consultation with the signatories, the Covenant of Mayors Office developed an 
updated and integrated monitoring and reporting framework, which includes mitigation and adaptation 
reporting 
here: 
the 
https://www.covenantofmayors.eu/IMG/xls/SECAP_Template_EN.xls  

content/structure 

requirements. 

For 

see 

208 See footnote 126 
209  Quick  Reference  Guide,  Covenant  of  Mayors  for  Climate  &  Energy,  2016.  Available: 

https://www.covenantofmayors.eu/IMG/pdf/Quick_Reference_Guide_-
_Financing_Opportunities_updated2016.pdf  

210 http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/support/funding.html 

99 

 
                                                 
dedicated  urban  investment  advisory  platform  and  the  Joint  Assistance  to  Support 
Projects in European Regions (JASPERS).211  

Regarding  political  support  for  signatories  at  EU  level,  the  Commission  contributes  to 
this  through,  for  instance,  its  high-level  representatives    publicly  encouraging  and 
supporting  local  and  Covenant  signatories'  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation 
commitments  and  actions,  regularly  meeting  the  EU  Covenant  Board  (representing  the 
Covenant community) as well as cities' and regions' representatives, and participating in 
conferences for local authorities organised or not by the Commission (e.g. the Covenant 
high-level  Ceremony  of  22/02/2018212),  the  Commission  supporting  the  Urban  Agenda 
for  the  EU  including  the  climate  change  adaptation  theme,  and  the  Commission 
supporting the creation of the EUROPA's Cities topic one-stop shop webpage including 
the adaptation theme213. 

Outputs  produced  by  the  initiative  and  shared  by  signatories  are  disseminated  more 
widely via the Covenant of Mayors website214 and the Climate-ADAPT platform. 

By 22 December 2017, within the Covenant of Mayors initiative, 9 264 signatories (local 
authorities)  from  53  countries  (including  28  EU  Member  States),  covering  252  million 
inhabitants, had committed to the Covenant of Mayors (mitigation and/or adaptation).  

From these local authorities, since the launch of Mayors Adapt in March 2014 and by 30 
April  2018,  1076  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.  Out  of  these  signatories,  21  (2%)  had 
submitted a full local adaptation action plan (i.e. including a strategy and a climate risk 
and  vulnerability  assessment).  There  has  been  linear  progression  since  2014  in  the 
number of signatories and submitted adaptation plans.215 At the moment of writing this 
document, the number of submitted full adaptation strategies is low due to the fact that 
the  Covenant  online  reporting  platform  for  adaptation  is  not  yet  fully  ready.  Once  this 
online  reporting  platform  will  be  officially  launched,  we  can  expect  an  increase  of 
submissions of local adaptation plans, which may well mean estimates based on current 
trends are overly pessimistic. 

A 2017 survey of just above 500 EU municipalities also found that 28% of municipalities 
had  a  climate  adaptation  action  plan  and  of  those  that  did  not,  only  42%  intended  to 
introduce one in an undetermined future (the remaining 17% did not intend to introduce 
one  and  42%  did  not  know).216  A  2018  analysis  of  the  local  climate  plans  of  885 

211  The  EUROPA  Cities  topic  webpage,  Climate  adaptation  in  cities,  Funding  opportunities  and  advice, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/eu-regional-and-urban-development/topics/cities/priority-themes/climate-
adaptation-cities_en#funding-opportunities-and-advice.  

212 

213 

https://www.covenantofmayors.eu/news-and-events/news/1518-10-years-of-european-covenant-of-

mayors.html  

https://ec.europa.eu/info/eu-regional-and-urban-development/topics/cities/priority-themes/climate-

adaptation-cities_en  

214 www.covenantofmayors.eu  
215 From March 2014 to April 2018 (50 months, or 4.2 years), the average rate of signatories' adhesions to 
the  Covenant  is  of  around  256  per  year  (1076  signatories  divided  by  4.2  years).  From  March  2016 
(moment  from  when the first signatories  had to start  submitting their adaptation plans) to April 2018 
(26  months,  or  2.2  years),  the  average  rate  of  adaptation  plans'  submissions  to  the  Covenant  is  of 
around 10 per year (21 submissions divided by 2.2 years). 

216 Covenant community’s needs for SE(C)AP design and implementation, Covenant of Mayors for Energy 

& Climate, 2017.  

100 

 
                                                 
 
representative  cities of EU-28 (both Covenant  cities and non-Covenant  cities) similarly 
concluded  that  about  26%  of  EU  cities  had  adopted  adaptation  plans.217  It  suggested 
"that, in  countries  where autonomous  local  climate [mitigation and/or adaptation] plans 
are  rare  and  cities  are  not  required  by  national  legislation  to  develop  plans,  such  as 
Cyprus, Slovenia, Latvia, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Malta, but also Portugal […], Romania 
[…]  and  Spain  […],  international  networks  such  as  the  Covenant  of  Mayors  raise  the 
awareness,  build  the  capacity  and,  often  through  EU-funded  projects,  provide  the 
expertise and the funding necessary to develop local climate plans." 11% of the cities of 
the analysis' sample have an adaptation commitment within the Covenant.   

A  survey218  conducted  by  the  Covenant  Office  in  early  2017  that  consulted 
municipalities, provinces, regions and national ministries identified barriers to city-level 
action:  

  Cities are less aware and less equipped for climate change adaptation than climate 
change mitigation. Among the three pillars of the Covenant  of Mayors, the area 
where respondents from cities declare that they need the most support is climate 
adaptation (45.1%), followed by climate mitigation (37.0%) and access to energy 
(17.9%); 

  Access  to  financial  resources  remains  the  greatest  barrier  to  climate  action: 
scarcity of financial resources appears as a central issue for 84% of municipalities 
and for almost 55% of provinces, regions and national ministries. Cities need in 
particular  specific  support  regarding  access  to  European  Structural  Investment 
Funds, and the EU funding programmes such as LIFE, Urban Innovative Actions 
and URBACT; 

  A lack of technical  expertise and political  support  were the next  most prevalent 
barriers  for cities:  assistance is  needed  for both  planning and implementation of 
climate  action,  including  designing  an  integrated  approach  to  mitigation  and 
adaptation. 55.8% of municipalities, and 73.4% of provinces, regions and national 
ministries  indicate  strong  needs  for  designing  an  integrated  approach  for 
mitigation and adaptation. 

Based  on  the  identified  needs,  the  Covenant  Office  has  developed  a  capacity  building 
strategy  and  work  plan  that  has  translated  these  findings  into  concrete  actions,  such  as 
capacity-building  and  awareness-raising  workshops,  webinars,  city  twinnings,  and  the 
interactive funding guide,219 all tailored to the identified needs. 

Building  on  the  success  of  the  EU  Covenant  and  its  gradual  extension  to  EU’s 
neighbourhood, Africa, Americas and Asia based on financial support from the European 
Commission,  the  Global  Covenant  of  Mayors  for  Climate  &  Energy220  was  officially 
launched  in  2017  bringing  together  the  Compact  of  Mayors221  and  the  Covenant  of 
Mayors.  It  offers a worldwide multi-stakeholder  alliance of cities committed to  climate 
and energy action, with the support of founding partners, in particular city networks, and 
through  several  regional  secretariats,  supported  by  the  European  Union,  that  deliver 
technological and methodological support. 

217 See footnote 147 
218 See footnote 216 
219 https://www.covenantofmayors.eu/support/funding.html  
220 https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/  
221 http://impact.compactofmayors.org/  

101 

 
 
                                                 
3.  Monitoring and evaluation on adaptation action at EU and Member State level 

The following can be observed about EU- and Member State-level efforts in developing 
monitoring and evaluation of adaptation action.  

EU: 

  Climate  vulnerabilities  (and  logically  the  appropriateness  of  adaptation 
action)  are  difficult  to  compare  between  EU  Member  States  due  to  local 
specificities. 

  There  was  a  clear  role  foreseen  for  the  Commission  to  develop  an  EU-

level adaptation preparedness scoreboard (Action 1) 

  The Structural Funds under the 2014-2020 MFF already include indicators 
on the number of people protected from  floods and forest  fires, however 
too  few  projects  have  been  fully  implemented  yet  to  draw  meaningful 
conclusions on impacts. 

 

In addition, the mainstreaming efforts under the Strategy have enabled the 
inclusion of much improved indicators in  the recent  MFF proposals,  e.g. 
the CAP proposal. 

  The  current  2014-2020  CAP  includes  measures  to  support  climate 
adaptation.  Measures  are  chosen  in  support  of  priorities  and  focus 
areas.  There  is,  however,  no  adaptation-specific  priority  or  focus 
area.222  This  created  both  a  difficulty  in  clearly  identifying  and 
tracking adaptation action.  

  The proposed future CAP now includes a specific objective, as well as 
impact and result indicators that are directly and exclusively related to 
adaptation.  

  They  will help  ensure consistent  monitoring and reporting of climate 
adaptation  efforts  in  agriculture  across  Member  States,  while  taking 
into account national specificities. 

Member State: 

  The  Monitoring  Mechanism  Regulation  (outside  the  framework  of  the 
Strategy)  requires  Member  States  to  report  to  the  Commission  on  their 
adaptation  activities,  without  setting  a  mandatory  format  for  such 
reporting.  The  reporting  is  published  on  the  Climate-ADAPT  platform 
managed by the EEA. 

222  Climate  adaptation  is  split  between  "risk  prevention  and  management",  "restoring,  preserving  and 
enhancing  ecosystems  related  to  agriculture  and  forestry"  and  "promoting  resource  efficiency  and 
supporting the shift towards a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy in the agriculture, food and 
forestry sectors". 

102 

 
 
 
                                                 
  The  Commission  guidelines  on  Member  State  strategies  state  that  the 
NASs  should  also  include  monitoring  and  evaluation  tools  at  national 
level. 

  Whereas  all  NASs  do  foresee  such  monitoring  and  evaluation  tools, 
Member States are monitoring and evaluating their strategies to a varying 
degree, depending on where they are in the adaptation policy cycle. 

o  For  example,  Germany  will  complete  the  evaluation  of  their  2008 

strategy in 2019. 

o  In the case of the Netherlands, the 2007 NAS was evaluated in 2012, 
which  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  2007  NAS  did  not  address  all 
relevant implications of climate change. This in turn contributed to the 
conception of the Dutch NAS 2016. 

o  National  Adaptation  Plans  (NAPs)  implementing  the  strategies  add  a 

further layer of complexity to monitoring. 

  Further improvement and sharing lessons learnt is probably possible. The 
EEA will publish a paper in 2018 and a full report in 2019 or 20 on how 
evaluation processes can improve adaptation practices at country-level. 

o  This is a learning and dissemination exercise looking at five countries 
which  have  used  evaluation  indicators  (further  countries  have 
expressed interest in joining the exercise). 

o  The  report  also  looks  into  links  between  indicators  at  national  level 
and the relevant indicator developments under the Sendai Framework 
for Disaster Risk  Reduction  2015-2030, the Paris Agreement  and the 
Sustainable Development Goals. 

o  It  will  also  examine  how  data  collected  by  EUROSTAT  can  be  used 

for different adaptation purposes. 

In  the  future,  the  reporting  requirements  under  the  Monitoring  Mechanism  Regulation 
will  be  replaced  by  the  provisions  of  the  recently  adopted  Energy  Union  Governance 
Regulation.223  The  role  of  the  adaptation  preparedness  scoreboard  also  needs  to  be  re-
defined in this new context. This should be an occasion to enhance and further harmonise 
the monitoring and evaluation framework for adaptation policy at EU and national level. 

223  COM(2016)  759:  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
Governance  of  the  Energy  Union,  amending  Directive  94/22/EC,  Directive  98/70/EC,  Directive 
2009/31/EC,  Regulation  (EC)  No  663/2009,  Regulation  (EC)  No  715/2009,  Directive  2009/73/EC, 
Council Directive 2009/119/EC, Directive 2010/31/EU, Directive 2012/27/EU, Directive 2013/30/EU 
and Council Directive (EU) 2015/652 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 

103 

 
 
                                                 
4.  Bridging the knowledge gaps 

Four knowledge gaps were identified in the Strategy224: 

Information on projected costs and benefits of impacts and adaptation  

 
  Regional and local-level analyses and risk assessments 
  Frameworks, models and tools to support decision making within uncertainty and 

to assess the effectiveness of adaptation measures 
  Monitoring and evaluation of past adaptation efforts 

The evaluation assessed how much effort was put into each broad knowledge domain and 
where possible, how much financial input was invested in it. To assess which sectors of 
society  were  assisted  with  knowledge  production,  all  research  items  were  ascribed  to 
sectors  (e.g.  water,  nature,  health  etc.).  From  several  studies  on  remaining  knowledge 
gaps,  the  evaluation  then  inferred  if  the  effort  for  each  domain  so  far  is  perceived  as 
sufficient; and if new knowledge domains have emerged for society to be able to move 
towards adaptation action. 

As means for addressing the knowledge gaps, the Strategy indicated H2020 and the JRC, 
the latter especially, would provide a comprehensive EU-wide vulnerability assessment. 
The  ‘Horizon  2020  Work  Programme  2014-15’  was  adopted  in  December  2013  to 
promote EU-wide vulnerability assessments, considering, inter alia, the cross-sectoral EU 
overview  of  natural  and  manmade  risks  that  the  Commission  produced  in  2013.  The 
H2020 work programmes 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 explicitly mention the Strategy.  

In  close  collaboration  with  the  European  Environmental  Information  and  Observation 
Network  (Eionet)  and  its  33  member  countries,  the  EEA  gathers  data  and  produces 
assessments  on  a  range  of  topics  related  to  the  environment225.  More  specifically  EEA 
supports  and  informs  policy  development  and  implementation  in  the  area  of  climate 
change  impacts,  vulnerability,  and  adaptation  by  means  of  data,  information/indicators, 
and assessments226. In these activities EEA is supported by the European Topic Centre on 
Climate Change Adaptation (ETC/CCA), funded by EEA227. 

The  EEA  report  on  'Climate  change,  impacts  and  vulnerability  in  Europe  2016'228  
provides an overview as well as valuable analysis of knowledge gaps remaining in 2018, 
which  have  been  mapped  against  the    knowledge  gaps  identified  in  the  Strategy.  This 
analysis was based on a range of sources (including  IPCC, JPI and EU projects), but it 
was not fully comprehensive.  

A study assessing available knowledge in three thematic areas was also completed for the 
Commission 
(vulnerability  assessment,  ecosystem-based  adaptation, 
infrastructure  adaptation).229  Since  2011  the  JRC  has  been  supporting  the  European 

in  2017 

224  The  Impact  Assessment  of  the  Strategy  suggested  one  more  knowledge  gap  (‘Socio-economic  trends 
that  are  interrelated  with  climatic  changes’.  See  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Impact 
Assessment, SWD(2013) 132 final, page 14. 

225 https://www.eea.europa.eu/ and https://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us  
226  https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate-change-adaptation  and  the  multi-annual  and  annual  work 

programmes 

227 http://cca.eionet.europa.eu/  
228 See footnote 113 
229 Ecofys, Assessing Adaptation Knowledge in Europe: Vulnerability to Climate Change / Ecosystem-

Based Adaptation / Infrastructure Resilience in the Transport, Energy and Construction Sectors, study 

104 

 
                                                 
 
Commission  in  analysing  the  socio-economic  costs  and  benefits  of  climate  change  and 
adaptation  to  it  in  different  sectors  (JRC  PESETA  projects).  The  evidence  to  date 
indicates  that  despite  progress  in  understanding,  knowledge  gaps  remain  in  the  areas 
identified  in  the  Strategy  (notably  as  regards  benefits  of  adaptation  in  other  areas)  and 
new ones have emerged, as adaptation is a fast evolving and complex field. 

Table VIII-2 Remaining knowledge gap components  

Key  knowledge  gaps 
identified 
the 
in 
Strategy 2013  

on 
Information 
projected  costs  and 
benefits  of 
impacts 
and adaptation 

Regional  and 
local-
level analyses and risk 
assessments 

Frameworks,  models 
and  tools  to  support 
decision making within 
to 
uncertainty  and 
the 
assess 
effectiveness 
of 
adaptation measures 

Monitoring 
evaluation 
adaptation efforts 

of 

and 
past 

Areas where further research is still needed  

  Knowledge on effective adaptation solutions 

  Enhanced  approaches  to  regional-  and  local-level 

adaptation issues  

  Robust, integrated (across sectors and geographical 
and  governance  scales)  impact,  vulnerability  and 
adaptation assessments 

  Climate services providing the best available climate 

data to support adaptation  

  Decision-making  and  policymaking  support  tools 
including  on  the  costs  and 

and  assessments, 
benefits of impacts and adaptation  

  Ways to deal with uncertainties  

  Monitoring systems and tools 

The 2017 knowledge assessment study identified new gaps in the following two sectors: 

Ecosystem 
Adaptation (EbA)** 

based 

  Demonstration of transferability of existing evidence 
in terms of contexts or relevant climate hazards, as 
evidence is highly context specific 

  Effectiveness and efficiency of EbA at larger scales 

of implementation (e.g. river basins) 

  Demonstration  and  quantification  of  co-benefits  of 

EbA 

for the European Commission, 2017. Available: 
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adaptation/what/knowledge_en#tab-0-1  

105 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
  Higher  resolution  projections  of  climate  data  need, 
up  to below  1  km  which  can  be beyond  the  current 
boundaries of climate modelling 

  Assessment  of  competing  land-use  objectives  and 
optimal  land-use  options  (for  example,  in  terms  of 
water  resources,  flood  management,  renewable 
energy production)  

  Better  understanding  of 

transport  sector’s 
current  and  future  vulnerabilities  across  modes, 
including inter-modal vulnerability assessments and 
the potential for integrated adaptive solutions across 
and beyond the transport sector 

the 

 

Infrastructure** 

  Developing,  selecting  and  applying  adaptation 
indicators and the appropriate monitoring system at 
city  level  to  assess  progress  in  adaptation  and  the 
effectiveness of measures 
Improve  understanding  on  how  to  combine  climate 
and non-climate data for infrastructure planning 

 

to  evaluate  and 
  Better  understanding  on  how 
interdependencies 
address  dependencies  and 
within  and  across 
(also 
includes water and Information and Communication 
social  and 
in  particular  with 
Technology), 
environmental  sector,  and  how  cascade  effects 
impact vulnerability 

infrastructure  sectors 

Further new gaps identified by the EEA and other stakeholders are listed in Chapter 6.1 
under the relevance criterion. They include: 

 

Interdependencies,  synergies  and  trade-offs  with  other  relevant  sustainable 
development goals 

  Enhanced communication, shared learning and co‑creation of knowledge. 
  Spillover effects of impacts and adaptation within EU and at the global level. The 
case  study  on  spillover  effect  from  climate  change  impacts  outside  the  EU  (see 
Case Study 2 in Annex XIV) also highlights the need to review existing evidence 
and invest in this field. 

  Adaptation in mountainous areas 
  Long-term lack of water resources 
  High-end climate change 
  Gaps in research topics such as health, coastal areas, biodiversity. 

124  research  items  (defined  as  research  reports,  projects  and  programmes)  have  been 
identified that were published in 2013 or later, and are focused on adaptation to climate 
change. Figure VIII-1 provides a breakdown of the 124 research items by source. 

106 

 
 
Figure VIII-1 Number of adaptation-focused projects and reports since 2013 

Source: Own analysis 

Expenditure on adaptation-related research includes: 

  The seventeen FP7 projects identified that addressed adaptation to climate change 

had a total budget of EUR 106 million.  

 

  A  total  of  EUR  275  million  has  been  committed  to  H2020  adaptation  research 
projects starting between 2014 and 2017 (generally ending 3-5 years later). This 
amounts to 0.6% of the total H2020 budget 2014–2020.230 
It is estimated that EUR 10 million was spent by JRC on adaptation since 2013, 
which  equates  to  about  0.8%  of  the  total  JRC  budget  for  this  period.  It  is  not 
possible to identify the exact proportion of JRC’s total budget made available for 
adaptation-related research over the period 2013 – 2016, as it cuts across several 
different parts of JRC and there is no specific budget head. 

The EEA prepares assessments based on information provided by its member countries 
as  well  as  from  climate  adaptation  research  and  other  information  sources.  EEA  also 
funds the European Topic Centre on Climate Change Adaptation (ETC/CCA) to support 
its work programme on adaptation. Expenditure by EEA on all work on climate change 
impacts,  vulnerability  and  adaptation  is  not  available.  But  specifically  for  Climate-
ADAPT,  an  estimate  was  calculated  for  the  combined  expenditure  of  EEA  and  the 
Commission  of  about  2.7  million  EUR,  for  the  period  2013-2016,  based  on  EEA 
information. 

Figure VIII-2 shows the 124 research items categorised according to the knowledge gaps 
identified  in  the  Strategy  that  they  address.  A  total  of  50  items  are  related  to  newly 
emergent  knowledge  gaps:  mainstreaming;  cooperation;  adaptation  technologies;  and  a 

230 

Factsheet:  Horizon 

2020 

budget,  European  Commission, 

2013.  Retrieved 

from: 

https://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/pdf/press/fact_sheet_on_horizon2020_budget.pdf  

107 

 
 
                                                 
more  generic  category,  including  issues  relating  to  the  climate  system  and  resilience. 
Although  they  are  not  strictly  within  the  pre-formulated  knowledge  gaps  of  Action  4, 
they  are  related  to  other  actions  in  the  Strategy,  so  it  seems  reasonable  to  assume  that 
they result from the Strategy. 

Figure VIII-2 Research projects and reports addressing the four knowledge gaps or other emerging knowledge 
gaps 

Source: Own analysis 

Each of the 124 research items have been ascribed to the sector to which they primarily 
relate:  cities,  water,  infrastructure,  agriculture,  nature,  fisheries,  health,  disaster  risk 
reduction,  or  ‘other’  (broad  projects  or  programmes,  encompassing  many  sectors).  The 
most  frequently  addressed  sectors  were  water  (27  items),  nature  (25  items),  and 
agriculture (24 items). A total of 30 items were categorised as ‘other’.  

Taking  costs  identified  in  H2020  grants  as  a  proxy  for  spending  per  domain,  most 
addressed  water,  cities,  and  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  (DRR).  Other  research  funding  is 
spent by JRC, other EU directorates, Member States, and others, for which detailed data 
on expenditure was not found. The budget for the JRC reports could not be retrieved, as 
JRC does not monitor this amount separately, however, JRC estimates the total amount at 
Euro 10 million between 2013 and 2017. 

108 

 
 
Figure VIII-3 Total expenditure per domain 

Source: Own analysis 

In summary, 45 H2020  projects  and 34 JRC reports  dealing  with  adaptation have been 
identified.  The  total  budget  for  the  H2020  projects  starting  between  2014  and  2017  is 
EUR 275 million. A further EUR 148 million has been committed for 2018-2020.  

The European Climate Change Adaptation conference series, launched in 2013 following 
the  publication  of  the  Strategy,  has  gained  a  significant  momentum  since  its  inception, 
and had become the de facto European forum of excellence for adaptation scientists and 
practitioners. 

5.  Climate-ADAPT 

The  information  on  the  Climate–ADAPT  portal  is  collected  by  the  EEA,  and  the 
European  Topic  Centre  on  Climate  Change  Adaptation  (ETC/CCA),  from  a  range  of 
information  sources,  including  EU-funded  research  projects,  Interreg,  LIFE,  national 
policy  pages,  and  reports  from  NGOs  and  sector  networks.  These  documents  are 
submitted monthly to the database and subjected to a strict quality control process carried 
out  by  the  EEA  and  the  ETC/CCA.  Currently,  a  total  of  76  case  studies  describe 
implementation of adaptation actions and information on 40 adaptation options have been 
gathered.  Country  pages  present  the  information  on  the  state  of  play  on  adaptation  in 
each Member State, which was reported under the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation in 
2015 and was updated on a voluntary basis in 2016-2017. A total of 84 city profiles of 
selected Covenant of Mayors and Mayors Adapt signatories have been included. 

109 

 
 
 
The EEA mid-term evaluation report on Climate-ADAPT includes a set of use cases of 
Climate-ADAPT231 which gives an overview of who is using Climate-ADAPT and what 
for.  For example, the UK health sector has used Climate-ADAPT information to create a 
risk and adaptation plan for the health sector in England, while the City of Bologna has 
used  Climate-ADAPT  information  to  develop  the  Bologna  Urban  Adaptation  Plan  and 
guidelines for medium-sized Italian cities. 

6.  Key policy initiatives where adaptation was mainstreamed 

During  the  period  covered  by  the  evaluation,  adaptation  was  mainstreamed  in  EU  and 
international  disaster  risk  reduction  polices.  In  2013,  the  EU  Civil  Protection 
legislation  was  revised  to  ensure  better  response  to  natural  and  man-made  disasters. 
Climate  change  was  integrated  in  the  new  legislation  as  one  of  the  reasons  for  the 
increasing severity and complexity of disasters and included as a component of the EU 
assessment  of  risks  and  in  trainings  for  civil  protection  personnel.  Since  early  2014, 
much effort has been put in mainstreaming adaptation in the implementation of the Civil 
Protection Mechanism legislation and in all its annual work programmes. In 2017, a new 
Commission  proposal  for  the  Union  Civil  Protection  mechanism  was  adopted:  it 
recognizes a fundamental role for prevention in disaster risk management, and includes 
consideration of climate change impacts as a key component of effective prevention and 
preparedness.  

Synergies  between  climate  change  adaptation  and  DRR  were  also  enhanced  in  the 
implementation  of  EU  cohesion  policy  funds,  in  particular  the  ERDF  and  the  CF. 
Climate and disaster proofing are built into the appraisal of major projects for cohesion 
policy  support.  Moreover,  risk  assessments  are  a  precondition  for  funding  from  the 
ERDF  and  CF.National  climate  change  adaptation  strategies  are  required,  where 
appropriate, to inform national risk assessments. Currently work is ongoing to integrate 
climate  change  adaptation  in  the  disaster  risk  reduction  peer  review  system  to  promote 
policy  development  and  actions  relevant  to  disaster  risk  reduction.  Climate  change 
adaptation  has  also  been  mainstreamed  in  the  work  plan  and  in  most  outputs  of  the 
Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Knowledge Centre (launched in September 2015). 

From  an  international  angle,  Commission  Services  have  worked  to  integrate  climate 
change adaptation in the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction (adopted in March 
2015).  Much  of  the  work  done  on  cities,  infrastructure,  insurance,  knowledge  and  loss 
and  damage  directly  contributes  to  the  implementation  of  the  EU  Action  Plan  on  the 
Sendai Framework. Adaptation is also well anchored in the work of the European Forum 
for Disaster Risk  reduction (co-lead by the EU Commission and United Nations Office 
for Disaster Risk Reduction) which aims to create a safer Europe by reducing risks and 
vulnerability and supports Europe's contribution to the Sendai framework. 

As  regards  the  EU’s  Outermost  Regions,  the  Commission  adopted  in  October  2017  a 
new strategy232 committing to consistently taking into account these regions’ specificities 
in  all  EU  policies.  This  entails  taking  into  account  the  particular  constraints  of  these 
regions  when  designing  the  selection  criteria  and  types  of  financial  support.  The 
Commission  has  committed  to  implementing  a  number  of  initiatives  to  cater  for  the 
climate  vulnerabilities,  which  compound  their  specific  limitations  in  terms  of  e.g. 
remoteness,  small  size,  insularity  and  socio-economic  problems.  Certain  French 

231 https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/help/climate-adapt-use-cases/climate-adapt-use-cases/ 
232 See footnote 138 

110 

 
 
                                                 
Outermost Regions were affected by hurricanes in 2017 (such as Saint-Martin, 95% of its 
French part having been destroyed by hurricane Irma). 

In  terms  of  EU  water  policy,  the  Blueprint  to  safeguard  Europe's  water  resources  was 
adopted in 2012 with the long-term objective to ensure the sustainability of all activities 
that impact on water. It recognised the challenges brought about by climate change and 
pointed to a number of means to preserve EU water resources. Blueprint actions included 
inter  alia  the  development  of  a  Green  infrastructure  strategy233  that  includes  a  specific 
chapter on adaptation, the development of a SWD on Agriculture and sustainable water 
management234,  and  a  current  proposal  for  “Minimum  quality  requirements  for  reused 
water in the EU”.235 

 In a separate process, the Floods Directive foresaw upon its entry into force in 2007 the 
mandatory  integration  of  climate  change  projections  into  their  flood  risk  assessments, 
maps  and  plans  by  the  2nd  cycle  of  its  implementation  (2016-2021).  14  Member  States 
had already included climate change in their Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments and 16 
in  their  Flood  Hazard  and  Risk  Maps  by  2011  and  2013  respectively  on  the  basis  of 
readily available information in the 1st cycle of implementation (2010-15).  

The  Commission  is  currently  in  the  process  of  assessing  the  Flood  Risk  Management 
Plans  (FRMPs)  in  parallel  with  the  River  Basin  Management  Plans.  A  report 
summarising the findings of these assessments will be published in the 2nd half of 2018 
and will make reference to climate change. Over the 2nd cycle of implementation (2016-
2021)  Member  States  are  required  to  take  into  account  the  likely  impact  of  climate 
change on the occurrence of floods, thus putting a stronger requirement compared to the 
1st cycle. 

The  main  EU  initiative  in  urban  policy,  the  Urban  Agenda  for  the  EU  is  progressing 
with  the  objective  to  include  and  better  recognise  the  urban  dimension  in  policies. 
Climate adaptation is one of the priority themes under the Urban Agenda for the EU and 
has been mainstreamed into its key elements, such as the EU One Stop Shop for Cities, 
the  Urban  Data  Platform,  Urban  Innovative  Actions,  and  the  Urban  Investments  and 
Advisory Platform. A Climate Adaptation Partnership was launched in July 2017236 and 
is  currently  preparing  an  action  plan  to  be  adopted  by  the  end  of  2018.  Synergies  with 
other Urban Agenda for the EU Partnerships are sought, including those on: Sustainable 
Use  of  Land  and  Nature-Based  solutions;  Circular  Economy;  Air  Quality;  and  Energy 
Transition. 

Adaptation  was  also  mainstreamed  into  the  Commission’s  2016  proposal  on  the 
Governance of the Energy Union.237 The proposal, which had been foreseen in the 2015 
Energy  Union  Strategy238,  specified  the  Member  States’  reporting  requirements  on 

233 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  Green  Infrastructure  (GI)  –  Enhancing 
Europe's Natural Capital, COM(2013) 249 

234  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Agriculture  and  Sustainable  Water  Management  in  the  EU, 

SWD(2017) 153 final 

235 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for 

water reuse, COM(2018) 337 final 

236 https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/climate-adaptation  
237 See footnote 223. 
238 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and  Social  Committee,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the  European  Investment  Bank:  A 

111 

 
                                                 
 
adaptation  policy  in  greater  detail  than  the  current  Monitoring  Mechanism  Regulation, 
which  it  should  replace  in  an  effort  to  align  with  adaptation  reporting  under  the  Paris 
Agreement. The energy and climate related reporting in the EU will be also simplified, as 
it  is  regrouped  under  the  same  law.  The  draft  regulation,  on  which  the  European 
Parliament and the Council reached an informal agreement in June 2018, equally ensures 
that the National Energy and Climate Plans to be submitted by the Member States in the 
future include climate adaptation components where applicable. 

Climate  change  adaptation  has  actively  been  mainstreamed  in  EU  development 
cooperation policy and actions. Strengthening climate change resilience, in particular in 
most vulnerable countries is considered as an important component of EU development 
cooperation  and  is  therefore  integrated  in  all  the  relevant  EU  policy  documents  (for 
example Agenda 2030, and the European Consensus on Development).  

Operationally, support to climate change adaptation is integrated into: 

  Development  cooperation  programs  with  partner  countries  (Instrument  for 
Development  Cooperation,  DCI  and  European  Development  Fund,  EDF)  in 
sectors as energy, agriculture, water, forestry, disaster risk reduction, etc.  

  Regional  envelopes  (EDF  and  DCI  budgets),  for  example  in  Latin  America 

 

(EuroClima) or in programmes on disaster risk reduction. 
 Financed through dedicated thematic programmes, such as the  Global Climate 
Change Alliance + (GCCA+) 

Finance for climate change has increased in the past years from EUR 9.5 billion in 2013 
to  EUR  20.2  billion  in  2016.  To  date,  the  European  Commission  is  one  of  the  major 
donors for adaptation finance: in 2017, more than 50% of the climate change finance was 
dedicated to adaptation projects. 

During the period covered by the evaluation, awareness was raised on the link between 
climate change, EU external relations and security. In the past couple of years concrete 
steps  have  been  made  to  integrate  and  recognize  climate  change  as  a  threat  multiplier 
which  if  not  managed  well  can  spur  a  downward  spiral  of  fragility  and  conflict. 
Concretely, climate change has become an important part of the External Action Service 
strategic reflections239 and it has been integrated in the External Action Service work on 
security and conflict prevention. The EU Conflict Early Warning System (EWS) assesses 
the risk of emergence, re-emergence and escalation of violent conflict in the coming four 
years.  Climate  change  has  over  the  last  2  years  been  a  priority  theme  for  conflict 
prevention and fragility assessment in the EWS. For the countries that are prioritised by 
the EWS, an in-depth conflict analysis is conducted which also looks at 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 creation of a Task Force on Displacement in the context of 

Framework  Strategy  for  a  Resilient  Energy  Union  with  a  Forward-Looking  Climate  Change  Policy, 
COM(2015) 080 final 

239 Such as the EU Global Strategy and A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU's External Action 

112 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
the  UNFCCC.240  In  2013,  a  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  on  Climate  Change  and 
Migration was adopted together with the EU Adaptation Strategy. This paper provides an 
overview  of  the  research  and  data  currently  available  on  the  interlinkages  between 
climate change, environmental degradation and migration. 

Since 2013, EU policies on migration and external relations have increasingly taken into 
account climate change as a trigger to displacement and climate change adaptation as an 
effective tool to  tackle root  causes of migration.  Examples  include:  Council conclusion 
on Climate diplomacy in 2013241, 2016242 and 2018243 and the 2016 Communication on 
Forced Displacement and Development244.  

Environmentally  induced  migration  continues  to  be  a  priority  under  the  EU's  external 
cooperation  instruments  for  the  period  2014-2020.  The  Programme  on  Global  Public 
Goods and Challenges245 includes a migration and asylum component which includes a 
commitment to deliver on improving understanding of the impacts of climate change and 
environmental  degradation  on  migration  flows  and  the  potential  of  migration  to 
contribute to climate change adaptation. Moreover, the EU financed a number of projects 
to develop knowledge and practices to address climate induced migration. 
The  2017  Joint  Communication246  on  Resilience  developed  to  define  an  approach  to 
address the challenges identified in the EU’s Global Strategy for the European Union’s 
Foreign and Security Policy247 builds on the 2013-2020 Resilience Action Plan248 and is 
aligned with EU commitments to the 2030 Agenda249. It consider economic resilience as 
an  important  area  for  the  overall  resilience  of  the  EU,  with  climate  change  as  a  cross-
cutting  disruptive  element,  mentioning  financial  contingency  measures,  sustainable  and 
inclusive investment, and promotion of a circular economy to protect vital services and 
facilities in case of instability. The EU is to “work with the European Investment Bank, 
other  International  Financial  Institutions,  business  sector  organisations  and  social 
partners to enhance investment frameworks for economic and social resilience”, notably 
by  “promoting  risk  transfer  through  risk  financing  mechanisms  such  as  insurance  and 
contingency credit”. 

How  the  topic  of  adaptation  was  mainstreamed  in  EU  funds  (CAP,  CFP,  ESIF)  is 
analysed in more detail in section 8 below. 

240  https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/constituted-bodies/executive-committee-of-the-warsaw-international-
mechanism-for-loss-and-damage-wim-excom/areas-of-work/migration--displacement-and-human-
mobility 

241  Council  conclusions  on  EU  Climate  Diplomacy,  Foreign  Affairs  Council  meeting,  Luxembourg,  24 

June 2013 

242  Council  conclusions  on  European  climate  diplomacy  after  COP21,  Foreign  Affairs  Council  Meeting, 

Brussels, 15 February 2016 

243 Council conclusions on Climate Diplomacy, 26 February 2018  
244  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Lives in Dignity: From Aid-
dependence to Self-reliance, COM(2016) 234 final 

245  Commision  Implementing  Decision  adopting  a  Multiannual  Indicative  Programme  for  the  Thematic 

Programme 'Global Public Goods and Challenges' for the period 2014-2020. C(2014)5072  

246  Joint Communication on 'A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU's external action' JOIN(2017) 

21 final 

247 Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe. European Commission, 2016 
248 Commission Staff Working Document: Action Plan for Resilience in Crisis Prone Countries 2013-2020, 

SWD(2013) 227 final 

249 Council conclusions on A sustainable European Future: The EU response to the 2030 Agenda for 

Sustainable Development, 20 June 2017 

113 

 
                                                 
7.  Carbon Disclosure Project survey results on companies and climate risks  

The 2017 company questionnaires for climate change, forestry and water undertaken by 
Carbon  Disclosure  Project  (CDP)  did  not  extensively  report  on  climate  adaptation 
activities on a company level. Consequently, the level of analysis on adaptation activities 
by private organisations is limited by the generic framing of questions, and the overlap 
between climate adaptation practices and conventional risk management strategies.  

Accounting  for  the  analytical  limitations,  the  2017  climate  change  questionnaire  still 
found  cases  of  climate  impacts  capable  of  impact  on  businesses.  Inter  alia,  the 
questionnaire  found  that  84%  of  the  764  surveyed  companies  had  identified  inherent 
'physical  climate  parameters'  with  the  potential  to  generate  a  substantive  change  to  the 
business operations, revenue or expenditure. Similarly, in the 2017 questionnaire for the 
CDP  Forests  Program  found  an  even  higher  climate  relevance  of  identified  operational 
risks, with 40% of identified operational risks having a direct climate relevance, and an 
additional  51%  with  an  indirect  climate  relevance.  The  Forests  Program  questionnaire 
further suggests that companies consider such operational risks to be likely to occur, with 
78%  of  companies  indicating  risks  to  be  medium  –  high  likelihood  of  affecting  their 
operations (CDP Forests Program 2017 questionnaire).   

CDP's 2017 Water Information Request found that 93% of companies undertake water-
related risk assessments. 85% of surveyed companies  indicate inherent water risks with 
an  ability  to  affect  business  production  and  continuity  (CDP  2017  Water  Information 
Request). The assessment of adaptation actions and risk mitigation strategies is rendered 
difficult  by  the  overlap  between  these  actions  and  more  conventional  business  risk 
mitigation  strategies.  Supplier  engagement  and  diversification  represents  the  most 
commonly  adopted  response  strategy  (41%  of  actions),  with  26%  of  strategies 
incorporating  made  up  of  infrastructure  &  technological  investment,  due  diligence, 
monitoring  &  evaluation,  facility  relocation,  risk  transfer  instruments  and  flood 
emergency plans (see figure below).   

Figure  VIII-4.  Most  commonly  implemented  response  strategies  reported  by 
companies through the CDP 2017 Water Information Request  

Most implemented response strategies  

2%  1% 

1% 

4% 

4% 

12% 

10% 

24% 

42% 

114 

Supplier engagement &
diversification
Stakeholder engagement &
promoting best practice
Infrastructure & technological
investment
Due diligence, monitoring &
evaluation
New products

Water management incentives

Facility relocation

Risk transfer instruments

Flood emergency plan

 
 
For  2018  the  CDP  is  restructuring  the  questionnaires  to  enable  more  direct  linkages  to 
climate change mitigation and adaptation actions. Through these changes, it is anticipated 
that companies  will be able to  report in  greater detail  on  activities such as  new service 
developments,  land  management  practices  and  supplier  engagements  with  concrete 
mitigation and/or adaptation benefits. 

8.  EU funds for climate resilience 

Common Agriculture Policy 

According  to  a  2016  study250,  the  EAFRD  is  the  only  ESIF  where  there  seems  to  be  a 
greater focus on adaptation actions compared to mitigation objectives. While this seems 
to enhance the status of Action 6 of the Strategy, there are two important caveats. Firstly, 
while  adaptation  seems  to  be  well  acknowledged  into  Rural  Development  Programmes 
(RDPs), it seldom appears as the objective having presided over the choice of the specific 
measures. This is especially so due to the difficulty to separate mitigation and adaptation 
related measures in  agriculture and  forestry sector, as those measures offer  co-benefits. 
Adaptation is considered by virtually all RDPs. It is more to the fore in those regions that 
are  already  being  affected  by  extreme  weather  events.  While  many  measures  (e.g. 
targeting  biodiversity,  soil,  and  water  use)  have  the  potential  to  support  climate 
adaptation,  whether  they  are  implemented  will  need  to  be  assessed  by  an  ex  post 
evaluation  of  programmes.  Secondly,  the  tracking  methodology  developed  for  the 
EAFRD  raises  concerns  about  over-estimations.  The  European  Court  of  Auditors  has 
suggested  an  alternative  and  more  conservative  use  of  the  Commission’s  climate 
markers.  It  concluded  that  this  could  reduce  the  overall  climate  allocations  under  the 
EAFRD  by  42%.251    The  Commission  took  note  of  the  suggestions  while  emphasising 
that the tracking methodology needs to remain stable during the current MFF for reasons 
of  predictability,  consistency  and  transparency.  However,  ways  of  fine-tuning  the 
tracking methodology for the EAFRD may be considered for the post-2020 programming 
period without increasing the administrative burden. 

More broadly, climate mainstreaming is supported under the EAFRD by the requirement 
for  RDPs  to  spend  at  least  30%  on  a  range  of  climate  and  environmental  measures.252 
Nevertheless, this minimum requirement includes measures which do not appear to have 
a  significant  impact  on  the  achievement  of  climate  objectives.253  It  is  also  notable  that 
while rural development measures provide scope to fund adaptation that directly benefits 
farm businesses (for example, support for more efficient irrigation systems) and delivers 
wider  public  benefits  (e.g.  land  management  practices  which  reduce  flood  risks), 
programmes appear to focus on the former.  

The  European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGF),  which  funds  the  CAP’s  direct 
payments,  is  not  part  of  ESIF.  Climate  considerations  are  included  via  the  greening 
component (30% of total direct payments) and cross-compliance (basic requirements to 
access  direct  payments).  According  to  the  Commission’s  calculations  around  20%  of 
direct  payments  can  be  considered  climate  relevant.  The  European  Court  of  Auditors 
(2016)  suggests  that  assumptions  used  for  this  estimate  lack  sound  justification,  in 

250 See footnote 78 
251 See footnote 170 
252 Article 59.6 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 on support for rural development by the EAFRD  
253 Ricardo Energy & Environment, IEEP, Trinomics, Climate mainstreaming in the EU Budget: preparing 

for the next MFF. Final report, 2017 

115 

 
 
                                                 
particular, for measuring the climate relevance of the non-greening component. With the 
application of more conservative estimates, they identify that the total contribution can be 
reduced  by  EUR  9  billion  from  EUR  47.1  billion  to  EUR  38  billion.254  The 
Commission’s  response  to  the  report  states  that  it  considers  its  methodology  suitably 
conservative  and  does  not  lead  to  an  overestimation.  The  principal  climate  relevant 
impact  of  the  greening  measures  is  carbon  sequestration  represented  by  the  permanent 
grassland  measure.  Diversification  and  ecological  focus  areas  can  also  support 
adaptation.  Certain  elements  of 
to 
biodiversity,  soil,  water  also  indirectly  contribute  to  adaptation.  Cross-compliance  has 
helped to encourage adaptation actions to some degree. There is an ongoing evaluation255 
by  the  Commission  of  the  impact  of  the  CAP  on  climate  change  and  greenhouse  gas 
emissions, which is expected to also provide evidence on adaptation actions in the CAP.  

the  cross-compliance  requirements  related 

Cohesion Policy  

Both  the  ERDF  and  the  CF  provide  contributions  to  the  climate  adaptation  objectives 
under the adaptation Thematic Objective (TO5), under low-carbon economy (TO4) and 
also in other Thematic Objectives due to the horizontal mainstreaming. The ESF does not 
target  TO5256.  The  climate  tracking  system  applied  under  the  Cohesion  Policy,  in 
particular  the  ERDF  and  the  CF,  is  the  most  sophisticated.  The  climate  markers  are 
applied  to  a  thematic  list  of  123  intervention  codes257  at  the  point  when  expenditure is 
committed  by  the  managing  authorities.  For  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  the 
intervention codes have been revised. A code specifically focusing on adaptation actions 
(code 087: “Adaptation to climate change measures and prevention and management of 
climate  related  risks  e.g.  erosion,  fires,  flooding,  storms  and  drought,  including 
awareness 
systems  and 
infrastructures”)  was  introduced,  to  which  a  100%  climate  marker  was  applied. 
Furthermore, a separate code (100: “Outermost regions: support to compensate additional 
costs  due  to  climate  conditions  and  relief  difficulties”)  was  put  in  place  to  track 
adaptation actions in outermost regions but only counts as 40%.  

raising,  civil  protection  and  disaster  management 

According  to  the  study258  estimates,  which  build  on  the  amount  of  allocations  for  the 
relevant  intervention  codes,  EUR  6  billion  has  been  allocated  to  adaptation  objectives 
under the Cohesion Policy with EUR 3 billion each for ERDF and CF. This accounts for 

254 For more details of the calculations, see 'Spending at least one euro in every five from the EU budget on 
climate  action:  ambitious  work  underway,  but  at  serious  risk  of  falling  short',  European  Court  of 
Auditors, 2016, p.30.  

255  See  more  at:  Evaluation  of  the  impact  of  the  CAP  measures  on  climate  change  and  greenhouse  gas 

emissions, European Commission, Ares(2017)2886183  

256  As  the  ESF  supports  social  and  employment  objectives,  climate  change  is  not  considered  to  be  a 
primary  objective. Thus,  it  does  not  cover  TO5.  Nevertheless,  in  order  to  better  capture  the  potential 
contribution  of  the  ESF  to  climate  objectives  (e.g.  through  investment  in  low-carbon  skills),  a 
secondary theme (01: “low-carbon, resource efficient economy”) was established. At the same time, its 
relevance seems to be greater for mitigation actions than for adaptation.  

257  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  215/2014  of  7  March  2014  laying  down  rules  for 
implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  laying 
down  common  provisions  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  ESF,  the  CF,  the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and 
laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the ESF, the CF and the 
European Maritime and  Fisheries Fund  with regard to  methodologies  for climate change support,  the 
determination  of  milestones  and  targets  in  the  performance  framework  and  the  nomenclature  of 
categories of intervention for ESIF. 

258 See footnote 78 

116 

 
                                                 
11.2%  of  the  total  ERDF  and  CF  allocation.  Furthermore,  another  EUR  4  billion  was 
estimated to provide indirect climate (mitigation and adaptation) benefits. The review of 
the  Operational  Priorities  showed  that  nearly  half  of  them  addressed  climate  change 
adaptation  at  the  high  strategic  level  of  the  Operational  Priorities,  which  then  translate 
into  specific  objectives  and  actions.  Most  adaptation  relevant  allocations  targeted  flood 
protection measures. Other allocations include actions on drought and heatwaves and less 
frequently  on  specific  sector-related  actions  (e.g.  energy  efficiency  in  buildings  and 
making transport infrastructure climate-resilient).   

More  broadly,  climate  change  objectives  (both  mitigation  and  adaptation)  are  further 
supported  in  Cohesion  Policy  by  the  legal  provisions  for  the  ESIF  (e.g.  horizontal 
mainstreaming,  ex  ante  conditionalities,  major  project  assessments  and  common  output 
indicators).  

Adaptation  objectives  are  also  an  important  component  of  the  European  Territorial 
Cooperation  (ETC)  goal,  which  is  supported  by  the  ERDF.  The  ETC  has  been  further 
strengthened  in  the  2014-2020  programming  period  through  closer  alignment  with  the 
macro-regional strategies and greater recognition  and encouragement of Member States 
to cooperate at the macro-regional and sea-basin level. More than 20% or almost EUR 2 
billion of the ETC programmes expenditure is expected to contribute to climate change 
objectives. Adaptation is emphasised in these programmes: with 75% of all cooperation 
programmes including adaptation as part of their strategy, and a particularly high level of 
support  for  adaptation  in  cross-border  programmes  (as  opposed  to  transnational  and 
interregional  programmes).    In  addition  to  the  cooperation  programmes  themselves, 
territorial cooperation is also being pursued by the EU macro-regional strategies (e.g. the 
EU Strategy for the Danube Region or the EU Strategy for the Alpine Region – see Case 
Study  3  in  Annex  XIV).  In  many  cases,  the  macro-regional  strategies  have  a  targeted 
focus on adaptation actions. 

Support from the CF can be only applied in a limited number of Member States259. Those 
Member  States  which  cannot  receive  funds  from  the  CF  made  a  greater  use  of  the 
EAFRD  for  their  adaptation  actions,  although  the  actual  adaptation  impacts  of  these 
actions  are  not  always  clear  (see  comment  above  in  section  on  climate-proofing  the 
CAP).  Another  interesting  aspect  is  the  urban  dimension  of  Cohesion  Policy.  This  is 
primarily  supported  by  the  ERDF  but  also  receives  support  through  CF  and  ESF.  To 
strengthen the role of the ERDF in sustainable urban development, a target of 5% was set 
as  a  minimum  share  of  ERDF  that  needs  to  be  spent  directly  on  integrated  urban 
strategies by the cities.  Furthermore, the emphasis  on cities in  ERDF investments  have 
been  increased,  as  about  EUR  15  billion  from  the  ERDF  is  planned  to  be  directly 
managed  by  cities.  At  the  same  time,  the  EEA  has  highlighted  that  “although  climate 
change adaptation is not a major focus in this, the support for green infrastructure might 
be  considerable,  as  a  major  emphasis  is  on  urban  rejuvenation  and  brown  field 
regeneration”.260  While  green  infrastructure  has  the  potential  to  deliver  adaptation 
benefits, in the ERDF and CF Operational Programmes most of the green infrastructure 
actions were described only in general terms, rather than in the more explicit terms used 

259  Support  from  the  CF  can  be  only  used  by  Member  States  whose  Gross  National  Income  (GNI)  per 
inhabitant is less than 90 % of the EU average. Also, the CF can only intervene in a few TOs, which 
explains why it appears to be more concentrated on adaptation than ERDF. 

260  'Building  resilient  cities  key  to  tackling  effects  of  climate  change',  European  Environment  Agency. 

2016. 

117 

 
                                                 
for other types of investment (for example, investments to achieve water quality goals). 
Thus, implementation of these actions is uncertain.  

In  addition  to  the  5%  ear-marking  for  integrated  urban  strategies,  ERDF  allocations  to 
TO4  (”Supporting  the  shift  towards  a  low-carbon  economy  in  all  sectors”)  shall  be  at 
least  20%  in  more  developed  regions,  15%  in  transition  regions,  and  12%  in  less 
developed regions.261 A similar ear-marking is not in place for the adaptation objective. 
(TO5), but there is also possibility to finance low-carbon strategies, including mitigation-
related  adaptation  measures  under  TO4.  Finally,  climate  considerations  integrated  into 
decisions  on  major  projects  supported  by  the  ERDF  and  CF,  as  a  result  of  the  legal 
provisions on assessment of such projects, are also expected to have a positive impact on 
climate adaptation and climate resilience.  

Common Fisheries Policy  

As  mentioned  above,  the  thematic  objectives  set  in  legislation  for  ESIF  include  TO5, 
which  explicitly  addresses  climate  adaptation  and  risk  management.  However,  the 
legislation for the EMFF262 does not specifically address TO5, indicating a lesser focus 
on climate adaptation  actions. Nevertheless, the  study found that some of the measures 
(e.g. the protection and restoration of marine biodiversity, and the adaptation of fishing 
gear  to  altering  conditions)  under  the  EMFF  have  the  potential  to  deliver  adaptation 
objectives.  

At the same time, the climate tracking methodology for EMFF is not developed in great 
detail.  Furthermore,  the  ECA  (2016)  notes  that  Member  States  were  not  required  to 
report  on  climate  expenditure  until  2016  and,  as  such,  the  accuracy  of  Commission 
estimates cannot be verified. It states that the current legal framework shows that “direct 
and clear references to climate change objectives, both mitigation and adaptation, are still 
rare and, as a result, the fisheries fund had not  widened the scope of its contribution to 
climate action”. Indirect contribution of EMFF to climate adaptation objectives cannot be 
tracked given the lack of detailed tracking methodology. 

Overall expenditure on adaptation 

An  indicative  split  between  adaptation  and  mitigation  –  based  on  the  outcome  of  the 
programming exercise – is presented below in Figure VIII-5 from a study263 undertaken 
for the Commission as part of the mainstreaming of climate action264 into the European 
Structural and Investment Funds in the programming period 2014-2020.  

261  Article  4  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1301/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17 
December  2013 on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  and  on  specific  provisions  concerning 
the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006. 

262 Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 
263 COWI, Mainstreaming of adaptation into the ESIF 2014-2020, Study for the European Commission, 

2017: Main Report 
(https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/budget/docs/report_maindtreaming_adaptation_en.pdf); 
Annex A with Case Studies 
(https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/budget/docs/report_maindtreaming_adaptation_en.pdf); 
Country Summaries for EU28 
(https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/budget/docs/report_maindtreaming_adaptation_annex_b_en
.pdf)   

264 See footnote 78 

118 

 
 
                                                 
Many  measures  that  are  good  for  mitigation  also  entail  co-benefit  for  adaptation  and 
vice-versa.  Hence  an  identification  of  measures  exclusively  supporting  mitigation  or 
adaptation  objectives  would  neither  be  desirable  nor  feasible.  This  however  does  not 
prevent  from  tracking  expenditures  supportive  of  mitigation  and  adaptation  objectives 
separately, even if a certain proportion of such expenditures is then counted twice.  

Figure VIII-5 

EU Support and climate related expenditures - EUR Billion. [% of total] 

EU support 

Climate 
related 

Of which 

Direct mitigation 

Direct 
adaptation 

Supportive 
measures for both 

ERDF and ETC 

196.7 

37.9 

30.8 

3.4 

3.6 

CF 

ESF 
Employment Initiative 

and 

Youth 

EMFF 

EAFRD 

Total 

[19.3%] 

[15.7%] 

[1.7%] 

[1.8%] 

63.4 

17.6 

13.4 

3.0 

1.3 

[27.8%] 

[21.1%] 

[4.7%] 

[2.0%] 

88.9 

1.2 

1.2 

[1.3%] 

[1.3%] 

5.7 

1.0 

1.0 

[18.2%] 

[18.2%] 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

99.0 

56.5 

5.4 

7.5 

43.6 

[57.1%] 

[5.5%] 

[7.6%] 

[44%] 

453.7 

114.2 

51.9 

13.9 

48.5 

[25.4%] 

[11.4%] 

[3.1%] 

[10.8%] 

9.  Adaptation-related work in the European Standardisation Organisations 

CEN-CENELEC were expected to map relevant EU standards that could ensure that new 
major infrastructure projects are climate proofed. In May 2014, the Commission gave the 
European standardisation organisations (ESOs) a mandate265 to develop tools to consider 
climate  change  in  a  systematic  way  in  European  standardisation,  to  identify  standards 

265  Commission  Implementing  Decision  of  10.12.2014  on  a  standardisation  request  to  the  European 

standardisation organisation, C(2014) 7912 final 

119 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
relevant  for  adaptation  to  climate  change  in  the  three  priority  infrastructure  sectors266 
identified  in  the  Strategy,  and  to  revise  those  standards  or  to  develop  new  ones  as 
appropriate.  The  first  phase  of  the  work  under  the  mandate  was  completed  at  the 
beginning of 2017 and resulted in a shortlist of 12 standards to be revised and 1 standard 
to  be  written  under  the  second  phase,  which  started  at  the  beginning  of  2018  and  is 
expected  to  take  about  four  years.  CEN-CENELEC  will  then  consider  whether  the 
process  should  be  extended  to  other  standards.  The  technical  committees  are  currently 
asking for more detailed information on climate change projections data. In addition, the 
'Guide  for  addressing  climate  change  adaptation  in  standards'267  was  adopted  in  April 
2016  by  CEN-CENELEC.  The  guide  applies  to  product-  (including  design),  service-, 
infrastructure-  and  test  standards,  and  is  intended  to  be  applicable  to  both  "climate-
influenced products" (i.e. products whose fitness for purpose may be affected if climate 
change is ignored) and "climate resilience products" (i.e. products whose main aim is to 
reduce vulnerability to  climate hazards). The  guide is  primarily intended  for authors of 
standards. 

10. Insurance and financial services 

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.  

The  Strategy’s  evaluation  study  noted  that  ideally  risk  transfer  and  insurance  solutions 
are  an  integral  part  of  a  comprehensive  approach  to  climate  adaptation  and  risk 
management.  There  is  growing  evidence  that  countries  with  widespread  market-based 
insurance coverage do recover faster from the financial impacts of extreme events. While 
the  benefits  of  risk  transfer  tools,  such  as  insurance,  are  increasingly  being  recognised 
globally, there is still a large, and in some places growing insurance coverage gap, as the 
difference  between  total  damages  due  to  natural  catastrophes  and  damages  covered  by 
insurance  is  increasing.  On  average,  more  than  two  thirds  of  the  economic  losses  from 
natural hazards remain uninsured globally268. The gap in EU countries could be as high 
as 50%, given the level of development and concentration of people and assets in high-
risk zones. 

Two studies commissioned by the EU269 looked into insurance as a risk management tool 
in  agriculture.  One  provides  an  analysis  of  current  agricultural  risks  and  available  risk 
management instruments in agriculture and recognises climate change as a growing risk; 
the  other  looks  into  insurance  against  weather  and  climate-related  risks  focusing  on 
private property and agriculture. The two studies point to uneven availability and uptake 
of  climate-related  risk  insurance  among  Member  States,  as  well  as  differences  in 
signalling and risk prevention capacity of the different instruments. Both point to multi-
peril  crop  insurance  as  an  interesting  avenue,  but  to  the  low  uptake  of  such  risk 
management  tools.  The  studies  recommend  the  integration  and  further  support  to  risk 
management  instruments  in  the  framework  of  the  agricultural  policy,  to  strengthen 

266 Energy, transport and buildings.  
267 https://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/Guides/Pages/default.aspx  
268 See footnote 113 
269 See footnote 92 

120 

 
 
                                                 
capacity  to  implement,  manage  and  control  such  instruments,  and  to  better  link 
vulnerability, funding and insurance as a risk management tool.   

Having  regard  to  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  and  adaptation  to  climate  change,  the  EU 
Action Plan on the Sendai Framework includes actions on insurance.270  

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. 

Financial services are the major source of investments made in new infrastructure, which 
should be climate resilient. For example, the insurance sector not only provides insurance 
to assist in recovery from damages, it also relies on investing the premiums it receives to 
generate an income to cover future claims (risk transfer). As a result, the insurance sector 
is  the  largest  institutional  investor  in  infrastructure  in  Europe,  with  more  than  EUR  10 
trillion of assets under its management. 

The  Capital  Markets  Union  (CMU)271  seeks  to  create  the  enabling  conditions  for  new 
forms of funding to be developed and strengthened for small firms, as well as for long-
term  and  infrastructure  investment.  It  aims  to  use  financial  innovations  to  bridge  the 
information  gap  between  investors  and  businesses.  The  CMU  also  seeks  to  mobilise 
private  capital  to  fund  sustainable  investment  by  identifying  ways  to  create  financial 
regulation that accelerates the shift of private capital toward environmentally and socially 
sustainable projects.  

As part of the CMU efforts, the Commission also established and supported the work of a 
High-Level  Expert  Group  on  Sustainable  Finance,  which  produced  a  final  report  in 
January  2018.272  The  main  findings  of  the  Group  were  based  around  priority  actions, 
many of which were taken on board by the Commission, who in March 2018 proposed an 
EU action plan on financing sustainable growth.273 Some relevant actions and proposals 
in the new action plan are:  

  Subject to the results of its impact assessment, a Commission legislative proposal 
on  the  development  of  an  EU  classification  system  for  sustainable  economic 
activities.  

  Creating  EU  labels  for  green  financial  products  to  enable  investors  to  identify 
investments  easily 
low-carbon  criteria.  The 
Commission  will  propose  a  delegated  act  on  the  content  of  the  prospectus  for 
green bond issuances. 

that  comply  with  green  or 

  Subject to the results of its impact assessment, a Commission legislative proposal 
to clarify institutional investors' and asset managers' duties on sustainability and 
to increase transparency of end-investors, including transparency on their strategy 
and climate-related exposures.  

  Requiring  insurance  and  investment  firms  to  advise  clients  on  the  basis  of  their 
preferences on sustainability. Subject to the results of their impact assessment, the 

270 See footnote 94 
271 https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/growth-and-investment/capital-markets-union_en 
272  Financing  a 

sustainable  European  economy,  European  Commission,  2018.  Available: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/180131-sustainable-finance-final-report_en.pdf  

273 See footnote 98 

121 

 
                                                 
Commission  will  propose  delegated  acts  regarding  the  suitability  assessment  in 
the  Insurance  Distribution  Directive  and  the  Markets  in  Financial  Instruments 
Directive 

  Work  towards  incorporating  climate  risks  into  institutions'  risk  management 
policies  and  on  the  potential  calibration  of  banks'  capital  requirements  in  the 
Capital  Requirement  Regulation  and  Directive  to  take  into  account  climate 
change-related risks while safeguarding financial stability and ensuring coherence 
with the EU taxonomy. 

  Enhancing  transparency  in  corporate  reporting;  with  a  proposal  to  revise  the 
guidelines  on  non-financial 
the 
information 
recommendations  of  the  Financial  Stability  Board's  Task  Force  on  Climate-
related  Financial  Disclosures274.    Subject  to  the  result  of  its  impact  assessment, 
the  Commission  will  draft  a  proposal  requiring  asset  managers  and  institutional 
investors to disclose how they consider sustainability factors in their investment 
decision making process. 

to  further  align 

them  with 

Regarding  infrastructure  investments,  a  delegated  act275  under  the  Solvency  II 
Directive276 was amended in September 2015. These amendments are aimed at making it 
cheaper  for  EU  insurance  companies  to  invest  in  qualifying  infrastructure  projects  by 
establishing  and  calibrating 
investment  risk  categories  for  such  projects.  The 
Commission has also introduced measures277 to review risk calibrations for investment in 
infrastructure  corporates278.  In  order  to  encourage  private  investment  by  banks  in 
infrastructure, the Commission proposal to amend the Capital Requirements Regulation 
and  Directive  (CRR/CRD  IV)279  would  create  a  more  risk-sensitive  regulatory 
environment  to  promote  high-quality  infrastructure  projects  and  reduce  risks  for 
investors.  

274 https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/ 
275  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2016/467  of  30  September  2015  amending  Commission 
Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2015/35  concerning  the  calculation  of  regulatory  capital  requirements  for 
several categories of assets held by insurance and reinsurance undertakings.   

276 See footnote 97 
277  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1542  of  8  June  2017  amending  Delegated  Regulation 
(EU)  2015/35  concerning  the  calculation  of  regulatory  capital  requirements  for  certain  categories  of 
assets held by insurance and reinsurance undertakings (infrastructure corporates). 

278  Infrastructure  corporates  are  a  new  asset  class  created  in  EU  rules  which  represent  infrastructure 
businesses  which  are  already  operational  (in  contrast  to  infrastructure  projects),  for  example  airports, 
which may have additional investment requirements to expand or redevelop their infrastructure. 

279  These  are  the  Capital  Requirements  Directive  and  Capital  Requirements  Regulation  which  set  out 
regulations  for  the  prudential  requirements  of  the  banking  sector  to  ensure  that  it  can  better  absorb 
economic  shocks  and  continue  to  finance  economic  activity  and  growth.  The  rules  were  updated  in 
2013, the so called CRR/CRD IV package, with the amendments part of the response to the financial 
crisis. 

122 

 
 
 
                                                 
0.0 

0.0 

281

190.1 

0.0 

0.0 

11. Summary of costs related to the Strategy 

Summary of costs per year and action, EUR millions 

Action 

Resource 
/ 
inputs 
burdens 

Prior 
to 
2013 

2013  2014  2015  2016  2017 

Total 

A1 Member State 
adaptation 
strategies 

Commission 

0.04 
280

Commission’s core activity  

Interviews suggest Member States' resources for 
scoreboard update are negligible. 

MS 

A2 LIFE funding 

Commission 

MS 

Private 

Commission 
282

A3  Covenant  of 
Mayors 

Voluntary contributions as co-funding 

Voluntary contributions as co-funding 

0.87 

 0.53 

0.56 

0.6 

0.55 

0.80 

3.9 

MS 

 9.84 

9.84  

9.84  

9.84 

39.36 

Commission 

> 225.5 

A4  Knowledge 
gaps 

MS 

Voluntary contributions as co-funding 

Private 

Voluntary contributions as co-funding 

283

225.5

0.0 

0.0 

Commission 

0.13 

0.25 

0.12 

0.25 

0.0.15 

0.9 

A5 

ADAPT 

Climate-

284

MS 

0.0 

EEA 

0.37 

0.37 

0.37 

0.47 

0.37 

1.95 

280 A large, complex study was conducted by the Commission in 2011 to prepare the Strategy. A subtask 
estimated to cost EUR 35k was dedicated to support the development of the guidance for preparation of 
national adaptation state, which was published at the same time as the Strategy in 2013. 

281 The total funding for adaptation allocated in the LIFE Multiannual Work programme for 2014-2017. 
282  Figures  for  the  Commission  relate  to  4  contracts  implemented  since  2011  to  fund  the  adaptation 
dimension of the Covenant of Mayors/Mayors Adapt. The figures also include the first year of a 3-year 
administrative  arrangement  between  DG  CLIMA  and  the  JRC  to  fund  the  latter's  support  to  the 
Covenant of Mayors  for EUR 400 000 (for 2017, EUR 0.65 million  for the  work of the Covenant of 
Mayors  Office  and  EUR  0.13  million  for  the  work  of  the  JRC).  The  Commission  also  funds  local 
mitigation in the EU, and beyond, under the Covenant of Mayors and the related work of the JRC.   
283 The figures are totals based on an analysis of specific adaptation-themed projects and contracts funded 
by  H2020.  Other  projects  funded  by  FP7,  EEA,  JRC,  DG  CLIMA  were  also  identified  but  without 
accurate estimates of costs, therefore, whilst relevant these are not included, except for noting that the 
total will be greater than (>) the EUR 225 million in the table. 

284 Data provided by EEA including a list of Commission funded contracts for Climate-ADAPT 2013-2017 
for  information  technology  development  and  Capacity  building  and  knowledge  assessments.  Also 
included an assessment of EEA staff and financial resources, totalling 2 Full-time  equivalent (1 Full-
time equivalent = assumed to have EUR 75 000 annual cost) and other resources.  

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2013  2014  2015  2016  2017 

Total 

Resource 
/ 
inputs 
burdens 

Prior 
to 
2013 

Commission 

285

0.49

Action 

A6 
proofing 

Climate 

MS 

No data available 

A7 
infrastructure 

Resilient 

Commission 

286

0.11

Private 

A8 Insurance

  Commission 

287

Commission 

Total 

MS 

Private 

0.5 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

422.7 

39.36 

0.1 

Notes and sources: Gaps in the table signify that no data was found for this specific 
item, although in reality there may still have been relevant costs incurred.  

285 Single contract issued by the Commission for preparing guidelines for the implementation of Action 6 
by managing authorities, covering ESIF/CAP/EARDF. Guidelines for the CFP were not in the scope of 
that study or in the Impact Assessment and are, therefore, excluded. 

286 The cost represents a contract to prepare the guidelines for project managers. 
287 No costs are included as these were not estimated in the Impact Assessment. Although under this action, 
a  Green  paper  on  insurance  was  published  together  with  the  Strategy  in  2013,  the  costs  of  its 
development are unaccounted, as green papers constitute the core business of the Commission. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
                                                 
12. Coherence with other EU policies 

Action  1  focuses  on  the  development  of  strategies  and  plans  to  promote  resilience  at 
Member State level. The work carried out within this action is very relevant and coherent 
with  EU  objectives  and  legislation  on  disaster  risk  reduction.  For  example,  the  support 
and knowledge developed on risk and vulnerability assessments, as an important step of 
adaptation  planning,  is  in  line  with  the  objective  in  the  Union  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism legislation on disaster risk management planning and risk assessment . The 
scoreboard developed by the Commission to assess preparedness in Member States and 
its  indicators  are  closely  linked  to  those  developed  under  the  Hyogo  Framework  for 
Action288.  Moreover,  the  coordination  of  disaster  risk  management  and  adaptation 
policies  is  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  scoreboard.  Coherent  monitoring  and  evaluation 
practices  are  important  for  DRR  and  adaptation.  Joint  work  on  indicators  is  of  high 
relevance,  for  instance,  in  the  implementation  of  the  Paris  Agreement  and  the  Sendai 
Framework.   

In  November,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  to  Strengthen  EU  disaster 
Management. The Communication highlights the importance of prevention as part of the 
disaster risk management cycle, as well as the need to reinforce coherence with other key 
EU  policies  acting,  inter  alia,  in  the  field  of  climate  change  adaptation.  In  the  recent 
Commission proposal for the EU civil protection mechanism legislation, Member States 
are  requested  to  produce  prevention  and  preparedness  plans  which  need  to  include 
longer-term prevention efforts, looking at the overall adaptation to the increasing impacts 
of climate change.  

Action 3 is focusing on the implementation of the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and 
Energy  initiative.  High  level  of  coherence  was  maintained  with  other  legislative 
instruments  and  urban  initiatives,  in  the  areas  of  water,  environment  and  disaster  risk 
reduction.  For  example,  the  European  Urban  Water  Agenda,  the  European  Green  Leaf 
and  Green  Capital  Awards  initiatives,  the  new  tool  for  cities  assessing  their 
environmental performance, the 2017 Action  Plan for nature, people and economy, just 
to mention a few, are implemented in close cooperation with Action 3. Coherence with 
disaster risk reduction policy is  fostered in particular through indicators. The indicators 
of the Covenant of Mayors were developed in due consideration of indicators adopted for 
the Sendai DRR framework. 

Furthermore,  the  urban  dimension  of  the  many  EU  policies  is  gaining  importance  after 
the establishment of the Urban Agenda for the EU, within which the newly established 
Climate  Adaptation  Partnership  started  a  potentially  new  area  of  work.  All  these  new 
developments  offer  opportunities  to  reap  further  benefits  from  more  coordination  and 
mainstreaming of urban adaptation action.  

Actions  6,  7  and  8,  under  the  Strategy’s  “Climate-proofing  EU  action”  objective,  are 
focused on key areas of the EU’s budget. They show a high level of coherence between 
adaptation  priorities  and  the  relevant  policy  areas.  For  Action  6,  the  literature  review 
suggested it complements (and is  reinforced by)  the high-level  political  commitment to 
spend at least 20% of the EU budget on climate objectives given that the CAP, Cohesion 
Policy and the CFP make up around 70% of the total EU budget. However, current work 

288 The HFA is a 10-year guideline to reduce vulnerabilities to natural hazards. It was endorsed by the UN 
General  Assembly  in  the  Resolution  A/RES/60/195  following  the  2005  World  Disaster  Reduction 
Conference. 

125 

 
                                                 
on the mainstreaming process in relation to the EU budget suggests that the absence of a 
coordinating mechanism to focus the 20% of expenditure on the priorities most likely to 
deliver climate outcomes, and the lack of a distinction between mitigation and adaptation 
investment, limits the impact of the 20% commitment.289 This is a complex undertaking, 
because  there  are  synergies  and  trade-offs  between  adaptation  and  mitigation  to  be 
considered when tracking expenditure or developing policy, such as: 

  Sustainable  management  of  ecosystems  to  implement  simultaneously  mitigation 
and  adaptation  actions,  for  example,  by  conserving  forests  to  protect  natural 
stores of carbon within trees and decrease soil erosion or water flows. 

  Urban  densification  is  good  for  mitigation  but  may  exacerbate  vulnerability  by 
increasing  heat  island  effects  and  heat  impacts  (in  turn  driving  up  cooling 
demand).  Similarly,  increased  use  of  biomass  can  affect  land  and  water 
availability for green infrastructure or nature-based solutions. 

There  is  a  need  to  better  track  expenditure  under  the  CAP  and  Cohesion  Policy  that 
delivers  real  adaptation  benefits.  While  there  is  a  tendency  to  simply  assume  that 
appropriately  labelled  CAP  and  Cohesion  Policy  expenditure  is  relevant  to  adaptation, 
there  is  scope  to  better  define  how  the  spending  should  contribute  to  resilience  both 
generally in the Strategy and in the specific programme legislation.   

Action  7  (ensuring  more  resilient  infrastructure)  is  translated  into  a  set  of  guidelines, 
which have clear potential to improve coherence in practice. Ensuring coherence between 
adaptation  and  new  infrastructure  at  the  EU  level  is  a  complicated  task  given  the 
potential long-term lock-in effects. 

13. Coherence with international policies 

This  section presents  in more detail  the relevance of different  international  frameworks 
for EU adaptation policy, as a complement to Chapter 3. 

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has undertaken extensive work related to 
ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction.290 
Two of the CBD's Aichi targets (10 and 15)291 aim at minimizing the impact of climate 
change on ecosystems. Voluntary Guidelines on ecosystem-based adaptation and disaster 
risk reduction are under preparation for adoption at CBD COP XIV in November 2018. 

In 2015, the Agenda 2030 and the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals292 for 2030 
were adopted, many of which are either directly or indirectly relevant for climate change 
adaptation  (e.g.  Goal  13  on  climate  action,  Goal  11  on  sustainable  and  resilient  cities) 
and towards which the related actions under the EU Adaptation Strategy contribute.  

The  mainstreaming  of  climate  change  adaptation  in  the  EU's  development  policies  is 
coordinated  and  ensured  at  all  stages  of  the  planning  and  implementation  process.  In 
addition,  the  main  channel  for  EU  support  to  policy  dialogue  and  climate  action  in 
developing  countries  is  the  Global  Climate  Change  Alliance  (GCCA+)  initiative.  The 
overall objective of the GCCA+ is to foster policy dialogue and cooperation on climate 

289 See footnote 253 
290 CBD COP X/33; COP XII/20; COP XIII/4;  technical series reports 41, 85 amongst others 
291 https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ 
292 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/  

126 

 
 
                                                 
change between the EU and developing countries which are most vulnerable to climate 
change  and  to  contribute  to  their  action  to  address  climate  change.    The  GCCA+  is 
evolving with the aim of contributing to the sectoral implementation of NDCs, thus also 
covering  mitigation  actions,  along  the  lines  of  the  UNFCCC  Paris  Agreement.  It  will 
nevertheless  also  continue  supporting  National  Adaptation  Plans  (NAPs)  and  Disaster 
Risk reduction strategies.  

Lessons  learned  in  planning  for  and  implementing  the  Strategy,  including  scientific 
knowledge and tools gained, provide input to the process. In addition, the core principles 
promoted  by  the  Strategy  –  such  as  mainstreaming  climate  risks  and  vulnerabilities  in 
planning,  developing  national  and  sub-national  plans,  promoting  risk 
transfer 
mechanisms – are well aligned with core principles of EU development cooperation. 

It should also be noted that the CBD’s Aichi Targets, adopted under the CBD’s Nagoya 
Protocol  on  Access  and  Benefit-sharing,  particularly  Targets  10  and  15,  emphasise 
climate  impacts  and  resilience,  and  that  action  under  the  Strategy  contributes  towards 
their  delivery.293  As  part  of  the  post-2015  development  agenda,  the  Sendai  Framework 
for  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  2015-2030294  was  created  with  seven  targets  and  four 
priorities  of  action.  To  translate  this  framework  into  EU  action,  in  July  2016  the 
Commission  published  an  Action  Plan295  on  the  implementation  of  the  Sendai 
Framework. 

293 https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ 
294  The  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  2015-2030  was  adopted  at  the  Third  UN  World 

Conference in Sendai, Japan, on March 18, 2015. 

295  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Action  Plan  on  the  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk 
       Reduction 2015-2030, SWD(2016) 205 final/2. 

127 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex IX  Horizontal assessment of the adaptation 

preparedness country fiches 

1.  Background and objectives 

The European Commission adopted the Communication: “An EU Strategy on Adaptation 
to Climate Change” in April 2013296. The Communication states that “The overall aim of 
the  EU  Adaptation  Strategy  is  to  contribute  to  a  more  climate-resilient  Europe.  This 
means  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.” The Strategy defines three objectives and eight actions to meet 
this aim. Action 1 is to “Encourage all Member States to adopt comprehensive adaptation 
strategies” and includes a commitment that “By 2014, the Commission will develop an 
adaptation  preparedness  scoreboard,  identifying  key  indicators  for  measuring  Member 
States’ level of readiness.”  

The  Commission’s  discussions  with  Member  States  on  the  adaptation  preparedness 
scoreboard  began  in  2013.  A  detailed  draft  scoreboard  methodology  was  subsequently 
developed, largely based on an approach recommended in the Commission guidelines on 
developing adaptation strategies297, and was published on the Climate-Adapt website298. 
This  methodology  was  used  by  the  Commission  in  2015  to  undertake  an  unpublished 
pilot assessment and produce a national scoreboard of each Member State’s performance.   

Based  on  the  lessons  learned  from  the  pilot  phase,  the  Commission  revised  the 
scoreboard methodology by streamlining the indicators and defining criteria for assessing 
them, categories of information sought and guidance to enable  a consistent approach to 
analysing the state of play in Member States. The Commission consulted Member States 
on  the  modified  scoreboard  methodology  (see  Annex  X)  and  carried  out  a  second 
assessment, as  part of the evaluation  of the EU  Adaptation  Strategy  in  2017-2018. The 
resultant  draft  country  fiches,  including  the  national  scoreboards,  were  published  in 
December 2017, in conjunction with the public consultation on the evaluation of the EU 
Adaptation Strategy.  

A further review of the national scoreboards and country fiches was undertaken in April 
and  June  2018  to  take  account  of  recent  developments  and  to  ensure  the  quality  and 
coherence  of  the  country  fiches.  The  final  documents  accompany  this  evaluation  as  a 
separate Staff Working Document.299 

296 European Commission (2013). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The 
Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: An EU 
Strategy on adaptation to climate change, COM (2013) 216 final. Brussels: European Union. Available 
from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0216&from=EN 
297  European  Commission.  (2013).  Commission  Staff  Working  Document:  Guidelines  on  developing 
adaptation  strategies,  SWD  (2013)  134  final.  Brussels:  European  Commission.  Available  from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/adaptation/what/docs/swd_2013_134_en.pdf 

https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/guidances/guidelines-on-developing-adaptation-

298 

See: 
strategies 
299 See footnote 49. 

128 

 
 
                                                 
2.  Method 

The  adaptation  preparedness  scoreboard  methodology  addresses  11  main  performance 
areas  in  relation  to  the  five  steps  of  the  adaptation  cycle  (see  Figure  IX-1  below).  The 
scoreboard methodology and detailed indicator list can be found in Annex X. A country 
fiche was developed for each Member State that provides: 

  Contextual  data  on  the  national  adaptation  policy  framework  for  each  Member 
State,  including  dates  when  national  adaptation  strategies  (NAS)  and  national 
adaptation plans (NAP) were adopted and revised 

  A narrative in relation to each of the indicators based on the criteria for assessing 
them. The status of each of the indicators was assessed in relation to this narrative 
as  either  already  having  been  met  (“Yes”)  or,  for  some  indicators,  as 
progressively being met by ongoing implementation (“In progress”), or as not met 
(“No”) 

  A  summary  table  of  the  status  of  all  indicators  (the  national  adaptation 

preparedness scoreboard). 

The information used to produce the country fiches was drawn from a review of relevant 
literature and, in many cases, interacting with Member State representatives.  

The  narrative  and  assessment  of  status  in  relation  to  each  indicator  were  reviewed 
horizontally across all 28 Member States using the scoreboard methodology (see Annex 
X) to check that the nature and level of information and scoring were consistent.   

The  information  on  the  national  policy  frameworks,  the  narrative  associated  with  the 
indicators  and  resultant  scores  in  the  final  country  fiches  were  used  as  a  basis  for  this 
horizontal assessment of the adaptation preparedness of Member States.  

129 

 
Figure IX-1. The adaptation preparedness scoreboard’s 11 main performance areas 
in relation to the five steps of the adaptation policy cycle 

•Preparing the ground 
1. A country-wide governance system is in place for adaptation policy 
making and vertical and horizontal coordination arrangements are in place 
between governmental bodies 
2. Stakeholders (e.g. interest groups, scientists and general public) are 
involved in the preparation of adaptation policies 

Step A 

•Assessing risks and vulnerabilities to climate change 
3. Systems are in place to monitor and assess current and projected climate 
change, impacts and vulnerability 
4. Knowledge gaps on climate change and climate change adaptation are 
tackled 
5. Knowledge transfer processes are in place to build adaptive capacity 
across sectors 

Step B 

•Assessing risks and vulnerabilities to climate change 
6. For priority sectors, a range of adaptation options is considered, consistent 
with the results of sectoral risk assessments and taking into account good 
practices and measures 
7. Dedicated and adequate funding resources have been identified and made 
available to implement adaptation action 

Step C 

•Implementing adaptation action 
8. Climate change adaptation is mainstreamed into priority and key national 
planning and sectoral policymaking 
9. Climate change adaptation policies and measures are implemented 

Step D 

•Monitoring and evaluation 
10. Systems are in place to monitor and report on climate change adaptation, 
including adaptation-related expenditures, via relevant indicators 
11. An evaluation framework is in place to assess whether adaptation policy 
objectives are met and a periodic review of the adaptation strategy is planned 

Step E 

130 

 
 
Methodological limitations 

The country fiches were the result of a desk-based exercise, so their accuracy is entirely 
reliant  on  the  availability  of  published  information  and  on  the  input  received  from 
Member State representatives.  

The  scores  for  each  indicator  (“Yes”,  “No”,  or  “In  progress”)  assess  the  state  of  play 
within each country. They should only be considered at a Member State level alongside 
the  narrative  that  accompanies  them  in  the  country  fiches.  While  effort  was  made  to 
ensure  consistency  across  fiches  in  the  assessment  of  each  individual  indicator,  scores 
should  not  be  directly  compared  across  the  Member  States.  The  assessment  of  status 
requires  subjective  assimilation  of  a  number  of  factors,  including  availability  of 
information,  so  two  countries  with  a  "Yes"  in  relation  to  the  same  indicator  may  have 
different  national  situations  leading  to  that  assessment.  Nevertheless,  some  of  the 
indicators  with  the  simplest  criteria  (e.g.  Indicators  1a  and  8a,  see  Annex  X)  may  be 
more  comparable  and  aggregable  than  those  that  have  numerous,  complex  criteria  and 
information requirements (e.g. Indicators 6a, 6b and 9a). 

The scoreboard methodology only provides an option for some specific indicators to be 
scored as "In progress". Scoring the other indicators definitively, as “Yes” or “No”, was 
challenging  where  insufficient  information  was  published  and  further  verifiable 
information could not be readily provided by Member State representatives. 

Scores  were  based  on  strategies,  plans  and  policies  that  were  already  adopted.  No 
account was taken in the scoring of proposed documents in development or consultation 
at the time of the assessment. This was the case even where proposals were described in 
the  country  fiches  and  the  adoption  of  strategies,  plans  or  policies  was  potentially 
imminent. 

In  developing  this  horizontal  assessment,  it  was  important  to  bear  in  mind  these 
limitations  in  the  way  that  the  country  fiches  were  produced  and  national  scoreboards 
were  determined.  It  is  equally  important  that  they  are  borne  in  mind  by  readers  of  this 
report to avoid over interpretation of the results, analysis and conclusions. 

3.  Results and analysis 

The dates when Member States300 adopted and revised a NAS and/or a NAP301 provide 
important  context  for  the  interpretation  of  the  scoreboard  assessment  (Table  IX-1).  A 
total of 25 Member States have adopted an NAS. Although Bulgaria, Croatia and Latvia 
have not yet adopted a NAS, the documents are drafted and likely to be adopted in 2018.  

300 Country codes used throughout section 3 are explained in section 5 of this Annex. 
301  Different  terms  are  used  by  different  Member  States,  but  these  documents  essentially  capture  similar 
elements.  In  general,  an  NAS  provides  overarching  objectives  while  a  NAP  includes  more  specific 
details on actions to be taken. 

131 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table IX-1. Adoption of first NASs and NAPs  

Adoption of 1st NAS 

Adoption of 1st NAP 

Year 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

FI 

ES, FR 

NL (1st NAS) 

DE, DK, HU* 

2010 

BE, PT (1st NAS) 

ES (1st NAP) 

ES (2nd NAP) 

HU  (1st  NAP  only  for  2009-
2010) 

2011 

LU* 

DE, FR 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

AT  (1st  NAS),  IE  (1st  NAS),  LT, 
MT 

AT (1st NAP), DK 

PL, RO (1st NAS), UK* 

ES (3rd NAP), LT (1st NAP), UK 

SK 

 FI 

CZ, IT, PT (2nd NAS) 

EL,  NL  (2nd  NAS),  RO  (2nd 
NAS), SI 

LT (2nd NAP), RO 

AT (2nd NAS), CY, EE 

AT (2nd NAP), BE, CZ, CY, EE 

IE (2nd NAS), SE 

IE, LT (3rd NAP), SK, NL 

To be adopted/ 
draft available 

BG, HR, LV 

BG, EL, HR, IT, LU, LV, PT, SI 

* The revision of the first NAS is currently ongoing and is expected to be completed in 2018. 

An analysis is  set  out  below in  relation  to  each step of the  adaptation  policy  cycle and 
each  of  the  11  main  areas  of  performance.  Member  States  that  have  achieved  positive 
scores in relation to indicators are listed wherever there are less than 10 of them or for 
indicators where such information may be important to those Member States that are yet 
to make progress in that specific regard. Listing of Member States in this way should not 
be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  their  actions  in  relation  to  an  indicator  are  comparable; 
inevitably  different  Member  States’  relevant  actions  vary  widely,  as  noted  under 
‘Methodological limitations’ (above). 

132 

 
  
  
  
  
  
Step A: Preparing the ground for adaptation 

1.  A  country-wide  governance  system  is  in  place  for  adaptation  policy  making  and 
vertical  and  horizontal  coordination  arrangements  are  in  place  between  governmental 
bodies 

All Member States have a central administration body officially in charge of adaptation 
policy making.  

Systematic coordination across sectors at a national level is in place in 23 Member States, 
and is applied in relation to drafting of the NAS and subsequent implementation.  

Currently,  there  is  systematic  coordination  across  national,  regional  and  local  levels  of 
administration in only 16 Member States (BG, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, 
NL, PT, RO, SK, UK), but progress is being made in a further 10 to enable lower levels 
of administration to  influence policy making.  In almost  all of these  Member States (22 
out of 26) where vertical coordination is in place in some form, the involvement of sub-
national governance levels does not seem to have a sectoral focus. Vertical coordination 
can take place not only during the drafting of the NAS but can also be sustained during 
implementation. Involvement in both drafting and implementation has taken place in 16 
Member States  (AT, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES,  FI,  FR,  IE,  IT,  LT, NL, PT, RO, SK, UK). 
Box  1  presents  a  selection  of  good  examples  of  how  vertical  coordination  mechanisms 
support adaptation sub-nationally. 

Box  1.  Vertical  coordination  mechanisms:  supporting  sub-national 
adaptation 

The  extent  of  vertical  coordination  has  important  implications  for  the  level  of 
involvement of sub-national governance bodies in adaptation policy making. For 
instance,  in  Germany,  a  working  group  on  climate  adaptation  under  the 
Conference of Environmental Ministers meets twice a year to provide opportunity 
for the federal states to input into policy-making at the national level, to exchange 
experiences of NAS processes at the federal-state level, and to coordinate joint 
activities.  Similarly,  vertical  coordination  among  national,  regional  and  local 
authorities  is  achieved  in  Greece  through  the  National  Climate  Change 
Adaptation  Committee,  which  includes  representatives  from the  Union of  Greek 
Regions and the Central Union of Greek Municipalities. In Ireland, a network of 
four Climate Action Regional Offices has been established to drive climate action 
at regional and local levels by building expertise and capacity within the 31 local 
authorities. A complex vertical coordination structure is also in place in France to 
involve  inter-communal  and  regional  governance  levels  in  adaptation  policy-
making and implementation. Sweden also has established a vertical coordination 
mechanism  to  support  adaptation  policy-making  at  the  sub-national  level, 
although  the  mechanism  is  different  in  nature  compared  to  those  in  other 
Member  States,  as  a  result  of  Sweden’s  highly  devolved  governance  structure. 
Since 2009, the administrative boards of the regions have been responsible for 
coordinating  adaptation  at  regional  level  and  supporting  the  adaptation  work  of 
local  authorities.  In  March  2018,  the  Swedish  Meteorological  and  Hydrological 
Institute (SMHI) published new step-by-step guidance for municipalities working 

133 

 
on climate adaptation.302  

While the involvement of sub-national governance levels does not seem to have 
a  sectoral  focus  in  most  Member  States,  vertical  coordination  puts  a  specific 
emphasis on flooding issues in Denmark. In 2013, after mandating municipalities 
to  develop  their  adaptation  action  plans,  the  Danish  Government  established  a 
national task force with detailed and specific expertise in local adaptation issues, 
which  developed  web-based  mapping  of  flood,  rainfall  and  storm-surge  risk  for 
various  time  horizons,  modelled  according  to  IPCC  2007  scenarios.  A  team  of 
subject specialists on adaptation, flooding, and erosion was also established by 
the Danish Environmental Protection Agency and Coastal Authority with the aim 
to  advise,  guide,  support,  and  help  coordinate  municipalities  in  implementing 
adaptation  solutions.  Latvia  is  another  example  of  a  country  where  vertical 
coordination  has  a  sectoral  focus.  Latvian  municipalities  and  planning  regions 
are  involved  in  the  development  of  climate  adaptation  policy  in  the  following 
sectors:  civil  protection  and  emergency  planning,  building  and  infrastructure, 
biodiversity and ecosystem services, and agriculture, fishery and forestry.  

At  the  city  level,  involvement  in  the  EU  Covenant  of  Mayors  for  Climate  and 
Energy303  provides  a  sound  mechanism  to  foster  city-level  adaptation  policy 
making.  In  some  cases,  this  is  augmented  by  further  support  from  national 
initiatives. For instance, the Spanish Network of Cities for Climate was created in 
2009 by the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces and the Spanish 
Ministry of  Environment  to  coordinate, foster and  provide  technical support and 
to  contribute  to  the  translation  of  the  national  climate  and  energy  objectives  at 
the  local  level.  Another  good  example  is  provided  by  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment  of  the  Czech  Republic,  which  has  officially  committed  to  providing 
strategic  guidance,  financial  and  technical  support  to  local  authorities  that  are 
signatories to the Covenant. The Ministry has, therefore, been recognised by the 
European Commission as a Covenant National Coordinator. 

2.  Stakeholders  (e.g.  interest  groups,  scientists  and  general  public)  are  involved  in  the 
preparation of adaptation policies 

With  only  two  exceptions,  all  Member  States  have  a  dedicated  process  in  place  to 
facilitate  stakeholders'  involvement  in  the  preparation  of  adaptation  policies.  Most 
country fiches indicate that a wide range of stakeholders have been consulted, including 
the  private  sector,  non-governmental  organisations,  research  organisations  and 
universities,  as  well  as  the  general  public,  in  addition  to  government  departments  and 
local authorities (Figure IX-2). 

302 

See: 

http://www.klimatanpassning.se/en/news-archive/new-guide-will-help-municipalities-with-

adaptation-to-climate-change-1.132803  

303 See: www.covenantofmayors.eu  

134 

 
 
                                                 
Figure IX-2. Types of stakeholders involved in the preparation of adaptation policy 

All  but  one  Member  State  integrated  transboundary  cooperation  to  address  common 
challenges  with  relevant  countries,  almost  invariably  with  regard  to  water,  and  more 
occasionally  with  regard  to  biodiversity,  energy,  health  and  “other”  issues,  including 
mountain ranges (Figure IX-3). The extent of transboundary cooperation and whether it 
is driven by the NAS/NAP varies between Member States, with 15 of the Member States 
having  addressed  this  dimension  in  the  NAS/NAP.  Other  drivers  include  international 
initiatives (e.g. the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, and 
the  Alpine  Convention),  and  EU  initiatives  (e.g.  EU  macro-regional  strategies)  and 
projects. Examples of transboundary cooperation are presented in Box 2. 

Figure IX-3. Sectoral transboundary cooperation on adaptation issues  

Box 2. Examples of transboundary cooperation 

The Czech Republic provides a unique and interesting example of transboundary 
cooperation,  as  it  consulted  with  the  Slovak  authorities  during  the  development 
of  the  Czech  NAS.  Transboundary  cooperation  on  adaptation  has  also  been 
fostered  by  the  British-Irish  Council.  In  2018,  the  Council’s  15th  ministerial 
meeting focused on how shared challenges on climate adaptation can be jointly 

135 

 
 
 
tackled. Portugal also sets a good example in this regard, as one of the thematic 
focal areas of the NAS is international cooperation. A specific working group was 
established  to  foster  this  action  and,  particularly,  to  establish  an  Iberian 
cooperation  system.  An  EU  co-financed  LIFE  project,  the  SAHARA  project304, 
supports this action.  

In  addition  to  LIFE  funding,  the  EU  Cohesion  Policy  supports  transboundary 
adaptation  projects  (via  Interreg  projects).  About  1,470  territorial  cooperation 
projects  dealing  with  climate  change,  risks  management  and  sustainable 
management  of  natural  resources  have  been  identified305,  nearly  15%  of  more 
than  9,816  projects  funded  during  the  programming  period  2007-2013.  For 
example, relevant projects include the Climate Change, Impacts and Adaptation 
Strategies in the Alpine Space project (ClimChAlp), the Adaptation Strategies in 
Transboundary Areas project (STRADA), and the Climate Change Capitalisation 
project  (C3-Alps)  in  which  AT,  DE,  IT,  FR,  SI  (CH  and  LI)  are  involved.  In 
addition,  the  Pyrenees  Climate  Change  Observatory  (OPCC)  provides  a 
knowledge platform about adaptation to climate change in the Pyrenees covering 
FR and ES bordering regions and Andorra.306  

During the summer of 2017, the Interact network launched a thematic network on 
Climate  Change  and  Risks307  in  order  to  support  the  Interreg  projects.  This 
network  brings  together  practitioners  from  the  Interreg  community,  regional 
stakeholders,  experts  and  other  EU  programmes  and  knowledge  communities 
active in the field of climate change and risks.  Its overall goal is to facilitate the 
exchange of practices and lessons learnt and to gain further knowledge.  

EU-driven transboundary adaptation action is translated through the four macro-
regional  strategies308  that  involve  19  Member  States.  For  instance,  the  EU 
Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region  puts  a  special  focus  on  adaptation  to  extreme 
weather  events  and  provides  an  important  platform  to  foster  cooperation 
between AT, BG, CZ, DE, HR, HU, RO, SK and SI on joint monitoring and flood 
management.  At  the  same  time,  this  cooperation  has  benefitted  from  the  prior 
existence  of  the  International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the  Danube 
River309  (ICPDR)  under  which  a  specific  adaptation  strategy  was  adopted  in 
2012.  The  existence  of  other  international  river  basin  committees  (e.g.  on  the 
Meuse or the Sava) also foster joint climate adaptation actions in other Member 
States.  

In  addition  to  extensive  transboundary  cooperation  on  river  basins,  multiple 
initiatives  exist  for  mountain  ranges  and  for  biodiversity.  While  these  initiatives 
cover a wide range of issues adaptation to climate change is also addressed. For 

304 See more about LIFE projects at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm  
305  Based  on  the  KEEP  database:  https://www.keep.eu/keep/  –  a  comprehensive  database  regarding  the 

territorial cooperation projects and beneficiaries in Europe 

306 See more about Interreg projects at: https://www.interregeurope.eu/discover-projects/  
307 http://www.interact-eu.net/contact?field_fields_of_expertise_tid=All&field_networks_tid=81  
308 The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, the EU Strategy for 
the  Alpine  Region.  See: 

the  Adriatic  and 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/macro-regional-strategies/  

Ionian  Region  and 

the  EU  Strategy 

for 

309 See: http://www.icpdr.org/main/  

136 

 
                                                 
example, transboundary cooperation between AT, DE, FR, IT, SI and LI and CH 
is  fostered  by  the  EU-Strategy  for  the  Alpine  Region  (EUSALP),  and  climate 
adaptation  is  specifically  considered  by  the  ‘risk  governance’  and  ‘green 
infrastructure’  action  groups.  Furthermore,  international  conventions  on  the 
Alps310 and Carpathians311 are in place. There is also transboundary cooperation 
with non-EU Members on biodiversity and adaptation issues in Northern Europe. 
The  Fennoscandia  Green  Belt  initiative  supports  a  joint  nature  conservation 
cooperation  between  Finland,  Norway  and  Russia  and,  among  other  foci,  on 
threats to ecosystem services from climate change. 

Finally, there is a wide range of trilateral initiatives focused on adaptation issues. 
Examples include the cooperation between Benelux countries (BE, NL and LU), 
which  have  cooperated  on  climate  change  issues  since  2014,  the  trilateral 
Wadden  Sea  cooperation  between  DK,  DE  and  NL,  and  the  cooperation 
agreements  between  CY,  EL  and  Egypt,  and  CY,  EL  and  Israel.  In  2017,  the 
latter focused on the exchange of knowledge and know-how on adaptation policy 
monitoring, evaluation and good practice at regional and local scales.    

Step B: Assessing risks and vulnerabilities to climate change 

3.  Systems  are  in  place  to  monitor  and  assess  current  and  projected  climate  change, 
impacts and vulnerability 

A  total  of  14  Member  States  have  established  observation  systems  to  monitor  climate 
change, extreme climate events and their impacts, and systems are being developed in all 
of the other Member States. According to the country fiches, Member States collect data 
on  climate  impacts  in  relation  to  multiple  types  of  variables.  Those  most  commonly 
captured are sectors affected (14 Member States), costs (12 Member States), and number 
of people affected (six Member States: BE, FR, IT, LU NL, RO).312 

Climate change scenarios and projections are available at national level for 25 Member 
States, and at a sub-national for 10 Member States. Only three Member States rely solely 
on international data. Climate change scenarios and projections are being used to assess 
future  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  in  at  least  23  Member  States,  with 
others steadily making progress in this respect.   

Sound  climate  risk  and/or  vulnerability  assessments  for  priority  sectors  are  being 
undertaken to support adaptation decision making by at least 22 Member States, with all 
but one of the other Member States making progress in that regard. The frequency with 
which different sectors are addressed is shown in Figure IX-4. In addition to those sectors 
specified  in  the  figure,  small  numbers  of  Member  States  addressed  a  wide  range  of 
“Other”  individual  sectors  or  themes,  including:  coastal;  desertification;  disaster  risk 
management;  economy;  finance;  ICT  networks;  infrastructure;  insurance;  land  use; 
maritime; mountains; natural environment; society; soil; spatial planning; tourism; urban; 
and  waste  management.  Three  Member  States  (DE,  SI,  UK)  were  identified  as  having 
assessed  all  vulnerable  sectors.  Climate  risk  and/or  vulnerability  assessments  are: 

310 See: http://www.alpconv.org  
311 See: http://www.carpathianconvention.org/  
312 Climate impact monitoring is not in place in five Member States.  

137 

 
 
                                                 
coordinated  centrally  in  22  Member  States,  although  in  six  of  these  countries  further 
independent  research  projects  or  scientific 
assessments  have  been  driven  by 
organisations; sector driven in three countries (PL, PT, SE), albeit independently in one 
case; and carried out as a wholly independent research project in NL.313  

A  recent  European  Environment  Agency  (EEA)  report314  concluded  that  a  variety  of 
approaches is used for impact and vulnerability assessments, including literature review, 
dedicated research programmes and projects, model-based studies and stakeholder-driven 
processes.  Most  of  the  assessments  have  a  broad  scope,  with  up to  19  different  sectors 
and thematic areas covered, such as in the case of FI and UK.  The EEA report found that 
similar categories to those cited in Figure IX-4 (below) are addressed in the assessments. 

Figure IX-4. Categories of sectors where climate risk/vulnerability assessments are 
undertaken315 

Transboundary  risks  are  taken  into  account  in  a  coordinated  manner  by  three  Member 
States across all or a wide range of sectors (DE, FI, PT) when undertaking climate risk 
and/or  vulnerability  assessments.  A 
total  of  19  Member  States  are  assessing 
transboundary  risks  primarily  in  relation  to  the  water  sector.  Consideration  of 
transboundary risks is driven by the NAS in three Member States (UK, plus FI and PT 
also  being  driven  at  a  project  level)  whereas  in  other  countries  it  is  sector-driven  or 
implemented at a project level.   

4. Knowledge gaps on climate change and climate change adaptation are tackled 

Work  is  being  carried  out  to  identify,  prioritise  and  address  the  knowledge  gaps  in  15 
Member States (Figure  IX-5, below, categorises the knowledge gaps identified in  these 
country fiches).  A further 11 countries have identified knowledge gaps but there seems 
to be limited activity to address the gaps through further research and work.  In most of 

313  It  has  not  been  possible  to  establish  whether  or  not  information  on  climate  risk  and/or  vulnerability 

assessments is coordinated for one Member State.  

314  EEA,  2018,  National  climate  change  vulnerability  and  risk  assessments  in  Europe,  2018,  European 
1977-8449 

Environment 
ISSN 
(https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/national-climate-change-vulnerability-2018) 

Agency, 

1/2018, 

Report 

EEA 

315  It  has  not  been  possible  to  establish  the  sectoral  coverage  of  climate  risk/vulnerability  assessments 

undertaken for one Member State.  

138 

 
 
 
                                                 
the countries, the NAS includes actions related to knowledge but one-off projects are the 
primary driver in four countries. 

Box  3  (below)  summarises  principles  emerging  from  the  country  fiches  for  good 
practices  in  addressing  climate  change  and  climate  adaptation  knowledge  gaps.    In  the 
EEA  report  on  national  impact  and  vulnerability  assessments316,  most  mentioned 
knowledge  gaps  and  themes  where  additional  knowledge  needs  remain  today  are  the 
consideration  of  non-climatic  factors,  cross-sectoral  interactions  and  cross-border 
impacts,  common  metrics  for  impacts  and  vulnerabilities,  uncertainties,  long-term 
adaptation and targeted communication. 

Figure IX-5. Types of knowledge gaps identified in countries where work is ongoing 
to address them 

Box 3. Principles for good practices in addressing knowledge gaps  

Principles for good practices emerging from the country fiches include: 

  Member States taking responsibility.  

National  authorities  initiate  and  fund  research  programmes  in  order  to 
invest in evidence-based adaptation. Examples: AT, BE, DE, DK, ES, FI, 
FR, PT, SE, UK. 

  Linking research and policy to ensure timely results. 

Waiting  for  research  results  need  not  be  a  barrier  to  implementation.  In 
several Member States, knowledge development occurs together with the 
policy process, starting with awareness raising, development of scenarios 
research  and 
and  vulnerability  analysis,  progressing 
technological  development,  and  supporting  application  of  results  in 

to  applied 

316  EEA,  2018,  National  climate  change  vulnerability  and  risk  assessments  in  Europe,  2018,  European 
1977-8449 

Environment 
ISSN 
(https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/national-climate-change-vulnerability-2018) 

Agency, 

1/2018, 

Report 

EEA 

139 

 
 
                                                 
practice. Examples: AT, BE, DE, DK, FI, NL, UK. 

  Breadth  of  knowledge  development  enables 

identification  of  key 

vulnerabilities. 

Many Member States identify sectoral vulnerabilities, setting priorities that 
matter most to their economies or are most relevant to their geographical 
situation. Examples: AT, FR, HR, IE, SI, UK. 

  Research  responsibilities  are  shared  between  researchers  and  other 

stakeholders. 

Several countries structure research programmes to coordinate effort and 
enable  input  from  research  institutes,  sub-national  governments,  non-
governmental  organisations  and  the  private  sector.  Examples:  AT,  BE, 
DE, DK, FI, NL, UK. 

  Addressing knowledge gaps is a path-dependent, self-reinforcing process.  

Investment  in  the  development  of  knowledge  on  climate  change  and 
climate  adaptation  seems  more  likely  in  countries  that  already  have  a 
strong research base, including a high-level meteorological office. Larger 
Member  States  with  greater  critical  mass  are  better  able  to  close 
knowledge gaps. Examples: DE, FR, UK. Smaller countries and countries 
with  a  small  research  budget  make  progress  by  becoming  involved  in 
European  research  projects  and  by  cooperating  with  countries  that  face 
similar issues. Examples: MT, PT, SI. 

5. Knowledge transfer processes are in place to build adaptive capacity across sectors 

Adaptation-related data and information  (e.g. climate projections,  vulnerability  and risk 
assessments, adaptation tools) are available to all stakeholders, including policy makers, 
in  17  Member  States.  At  least  some  stakeholders  have  access  to  such  information  in  a 
further nine Member States. A total of 19 of these countries have a national web-based 
platform for disseminating information. In addition, at least one of the countries without 
a  national  platform  has  a  regional  platform  covering  part  of  the  Member  State.      In 
2014317,  only  12  Member  States  had  a  dedicated  adaptation  platform,  while  also 
transnational regions  such as the Alpine,  Baltic Sea or Pyrenees  regions  had a publicly 
available adaptation platform. 

Coordination  of  associated  capacity-building  activities  (including  education  on  climate 
adaptation  concepts  and  practices,  and  dissemination  of  training  materials),  usually 
driven by the NAS or NAP, is established in half of Member States. However, systematic 
actions on capacity building are being pursued in a further 11 countries.  

317  EEA,  2015,  Overview  of  climate  change  adaptation  platforms  in  Europe,  European  Environment 
1725-2237 

Agency, 
(https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/overview-of-climate-change-adaptation) 

Technical 

5/2015, 

Report 

ISSN 

EEA 

140 

 
 
                                                 
Box  4  (below)  summarises  principles  emerging  from  the  country  fiches  for  good 
practices in relation to knowledge transfer, including capacity building.  The challenges 
are  similar  to  the  ones  detected  in  the  2015  EEA  report  on  adaptation  platforms318: 
engaging  with  stakeholders,  identifying  relevant  information  and  knowledge,  effective 
presentation  and  linking  platforms  across  sectors,  scales  and  platforms.  Nevertheless, 
funding  and  sustaining  a  platform  and  technical,  structural  and  design  elements  of  an 
adaptation platform were also mentioned as challenges. 

Box 4. Good practices in knowledge transfer 

Provision  of  a  national  website  on  climate  change  and  climate  adaptation  is an 
obvious  response  to  the  need  to  facilitate  knowledge  transfer.  It  is  an  option 
currently  being  pursued  by  all  but 
the 
comprehensiveness and applicability of the information provided by such online 
platforms  is  highly  variable.  Good  practices  emerging  from  the  country  fiches 
address two challenges: 

two  Member  States,  however, 

  How to make knowledge accessible and applicable?  

Member States address this challenge by: 

o  Promoting uptake of knowledge by making information available in the 
local languages. Examples: AT, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, LV, NL, PT, 
SE, UK; 

o  Presenting inspirational and practical case studies. Examples: AT, DK, 

FI, FR, PT, SE; and  

o  Using  interactive  websites  to  encourage  input  and  to  promote 
collaboration  between  different  stakeholders.  Examples:  DK,  ES,  FR, 
HU, PT. 

  How to guide non-scientific users through multiple sources of information?  

Information on climate change and adaptation arising from more than two 
decades of research is now available, which is disseminated by numerous 
international  and  national  websites,  inside  and  outside  the  EU319.  Some 
Member States have sought to develop national websites that provide an 
overview and waymark information. Examples: DE, UK.  

In addition to disseminating information, Member States can promote knowledge 
transfer through capacity building, which:  

 

Is  especially  relevant  for  sub-national  governments,  as  demonstrated  by 
the country fiches. Examples: AT, DE, DK, IE, PT, SE, UK.  

  Can  be  targeted  to  vulnerable  sectors,  such  as  forestry  or  health. 

318 See footnote 317 
319 The Evaluation of the EU Adaptation Strategy (2018) indicates that the EEA Climate-ADAPT website 
plays an important role in structuring adaptation information. Interviewees from national governments, 
in particular, noted that Climate-ADAPT is used as a starting point and, as it is interactive, it can be 
used by Member States to share their experiences. 

141 

 
                                                 
Examples: CZ, DK, EE, ES, HR, PT, UK.  

  Can include use of workshops that function as a two-way communication 
channel,  alerting  national  stakeholders  to  new  sub-national  issues  and 
vice versa. Examples: DE, ES, SE, UK.  

  Some  countries  are  seeking  to  achieve  through  interactions  with  the 
general public and schools. Examples: AT, CZ, DK, EE, FI, HR, IE, PT. 

Step C: Identifying adaptation options 

6. For priority sectors, a range of adaptation options is considered, consistent with the 
results of sectoral risk assessments and taking into account good practices and measures 

Detailed  risk  and/or  vulnerability  assessments  have  been  used  by  25  Member  States  to 
identify adaptation options for at least a majority of priority sectors. The frequency with 
which different sectors are addressed is shown in Figure IX-6. In addition to those sectors 
specified in the figure, small numbers of Member States have addressed a wide range of 
“Other”  individual  sectors  or  themes,  including:  coastal;  desertification;  disaster  risk 
management;  economy;  finance;  ICT  networks;  infrastructure;  insurance;  land  use; 
maritime; mountains; natural environment; society; soil; spatial planning; tourism; urban; 
and waste management. Six Member States (FR, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK) were identified as 
having assessed all priority sectors. 

Figure  IX-6.  Risk  assessments  and  adaptation  options  identified  for  priority 
sectors320 

The  selection  of  adaptation  options  appears  to  be  based  on  robust  methods  (e.g.  multi-
criteria  analyses  and/or  stakeholder  consultations,  see  Box  5)  in  24  Member  States, 
which  have  also  identified  priority  actions  per  sector.  Four  Member  States  have  yet  to 
progress robust identification and prioritisation of adaptation options.  

320 Sectoral information on risk assessments and adaptation options is not available for one Member State.  

142 

 
 
 
                                                 
Box  5.  Prioritising  options  using  multi-criteria  analysis  and  stakeholder 
input 

Prioritisation of adaptation options is important for the efficient and effective use 
of  limited  adaptation  resources.  Combining  the  use  of  multi-criteria  analysis 
(MCA)321 with literature, modelling, and stakeholder and/or expert input is a good 
way  to  achieve  more  robust  outcomes.  A  selection  of  examples  of  Member 
States adopting such combined approaches are presented here. 

In  Croatia,  a  host  of  potential  adaptation  measures  were  identified  during  the 
development  of  the  NAS.  The  measures  were  discussed  with  more  than  130 
stakeholders during a series of workshops, and MCA was used to prioritise each 
of them as a ‘very high, high or medium priority’ for implementation. As a result, 
79  sectoral  measures  were  selected,  and  divided  into  the  five  foci  of  the  NAS. 
These measures were then aligned with spending priorities and programmes and 
42 included as ‘very high priority’ measures in the draft NAS. 

the  prevention  of  climate  change 

In  Cyprus,  the  prioritisation  of  more  than  200  adaptation  measures,  identified 
across  the  11  sectors  in  the  NAS,  made  use  of  stakeholder  opinion  surveys, 
which were then processed and evaluated using a MCA. Eight criteria were used 
in  the  MCA:  1)  Efficiency  of  the  measure;  2)  Environmental  concerns;  3) 
Supporting 
for 
implementing  the  measure;  5)  Usefulness  of  implementation  irrespective  of 
climate  change;  6)  Technical  viability;  7)  Economic  viability;  and,  8)  Public 
acceptance.  The  MCA  produced  alternative  adaptation  scenarios  based  on 
different weightings of system vulnerabilities, evaluation criteria and stakeholder 
types. The highest performing options across the scenarios were taken forward 
in a ‘sustainable adaptation scenario’ and included in the NAS. Performance was 
ranked  equally  between  the  technical,  environmental  and  social  criteria,  whilst 
economic aspects were evaluated in a separate cost-benefit analysis (CBA). 

impacts;  4)  Urgency 

In the Czech Republic, adaptation options were selected using expert judgement 
and prioritised by different ministries and thematic working groups using an MCA. 
Measures were ranked according to four criteria: 1) multiple adaptation effects to 
tackle the impacts of climate change; 2) spill-over social, economic or mitigation 
impacts;  3) impact on the  environment  and ecosystems; and  4) financial needs 
for  implementation.  Criterion  1  was  assessed  by  the  thematic  working  groups 
and attributed a weight twice as important as the other three criteria, which were 
evaluated  by  external  consultants.  Based  on  the  MCA,  measures  were 
categorised into priority one measures and priority two measures. 

Similar combined approaches have also been used in Estonia, the Netherlands 
and the UK (England) among others. 

321 MCA is an analytical approach that allows for quantitative and qualitative criteria to be analysed within 
the same single framework. It can be combined with weightings to produce rankings and/or scoring of 
the options being assessed to support decision making.  

143 

 
 
                                                 
There  has  been  less  progress  in  coordinating  disaster  risk  management  and  climate 
adaptation.  Mechanisms  are  in  place  to  ensure  coherence  between  the  two  policies  in 
only 10 Member States, although are in progress in 13 of the other countries (see Figure 
IX-7 below).  

7. Dedicated and adequate funding resources have been identified and made available to 
implement adaptation action 

Consistent funding is available for the implementation of adaptation actions to increase 
climate resilience in vulnerable sectors and in cross-cutting ways (e.g. national scenarios 
and climate services, capacity building, website) in only nine Member States (DE, DK, 
EE, ES, FR, LT, PT, RO, SE), but adaptation is financed in at least some sectors in all of 
the other countries, with one exception. The lack of funding that is specifically labelled 
for  adaptation  is  also  reflected  in  the  fact  that  only  14  Member  States  include  budget 
allocations in their NAS or NAP.322 

Step D: Implementing adaptation action 

8.  Climate  change  adaptation  is  mainstreamed  into  priority  and  key  national  planning 
and sectoral policymaking 

The  country  fiches  identify  that  climate  adaptation  has  been  considered  in  the  national 
frameworks  for  Environmental  Impact  Assessment  (EIA)  in  21  Member  States. 
However, only 15 Member States consider climate adaptation in Strategic Environmental 
Assessment (SEA). 

Only nine Member States (CZ, FR, HU, LU, LV, NL, PT, RO, UK) have taken climate 
change impacts and projections into account in national disaster risk management plans 
and associated preparedness/prevention strategies. This is reflective of the current state of 
play in relation to coordination of disaster risk management and climate adaptation (see 
Point 6 above and Figure IX-7 below). Box 6 provides a selection of examples of good 
practice. 

322 It is unclear whether or not there are budget allocations associated with the NAS in two Member States.  

144 

 
                                                 
Figure IX-7. Coordination of disaster risk management plans with adaptation, and 
consideration of climate projections  

Box 6. Coordinating disaster risk reduction and adaptation  

Climate  change  is  affecting  vulnerability  to  hazards,  changing  patterns  of 
exposure and thereby having a significant impact on the risk of natural disasters, 
which  are  likely  to  increase  in  frequency  and  severity.  Promoting  coordination 
between  strategies  and  actions  for  adaptation  and  disaster  risk  reduction,  and 
fostering systematic integration of climate science and knowledge in disaster risk 
assessments and management, is crucial for a coherent response to climate and 
disaster risk.  

A small number of Member States exemplify good practice. 

Disaster risk management in France is based on plans published at the level of 
each  department,  which  set  out  how  the  response  to  a  range  of  risks  will  be 
organised. These plans include the identification of key climate-related risks and 
take  account  of  climate  change  and  modelling  (e.g.  in  the  relation  to  flood  risk 
zones). The plans ensure that climate impacts and projections are addressed in 
disaster prevention and preparedness strategies and management plans. 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  Dutch  Safety  Regions323  are  mandated  to  address 
disaster  risk  management  on  their  territory  and  base  their  plans  on  climate 

323  These  are  25  regions  covering  the  entire  country  that  have  administrative  responsibility  for  risk 
assessment and response. The emergency services (e.g. fire brigade, police and paramedics) cooperate 
and are organised in teams corresponding to the Safety Regions. The Safety Regions differ from the 
country’s  12  provinces.  For  further  information  see  ‘Ministry  of  Security  and  Justice  (nd)  Safety 

145 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
projections. In 2015, the ‘Water and Evacuation’ programme started, with the aim 
to improve the preparedness of the Dutch Safety Regions for the consequences 
of  floods  due  to  climate  change.  Between  2015  and  2017  instruments  were 
developed  and  made  publicly  available  to  assist  the  Safety  Regions  in  their 
preparedness  for  water-related  disasters,  including  floods.  The  programme  is 
monitored  by  the  Steering  Group  Management  Water  Crises  and  Floods 
(Stuurgroep Management Watercrises en Overstromingen, SMWO). The SMWO 
governance  structure  falls  under  the  Steering  Group  National  Security  in  which 
Dutch  Safety  Regions,  the  Ministry  of  Security  and  Justice,  the  Ministry  of 
Infrastructure  and  the  Environment  and  the  Dutch  Water  Authorities,  and  the 
Ministry of Defence take part. This structure provides a good practice example of 
how information sharing and appropriate actions on climate change and disaster 
risk prevention can be coordinated across all key agencies.  

In  Portugal,  the  national  authority  for  civil  protection  (ANPC)  is  liaising  with  the 
work  of  the  national  platform  for  disaster  risk  reduction  linked  to  climate 
adaptation and is coordinating one of the sectoral working groups that integrate 
with  the  NAS.  In  this  way,  close  cooperation  and  articulation  between  disaster 
risk  management  and  climate  adaptation  is  assured.  The  NAS  also  includes  a 
sector  working  group  on  safety  of  people  and  assets,  which  contributed  to  the 
ANPC’s  2014  National  Risk  Assessment324.  This  assessment  explicitly  includes 
climate  change  impacts  and  how  they  may  accentuate  or  attenuate  natural, 
technological or hybrid risks. The NAS also acts to support disaster risk reduction 
at  sector  level,  promotes  good  practices  (e.g.  early  warning  systems)  and 
produces manuals on best practices for risk management and prevention.  

Similar coordinated approaches are also established in a small number of other 
Member States, including the Czech Republic and the UK. 

The  EEA  report  on  Climate  change  adaptation  and  disaster  risk  reduction  in 
Europe325  shows  that  there  are  opportunities  to  further  enhance  coherence 
between  climate  change  adaptation  and  disaster risk  reduction  as  both  policies 
use the concept of resilience and this provides common ground to build on more 
the  co-design  and  co-
coherent  policies  and  actions.  Example 
development of climate services, an area where Copernicus (‘Europe’s eyes on 
Earth326’)  can  contribute.    In  addition,  there  are  opportunities  to  improve  and 
harmonise the sharing of vast amount of complementary knowledge available at 
websites, portals and platforms.   Incomplete records of past disasters highlight 
the  need  for  an  improved  monitoring  and  risk  assessment  as  comprehensive, 
harmonised  and  interoperable  disaster  loss  databases  are  needed  to  improve 
existing  damage  and  risk  models.    Finally,  national  level  coordination  of 

include 

from: 

https://english.nctv.nl/binaries/j-18732-web-eng-wet-

Act. 

Regions 
veiligheidsregios_tcm32-84093.pdf 
Avaliacao 

Available 

324ANPC 

(2014). 

from: 
http://www.prociv.pt/bk/RISCOSPREV/AVALIACAONACIONALRISCO/Documents/2016_Avaliac
ao_Nacional_Riscos.pdf  

Available 

Nacional 

Risco 

de 

325 EEA, 2017, Climate  change  adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Europe: enhancing coherence of 
the  knowledge  base,  policies  and  practices,  European  Environment  Agency,  EEA  Report  15/2017, 
ISSN 1977-8449 (https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/climate-change-adaptation-and-disaster) 

326 http://www.copernicus.eu/ 

146 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
indicators  needs  improvement  to  measure  progress  and  better  understand  and 
value  the  co-benefits  of  nature-based  solutions  in  adaptation  and  disaster  risk 
reduction. 

A  total  of  15  Member  States327  have  land  use,  spatial,  urban  and  maritime  planning 
policies that explicitly address climate impacts, and require or encourage adaptation. 

Only six Member States (BE, DE, FI, SE, SK, UK) have national policy instruments that 
promote  adaptation  at  sectoral  level,  in  line  with  national  priorities  and  in  areas  where 
adaptation  is  mainstreamed in  EU policies. However, all but  two of the other countries 
are  promoting  adaptation  in  certain  sectors,  with  significant  gaps  in  others  (e.g. 
construction,  energy,  fisheries,  health  and  industry)  (see  Figure  IX-8).  In  addition  to 
those sectors specified in the figure, small numbers of Member States are mainstreaming 
adaptation in a wide range of “Other” individual sectors include insurance or alternative 
policy instruments providing incentives  for investments in risk prevention (DE and DK 
only).  

Figure IX-8. Sectors in which national policy instruments promote adaptation 

9. Climate change adaptation policies and measures are implemented 

At least 22 Member States are implementing their NAS and/or NAP, albeit with gaps in 
key  sectors  or  in  some  actions  identified  as  priorities.  In  one  Member  State  (FI),  it  is 
clear that the NAP and associated priorities are being implemented in a coordinated way.  

Of  those  Member  States  that  have  progressed  implementation,  only  14328  have 
cooperation  mechanisms  in  place  to  foster  and  support  adaptation  at  a  local  and 
subnational scale.  

327 BG, CZ, DE, DK, FI, FR, HU, IE, LT, LU, LV, PT, SE, SI, UK  
328 AT, DE, DK, ES, FI, HU, IE, LT, NL, PL, PT, SE, SK, UK  

147 

 
 
 
                                                 
Half of the Member States have made little or no progress, as yet, in making procedures 
or guidelines available to assess the potential impact of climate change on major projects 
or programmes, and facilitate the choice of alternative options (e.g. green infrastructure). 
Thirteen Member States  are involving stakeholders in the implementation of adaptation 
policies and measures. 

Step E: Monitoring and evaluation 

10. Systems are in place to monitor and report on climate change adaptation, including 
adaptation-related expenditures, via relevant indicators 

A  total  of  16  Member  States  are  undertaking  some  monitoring  and  reporting  of 
adaptation activities. The extent differs to which these Member States are monitoring and 
reporting  on:  NAS  and/or  NAP  implementation;  integration  of  climate  adaptation  in 
sectoral policies; or regional, sub-national and local actions (see Figure IX-9). 

Figure IX-9. The focus of adaptation monitoring and reporting being undertaken by 
Member States 

148 

 
 
 
11. An evaluation framework is in place to assess whether adaptation policy objectives 
are met and a periodic review of the adaptation strategy is planned 

While  24  Member  States  have  planned  a  periodic  review  of  their  NAS  and/or  NAP, 
stakeholders  are  actively  involved  in  the  assessment,  evaluation  and  review  of  national 
adaptation  policy in  only  13 Member States.   Nevertheless,  the EEA reports that most 
countries  have  focused  primarily  on  monitoring  and  reporting  while  the  evaluation  of 
adaptation policies has started recently in a handful of countries329. 

An overview of monitoring and evaluation frameworks and a selection of good practices 
is provided in Box 7.  

Box 7. Monitoring and evaluation frameworks 

Monitoring and reporting of implementation has taken place at sectoral and sub-
national  levels  in  seven  Member  States  (AT,  DE,  ES,  FI,  LT,  SK  and  UK).  In 
most  countries,  reporting  of  sectoral  and  sub-national  level  implementation  is 
covered  within  the  central  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  NAS/NAP  with 
dedicated  chapters  on  the  relevant  actions.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  three 
Member  States  (HR,  NL  and  SI)  where,  even  though  central  monitoring  and 
reporting  on  the  implementation  of  the  NAS  is  not  in  place,  separate  sectoral 
progress  reports  are  published.  For  instance,  in  the  Netherlands,  a  progress 
report  on  the  Delta  Programme,  covering  adaptation  actions  related  to  flooding 
and the water sector, is published annually.  

The  frequency  of  central  reporting  varies;  for  instance,  in  Austria  a  progress 
report is published every five years, in Spain every three years, while in Lithuania 
an  implementation  report  on  the  NAP  is  published  annually  by  the  responsible 
ministry.  The  type  of monitoring  information  can  be  qualitative  and  quantitative. 
For  instance,  in  Austria  monitoring  is  based  on  a  stakeholder  survey  (‘self-
assessment approach’; based on the NAP and sent to the key actors mentioned 
therein)  and  a  criteria-approach  (‘indicator-based  approach’ with  qualitative  and 
quantitative data collections). 

In  contrast  to  the  dissemination  of  monitoring  results,  a  periodic  review  of  the 
NAS/NAP is in place or planned in 24 out of the 28 Member States and is either 
embedded in the national climate change legislation or the NAS/NAP itself.   

Fundamental  conceptual  and  methodological  challenges  remain  for  monitoring, 
reporting and evaluation activities owing to a still limited experience with the use 
of  adaptation  indicators.  A  forthcomingworking  paper  of  the  EEA,  supported  by 
the  European  Topic  Centre  on  Climate  Change  Impacts,  Vulnerability  and 
Adaptation, analysed available national adaptation indicator sets.  While several 
countries are working on adaptation indicators, and new information is expected 

329      EEA,  2015,  Overview  of  climate  change  adaptation  platforms  in  Europe,  European  Environment 
1725-2237 

Agency, 
(https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/overview-of-climate-change-adaptation) 

Technical 

5/2015, 

Report 

ISSN 

EEA 

149 

 
 
                                                 
to  be  available  in  the  near  future,  there  are  currently  only  a  few  European 
countries with an operational set of indicators in place (AT, FI, DE, NL, UK). The 
countries use indicator sets instead of single indicators and combine quantitative 
information with descriptive expert knowledge. There is also a clear link between 
the sectors covered in the NAS/NAP and in the adaptation indicator sets. Several 
data  underpinning  the  indicators  are  either  recorded  continuously  (e.g.  water 
parameters)  or  collected  from  different  entities  (for  example  in  the  case  of 
subnational measures), making it necessary to report them in a structured format 
for  evaluation.  While  not  always  one-to-one,  the  adaptation  indicator  sets 
available  contain  a  large  amount of  information that is suitable for the reporting 
under  the  Sendai  Framework  on  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  and  the  Sustainable 
Development Goals (SDG) indicators globally and at the EU-level (for SDG13 on 
Climate Action and beyond).  Monitoring, reporting and evaluation experiences in 
for  example  the  thematic  areas  of  biodiversity,  adaptation  and  international 
development,  and  sustainability  have  transferable  lessons  learned  that  may 
improve climate change adaptation evaluation practices. 

Regarding  the  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  in  the  monitoring  and 
evaluation  process,  13  Member  States  have  put 
in  place  stakeholder 
engagement mechanisms, which include involvement within central and sectoral 
committees  as  well  as  holding  stakeholder  workshops  or  discussions.  For 
instance,  in  Finland,  a  specific  group  was  established  to  monitor  NAP 
implementation  and  the  group  involves  the  central  coordinating  ministry,  other 
relevant  ministries,  research  institutes,  and  local,  regional  and  other  relevant 
actors and associations. 

4.  Conclusions 

Overall, Member States have made good progress in developing a NAS and/or NAP, or 
are  in  the  process  of  finalising  them  (three  Member  States  are  in  the  final  stages  of 
adopting  a  NAS).  This  progress  suggests  that  there  is  a  now  a  significantly  higher 
baseline  of  preparedness  and  adaptation  policy-making  than  in  2013,  when  the  EU 
Adaptation Strategy was launched. It also suggests that the Strategy catalysed action in 
Member  States  and  particularly  in  those  that  were  in  earlier  stages  of  developing  an 
adaptation  policy.  The  EU’s  facilitative  role  through  providing  guidance,  funding 
research and adaptation action under the Strategy can be traced throughout the five steps 
of the adaptation policy cycle. 

The  aggregated  scoreboard  for  the  28  Member  States  is  provided  in  Figure  IX-10 
(below).  It  indicates a difference in  progress  by  Member States across the five steps of 
the  adaptation  policy  cycle.  While  most  Member  States  have  made  good  progress  with 
the  first  three  steps  (A.  Preparing  the  ground  for  adaptation;  B.  Assessing  risk  and 
vulnerabilities;  and  C.  Identifying  adaptation  options),  many  have  yet  to  implement 
adaptation  actions  and  undertake  monitoring  and  reporting.  Larger  Member  States  and 
those  that  adopted  a  NAS  earlier  than  others  (see  Table  IX-1  above)  have  made  more 
progress.  Progress  in  relation  to  some  indicators  is  also  influenced  by  administrative 
culture and  geography.  For instance, not all Member States  wish to  coordinate sectoral 
adaptation  actions  under  a  single  strategy  and  the  need  for  detailed  transboundary 
arrangements is less relevant for more isolated Member States.  

150 

 
 
Conclusions on each step of the adaptation policy cycle are provided below: 

Step A: Preparing the ground for adaptation  

All MS have a basic governance structure for adaptation policy-making. Although some 
degree  of  vertical  coordination  is  in  place  in  almost  all  Member  States  to  enable  sub-
national stakeholders to influence policy development and implementation, this does not 
seem  to  have  a  sectoral  focus.  Nevertheless,  most  country  fiches  indicate  that  a  wide 
range of stakeholders have been consulted in the preparation of adaptation policies.  

While  the  extent  of  transboundary  cooperation,  and  whether  it  is  driven  by  the 
NAS/NAP,  varies  between  Member  States,  almost  all  are  planning  to  address  common 
challenges  with  relevant  countries;  invariably  with  regard  to  water.  It  is  clear  that 
international  initiatives  (e.g.  the  International  Commission  for  the  Protection  of  the 
Danube  River,  and  the  Alpine  Convention),  EU  initiatives  (e.g.  the  macro-regional 
strategies)  and  EU-funded  projects  are  important  in  helping  to  prepare  the  ground  for 
cooperation. 

Step B: Assessing risks and vulnerabilities  

Climate change scenarios and projections are widely available at national level. They are 
being used in most Member States to undertake sound, centrally-coordinated assessments 
of climate vulnerabilities, risks, and future economic, social and environmental impacts, 
with other Member States making progress in this respect.   

While most Member States have included actions related to knowledge in their NAS and 
have identified adaptation knowledge gaps, there seems to be limited activity to address 
these gaps in almost half of the Member States. 

Adaptation-related  data  (e.g.  climate  projections,  vulnerability  and  risk  assessments, 
adaptation tools) are available to at least some stakeholders in almost all Member States, 
and  disseminated  by  a  majority  of  them  via  a  national  web-based  platform.  However, 
coordination of associated capacity-building activities is less advanced and established in 
fewer than half of Member States.  

Step C: Identifying adaptation options  

Most  Member  States  have  used  detailed  vulnerability  and/or  risk  assessments  in 
combination  with  robust  methods  (e.g.  multicriteria  analyses  and/or  stakeholder 
consultations) to  prioritise sectoral  adaptation  options. However, notably, less than half 
of Member States have mechanisms in place to coordinate disaster risk management and 
climate adaptation.  

EU funds play an important role in enabling funding to be made available nationally for 
implementation  of  adaptation  actions  in  at  least  a  few  sectors  in  almost  all  Member 
States. Nevertheless, there is a lack of reliable funding, with only half of Member States 
having budgets attached to their NAS or NAP.  

Step D: Implementing adaptation action  

Although most Member States have begun implementing their NAS and/or NAP, around 
half or more of Member States are yet to ensure that:  

  Climate adaptation is considered in Strategic Environmental Assessments 

151 

 
  Synergies with disaster risk reduction are progressed 
  Land use, spatial, urban and maritime planning policies encourage adaptation 
  Adaptation is integrated into insurance policies 
  Cooperation mechanisms are established to foster local and subnational action 
  There is appropriate consideration of potential climate impacts on major projects 

or programmes and of alternative options, including green infrastructure 

  Stakeholders are involved in implementing adaptation policies. 

Step E: Monitoring and evaluation 

While  most  Member  States  have  planned  a  periodic  review  of  their  NAS  and/or  NAP, 
their monitoring and reporting is not yet robust and there is a need to develop stakeholder 
involvement (including of subnational levels) in their assessment, evaluation and review. 

152 

 
Figure IX-10. Aggregated scoreboard for the 28 EU Member States330 

330 For a more detailed explanation of what each indicator means and how its value is determined, please 

refer to the scoreboard methodology in Annex X. 

153 

 
 
                                                 
5.  Country codes of EU Member States 

Country codes are used in Section 3 (Results and analysis) of this Annex in accordance 
with the rules of the EU Interinstitutional Style Guide331. Hence, the two-letter ISO code 
(ISO  3166  alpha-2)  is  used  except  for  Greece  and  the  United  Kingdom,  for  which  the 
abbreviations EL and UK have to be used: 

Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Croatia 

AT  Austria 
Belgium 
BE 
Bulgaria 
BG 
Cyprus 
CY 
Czech Republic 
CZ 
DE  Germany 
DK  Denmark 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU  Hungary 
Ireland 
IE 
Italy 
IT 
Lithuania 
LT 
Luxembourg 
LU 
LV 
Latvia 
MT  Malta 
NL  Netherland 
Poland 
PL 
Portugal 
PT 
Romania 
RO 
Sweden 
SE 
Slovenia 
SI 
Slovakia 
SK 
UK  United Kingdom 

331 See at: http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-000100.htm  

154 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex X  EU adaptation preparedness scoreboard indicator list and methodology 

Policy framework 

A 

Adaptation strategies 

A1 

A NAS has been adopted  

A2 

Number  and  scope  (%  of  population  or  territory  covered)  of  adaptation 
strategies  adopted  at  relevant  subnational  levels,  in  line  with  national 
multilevel governance arrangements 

B 

Adaptation action plans 

B1 

A national adaptation action plan has been adopted  

B2 

B3 

Number and scope of adaptation action plans adopted at local or relevant 
subnational levels 

Adaptation  action  plans  adopted  at  sectoral  level,  or  embedded  in 
sectoral strategies 

Scoreboard 

Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

Step 
1: 
Preparing  the 
for 
ground 

1.  A 
country-wide 
governance  system  is 
in place for adaptation 
policy  making  and 

1a 

A  central  administration 
body  officially  in  charge  of 
adaptation policy making 

- Country Fiches to provide details on the coordinating administration and 
its role 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

adaptation 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

1b 

vertical  and  horizontal 
coordination 
arrangements  are  in 
place 
between 
governmental bodies 

Horizontal  (i.e.  sectoral) 
coordination  mechanisms 
exist 
the 
within 
governance  system,  with 
division of responsibilities 

1c 

Vertical  (i.e.  across  levels 
of 
administration) 
coordination  mechanisms 
the 
within 
exist 
governance 
system, 
enabling  lower  levels  of 
administration  to  influence 
policy making. 

2a 

2.  Stakeholders  (e.g. 
interest 
groups, 
scientists  and  general 
public) are involved in 
the  preparation  of 
adaptation policies 

to 

A  dedicated  process  is  in 
place 
facilitate 
stakeholders'  involvement 
in 
the  preparation  of 
adaptation policies 

YES  =  evidence  that  systematic  coordination  is  in  place  (depending  on 
the implementation phase) 

-  Country  Fiches  to  present  clearly  what  is  the  case  (i.e.  coordination 
only  during  drafting  the  NAS  or  continued  during  the  implementation 
phase) 

IN PROGRESS: Some coordination activity between bodies responsible for 
relevant  sectors,  but  with  no  clear  division  of  responsibilities,  or 
incomplete sectoral coverage. 

YES = Idem 1b  

- Additionally, Country Fiches to also present details if – cooperation only 
in  certain  sectors  (e.g.  water);  specific  delegation  mechanisms  are  in 
place, e.g. for devolving power & responsibilities to regions. 

IN  PROGRESS:  Some  coordination  mechanisms  between  relevant  levels 
of  administration,  but  with 
incomplete 
implementation. 

incomplete  coverage  or 

-  Country  Fiches  to  provide  details  on  the  processes  used  (e.g.  public 
consultations, involvement in working groups etc.) 

-  Country  Fiches  to  indicate  what  categories  of  stakeholders  have  been 
consulted  (e.g.  industry  representatives,  organised  civil  society,  etc.) 

If at the time of preparation of the Country Fiches, the policy cycle is in a 
stage  where  stakeholder  involvement  is  not  relevant  (e.g.  just  after  the 
adoption  of  a  strategy  or  a  plan),  the  Country  Fiches  should  seek 
evidence from the last stakeholder involvement period. 

2b 

Transboundary cooperation 
is  planned 
to  address 
common  challenges  with 

YES  =  stable  cooperation  mechanisms  are  in  place  (ideally  described  in 
or driven by the NAS) 

-  Country  Fiches  to  present  details  on  the  specific  cooperation 

156 

 
 
 
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

relevant countries 

mechanisms  (do  not  have  to  be  formal  governmental  processes,  e.g. 
macro-regional strategies count as well) 

2: 

Step 
Assessing 
risks 
and 
vulnerabilities 
climate 
to 
change 

in 
3.  Systems  are 
place  to  monitor  and 
assess  current  and 
projected 
climate 
change,  impacts  and 
vulnerability 

3a 

Observation systems are in 
place  to  monitor  climate 
change,  extreme  climate 
events and their impacts  

3b 

social 

Scenarios  and  projections 
are  used  to  assess  the 
economic, 
and 
environmental  impacts  of 
climate change, taking into 
account 
geographical 
specificities  and  are  based 
on 
latest  best  available 
science  (e.g.  in  response 
IPCC 
to 

revised 

-  Country  Fiches  to  present  details  re.  the  specific  sectors  /  fields  of 
cooperation (e.g. flood risk management) 

-  Country  Fiches  to  present  details  on  identified  transboundary  projects 
and/or other common initiatives (although if this is the only cooperation 
identified would normally not qualify for a positive assessment). 

YES  = observation  systems are  in place, records on extreme events are 
being kept, and these records include figures on impacts (e.g. casualties, 
damages, financial losses etc.) 

-  Country Fiches to present  details on what observations systems are in 
place for monitoring climate events, as well as their impacts. 

-  Country  Fiches  to  present  details  on  what  kind  of  records  regarding 
climate impacts are being identified. 

-  Country  Fiches  to  try  identifying  what  and  how  the  climate-related 
impacts are captured (e.g. loss & damage figures, surface/areas affected, 
no. of people affected etc.). 

IN PROGRESS: observation systems are in place only in some sectors. 

YES  = projections are available, and based on most recent science; and 
are  being  used  for  assessing  impacts  (even  if  only  preliminary 
vulnerability screenings are being carried out) 

Note:  Indicators  3b  and  3c  should  be  looked  at  together.  3b  tends  to 
have a geographical scope, while 3c has a sectoral one. 

Initial analysis will present a simple schema of the coverage of scenarios 
and  projections.  In  due  course,  further  detailed  information  could  be 
added by desk officers or Member States on (i) the projections available 

157 

 
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

assessments) 

3c 

climate 

sectors 
to 

Sound 
risks/vulnerability 
for  priority 
assessments 
are 
vulnerable 
support 
undertaken 
adaptation 
decision 
making.  The  selection  of 
vulnerable  sectors  may  be 
based  on  a  lighter  pre-
screening 
vulnerability 
assessment.  

3d 

Climate  risks/vulnerability 
take 
assessments 
transboundary  risks 
into 
account, when relevant 

in  the  Member  States:  source  (domestic  research  or  international 
sources)  and  how  are  they  maintained,  singular  or  ensembles,  RCM  or 
downscaled 
an 
overall/aggregated risk & vulnerability assessment was carried out across 
several  sectors  or  one  of  a  national  coverage  was  done;  (iii)  optionally, 
details  on  any  existing  sub-national/regional  assessments  are  useful  for 
perspective  
complementing 

(ii)  whether 

resolutions; 

available 

sectoral 

GCM, 

the 

IN PROGRESS:  not country specific enough, old  scenarios, not based on 
recent science 

YES = comprehensive risk & vulnerability assessments are carried out in 
(a critical mass of the) priority sectors identified;  

-  Country  Fiches  to  present  details  on  what  sectors  were  analysed,  the 
level of detail in the analyses, and information on the studies supporting 
these assessments 

-  Country  Fiches  to  seek  details  whether  the  analyses  were  coordinated 
at a central level, were sector-driven carried out independently, or were 
separate research projects carried out independently 

IN  PROGRESS:  some  evidence  of  good  quality  risk  and  vulnerability 
assessments in some sectors; but sectoral coverage is partial  

YES  =  transboundary  risks  are  taken  into  account  in  a  coordinated 
manner, ideally enshrined in NAS 

-  Country  Fiches  to  provide  details  on  how  and  where  transboundary 
risks were considered (i.e. for  which sectors),  and if this coordinated by 
the NAS or is sector-driven (e.g. in water management and flood risk), or 
project-driven 

IN  PROGRESS:  Transboundary  risks  are  taken  into  account  by  some 
sectors, but gaps exist in relevant sectors. 

158 

 
 
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

4.  Knowledge  gaps  on 
climate  change  and 
climate 
change 
adaptation are tackled 

4a   Work  is  being  carried  out 
to  identify,  prioritise  and 
address 
the  knowledge 
gaps 

5a  

5.  Knowledge  transfer 
processes  are  in  place 
adaptive 
to 
capacity 
across 
sectors 

build 

to 

information 

Adaptation  relevant  data 
is 
and 
available 
all 
including 
stakeholders, 
policy 
(e.g. 
dedicated 
through 
other 
website 
comparable means).  

makers 

or 

a 

YES:  gaps  are  identified  and  work  is  ongoing  to  address  them  (not 
checking if all relevant sectors are addressed) 

-  Country  Fiches  to  provide  details  on  the  processes  employed  for 
periodically tackling the knowledge gaps and  mention if this is driven by 
NAS or other arrangements are in place; 

-  Country  Fiches  to  provide  details  on  any  preliminary  identification  of 
knowledge gaps being carried out (e.g. identified in NAS). 

-  Country  Fiches  to  provide  details  on  the  publicly-funded  research 
programmes or mechanisms identified (e.g. proper prioritisation, specific 
research centres created); 

-  Country  Fiches  to  provide  details  on  any  sector-driven  (e.g.  water 
management,  agriculture  etc.)  or  project-driven  (EU  funds  available) 
research for identifying knowledge gaps 

IN PROGRESS: gaps are only identified, no work to address them 

YES  =  highly  visible  sources  of  information  on  adaptation  are  available 
and contain: general climate data (e.g. climate projections), vulnerability 
and  risk  assessments,  adaptation  tools  and  examples,  information  on 
adaptation  policy  and  related  institutional  and  legal  frameworks  etc. 
A  centralised  (Climate-ADAPT  type)  platform  is  desirable,  but  a  limited 
set of de-centralised sources complementing each other could also satisfy 
the  need  (provided  that  they  are  easily  identifiable  and  well  established 
in their specific sectors). 

- Country Fiches to provide details and links on the following categories:  
 -  adaptation  general  info  -  specific  platforms  or  adaptation  sections  in 
platforms; 
the 
 - 
and 
 -  climate  projection  repositories  (e.g.  from  the  met  offices  or  research 

wider 
NAS/policy 

adaptation 

oriented 

climate 

change 

pages; 

159 

 
 
 
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

projects). 

 - additionally, specific adaptation projects' web sites could be identified. 

5b 

Capacity  building  activities 
take  place;  education  and 
training  materials 
on 
climate  change  adaptation 
concepts  and  practices  are 
available and disseminated  

into 

falling 

-  Country  Fiches  to  provide  details  on  the  identified  science-policy 
categories: 
interfaces 
 -  stable  processes  and/or  organisations  (e.g.  research  and/or  expertise 
centre  acting  as  a 
focal  point,  partnership  structure  between 
organisations, programme run by the central administration consisting of 
systematic  meetings,  workshops  etc.).  To  mention  if  specific  action  in 
this; 
supports 
NAS/NAP 
 - ad-hoc process (e.g. for drafting the NAS) 

one 

the 

of 

IN PROGRESS: adaptation relevant data available to some stakeholders, 
but with significant groups not targeted. 

YES  =  systematic  actions  on  capacity  building,  carried  out  in  a 
coordinated way, usually driven by the NAS or NAP. 

of 

one 

-  Country  Fiches  to  provide  details  on  the  identified  mechanisms  falling 
into 
categories: 
 -  systematic  and  coordinated  activities,  usually  driven  by  the  NAS  or 
NAP  (e.g.  an  established  support  service  offering  assistance  to 
authorities,  training  programmes  etc.).  To  mention  if  specific  action  in 
NAS/NAP 
this;  
 -  ad-hoc  process  carried  out  by  various  organisations,  but  not 
coordinated by a specific programme or action in the NAS. 

supports 

the 

- Country Fiches should try to identify capacity building actions in: public 
administration, academia, business sector, and awareness-raising actions 
for the wider public. 

IN  PROGRESS:  systematic  actions  on  capacity  building  but  not  in  a 
coordinated manner. 

160 

 
 
 
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Step 3: 

Identifying 
adaptation 
options 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

6a 

6. For priority sectors, 
a  range  of  adaptation 
options  is  considered, 
consistent  with 
the 
results  of  sectoral  risk 
assessments 
and 
into  account 
taking 
good  practices  and 
measures 

the 

Adaptation options address 
sectoral  risks  identified  in 
3c, 
geographical 
specificities identified in 3b 
and  follow  best  practices 
as  defined 
similar 
contexts  

in 

6b 

The  selection  of  priority 
adaptation options is based 
on  robust  methods  (e.g. 
multi-criteria 
analyses, 
stakeholders'  consultation, 
etc.)  and  consistent  with 
existing 
decision-making 
frameworks 

YES  =  detailed/elaborated  risk  assessments  used  to  identify  adaptation 
options for (a majority of) the priority sectors. 

Note: The reply should be correlated with the ones for the indicators 3b 
and 3c. 

-  Country  Fiches  to  identify  whether  all  or  only  some  of  the  priority 
sectors have risk assessments and adaptation options identified. If latter, 
to mention which sectors have detailed risk assessments; 

-  Country  Fiches  to  mention  whether  indicative  adaptation  actions  are 
identified based only on lighter processes (e.g. stakeholder consultations, 
expert judgement); 

-  Country  Fiches  could  analyse  the  'horizontal'  actions  and  seek 
information on how they were derived (e.g. based on good practices). 

YES = a prioritisation mechanism is clearly indicated and/or prioritisation 
tools/guidance/criteria  are  made  available  for  being  used  during  project 
selection. 

- Country Fiches to indicate how selection and prioritisation of adaptation 
options was made: 

-  using  processes  (e.g.  expert  judgement,  consultations  among 
and/or 
organisations 
with 
-  using  tools  and  methodologies  (MCA,  CBA,  guidelines 
for 
prioritisation); 

stakeholders), 

or 

-  Country  Fiches  to  specify  whether  the  prioritisation  was  made  at  the 
sectoral level (i.e. choosing priority actions per sector), or across sectors 
(i.e. choosing priority sectors for kick-starting actions), or both; 

-  Country  Fiches  to  indicate  whether  specific  prioritisation  tools  have 
been  published  (e.g.  guidelines  for  selection,  MCA  etc.  which  would  be 

161 

 
 
  
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

6c 

Mechanisms are in place to 
coordinate  disaster 
risk 
management  and  climate 
change  adaptation  and  to 
ensure  coherence  between 
the two policies. 

used for all measures); 

-  Country  Fiches  to  identify  further  plans  for  carrying  out  specific 
prioritisation (e.g. to prioritise in the context of specific actions, sectors, 
geographical areas; to develop new tools (CBA, MCA) etc. 

YES  =  (at  least)  bi-lateral  mainstreaming  (i.e.  DRR  in  NAS  and  climate 
change  in  DRR).  Institutional  arrangements  supervising  the  exchange 
would be a plus, since this indicator focuses mainly on 'mechanisms' and 
needs to differentiate from the indicator 8b. 

- Country Fiches to bring details on: 

 -  how  DRR  planning  is  taking  into  account  climate  change  impacts  and 
projections; 

 - how NAS/NAP includes DRR measures; 

institutional 

 -  any 
for 
coordination  (e.g.  special  working  groups,  climate  change  specialists 
involved  in  DRR  policy-making,  or  DRR  practitioners  involved  in 
adaptation planning). 

frameworks  and/or  procedures  entailed 

IN PROGRESS: at least one of the three is present but not all 

7a 

and 
7.  Dedicated 
adequate 
funding 
resources  have  been 
identified  and  made 
available to implement 
adaptation action 

is  available 

Funding 
to 
increase  climate  resilience 
in  vulnerable  sectors  and 
for 
cross-cutting 
adaptation action  

YES  =  actions  in  NAS  or  the  relevant  priority  sectors  receive  consistent 
funding  for  implementation.  Reliable  multi-annual  funding  commitments 
(e.g. through ESIF) for some sectors could lead to a positive assessment, 
while  a  mere  identification  in  NAS  of  indicative  funding  sources  without 
clear evidence of funds disbursed should not. 

Country  Fiches  to  provide  details  on  which  of  the  2  cases  above  would 
apply  –  budgets  attached  to  NAS/NAP  or  separate  funding  for  priority 
sectors.  If  the  latter,  it  should  try  to  identify  what  are  the  sectors  and 
where the funding comes from (e.g. national/regional, via line ministries, 
ESIF etc.). For the funding to be taken into account in the CF, adaptation 

162 

 
 
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

Step 4: 

Implementing 
adaptation 
action 

change 
8.  Climate 
is 
adaptation 
into 
mainstreamed 
priority 
key 
and 
national  planning  and 
sectoral policymaking 

8a 

8b 

8c 

does not have to be the main objective of the intervention, but it should 
feature among the stated objectives. 

Country  Fiches  to  identify  whether  the  NAS  provides  for  funding  cross-
cutting  adaptation  action  also  (e.g.  national  scenarios  and  climate 
services, capacity building, website)  

IN PROGRESS: if adaptation is only financed in a few sectors or there is 
no funding for cross-cutting adaptation action  

-  Country Fiches to provide  details regarding both EIA and SEA national 
legislation 

YES  =  projected  future  climate  extremes  are  factored  in  the  DRM  plans 
and  associated  risk  analyses,  while  historical  climate  extremes  should 
normally be covered by all risk analyses and DRM action plans. 

Note:  Attention  to  be  granted  to  correlating  this  answer  with  the  one 
given for 6c.  

- Country Fiches to analyse DRM plans and the associated risk analyses. 

Consideration  of  climate 
adaptation  has 
change 
the 
been 
national 
for 
EIAs  

frameworks 

included 

in 

Prevention/preparedness 
strategies  in  place  under 
risk 
national 
disaster 
take 
management  plans 
climate 
into 
and 
change 
projections  

impacts 

account 

land  use, 

spatial 
Key 
planning,  urban  planning 
and  maritime 
spatial/ 
urban  planning  policies 
take 
the 
into  account 
impacts of climate change 

YES = clear evidence that land use and spatial/urban policies at Member 
State  level  explicitly  address  climate  impacts,  and  require  or  encourage 
adaptation; and evidence that the policies are followed in practice across 
the majority of the Member State. 

-  Country  Fiches  should  provide  details  regarding  the  type  of 
mainstreaming: 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

8d 

adaptation 

National policy instruments 
promote 
at 
sectoral  level,  in  line  with 
national  priorities  and  in 
areas  where  adaptation  is 
mainstreamed 
EU 
policies  

in 

8e 

alternative 

Adaptation 
is 
mainstreamed in insurance 
policy 
or 
where 
instruments, 
relevant, 
provide 
to 
incentives  for  investments 
in risk prevention 

 - spatial planning, urban planning, maritime spatial planning; 

 - geographical scope – national, regional or local. 

YES  =  evidence  of  mainstreaming  in  sectoral  policies  is  identified.  The 
mere  mentioning  of  a  sector  in  the  NAS  is  not  enough,  unless  is  being 
backed by actual policy instruments identified in that sector that include 
adaptation. 

- Provide details regarding: 

 - what sectors are currently including adaptation considerations; 

 - what policy instruments are promoting adaptation in each sector; 

 -  was  the  NAS  the  driver  for  mainstreaming  in  these  sectors  or 
something  else  triggered  an  autonomous  adaptation  (e.g.  EU  acquis  or 
policy)? 

IN  PROGRESS:  individual  sectoral  policies  promote  adaptation,  but 
coverage is patchy, with significant gaps  

YES  =  evidence  of  insurance  (or  guarantee)  schemes  that  are 
incentivising  investments  in  enhanced  resilience  and  risk  prevention  is 
identified in both the national framework (NAS/NAP) and as being active 
in the field.  

Insurance  schemes available  for current extremes are available in many 
places,  but  by  themselves  would  not  qualify  for  a  positive  assessment. 
Furthermore, schemes for ensuring the affordability of insurance (for e.g. 
flood risks) do not incentivise adaptation per se. 

-  Country  Fiches  to  mention  what  specific  objectives  or  actions  on 

164 

 
 
  
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

9a 

Adaptation  policies  and 
are 
measures 
implemented, 
as 
defined  in  action  plans  or 
sectoral policy documents 

e.g. 

9.  Climate 
adaptation 
and  measures 
implemented 

change 
policies 
are 

insurance are contained in the NAS. 

-  Country  Fiches  to  provide  details  on  how  the  insurance  schemes  are 
incentivising adaptation. 

YES  = only if coordinated implementation of  NAS/NAP is underway, and 
clear evidence of adaptation priorities identified being put into effect. 

Note:  actions  such  as  effective  mainstreaming  in  sectors  (confirmed  by 
the indicator 8d)  and further/detailed vulnerability and risk assessments 
should  be  seen  as  concrete  implementation,  provided  they  are  required 
as such by the NAS/NAP 

-  Country  Fiches  should  mention  if  national  /  sectoral  /  regional  action 
plans  are  drafted,  or  the  NAS  is  the  only  programmatic  document 
governing adaptation 

- Country Fiches should provide a brief account on what actions are being 
implemented  (e.g.  mostly  horizontal,  sectoral  –  if  yes,  in  which  sectors, 
etc.) 

-  Country  Fiches  should  mention  in  what  stage  is  the  implementation 
(recently started, several years past etc.), if progress reports have been 
issued. 

-  Country  Fiches  could  mention  notable  examples  of  autonomous 
adaptation action being implemented 

IN  PROGRESS:  evidence  that  the  NAS/NAP  is  being  implemented,  but 
with gaps in key sectors or in some actions identified as priorities. 

9b 

Cooperation  mechanisms 
foster  and 
in  place  to 
support 
at 
relevant  scales  (e.g.  local, 

adaptation 

YES  =  only  if  cooperation  (with  regions  and  cities)  is  actually  active 
during the implementation. From that point of view this indicator should 
be  correlated  with  9a  which  shows  that  implementation  has  started.  If 
the cooperation is made possible by frameworks in place (this should be 
correlated  with  the  indicator  1c  on  vertical  integration),  but  no 

165 

 
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

subnational) 

implementation  is  underway  the  assessment  should  be  negative. 
However,  in  this  latter  case  a  separate  mention  should  be  made  in  the 
CF. The same, if the NAS/NAP are calling for such a vertical cooperation. 

Note: This indicator should be seen as focused on the adaptation actions 
carried  out  at  regional  and  local  levels,  supported  by  formalised 
collaborative frameworks. It differs from indicator 1c which shows rather 
how  regional  and  local  levels  are  feeding  back  into  the  national  actions 
(NAS, NAP). 

9c 

Procedures  or  guidelines 
are  available  to  assess  the 
potential  impact  of  climate 
change  on  major  projects 
and 
programmes, 
or 
facilitate 
the  choice  of 
alternative  options,  e.g. 
green infrastructure  

YES = only if guidelines and procedures refer specifically to projects and 
programmes.  Spatial  development  could  be  assimilated,  as  it  forms  the 
basis of development programmes. 

-  Country  Fiches  should  specify  who  is  promoting  the  guidelines  (i.e. 
government  bodies,  other  organisations,  or  they  are  results  of  projects) 
and  if  they  are  actually  used  in  practice  (as  opposed  to  simply  being 
made available). 

9d 

There  are  processes  for 
stakeholders'  involvement 
in  the  implementation  of 
adaptation  policies  and 
measures. 

-  Country  Fiches  should  note  if  NAS/NAP  include  specific  actions  for 
publishing and applying such guidelines or procedures. 

YES  =  if  the  involvement  of  stakeholders  is  already  happening.  The 
stakeholders are seen here as 'non-public administration' bodies. 

Note:  It  is  important  to  notice  that  this  indicator  refers  to  stakeholders 
actually  implementing  adaptation  actions,  not  only  participating  in 
monitoring and evaluation (since the indicator 11b is specifically reserved 
for that) 

-  Country  Fiches  should  provide  details  on  what  categories  of 
stakeholders  are  involved  (e.g.  academia,  research,  business  sector, 
NGOs  etc.)  and  how  are  they  involved  (e.g.  implementation  of  specific 
actions, steering & consultations, selection of projects etc.).  

-  Country  Fiches 

should  note 

if  NAS/NAP  provide 

specific 

166 

 
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

Step 5: 

Monitoring 
and 
evaluation 

10.  Systems  are  in 
place  to  monitor  and 
climate 
report 
on 
adaptation, 
change 
including  adaptation-
related  expenditures, 
via relevant indicators 

10a  Monitoring  and  reporting: 
Information  on  NAS/NAP 
implementation 
is 
monitored  and  the  results 
the  monitoring  are 
of 
collected 
and 
disseminated. 

mechanisms/forums for involving the stakeholders. 

YES = if reports on the implementation of NAS/NAP are being published.  

Note:  This  indicator  should  be  seen  as  referring  to  national  centralised 
reporting  on  the  progress  of  adaptation  action  (i.e.  implementation  of 
NAS/NAP). 

- Country Fiches should provide details on the national reports: 

 - year(s) of publication and periodicity, latest report number; 

 - body that published the report; 

 -  type  of  reporting  –  quantitative  (based  on  indicators),  qualitative  on 
the progress, or both; 

 - availability of financial information on allocated budgets and the costs 
of actions; 

 -  sources  of  information  –  e.g.  reports  from  sectors/stakeholders,  own 
monitoring carried out by the central adaptation body etc. 

10b  Monitoring  and  reporting: 
The  integration  of  climate 
in 
change 
sectoral 
is 
monitored  and  the  results 
of 
the  monitoring  are 
disseminated.  

adaptation 
policies 

YES  =  if  reports  on  adaptation  in  certain  sectors  are  being  published, 
whether  it  is  a  centralised  single  report  or  different  reports  for  each 
sector.  In  the  latter  case,  the  reports  should  cover  enough  sectors,  as 
counted against the priority sectors identified in the NAS. 

Availability/development  of  indicators  is  a  detail  that  should  be  added, 
but the lack of it should not result in a negative assessment. 

Note: This indicator should be seen as having a sectoral focus, looking at 
monitoring and reporting on progress.  

- Country Fiches should provide details on: 

167 

 
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

10c  Monitoring  and  reporting: 
Information  on  regional, 
sub-national or local action 
the 
is  monitored  and 
results  of  the  monitoring 
are 
and 
collected 
disseminated  

 -  how sectoral  mainstreaming  is monitored and reported:  coordinated 
centrally or by the sectors themselves; 

 -  what  types  of  reports  are  being  published:  central  report  with  details 
on sectors, or separate sectoral reports; 

 -  type  of  sectoral  reports  (if  is  the  case)  –  are  they  only  about 
adaptation, or adaptation is just a topic among others addressed in that 
report?  (If  only  centralised  reports  are  published,  those  are  presumably 
pure adaptation ones). 

Note:  This  indicator  should  be  seen  as  having  a  regional/local  focus, 
looking  at  specific  reporting  carried  out  by  sub-national  administrations. 
It  should  be  looked  at  in  correlation  with  indicator  1c  on  vertical 
coordination. 

- Country Fiches should present if: 

 - the sub-regional level is reporting to the national one on their progress 
on adaptation; or 

 - the sub-regional level issue their own progress reports independently, 
addressed to the wider public; or 

 -  no  formal  reporting  is  carried  out,  but  feedback  from  sub-national  to 
national  level  is  done  via other  mechanisms  (e.g.  sub-national  presence 
in  national  coordination  committees  for  adaptation).  These  mechanisms 
should  lead  to  having  national  reports  that  include  information  on 
adaptation action carried out at sub-national levels.  

11a 

11.  An 
evaluation 
framework  is  in  place 
to  assess  whether 
adaptation 
policy 
objectives  are  met 
and  a  periodic  review 

A  periodic  review  of  the 
NAS  and  action  plans  is 
planned  

YES = if clear mechanisms are in place  for reviewing at least one of the 
NAP  or  NAS.  Full  reviews  NAS  and  NAP  constitute  even  stronger 
mechanisms. 

-  This  is  an  important  indicator  to  understand  a  central  part  of  the 
adaptation  governance  in  the  Member  States.  As  such,  the  Country 

168 

 
  
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

the 

of 
strategy is planned 

adaptation 

Fiches should aim to explain the following: 

 - how is the evaluation planned and/or carried out – on NAP, on NAS, or 
both; 

 -  what  is  the  frequency  of  the  evaluations  and  when  is  the  next  one 
planned; 

 -  how  is  the  revision  planned  and/or  carried  out  –  on  NAP,  on  NAS,  or 
both; 

 -  what  is  the  frequency  of  the  revisions  and  when  is  the  next  one 
planned; 

 -  how  is  the  review  timeline  determined  –  i.e.  provisions  in  the 
legislation  on  adaptation,  in  the  NAS  or  NAP  themselves,  or  ad-hoc 
revisions based on the findings of (planned) evaluations. 

11b 

the 

Stakeholders  are  involved 
assessment, 
in 
evaluation  and  review  of 
national adaptation policy 

YES  =  if  structured  involvement  is  identified  in  any  of  the  2  processes 
(monitoring  and  review).  'Involvement'  should  be  understood  as 
stakeholders  actively  participating  in  monitoring  and/or  review,  as 
opposed to them only providing information (via e.g. public consultations 
or reporting).  

Note: In case reporting is identified, this should be linked to indicator 9d, 
as It relates to implementation. 

-  Proposal:  the  term  'assessment'  should  be  replaced  by  'monitoring'. 
'Evaluation'  should  be  deleted,  as  is  seen  as  an  integral  part  of  the 
'review'. 

- Country Fiches should provide details on: 

 - how stakeholders are involved (e.g. describe what coordination/review 
committees  are  they  part  of).  Identify  whether  these  are  central 
committees  overseeing  national  adaptation  action,  or  sectoral 

169 

 
Adaptation 
policy 
making 
process 

Main area of 
performance 

N° 

Key 
relevance 

domain 

of 

Criteria for positive and "In progress" replies, 
Categories of information sought, and 
Notes for better focus 

committees for priority sectors of action; 

 - which processes are they involved in – monitoring, evaluation, revision 
of NAS/NAP. 

170 

 
 
 
 
Annex XI  List of EU policy initiatives where adaptation is mainstreamed 

Table XI-1. Initiatives where climate adaptation is mainstreamed into EU policy (in force), including updates 

Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Y 

AGRI 

Agriculture 

a 

for 

Proposal 
Regulation 
establishing rules for direct payments 
to  farmers  under  support  schemes 
within 
the 
Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP) 
COM(2011) 625332  

framework 

the 

of 

(EU) 

support 

and  of 

Regulation 
No 
1307/2013  of  the  European 
the 
Parliament 
Council  of  17  December 
2013  establishing  rules  for 
direct  payments  to  farmers 
under 
schemes 
within the framework of the 
Agricultural 
Common 
Policy333 
repealing 
and 
Council Regulation (EC) No 
637/2008334  and  Council 
Regulation 
No 
73/2009335 

(EC) 

Greening  of  the  first  pillar  has  introduced  three  requirements 
for 
farms:  crop  diversification;  maintaining  existing 
permanent  grassland;  and  having  ecological  focus  area  on 
the  agricultural  area  (Article  43).  These  requirements  have 
adaptation  co-benefits  despite  not  being  the  primary  objective 
of the measures.  

The greening requirements are in addition to cross-compliance 
requirements,  which  include  minimum  good  agricultural  and 
environmental  conditions  (GAEC)  on  soil,  biodiversity  and 
water. 

Y 

AGRI 

Agriculture 

Financing, 
monitoring 

management 
the 
of 

and 
common 

No 
Regulation 
1306/2013  of  the  European 

(EU) 

Farm advisory system covers the requirements to be respected 

332 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, COM(2011) 0625 final 
333 Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 
334 Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 of 23 June 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 
335 Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009  

171 

 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

agricultural 
628336 

policy  COM(2011) 

Y 

AGRI 

Agriculture  and 
forestry 

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the 
the 
European  Parliament  and  of 
rural 
Council  on 
the  European 
development 
Rural 
Agricultural 

support 
by 
Fund 

for 

for 

and  of 

the 
Parliament 
Council  of  17  December 
2013  of 
financing, 
the 
management and monitoring 
of  the  common  agricultural 
policy337 
repealing 
and 
Council  Regulations  (EEC) 
No  352/78338, 
(EC)  No 
165/94339, 
No 
(EC) 
2799/98340, 
(EC) 
No 
814/2000341, 
(EC)  No 
1290/2005342  and  (EC)  No 
485/2008

343

currently 

Regulation was adopted and 
force: 
is 
No 
Regulation 
1305/2013345 
the 
European  Parliament  and  of 

in 
(EU) 
of 

in relation to agricultural practices beneficial for the climate. 

The  cross-compliance  system  incorporates  in  the  CAP  basic 
standards  concerning  the  environment,  climate  change,  good 
agricultural and environmental condition of land, public health, 
plant health and animal welfare. 

The  EAFRD,  in  line  with  climate  mainstreaming  targets, 
requires that at least 30% of EAFRD funding goes to measures 
relevant for the environment and climate change. 

The Rural Development policy offers support to EU Members 

336 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy, COM(2011) 628 
337 Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 
338 Council Regulation (EEC) No 352/78 of 20 February 1978  
339 Council Regulation (EC) No 165/94 of 24 January 1994  
340 Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 of 15 December 1998  
341 Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 of 17 April 2000  
342 Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005  
343 Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 of 26 May 2008 

172 

 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Development  (EAFRD)  COM(2011) 
627344 

the Council of 17 December 
2013  on  support  for  rural 
development by the EAFRD 
Council 
and 
No 
Regulation 
1698/2005346 

repealing 

(EC) 

States  for  implementing  agricultural  and  forest  adaptation 
policies and priorities, offering a wide ranging set of measures 
that  can  be  used  and  combined  by  Member  States  to  address 
the regional and local specific impacts and vulnerabilities.   

The  fifth  Union  priority  for  rural  development  is  “promoting 
resource  efficiency  and  supporting  the  shift  towards  a  low 
carbon  and  climate  resilient  economy  in  agriculture,  food  and 
forestry sectors”, with a focus, among the others, on adaptation 
in  water  use,  carbon 
related  areas  such  as  efficiency 
conservation and sequestration.. 

The  fourth  Union  priority  on  “Restoring,  Preserving  and 
enhancing ecosystems”, focus, among the others, on the water 
management  and  prevention  of  soil  erosion  and  soil 
management. 

The regulation also indicates that all priorities “shall contribute 
to the cross-cutting objectives of innovation, environment and 
climate change mitigation and adaptation.” (Article 5) 

Climate change mitigation and adaptation and biodiversity also 
appear as a thematic sub-programme. (Article 7) 

Several  measures  can  be  used  for  adaptation  purposes,  for 
example:  the  farm  advisory  system,  which  helps  stakeholders 

345 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 
344 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), 

COM (2011) 0627 final.  

346 Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 

173 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

to  improve  “the  economic  and  environmental  performance  as 
well as the climate friendliness and resilience of their holding, 
enterprise and/or investment” (Article 15).  

The  agri-environment-climate  measures  encourage  farmers  to 
apply  agricultural  practices  that  contribute  to  climate  change 
mitigation and adaptation. (Article 28) 

Others measure such as Investments in physical assets (Article 
17), Organic farming (article 29), Areas facing natural or other 
specific constraints (article 31). 

investments 

afforestation, 

Measures  relevant  for  forest  adaptation,  including  inter  alia 
the 
agro-forestry, 
resilience  and  environmental  value  of  forest  ecosystems, 
prevention  of  forest  fires  and  natural  disasters,  or  the  forest-
environmental and climate services and forest conservation that 
includes  the  conservation  and  promotion  of  forest  genetic 
resources. 

improving 

Operational  Groups  (Art.  36,  Cooperation)  linked  to  the 
European Innovation Partnership  for  Agricultural Productivity 
and  Sustainability,  specifically  considers  the  promotion  of  a 
climate  friendly  and  resilient  agriculture  and  improving 
processes to preserve the environment, adapt to climate change 
and  mitigate  it.  It  is  financing  several  operational  groups 
relevant for adaptation. 

Regulation  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 
807/2014  lays  down  provisions  supplementing  Regulation 
i.a.  forests  and  forest 
(EU)  No  1305/2013  as  regards 
management  practices.  The  regulation  stipulates  for  instance 
for  afforestation  and  creation  of  woodland  measures  that  "the 

174 

 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Y 

AGRI/ENV/GRO
W 

Forest Policy 

New EU Forest Strategy COM(2013) 
659 

by  Multi-Annual 
Complemented 
Implementation  Plan  of  the  new  EU 
Forest Strategy SWD(2015) 164347 

from 

Communication 
the 
Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee 
of  the  Regions  on  a  new  EU 
Forest Strategy:  for  forests  and 
the 
sector 
COM(2013) 659

forest-based 
348

selection  of  species,  varieties,  ecotypes  and  provenances  of 
trees  shall  take  account  of  the  need  for  resilience  to  climate 
change  and  to  natural  disasters  […]".  Programming  of  such 
measures and definition of eligibility criteria for accessing such 
support is however undertaken at Member State level. 

The EU Forest Strategy (2013) supplements the EU Adaptation 
Strategy  as  far  as  forests  are  concerned,  integrating  climate 
action  in  the  wider  coherent  approach  towards  sustainable 
forest  management.  One  of  its  priority  areas  is  "Forests  in  a 
changing climate", where the Strategic objective is to enhance 
the forests adaptive capacity and resilience, building on the EU 
Strategy  on  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change.  A  Multiannual 
Implementation Plan of the EU Forest Strategy was developed 
alongside  the  EU  Forest  Strategy.  The  2015  implementation 
plan  recommends  action  by  Member  States  to  “demonstrate 
how  they  enhance  their  forests’.  The  Strategy  highlights  the 
need  for  adaptation  in  forests:  “Forests  are  vulnerable  to 
climate change.  It  is therefore  important  to  maintain  and 
enhance  their  resilience  and  adaptive  capacity,  including  
through  fire  prevention  and  other  adaptive  solutions. The 
role of forests in climate action primarily appears in achieving 
mitigation  objectives;  nevertheless  the  opportunity  for  rural 
development support to adaptation actions is highlighted.  

347 Commission Staff Working Document: Impact Assessment, SWD(2015) 164 final 
348 Communication from the Commission: A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and he forest-based sector, COM(2013) 0659  

175 

 
 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

N 

COMP 

State Aid 

on 

Guidelines 
for 
environmental  protection  and  energy 
2014-2020 

State 

aid 

349

Adopted and implemented 

The Forest Strategy is currently under mid-term review.  
Although  adaptation  to  climate  change  is  not  explicitly 
mentioned  as  eligible  for  state  aid,  the  guidelines  list  aid  to 
water re-use as an authorised measure, which has co-benefits in 
terms of adaptation. Aid to hydropower is only authorised if it 
does  not  have  negative  impacts  on  water  systems  in  the 
meaning  of 
the  Water  Framework  Directive,  whose 
implementation guidance covers climate adaptation (see related 
entry  below  in  this  table).  Environmentally  harmful  subsidies 
(which  include  subsidies  that  lead  to  maladaptation,  e.g. 
excessive water extraction) are also ineligible according to the 
guidelines.  

N 

DEVCO / ECHO 

Resilience 

EU  Approach 
Communication, Action Plan 

to  Resilience  – 

Joint  Communication  on  A 
Strategic  Approach 
to 
Resilience 
the  EU's 
External Action350 

in 

The  Joint  Communication  examines  different  aspects  of  state 
and  societal  resilience,  including  climate  and  environmental 
resilience,  migration  and  forced  displacement  and  security.  It 
proposes four building blocks to incorporate resilience into the 
EU's external action: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Improving analysis of risks, underlying causes and 
resilience factors (capacities to cope with risks and 
shocks, to adapt and to transform) 
A more dynamic monitoring by the EU of external 
pressures to allow early action 
Integrating the resilience approach into EU 
programming and financing of external assistance 
EU cooperation with multilateral and bilateral 

349  Communication  from  the  Commission:  Guidelines  on  State  aid  for  environmental  protection  and  energy  2014-2020  (2014/C  200/01)  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014XC0628(01) 

350 Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU's external action, JOIN(2017) 21 final 

176 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

N 

ECHO / DEVCO / 
NEAR 

Development 
cooperation/ 
humanitarian 
assistance 
foreign policy 

/ 

Communication  on  Lives in  Dignity: 
from  Aid-dependence 
to  Self-
reliance.    Forced  Displacement  and 
Development 
234 
final)351 

(COM(2016) 

Follow-up 
by 
DEVCO/ECHO/NEAR  and 
EEAS 

institutional partners 

This Communication focuses on situations of protracted forced 
displacement in partner countries due to conflict, violence and 
human  rights  violations,  irrespective  of  the  status  of  the 
displaced  under  the  1951  Refugee  Convention.    Elements  of 
the new policy may also be applicable to displacement caused 
by  natural  disasters  and  climatic  events,  while  recognising 
the different politics, contexts, needs and solutions. 

N 

DEVCO / ENV 

Development 
cooperation 

Communication  on  preparing  an  EU 
position 
post-2015 
the 
development  agenda 
(COM(2014) 
335)

on 

352

Council 
adopted in 2014. 

Conclusions 

The new framework should be responsive to climate change as 
a cross-cutting issue. 

N 

DEVCO 

Development 
cooperation 

Post-Cotonou:  towards  a  renewed 
partnership  with  the  countries  of 
Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific 

Joint communication:  
A  renewed  partnership  with 
the  countries  of  Africa,  the 
Caribbean and the Pacific353 

This Communication sets out the ideas and proposed building 
blocks  for  a  renewed  post-2020  political  partnership  with  the 
African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries. 

Negative impacts of climate change  are  included in the list of 
significant problems the ACP countries are facing, with climate 
change  remaining  one  of  the  most  pressing  threats  to  the 
achievement of sustainable development. 

One  of  the  six  priorities  of  the  new  political  partnership  is 

351 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Lives in Dignity: 

from Aid-dependence to Self-reliance Forced Displacement and Development, COM(2016) 0234 final.  

352 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A decent Life for 

all: from vision to collective action, COM(2014) 335  

353 Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: A renewed partnership with the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific, JOIN(2016) 52 final.  

177 

 
 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

protecting the environment and fighting climate change. Under 
this priority, the partnership should enshrine a commitment to 
pro-poor  climate  resilience  policies  and  should 
include 
commitments  on,  inter  alia,  the  implementation  of  adaptation 
to 
policies.  Better 
vulnerability,  and  ability 
to  recover  from  disasters  are 
considered as key to avoiding loss of lives and livelihoods. 

preparedness, 

exposure 

reduced 

N 

DEVCO 

Development 
Cooperation 

The  New  European  Consensus, 
30/06/2017 

Adopted. 
2017/C 
210/01  

In  identifying  topics  of  common  interest  and  action,  the 
partnership has to build on the experience of the high ambition 
coalition process that paved the way for the Paris Agreement. 
Recognizes  the  increased  needs  for  climate  change  adaptation 
in  the  world,  and  includes  it  as  one  of  the  objectives  of  EU 
development cooperation. 

DEVCO 

Migration 

Communication on 
 Lives 
from  Aid-
dependence  to  Self-reliance.  Forced 
Displacement and Development 

in  Dignity: 

Adopted 26.4.2016 
COM(2016) 234 final 

The  Communication  recognizes  the  link  between  climate 
change and forced displacement and also its possible impact on 
security. 

Y 

ECHO 

Disaster 
risk 
prevention  and 
management 

Decision  establishing  a  Union  Civil 
Protection Mechanism 

Decision was adopted and is 
currently  in  force:  Decision 
No  1313/2013/EU  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of 
the Council of 17 December 
2013  on  a  Union  Civil 
Protection Mechanism354 

In  Chapter  II  in  order  to  fulfil  the  prevention  objectives  the 
Commissions shall “ 
establish  and  regularly  update  a 
cross-sectoral  overview  and  map  of  natural  and  man-made 
disaster  risks  the  Union  may  face,  by  taking  a  coherent 
approach  across  different  policy  areas  that  may  address  or 
affect disaster prevention and taking due account of the likely 
impacts  of  climate  change”  and  “encourage  an  exchange  of 
good practices on preparing national civil protection systems to 

354 Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 

178 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

N 

ECHO 

Disaster  Risk 
Reduction  and 
Humanitarian 
Assistance 

Communication 
at 
Humanitarian Summit 

the  World 

N 

ECHO 

Disaster  Risk 
Reduction 

Overview  of  natural  and  man-made 
disaster  risk  in  the  EU,  SWD(2014) 
134 final of 08.04.2014 

N 

ECHO 

Disaster  Risk 
Reduction 

Overview  of  Natural  and  Man-made 
Disaster  Risks  the  European  Union 
may face, EU SWD (2017) 176 final 
of 23.5.2017 

And JRC technical report 

cope with the impact of climate change”. (Article 5) 

Climate  change  adaptation  is  also  mainstreamed  into  Chapter 
III on preparedness where it is indicated that a training network 
should  be  set  up  which  shall  aim  to  “enhance  all  phases  of 
disaster management, taking into account adaptation to and 
mitigation of climate change” (Article 13) 
Summit is a UN initiative to improve humanitarian action, and 
one of the 4 themes is "Reducing Vulnerability and Managing 
Risk" 

Adaptation considerations are well reflected. 

Climate  change  and  its  impact  on  disaster  risk  in  EU  are 
integrated.  

Sept.  2015  Communication 
'Towards 
the  World 
Humanitarian  Summit:  A 
partnership 
global 
for 
principled 
effective 
and 
humanitarian action'. Follow 
up  through  'Grand  bargain 
on  humanitarian  financing' 
commitments 

in  2017. 
To  be  updated 
Technical  report  by  JRC  on 
comparison  of  national  risk 
assessments 
already 
available. 

May 
2017  Commission 
SWD  “Overview  of  natural 
and man-made disaster risks 
the  European  Union  may 
face” 

N 

ECHO 

Disaster  Risk  Risk  Assessment 

and  Mapping 
Guidelines  for  Disaster  Management 

guidelines 
Voluntary 
developed  in  support  of  the 
Protection 
Union  Civil 

Both  include  numerous  references  to  climate  change  and 
climate  change  adaptation,  e.g.  taking  into  account  climate 
change  when  preparing  risk  assessments  and  coherence  with 

179 

 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Reduction 

(2010)355  and  Risk  Management 
Capability  Assessment  Guidelines 
(2015)356  

Mechanism 

CCA measures 

N 

ECHO 

Disaster  Risk 
Reduction 

Civil protection peer review guidance 
and frameworks357 

Questions on links to climate change adaptation included in the 
frameworks 

in 

Second 
reviews 
extensively 
integration  of  CCA 
disaster 
activities 

round  of  peer 
2018-19 
covers 
in 
management 

N 

ECHO 

Disaster  Risk 
Reduction 

Commission  Proposal 
to  amend 
decision  1313/2013/EU  on  a  Union 
Civil Protection Mechanism  

Currently under negotiations 
with Council and Parliament 

The  proposal  puts  emphasis  on  reinforcing  Member  States' 
prevention  action,  with  due  consideration  of  climate  change 
impacts and adaptation measures 

N 

ECHO 

Disaster 
reduction 

risk 

Sendai  Framework  Action  Plan  –  a 
disaster  risk-informed  approach  for 
all EU policies 

SWD 2016 (205) June 2016 

Updated once a year 

N 

ECHO/JRC 

Disaster  Risk 
Reduction 

Disaster 
Risk 
Knowledge Centre (DRMKC) 

Management 

DRMKC  operational  since 
2015,  providing 
science-
policy  interface  among  10 
DGs and Member States. 

The  action  plan  is  a  compilation  of  activities  carried  out  by 
different  Commission  Services  which  directly  and  indirectly 
contribute to the implementation of the Sendai framework, DG 
CLIMA's actions on adaptation of relevance to the Action plan 
are included.  
Climate  change  and  its  impact  on  disaster  risk  in  EU  is 
integrated.  
CLIMA part of Steering Group 

355 Commission Staff Working Paper: Risk Assessment and Mapping Guidelines for Disaster Management, SEC(2010) 1626 final 
356 Commission Notice: Risk Management Capability Assessment Guidelines (2015/C 261/03) 
357 www.eupeerreviews.eu 

180 

 
 
                                                 
 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

N 

EEAS 

Foreign policy 

EU Global Strategy July 2016 

Currently being 
implemented 

N 

EEAS 

Foreign Policy 

Joint communication on: ' A Strategic 
Approach to Resilience in the EU's 
External Action', 2017 

 JOIN(2017) 21 final 

The  EU’s  2016  Global  Strategy  on  Foreign  and  Security 
Policy358  mentions  climate  change  explicitly  as  a  threat  and 
considers  economic  resilience  as  an  important  area  for  the 
overall  resilience  of  the  EU,  with  climate  change  as  a  cross-
cutting disruptive element.  
The  text  of  the  strategy  reflects  climate  risks,  noting  that 
"Climate  change  and  environmental  degradation  exacerbate 
potential  conflict,  in  light  of  their  impact  on  desertification, 
land  degradation,  and  water  and  food  scarcity".  Resilience  to 
shocks is a key concept of the strategy. However, the potential 
contribution  of  action  on  climate  adaptation  in  these  areas  is 
not pursued in the document although it is clearly an element in 
Commission  action  under  programmes  such  as  the  European 
Neighbourhood Instrument, and the Development Cooperation 
Instrument. 
Climate  change  recognized  as  a  threat  multiplier  for  security 
and  migration.  Climate  resilience  included  as  an  important 
element of societal and economic resilience.  

N 

FPI 

Foreign policy 

Partnership Instrument 

Regulation  (EU)  234/2014 
establishing  a  Partnership 
Instrument  for  cooperation 
with third countries 

The  PI  funds  activities  that  support  the  external  dimension  of 
EU  internal  policies  and  help  to  address  major  global 
challenges,  including  climate  change.  Though  mitigation 
focused, adaptation is also considered. 

The  2017  Annual  Action  Program  for  the  PI,  includes  and 
Action  Fiche  for  cooperation  with  major  economies  for  the 
implementation  of  the  Paris  Agreement,  with  Adaptation 
planning,  including  the  main  pillars  of  the  EU  adaptation 
strategy  and  their  key  instruments  being  one  of  the  four 

358 Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe: A Global Strategy for the European Union's Foreign and Security Policy, European Commission, 2016. 

181 

 
 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Y 

ENER 

Energy 
Transport 

& 

for 

Proposal 
a  Regulation  on 
guidelines  for  trans-European  energy 
infrastructure 

Y 

ENER / MOVE 

Energy 
Transport 

& 

Regulation 
Connecting Europe Facility 

establishing 

the 

thematic axes for intensified cooperation with the non-EU G20 
members. 

The  Cost-Benefit  Analyses  shall  consider  systems  resilience 
(including resilience to climate change); 
The selection criteria for Projects of Common Interest include 
provisions  on  systems  resilience  (including  resilience  to 
climate change). 

The 8th recital refers to the 20% climate  mainstreaming target 
and indicates that “it is important to ensure that climate change 
mitigation  and  adaptation,  as  well  as  risk  prevention  and 
management,  are  promoted  in  the  preparation,  design  and 
implementation of projects of common interest." 

Reference  to  climate  change  also  appears  in  other  recitals, 
Article  22  (“Member  States  shall  inform  the  Commission 
annually,  if  relevant  through  an  interactive  geographical  and 
technical  information  system,  about  the  progress  made  in 
implementing projects of common interest and the investments 
made  for  this  purpose,  including  the  amount  of  support  used 
with  a  view  to  attaining  climate-change  objectives”)  and 

(EU) 

adopted: 
Regulation 
No 
Regulation 
347/2013  of  the  European 
Parliament 
the 
Council of 17 April 2013359 

and  of 

and  of 

currently 

in 
(EU) 

Regulation was adopted and 
force: 
is 
Regulation 
No 
1316/2013  of  the  European 
the 
Parliament 
Council  of  11  December 
2013360 
the 
Connecting  Europe  Facility, 
amending  Regulation  (EU) 
913/2010361 
No 
and 
repealing  Regulations  (EC) 
No  680/2007362  and  (EC) 
No 67/2010363 

establishing 

359 See footnote 83 
360 Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 
361 Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 
362 Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 
363 Regulation (EC) No 67/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 

182 

 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Y 

ENV 

Biodiversity 

COM(2011)244364  on  Our 
life 
insurance,  our  natural  capital:  an  EU 
biodiversity strategy to 2020 

Complemented by  

COM(2017)  an  Action  Plan  for 
nature, people and the economy 

and 

reported 

A fitness check of the nature 
directives was carried out by 
the  Commission  in  2015-
2016, 
in 
December 2016. The fitness 
check  report  was  followed 
in  April  2017  by 
the 
publication  of  an  “Action 
Plan  for  nature,  people  and 
the economy” (COM (2017) 
198 final)365. 

N 

ENV 

Built 
environment 

Level(s)  -  Building  sustainability 
performance 

Published  -  In  testing  phase 
by  voluntary  participants 
until March 2020. 

Article 27 on evaluation undertaken by the EC. 

The 2017 Action Plan emphasises the importance of resilience 
to climate change. Its focus on addressing common challenges, 
including  cross-border  issues,  is  likely  to  involve  a  role  for 
action  on  climate  risks.  The  Action  Plan  and  accompanying 
SWD  mentions  climate  resilience  co-benefits  in  a  number  of 
places, and suggests updating guidance and other documents to 
reflect  them,  and  to  encourage  contributions  towards  climate 
objectives,  A  proposed  adaptation  strategy  to  deal  with 
potential  effects  of  invasive  species  and  climate  change  on 
fisheries in the Mediterranean is also included. 

Level(s)  is  a  voluntary  reporting  framework  that  provides  a 
common  "sustainable"  language  for  the  buildings  sector.  It 
includes  6  macro  objectives  among  which:  "Efficient  use  of 
water resources particularly in areas of continuous or seasonal 
water  stress"  and  looking  at  water  reuse  and  rainwater 
harvesting;  and  "Adaptation  and  resilience  to  climate  change" 
looking  at  health  and  thermal  comfort  under  projected  future 
climate  conditions,  increased  risk  of  extreme  weather  events 
and impacts on durability and resistance of building elements; 
and increased risk of flooding. 

364 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2011) 

0244 final  

365 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: An Action Plan 

for nature, people and the economy, COM(2017) 0198  

183 

 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Y 

ENV 

Environment 

down 

criteria 

Proposed  Commission  Decision 
laying 
and 
methodological  standards  on  good 
status  of  marine 
environmental 
and 
specifications 
and 
waters 
standardised  methods  for  monitoring 
and 
repealing 
Decision 2010/477/EU366; and  

assessment, 

and 

proposed  Commission  Directive 
amending  Directive  2008/56/EC367 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of 
the  Council  as  regards  the  indicative 
lists  of  elements  to  be  taken  into 
account for the preparation of marine 
strategies 

Commission  Decision  (EU) 
2017/848  of  17  May  2017 
laying  down  criteria  and 
methodological standards on 
good  environmental  status 
and 
of  marine  waters 
and 
specifications 
standardised  methods 
for 
monitoring  and  assessment, 
repealing  Decision 
and 
2010/477/EU In force 

Adaptation  as  such  is  not  mentioned  in  the  articles  of  the 
Directive;  however,  adaptation  to  climate  change  is  explicitly 
mentioned 
the  preamble  (whereas  clause  42)  as  a 
justification  for  a  flexible  and  adaptive  approach  to  marine 
protection  and  management  programmes,  and  for  marine 
strategies to be updated on a regular basis. 

in 

The  new  Commission  Decision  acknowledges  that  marine 
ecosystems  will  change  and  that  the  determination  of  GES 
needs  to  be  periodically  adapted  to  reflect  such  changes 
(MSFD allows this updating every 6 years): see notably Recital 
13,  and  Art.  4.1i.  The  new  MSFD  Annex  III  includes 
parameters  that  are  relevant  for  monitoring  climate  change 
effects.  The  general  focus  of  the  descriptors  and  hence  GES 
overall is on issues other than climate change, but there are two 
key issues relating to climate change: 
a) 
how  to  determine  and  assess  GES  in  a  dynamic 
ecosystem  context  (hence  the  need  to  understand  climatic 
change  in  our  seas  and  distinguish  this  from  the  more  'local' 
and  directly  manageable  effects  of  pressures  that  MSFD  can 
deal with) 
b) 
whether  achieving  GES  will  bring  a  degree  of 
resilience  to  our  oceans  (through  reducing  the  adverse  effects 
of  pollution,  deterioration  in  biodiversity  and  ecosystem 
functioning,  etc.)  that  can  help  mitigate  the  wider  effects  of 
climate change (especially ocean acidification). 

366  Commission  Decision  of  1  September  2010  on  criteria  and  methodological  standards  on  good  environmental  status  of  marine  waters  (notified  under  document  C(2010)  5956, 

2010/477/EU  

367 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/marine-strategy-framework-directive/index_en.htm  

184 

 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Y 

ENV 

Environment 

COM(2012)  628:  Proposal  for  a 
Directive of the European Parliament 
amending 
the  Council 
and  of 
Directive 
the 
on 
2011/92/EU 
assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain 
public  and  private  projects  on  the 
environment368 

Y 

ENV 

Water 
management 

Follow  up 
Blueprint 

to 

the  2012  Water 

Directive 2014/52/EU of the 
European  Parliament  and  of 
the  Council  of  16  April 
2014  amending  Directive 
2011/92/EU 
the 
assessment  of  the  effects  of 
certain  public  and  private 
the 
projects 
environment369 

on 

on 

adopted 

on 
Blueprint 
COM(2012) 
12.11.2012, 
  672,  Council 
673  and 
it 
Conclusions  endorsing 
adopted 
17.12.2012. 
on 
Blueprint  remains  relevant, 
however  the  timescale  for 
all the specific actions under 
the  Blueprint  has  elapsed 
(other  than  for  those  stated 

The  review  of  the  EIA  Directive  put  climate  change  more 
directly  in  the  assessment  requirements.  Article  3  now 
specifically refers to climate as a factor that needs to be taken 
into  consideration.  For  Annex  II  projects  “the  risk  of  major 
accidents  and/or  disasters  which  are  relevant  to  the  project 
concerned,  including  those  caused  by  climate  change,  in 
accordance  with  scientific  knowledge”  should  be  considered. 
Furthermore,  a  description  of  the  likely  significant  effects  of 
the  project  on  the  environment  resulting  from  “the  impact  of 
the  project  on  climate  (for  example  the  nature  and  magnitude 
of  greenhouse  gas  emissions)  and  the  vulnerability  of  the 
project to climate change” should be included. 
Climate  Change  adaptation  considerations  are  reflected  in 
several of the proposals of the Blueprint that were included and 
worked  upon  during  the  Work  Programmes  2013-2015  and 
2016-2018  of  the  Common  Implementation  Strategy  (CIS)  of 
the Water Framework and Floods Directives. This has included 
the  drafting  and  adoption  by  Member  States  of  a  Guidance 
document  on  Ecological  flows370,  and  a  Policy  Document  to 
promote  uptake  of  Natural  Water  Retention  Measures371,  a 
Guidance  document  on  Integrating  Water  Reuse  into  Water 
Planning  and  Management  in  the  context  of  the  Water 

368 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2011/92/EU, COM(2012) 0628 final  
369 Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014  
370 Ecological flows in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive Guidance Document No.31, Technical Report – 2015 – 086, European Commission, 2015 
371 EU policy document on Natural Water Retention Measures, Technical Report – 2014 – 082, European Commission, 2014 

185 

 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

as "ongoing"). 

Y 

ENV 

Invasive 
species 

alien 

Proposal  for  a  regulation  of  the 
European  parliament  and  of 
the 
the  prevention  and 
council  on 
management  of  the  introduction  and 
spread of invasive alien species376  

(EU) 

and  of 

Regulation 
No 
1143/2014  of  the  European 
the 
Parliament 
Council of 22 October 2014 
and 
on 
the  prevention 
management 
the 
introduction  and  spread  of 
invasive alien species377  

of 

Framework  Directive  (WFD)  Water  Reuse,  promoting  best 
practice for the reduction of leakages372, Integrating WFD in to 
the  CAP,  a  Guidance  document  on  Water  Accounts373  and 
Guidance  on  Exemptions  to  the  Environmental  Objectives 
according  to  Article  4(7)of  the  WFD374.  In  addition  a  pilot 
project to build on the knowledge base and promote the uptake 
on  NWRM  platform  has  been  set  up,  running  between  2014 
and 2015.375 
Finally, a legal proposal for “Minimum requirements for water 
reuse in the EU”  was adopted by the  Commission on 28 May 
2018. 
The regulation does not mention adaptation. 
Climate  change  appears  in  the  context  of  increased  risk  of 
invasive  alien  species.  Recital  2  indicates  that  “the  risks  such 
species  pose  may  intensify  due  to  increased  global  trade, 
transport, tourism and climate change”. Furthermore, Article 5 
requires  the  undertaking  of  a  risk  assessment  which  should 
include  “a  thorough  assessment  of  the  risk  of  introduction, 
establishment and spread in relevant biogeographical regions in 
current  conditions  and 
foreseeable  climate  change 
conditions”.  
At the same time, Article 2 specifically says that the regulation 
does not apply to “species changing their natural range without 

in 

372 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/quantity/building_blocks.htm 
373 Guidance document on the application of water balances for supporting the implementation of the WFD version 6.1, European Commission, 2015 
374 Guidance document on Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives according to Article 4(7), European Commission, 2017 
375 www.nwrm.eu 
376 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention and management of the introduction  and spread of invasive alien species, COM(2013) 

0620 final 

377 Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014  

186 

 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Y 

ENV 

Nature 
Protection 

Guidelines  on  Climate  Change  and 
Natura 2000 

Guidelines  on  Climate  Change  
and Natura 2000: Dealing with 
the  impact  of  climate  change 
on 
the 
the  management  of 
Natura  2000  Network  of  areas 
of high biodiversity value 378 

Y 

ENV 

Biodiversity 

Communication 
infrastructure 

on 

green 

from 

249: 
COM(2013) 
Communication 
the 
Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee 
the  Regions  on  Green 
of 
Infrastructure 
— 
Enhancing  Europe’s  Natural 
Capital. 
Communication 
adopted on 06/05/2013379 

(GI) 

378  Guidelines on Climate Change and Natura 2000, Technical Report – 2013 – 068, European Commission, 2013 
379  See footnote 233  

187 

intervention, 
human 
conditions and climate change”. 

in  response 

to  changing  ecological 

The whole guidance focuses on climate change and it provides 
a detailed assessment on the ways in which Natura 2000 sites 
can  offer  nature  based  solutions  to  help  in  climate 
adaptation. Furthermore, it provides detailed guidance on the 
types  of  adaptation  measures  that  are  needed  for  the 
Natura2000  sites,  which  will  remain  essential  safe  havens  for 
Europe’s  biodiversity,  strengthening  resilience  to  climate 
changes and giving nature the necessary space to adapt to new 
climatic situations.  
The link between green infrastructure (GI) and climate change 
and  disaster  risk  management  are  presented  in  a  dedicated  
chapter  within  the  Communication.  This  chapter  emphasises 
the  role  of  GI  in  climate  change  adaptation  and  it  calls  for 
greater use of ecosystem-based approaches.  

The  Communication    also  refers  to  the  EU  Adaptation 
Strategy: “The  recent  EU  Strategy on Adaptation to Climate 
Change  therefore  aims  to  explore  the  need  for  additional 
guidance  for  authorities  and  decision-makers,  civil  society, 
private  business  and  conservation  practitioners    on    ensuring  
the    full    mobilisation    of    ecosystem-based    approaches    to  
adaptation." 
in 
implementing the GI strategy has been carried out in 2017, and 

the  review  of  progress 

  A  report  on 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

N 

ENV 

EIA 

Strategic  Environmental  Assessment 
(SEA)  Directive  (Directive  2001/42 
/EC)  on  the  assessment  of  certain 
plans  and  programmes  on 
the 
environment 

Under evaluation 

N 

ENV 

EIA 

for 

integrating  climate 
Guidance 
change and biodiversity into EIA and 
SEA 

Guidelines published380 

N 

ENV 

Soil protection  Guidelines on soil sealing 

final/2) 

(SWD(2012)  101 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environ
ment/soil/sealing_guidelines
.htm) 

N 

N 

ENV 

ENV 

Urban 
environment 

European  Green  Capital 
European Green Leaf Awards 

and 

Ongoing 

Water 
management 

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the 
the 
European  Parliament  and  of 
Council  on  minimum  requirements 
for  water  reuse  was  adopted  by  the 
Commission on 28 May 2018. 

for 

Planned 
2018 
(Commission  proposal  May 
2018) 

should be published by mid-2018...  

The Directive is currently under evaluation until end 2019. The 
evaluation  will  also  examine  coherence  with  other  policies, 
including climate change adaptation and mitigation. 
An  environmental  assessment  for  plans  and  programmes 
falling  under  the  scope  of  the  SEA  Directive  should,  among 
others,  address 
the 
the 
environment, including climatic factors.   
Useful  tool  to  indicate  how  climate  change  adaptation  can  be 
included.   

likely  significant  effects  on 

European  Commission  departments  have  prepared  Guidelines 
on  best  practice  to  limit,  mitigate  or  compensate  soil  sealing  
Soil  sealing  often  affects  fertile  agricultural 
land,  puts 
biodiversity  at  risk,  increases  the  risk  of  flooding  and  water 
scarcity and contributes to global warming. 
Recognizing  the  cities'  achievements  in  green  growth  and 
environmental  sustainability,  including  adaptation  to  climate 
change. 
Climate change adaptation is one of the reasons underlying the 
promotion  of  water  reuse  and  definition  of  minimum 
requirements.  

380  Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impact Assessment, European Commission, 2013; and  Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and 

Biodiversity into Strategic Environmental Assessment, European Commission, 2013  

188 

 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Y 

ENV 

Environment 

Directive  establishing  a  framework 
for  Community  action  in  the  field  of 
water  policy 
(Water  Framework 
Directive) 2000/60/EC 

Under Fitness check 

189 

DG ENV considers that climate change Adaptation is currently 
mainstreamed in the implementation of the Directive: 
As  explained  in  the  Water  Framework  Directive  Common 
Implementation  Strategy  (CIS)  Guidance  24  on  ''River  Basin 
Management in a Changing Climate''  although climate change 
is not explicitly included in the text of the WFD, the step-wise 
and cyclical approach of the river basin management planning 
process  makes  it  well  suited  to  adaptively  manage  climate 
change  impacts.  The  above  mentioned  Guidance  illustrates 
ways  in  which  preparations  can  be  made  for  climate  change 
within  River Basin Management Planning,  including to tackle 
floods  and  droughts.  A  workshop  in  2012  focussed  on 
Groundwater  aspects  and  Climate  Change.  According  to  the 
Guidance  Document,  as  agreed  by  all  Member  States,  the  2nd 
RBMPs  which  were  due  to  be  adopted  at  the  end  of  2015 
should include climate change considerations and the designed 
Programmes  of  measures  should  be  "climate  proofed". 
Currently the EC is undertaking an assessment of these plans. 
Issues specific to flooding are primarily addressed through the 
Floods directive (see below). The review in 2012 of the Water 
Scarcity  and  Droughts  Strategy,  which  was  part  of  the 
Blueprint,  addressed  Climate  Change  and  called  for  better 
integration  of  water  scarcity  and  droughts  management  in  the 
next  cycles  of  WFD  implementation.  The  Blueprint  placed 
focus on the reduction of the vulnerability of water resource to 
different  pressures  (including  the  ones  caused  by  climate 
change)  and  put  forward  several  proposals  to  reinforce  this 
aspect in WFD implementation. These have  been followed by 
DG  ENV  and  Member  States  under  the  CIS  process  and  the 
2013-2015 and 2016-2018 Work programmes (see follow-up to 
the  Water  Blueprint  in  the  previous  section).  A  number  of 
actions aiming at efficiency in water use have been developed. 
These  include  Ecodesign  and  Eco-labelling  for  water  using 

 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

appliances  and  development  of  the  reference  document  on 
good  practices  on  leakage  management.  There  are  efforts 
undertaken  in  leading  Member  States  towards  rational  water 
management  including  implementation  of  water  pricing  based 
on  recovery  of  costs  of  water  services  and  incentives  for 
efficient  water  use.  It  has  been  done  through  discussions  and 
exchange of experiences, within CIS, on cost recovery and the 
drafting and adoption of guidance document on water accounts. 
The  aim  of  the  water  accounts  guidance  is  to  promote  a 
coherent  framework  to  cross-evaluate  the  information  on 
drivers,  pressures  and  impacts  on  water  quantity,  in  which 
climate  change  is  expected  to  have  relevant  impacts.  The 
Guidance  on  water  accounts  was  based  also  on  the  results  of 
2014 grants for building water accounts, which provided useful 
recommendations and examples at sub-basin and basin scales. 
Further works on economic, hybrid and quality accounts, might 
be  developed  in  the  future  in  the  form  of  ad  hoc  activities  or 
under other working groups’ activities 

At the same time enforcement of water pricing implementation 
and  addressing  illegal  abstraction  are  undertaken  through  ex-
ante conditionality assessment for accession to EU funding by 
Member  States.  In  addition  to  the  ex-ante  we  are  active  in 
influencing and assessing Member States' RDPs to ensure that 
they contribute positively towards climate change adaptation – 
both through the WFD agriculture working group and internal 
review  of  draft  RDPs.  Also  in  the  internal  review  of  other 
Operational Programs (Environment /Climate) for CF/ERDF in 
relation to water investments we support actions that focus on 
adaptation. Within LIFE work program the focus for the water 
priorities was placed on measures that contribute towards both 
mitigation  and  adaptation,  with  an  emphasis  on  ecosystem 
resilience. The European Innovation Partnership on Water has 

190 

 
 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

included  Flood  and  Drought  Risk  Management  as  one  of  its 
priority  areas,  with  several  Action  Groups  working  on  the 
development  of  innovative  approaches  and  solutions  to  deal 
with the effects of climate change. 

Y 

ENV 

Environment 
(water 
management) 

Directive  on 
management 
2007/60/EC 

the  assessment  and 
risks 
flood 
of 

Under Fitness check 

Climate  change  is  already  mainstreamed  in  the  directive  with 
explicit references, and is being  mainstreamed also through its 
implementation: 

The  Floods  directive  explicitly  refers  to  Climate  Change  and 
requires  that  the  Preliminary  Flood  Risk  Assessment  and  the 
Flood  Risk  Management  Plans 
(FRMPs),  which  are 
periodically  reviewed  and  if  necessary  updated,  take  into 
account the likely impacts of climate change on the occurrence 
of  floods.  It  is  also  requires  that  impacts  of  climate  change 
shall  be  taken  into  account  by  the  Commission  in  drawing 
Floods Directive Implementation reports.  

Moreover  the  framework  set  out  by  the  directive  to  manage 
flood  risks  which  is  based  on  preparedness,  prevention,  and 
protection is intrinsically an adaptation framework that aims ''at 
the  reduction  of  the  adverse  consequences  for  human  health, 
the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and  economic  activity 
associated  with  floods''  (accounting  for  the  impact  of  climate 
change on floods). 

The 1st FRMPs were due to be adopted at the end of 2015 and 
were  to  be  subsequently  reported  to  the  EC  by  end  of  March 
2016. Currently the EC is  undertaking an assessment of these 
plans. 

191 

 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

N 

ENV / DEVCO 

Sustainable 
Development 

Communication  on  the  post  2015 
Sustainable Development Goals381 

2015 work programme 

More information needed with regards to relevance to climate 
adaptation.   

N 

FISMA 

Capital Markets 
Union 

Communication COM(2018) 97 final 
-  Action  Plan 
on  Financing 
Sustainable Growth 

proposals 

Adopted 
in  March  2018, 
presenting  a  number  of 
legislative 
on 
establishing  a  taxonomy  for 
environmentally  sustainable 
objectives, 
non-financial 
reporting  including  climate 
risk 
a 
disclosure 
standard on Green Bonds. 

and 

Y 

GROW 

Eurocodes  and 
standardisation 

request 

Commission  Implementing  Decision 
of  28.5.2014  on  deciding  to  make  a 
standardisation 
the 
to 
European 
standardisation 
organisations  pursuant  to  Article  10 
(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of 
the  Council 
of 
in 
implementation  of  the  EU  Strategy 
on  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change, 
C(2014) 3451 final

support 

382

gave 

In  May  2014,  the  European 
Commission 
the 
standardisation 
European 
organisations 
a 
(ESOs) 
initiate 
to 
mandate 
activities. 
standardisation 
Detailed 
information  on 
progress  on  standardisation 
is 
the  main 
in 
report (see section 3.3.2.1). 

included 

Adaptation  to  climate  change  is  one  of  the  categories  in  the 
proposal  for  a  taxonomy.    More  specifically,  it  is  one  of  the 
first categories to be worked out, for which economic activities 
will  be  classified  by  the  extent  to  which  they  contribute  to 
adaptation as an environmentally sustainable objective.  

The European Standardisation Organisations adopted in 2016 a 
shortlist  of  13  standards  for  revision,  with  work  beginning  in 
2017. The specific activity is exclusively focused on adaptation 
needs,  and  represents  the  mainstreaming  of  adaptation  into 
standards for the areas of energy, transport, and buildings. 

N 

GROW 

Construction 

/  Strategy 

sustainable 
competitiveness  of  the  construction 

the 

for 

Communication 

adopted  Adaptation is a cross cutting issue of the Thematic Groups put 

in place for the Strategy implementation. 

381 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A New Start, 

COM(2014) 0910 final 

382 Commission Implementing Decision of 28.5.2014, C(2014) 3451 final.  

192 

 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Buildings 

sector and its Enterprises. 

COM (2012) 433 

GROW 

Construction 
Buildings 

/ 

Regulation  laying  down  harmonised 
the  marketing  of 
conditions 
construction products (EU) 305/2011 

for 

Entered into force since July 
2013 

N 

GROW 

Tourism 

Communication  “Europe, the  world's 
No  1  tourist  destination  –  a  new 
political  framework  for  tourism  in 
Europe” 

Communication 
COM (2010) 352 

adopted 

N 

GROW / ENV 

SMEs 

Communication  on  a  "Green  Action 
Plan for SMEs" 

July 

COM(2014) 440 adopted on 
2 
and 
accompanying  SWD(2014) 
213384 

2014383 

for 

for 

and 

and 

already 

insuring 

available 

financing 

empowerments 

In particular, Thematic Group 1 is looking at criteria related to 
adaptation 
infrastructure 
investments. 
Climate change Adaptation is currently mainstreamed with the 
the 
tools 
implementation of the Regulation. 
Since  the  demands  set  on  the  performance  of  construction 
products can always be adapted to climate change policy needs 
both  at  EU  and  at  national  level,  and  since  newly  developed 
aspects  within  the  framework  of  Basic  Work  Requirements 
have  enhanced  and  enlarged  the  field  of  such  adaptation,  the 
opportunities  of  implementing  these  policy  choices  are  open 
for use. 
One of the action included in the  Communication  considered 
to:  
(14) Facilitate identification by the European tourism industry 
of risks linked to climate change in order to avoid loss-making 
investments, and explore opportunities for 
developing and supplying alternative tourism services. 
Sets  out  EU  actions  that  support  SMEs  to  become  more 
resource  efficient,  foster  green  entrepreneurship,  promote 
business opportunities in circular economy and facilitate access 
to green markets 

383 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Green Action 

Plan for SMEs: Enabling SMEs to turn environmental challenges into business opportunities, COM (2014) 440  

384 Commission Staff Working Document: List of EU actions supporting SMEs in a green economy, SWD(2014) 0213 final  

193 

 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Y 

HOME 

Migration  and 
mobility 

COM(2011)743  on  The  Global 
Approach 
and 
Mobility385 

to  Migration 

the 

The 

Migration has been a highly 
active  area  of  policy  over 
the  years  since  publication 
of  the  adaptation  strategy, 
with  a  focus  on  solidarity 
among  Member  States  in 
refugee 
addressing 
crisis. 
underlying 
strategy for migration policy 
was  set  out  in  the  2015 
“A 
communication 
agenda 
European 
on 
(COM(2015) 
migration” 
  There  is  an 
240  final).
ongoing fitness check of the 
legal migration acquis. 

386

N 

RTD 

Research 

FP7/H2020 ECONADAPT  

In place 

N 

RTD 

Research 

HELIX 

Finished 

The “European agenda on  migration”  notes the importance of 
climate  as  one  of  the  root  causes  that  need  to  be  addressed, 
implying  that  action  on  climate  mitigation  and  on  support  for 
adaptation  through  external  aid  is  part  of  the  solution. 
However,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  a  systematic  linkage 
between  climate  risks,  migration  impacts,  and  Community 
action  (either  in  terms  of  preparing  for  refugee  arrivals,  or  in 
terms of focussing EU and national aid efforts). 

Climate change impacts and their relevance to human mobility 
patterns  are  integrated  in  the  ongoing  work  under  the  current 
fitness  check  of  the  legal  migration  acquis.  The  fitness  check 
should be finalized by the end of the year. 

ECONADAPT is an EC FP7 research project whose purpose is 
to support adaptation planning through building the knowledge 
base  on  the  economics  of  adaptation  to  climate  change  and 
converting this into practical information for decision makers.  
Assisting  decision-makers  and  the  research  community  in 
making  adaptation  more  understandable  and  manageable  by 
providing a set of credible, coherent, global and regional views 
of different worlds at 2, 4 and 6°C,  and now 1.5°C. 

385  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  The  Global 

Approach to Migration and Mobility, COM(2011) 0743 final.   

386  Opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  the  'Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and 

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A European Agenda on Migration' (COM(2015) 240 final) 

194 

 
 
                                                 
In 
EU 
AS 

N 

N 

Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

RTD 

RTD 

Research 

COACCH 

Ongoing 

Public Health 

Draft  Communication  on  Improving 
Health Security in the EU 

Under development 

COACCH  aims  to  advance  a  knowledge  on  climate  change 
impacts and policy directly usable by stakeholder communities. 
CLIMA has proposed to include actions on vector management 
and on solutions to integrate climate data with epidemiological 
surveillance 

A  One  Health 
counteracting 
the 
infectious diseases 

approach 
threat 

to 
from 

MARE 

Maritime 

REGULATION  (EU)  No  1380/2013 
(Common Fisheries Policy)387 

Adopted in 2013 

N 

MARE 

Maritime policy  Marine knowledge 2020388 

Ongoing. 

The CFP focuses on sustainable use of resources and it should 
respect  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  take  a  long-term 
approach and apply the precautionary principle. 
Mainstreaming  includes  using  Copernicus  Climate  Change 
services  for  adaptation  of  businesses  that  depend  on  marine 
resources  to  climate  change,  and  a  case  study  on  coastal 
erosion.   

N 

MARE / ENV 

Employment 

for  a  European 
Communication 
Strategy for more growth and jobs in 
Coastal and Maritime Tourism389 

Adopted February 2014 

More information needed with regards to relevance to climate 
adaptation.   

Y 

MARE / ENV 

Maritime 
spatial  planning 
and 
integrated 
coastal 

2014/89/EU 

Directive 
European  Parliament  and  of 
Council 

the 
the 
2014390 

July 

23 

of 

of 

In force 

“Through their maritime spatial plans, Member States shall aim 
to contribute to the sustainable development of energy sectors 
at  sea,  of  maritime  transport,  and  of  the  fisheries  and 
aquaculture  sectors,  and  to  the  preservation,  protection  and 

387 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R1380  
388 https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/marine_knowledge_2020_en  
389  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  A  European 

Strategy for more Growth and Jobs in Coastal and Maritime Tourism, COM(2014) 086 final 

390 Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning  

195 

 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

management 

establishing 
maritime spatial planning 

a 

framework 

for 

improvement  of  the  environment,  including  resilience  to 
climate change impacts.” (Article 5) 

Y 

MOVE 

Energy 
Transport 

& 

TEN-T  Guidelines  (Regulation  (EU) 
No 1315/2013 

Guidelines adopted 

During  infrastructure  planning,  Member  States  shall  give  due 
consideration to improving resilience to climate change and to 
environmental disasters. 

N 

MOVE 

Transport 
networks 

EU-led  governance of  Core  Network 
Corridors (CNCs) 

Y 

MOVE 

Transport 

Regulation  was  adopted  and 
is 
currently  in  force:  Regulation  (EU) 
No  1315/2013  of 
the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11 
2013391 
December 
on  Union 
guidelines for the development of the 
trans-European transport network and 
repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU 

Y 

REGIO 

Regional 
development 

The European Union Strategy for the 
Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR)  

analyses 

are 
Specific 
currently  being  performed 
for  each  CNC  (due  by  the 
end of 2017). 

In force 

EU-led  governance  of  Core  Network  Corridors  (CNCs)  are 
proactively paying attention to implications of climate  change 
on CNCs, as well as the need for adaptation.  

Article 5 indicates that the TEN-T network should be resource-
efficient  via  the  “adequate  consideration  of  the  vulnerability 
of transport infrastructure with regard to a changing climate 
as  well  as  natural  or  man-made  disasters,  with  a  view  to 
addressing  those  challenges.  Furthermore,  Article  34  requires 
that  “during infrastructure  planning, Member States shall  give 
due  consideration  to  improving  resilience  to  climate  change 
and to environmental disasters. 

Communications 
concerning 
Union  Strategy 
Baltic Sea Region:  

the  European 
the 
for 

10.6.2009 

-  COM(2009) 

Climate  change  is  in  focus  of  the  strategy  Horizontal  Action 
Climate.  HA  Climate  covers  mitigation  and  adaptation  and 
ensures  that  the  transnational  cooperation  between  the  Baltic 
Sea countries on climate issues is continuously prioritised and 
that major stakeholders are engaged in the policy debate.  

391 Regulation (EU) No 1315 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 

196 

 
 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

248 final;  

23.03.2012  -  COM(2012) 
128 final 

Y 

REGIO 

Regional 
development 

The European Union Strategy for the 
Danube Region (EUSDR) 

European 

Communication  concerning 
the 
Union 
the  Danube 
Strategy  for 
Region  

The  climate  adaptation  aspects  of  the  strategy  are  addressed 
under  the  environmental  heading  (priority  area  5),  with  a 
reference to the need for “Preventive and disaster management 
measures  implemented  jointly”.  Cooperation  in  the  areas  of 
Green  Infrastructure  and  application  of  long-term,  ecosystem-
based solutions is also promoted by the Strategy. 

N 

REGIO 

Regional 
development 

The European Union Strategy for the 
Adriatic 
Region 
(EUSAIR) 

Ionian 

and 

N 

REGIO 

Regional 
development 

The European Union Strategy for the 
Alpine Region (EUSALP)  

N 

REGIO 

Regional 
development 

The  four  European  Union  Macro 
Regional Strategies  

European 

Communication  concerning 
the 
Union 
Strategy for the Adriatic and 
Ionian  Region  –  17.06.2014 
– COM(2014) 357 final  

Communication  concerning 
the 
Union 
European 
the  Alpine 
for 
Strategy 
Region  –  28.07.2015 
- 
COM(2015) 366 final  

concerning 

the 
Report 
of  macro-
governance 
regional 
- 
20.05.2014  -  COM(2014) 
284 final  

strategies 

Climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation  as  well  as  disaster 
risk management are horizontal principles for all four pillars. 

Climate change and risk prevention is one of the core priorities 
of the strategy. Action 8 focuses on risk management and 
climate change adaptation. 

Commission has issued several reports concerning all the four 
EU macro regional strategies. In the last implementation report 
(2016) climate change was mentioned as one of the areas 
where macro-regional cooperation adds value. 

197 

 
 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

concerning 

the 
Report 
added  value  of  macro-
regional 
- 
27.06.2013  -  COM(2013) 
468 final 

strategies 

on 

the 
Report 
implementation 
EU 
macro-regional  strategies  - 
16.12.2016  -  COM(2016) 
805 final pdf 

of 

Y 

REGIO 

Regional 
development  & 
Cohesion 
policy 

'Common  Provisions  Regulation'  on 
and 
the 
Investment Funds 

Structural 

European 

Regulation 
1303/2013

392

(EU) 

No 

- Recalls the ambition to devote at least 20 % of the budget of 
the Union to climate change objectives; 
- Climate change mitigation and adaptation are part of the 
horizontal principle of sustainable development observed by 
each Programme; 
- Introduces a methodology for gathering information on the 
support for climate change objectives; 
-  Establishes  11  'Thematic  Objectives'  for  the  intervention  of 
ESIF  –  where  TO5  is  dedicated  to  'promoting  climate  change 
adaptation, risk prevention and management' 
-  Climate  adaptation  co-benefits  from  measures  such  as 
improved energy efficiency 
-  Pre-conditions  for  funding  (ex-ante  conditionalities)  also 
relevant. 
- Includes legal requirements on the climate proofing of major 
projects (investments in infrastructure of above EUR 50 or 75 
million EU support)) 

392 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, COM (2011) 615  

198 

 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

N 

REGIO 

Y 

REGIO 

Regional 
development  & 
Cohesion 
policy 

Territorial 
Cohesion 
Urban 
development  

& 

Implementing Regulation 

Implementing  Regulation 
(EU) No 215/2014393 

-  Fund  specific  regulations  for  ERDF,  CF  and  ETC  includes 
investment priorities relevant to adaptation 
- assessment (Application form) for major projects;  
- Methodology for carrying out cost-benefit analyses for major 
projects. 
- Presents the methodology for tracking the financial support 
for climate change objectives (mitigation and adaptation); 
- Presents specific 'investment fields' for adaptation actions. 
Provisions on climate change adaptation included in the:  
-  

The Urban Agenda for the EU 

from 

Report 
the 
Commission  to  the  Council 
on the Urban Agenda for the 
EU 
-
COM(2017) 657 final 

12.11.2017 

– 

The  Pact  of  Amsterdam  establishes  an  overarching  Urban 
Agenda  for  the  EU  and  was  agreed  by  EU  Ministers 
responsible  for  Urban  Matters  on  30  May  2016.  Climate 
adaptation, including green infrastructure solutions, are one of 
its  priority  themes.  A  Partnership  on  Climate  Adaptation  was 
been launched in 2017 offering a unique opportunity for local 
authorities,  Member  States,  European  Commission  and  other 
to  deliver  concrete 
EU  organisations 
improvements on the ground  (through better regulation, better 
funding  and  better  knowledge).  This  framework  offers 
opportunities to advance  urban adaptation action in Europe as 
well  as  mainstream  and  align  adaptation  action  with  other 
Urban  Agenda  Partnerships,  such  as  Sustainable  use  of  land 
and Nature-Based solutions, Circular Economy, Air quality and 
Energy  transition.  The  Action  Plan  on  climate  adaptation  is 
currently  under  development  by  the  CA  Partnership  and  is 
planned to be adopted by the end 2018. 

to  work 

together 

393 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 215/2014 of 7 March 2014 laying down rules for implementing Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 

199 

 
 
                                                 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Y 

REGIO 

N 

REGIO 

N 

REGIO   

N 

REGIO   

Territorial 
Cohesion 
Urban 
development 

& 

Regional 
development  & 
Cohesion 
policy 

Regional 
development  & 
Cohesion 
policy 

Regional 
development  & 
Cohesion 
policy 

N 

SANTE 

Health 

Urban Innovative Action 

On-going 

A  stronger  and  renewed  strategic 
partnership  with  the  EU's  outermost 
regions COM(2017) 623 final 

Adopted 

RegioStars awards 

On-going 

European  Week  of  Regions  and 
Cities 

On-going 

Adopted 

Regulation  (EU)  2016/429  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of 
the 
Council  of  9  March  2016  on 
transmissible  animal  diseases  and 
amending  and  repealing  certain  acts 
in the area of animal health (‘Animal 
Health Law’) 

200 

UIA  is  an  EU  initiative  funded  by  ERDF,  aiming  at  testing 
innovative  solutions  at  urban  scale.  The  objective  is  to 
capitalise  and  disseminate  knowledge  to  the  benefits  of  EU 
cities.  The  3rd  call  of  UIA,  launched  in  October  2017,  covers 
the topic of “adaptation to climate change”. 

A  number of actions are assigned to DG  CLIMA and have  to 
do  with  the  promotion  of  adaptation  in  outermost  regions, 
including  LIFE  support  and  the  commitment  to  include 
outermost  regions  in  any  new  or  updated  EU  strategy  for 
adaptation. 

identify  good  practices 

RegioStars  Awards 
in  regional 
development and highlight original and innovative projects that 
are attractive and inspiring to other regions. There are different 
award categories each year with climate being often of them, 

Annually  organised  week  at  which  regional  and  urban 
representatives  from  across  Europe  are  sharing  views  and 
approaches  on  how  to  best  support  smart,  sustainable  and 
inclusive  growth  in  Europe  with 
investments  from  EU 
cohesion policy. 

The  regulation  requires  taking  into  account  the  link  between 
animal health and climate change, i.e. that climate change may 
influence  the  emergence  of  new  diseases,  the  prevalence  of 
existing  diseases  and  the  geographic  distribution  of  disease 
agents and vectors, including those affecting wildlife. 

 
Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

To what extent adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

In 
EU 
AS 

Y 

SANTE 

Plant Health 

of 

COM(2013)  267:    Proposal  for  a 
Regulation 
European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on 
protective  measures  against  pests  of 
plans394 

the 

Recital  4  notes  that  “plant  health  is  threatened  by  species 
injurious  to  plants  and  plant  products  which  now  present  a 
greater risk of being introduced into the Union territory owing 
to globalisation of trade and climate change”. 

(EU) 
(EU) 

Regulation  (EU)  2016/2031 
of  the  European  Parliament 
of 
the  Council  of  26 
October  2016  on  protective 
measures  against  pests  of 
amending 
plants, 
No 
Regulations 
228/2013, 
No 
652/2014  and 
(EU)  No 
1143/2014  of  the  European 
Parliament 
the 
repealing 
Council 
Council 
Directives 
69/464/EEC,  74/647/EEC, 
98/57/EC, 
93/85/EEC, 
2000/29/EC, 
2006/91/EC 
and 2007/33/EC 

and  of 

and 

Table XI-2. COM legislative proposals currently with European Parliament and Council 

In 
Strategy 

N 

Lead DG 

Policy Area 

Title of initiative 

Status 

Level to which adaptation is mainstreamed in the initiative 

Budget 

MFF 2021-2027 

<<<to  be  completed  based 
on  legal  proposals  2021-

394 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on protective measures against pests of plants, COM(2013) 0267 final  

201 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
N 

AGRI 

Agriculture 

Review  of  political  and 
legal 
for 
framework 
organic production 

Impact assessment finalised. 
proposal 
Commission 
in  March  2014, 
adopted 
now in co-decision. 

The  proposal  aims  to  bring  more  harmonisation  and  build  a 
level  playing  field  for  organic  producers.  The  strengthening 
and  harmonisation  of  production  rules  may  have  a  positive 
effect on adaptation to climate change. 

2027) 

N 

CLIMA / ENER 

Energy and climate   Energy Union Governance  Agreement 

reached 

in 

trilogues. 

N 

EEAS 

Arctic policy 

JOIN(2016) 21 final April 
2016 
integrated 
European Union policy for 
the Arctic 

An 

Currently  under  discussion 
in European Parliament 

The  proposed  Regulation  on  the  Governance  of  the  Energy 
Union  includes  provisions  on  adaptation  consistent  with 
obligations  under  the  Paris  Agreement,  notably  by  including 
adaptation  goals  in  the  future  National  Energy  and  Climate 
Plans  and  through  more  precise  reporting  requirements  for 
Member States. 

As climate change is a circumpolar challenge, the EU is ready 
to work with the Arctic states, indigenous peoples and relevant 
Arctic  regional  and  multilateral  fora  to  share  experience, 
impacts, 
expertise  and 
adaptation  and  resilience,  with  a  view  to  developing  an 
ambitious climate adaptation agenda for the Arctic region.  

information  on  climate  change, 

N 

ENER 

Energy 

Proposal  for  a  regulation 
COM(2016)862395  on  risk 
the 
preparedness 
and 
electricity 
repealing 
Directive 
2005/89/EC396.  

in 
sector 

Part  of  the  Clean  Energy 
Package;  Council  adopted  a 
general 
in 
December  2017 

approach 

The  regulation  includes  preparedness  of  the  electricity  sector 
for  extreme  weather  events,  listing  this  in  Recitals  2  and  13 
and including it in Article 5 on establishing a methodology for 
crisis scenarios in the electricity sector. 

N 

FISMA 

Capital 
Requirements 

Capital 
Regulation 

Requirements 
(EU)  No 

Under revision 

Includes  long  term  financing  in  critical  infrastructure.  The 
revision  means  to  increase  long-termism  in  EU  prudential 

395 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on risk-preparedness in the electricity sector and repealing Directive 2005/89/EC, COM(2016) 862 final  
396  Directive  2005/89/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  January  2006  concerning  measures  to  safeguard  security  of  electricity  supply  and  infrastructure 

investment 

202 

 
                                                 
575/2013 

requirements for investors. 

N 

FISMA 

N 

FISMA 

Markets 

Capital 
Union/Sustainable 
Finance 

Markets 

Capital 
Union/Sustainable 
Finance 

Proposal for a regulation - 
COM(2018)353/978670 
on  the  establishment  of  a 
framework 
facilitate 
to 
sustainable investment 

Proposal  for  a  regulation 
on  disclosures  relating  to 
investments 
sustainable 
and 
risks 
sustainability 
and  amending  Directive 
(EU) 2016/2341 

by 

Proposed 
the 
Commission  on  24  May 
2018 

Includes an article on adaptation as an environmental objective 
in  the  context  of  environmentally  sustainable  economic 
activities 

Includes  adaptation  as  one  of  the  elements  of  non-financial 
disclosure  obligations 
sustainable 
investments. 

the  context  of 

in 

by 

the 
Proposed 
Commission  on  24  May 
2018 

203 

 
 
 
Annex XII  Assessment of the quality of the evidence gathered 

in the evaluation support study 

Notes below the table  explain the basis for the description of the extent of evidence as 
high, medium or low for each type of evidence. The extent seeks to summarise both the 
coverage of the evidence and its depth. 

Extent  of  each  type  of  evidence  for  assessment  of  each  evaluation  question,  in 
approximate order of data gathering 

EQ1 

EQ2i 

EQ3j 

EQ4 

EQ5 

EQ6 

EQ7 

EQ8 

EQ9  EQ10 

Literature reviewa 

H 

(L) 

(H) 

H 

First stakeholder 
workshopb 

L 

(M) 

M 

Targeted stakeholder 
surveyc 

M 

(L) 

(H) 

Stakeholder interviewsd 

H 

(L) 

(H) 

Second stakeholder 
workshope 

L 

(H) 

L 

L 

L 

(L) 

M 

(L) 

0 

L 

L 

0 

H 

M 

L 

L 

M 

M 

(L) 

H 

M 

H 

M 

H 

H 

H 

L 

H 

H 

(H) 

L 

H 

M 

H 

H 

L 

L 

H 

H 

(H) 

(M) 

M 

L 

(H) 

H 

0 

Interactive exercise with 
Working Group 6f 

Case studiesg 

Open public 
consultationh 

Notes: 

a.  H, Coverage of 7 or more actions; M, coverage of 6 or more actions but limited 

information in literature examined; L, coverage of fewer than 6 actions 

b.  H, 20 or more questions; M, 10-20 questions; L, fewer than 10 questions; 0, no 

questions 

c.  Key: H, 20 or more questions; M, 10-20 questions; L, fewer than 10 questions 
d.  Key: M, addressed 2-4 actions; L, addressed 1 action. 
e.  A major focus of the second stakeholder workshop was on draft recommendations 
from the evaluation and a high level of evidence was collected on these. Key for 
evidence related to evaluation questions: H, over 10 inputs; M, 5-9 inputs; L, 1-4 
inputs.  

f.  This brief exercise was carried out with Member State experts participating in a 
meeting of Working Group 6 on Adaptation of the Climate Change Committee  on 
24  January  2018.  The  experts  were  asked  to  vote  for  which  of  the  draft 
conclusions  in  relation  to  Evaluation  Question  4,  5  and  10  they  considered  the 
most pertinent. 

g.  Case studies relate to EQ4, EQ5 and EQ9  

204 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
h.  Key:  H,  3  or  more  questions  relate  to  the  EQ;  M,  2  questions;  L,  1  question 

relates to EQ 

i.  Assessment of EQ2 was informed by the same inputs as EQ1.  
j.  Assessment of EQ3 is informed by the inputs to EQ4 

Evidence gathering started with the literature survey and this provided limited evidence 
for assessment of Evaluation Questions 2, 5, 6 and 8. 

The  first  stakeholder  workshop  provided  valuable  evidence  in  relation  to  the  topics 
covered.  However,  it  generally  covered  one  action  for  the  evaluation  questions 
considered, so the extent of evidence was generally low. 

The  targeted  stakeholder  survey  provided  a  moderate  or  high  extent  of  evidence  for 
Evaluation Questions 1, 3, 4 and 9. No questions were included on efficiency, and there 
was limited evidence for Evaluation Questions 2, 5, 6 and 10. 

The stakeholder interviews were a substantial source of evidence, except for Evaluation 
Questions 2 and 6. 

The  second  stakeholder  workshop  considered  draft  recommendations 
in  detail. 
Contributions  from  the  stakeholder  panel  and  from  the  floor,  provided  additional 
evidence on Evaluation  Questions 1, 9, 10  and particularly 4 and 5. A brief interactive 
exercise  with  members  of  Working  Group  6  provided  some  limited  evidence  on 
Evaluation Question 4, 5 and 10. 

Case studies  were chosen to  illustrate key points arising  from  the  evaluation  questions. 
They were developed to enhance and support the key conclusions and recommendations 
for the report where the evidence is currently less strong and would benefit from further 
illustration 

The open public consultation had 385 respondents, of which 217 were private individuals 
and  168  other  stakeholders.  One  section  of  the  consultation  addressed  general 
conclusions  related  to  draft  recommendations.  In  a  section  on  specific  and  technical 
conclusions, there were three or more questions relating to each of Evaluation Questions 
1,  7,  9  and  10.  In  particular,  there  were  sufficient  stakeholder  responses  to  consider 
responses  by  stakeholder  type  where  appropriate,  providing  evidence  for  Evaluation 
Questions 2 and 6.  

The  greatest  data  limitation  was  with  the  data  from  the  targeted  stakeholder  survey. 
Although the combined response from 60 participants allows consideration of most of the 
evaluation questions in detail, it does not permit partitioning of responses by stakeholder 
groups, as required for Evaluation Questions 2 and 6. There were 34 interviews in total, 
which  were  not  intended  to  permit  detailed  assessment  of  evaluation  questions  by 
stakeholder  type.  Responses  to  the  open  public  consultation  have  addressed  this 
limitation in relation to EQ2 but the nature of responses does not enable provision of a 
response to EQ6. 

205 

 
 
 
 
Annex XIII  Economic costs of climate change 

Introduction 

Anticipating  the  potential  impacts  of  climate  change  and  in  which  sectors  they  will  be 
more important, is central to planning appropriate policy responses.  

Unabated  climate  change  will  lead  to  economic  costs,  often  known  as  the  ‘costs  of 
inaction’. A key issue for economic analysis – and especially macro-economic analysis - 
is the need to use consistent and harmonised socio-economic scenarios when modelling.  
There are several possible combinations of mitigation and socio-economic scenarios used 
by  different  models,  which  explains  the  different  timelines,  scopes  and  warming  levels 
mentioned below. 

Economic costs in general 

Globally, recent studies indicate that the economic costs of climate change may be high, 
even  with  modest  climate  change.397  The  costs  may  rise  significantly  with  greater 
warming; unmitigated warming can reduce average global incomes roughly 23% by 2100 
and enlarge global income inequality, relative to a scenario without climate change.398  

Looking at the past, a recent EEA study concludes that the total reported economic losses 
caused by weather and climate-related extremes in the EEA member countries over the 
period 1980-2016 was over EUR 433 billion399.  

For  the  EU,  estimations  for  the  future  have  recently  been  made  by  the  JRC  under  the 
PESETA III project.  

The JRC PESETA III project estimates impacts from climate change for 11 sectors in the 
EU,  analysing,  for  most  of  the  sectoral  studies,  a  high  warming  scenario  and  a  2°C 
warming scenario.  

For  6  of  those  impact  categories  (residential  energy  demand,  coastal  floods,  inland 
floods, labour productivity, agriculture and heat-related mortality) the potential impact on 
welfare  (expressed  as  consumption)  has  been  assessed.  The  impacts  simulated  are 
associated to climate change that would occur by the end of the century assuming a high 
warming scenario. The overall welfare loss represents 1.9% of GDP400. 

397 ECONADAPT: 'The Economics of Climate Change Adaptation'; CIRCLE 2 http://econadapt.eu/  
398 Burke et al. 2015, Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production.  Nature 527: 235–
239,  doi:10.1038/nature15725.  See  also  Burke  et  al.  2018,  Large  potential  reduction  in  economic 
damages under UN mitigation targets Nature 557: 549–553, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0071-9. 

399  EEA  Report  No  15/2017,  “Climate  change  adaptation  and  disaster  risk  reduction  in  Europe”  (2017), 
updated  in  2018  as  part  of  the  EEA  indicator  on  'Impacts  of  extreme  weather  and  climate  related 
events  in  the  EEA  member  countries'.  Based  on  NatCatSERVICE  data  received  under  institutional 
arrangements. 

400  The  JRC  PESETA  economic  assessment  is  based  on  simulating  what  would  be  the  impact  of  future 

climate change occurring on today's economy. 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
As  the  coverage  of  potential  impacts  is  largely  incomplete,  the  damage  estimate  is  of 
course  not  equal  to  the  total  economic  costs  of  climate  change.  These  are  likely  to  be 
significantly higher.  

In  this  context,  it  should  also  be  noted  that  estimating  the  costs  of  all  climate  impacts 
remains very challenging. It is difficult to capture, for example: 

  Biophysical  impacts  without  a  monetary  valuation,  e.g.  the  effects  of  climate 

change in ecosystems services. 

  The damages due to possible climate tipping points. 
  The impact on the EU economy of impacts of climate change occurring in third 

countries (transboundary effects), including issues such as migration.  

JRC  PESETA  III  does  look  at  some  transboundary  effects.  It  estimates  the  additional 
welfare  impact  in  the  EU  associated  to  changes  in  trade  flows  due  to  climate  impacts 
occurring  in  third  countries  for  four  impact  areas  (residential  energy  demand,  river 
flooding, labour productivity and agriculture). The transboundary effect was estimated to 
increase the EU welfare loss by 20%. 

JRC  PESETA  III  also  finds  that  there  is  a  clear  North-South  divide  in  the  regional 
distribution of climate impacts across the EU, hidden behind the results for the whole of 
Europe.  This  is  evident  in  the  effects  on  heat-related  human  mortality,  labour 
productivity,  water  resources,  habitat  loss,  energy  demand  for  cooling  and  forest  fires. 
The Mediterranean area appears to be the most vulnerable to climate change. 

Below  a  more  detailed  overview  is  given  of  the  estimated  impacts,  without  adaptation 
policies, in all 11 PESETA III sectors.  

1. Coastal areas 

By 2100 annual damages could reach up to €961 billion and annual population affected 
could  be up to  3.65 million  people under a high warming scenario and socio-economic 
change.401 

2. River floods 

Nowadays, average annual flood damage amounts to €5.3 billion. By 2100, annual flood 
damage could rise up to €112 billion under a high warming scenario and corresponding 
socio-economic scenario.  

3. Droughts 

Even  under  2°C  warming,  Mediterranean  regions  will  experience  a  strong  reduction  in 
soil moisture, while North and East Europe show a future increase in soil humidity. The 
projected  patterns  of  change  in  soil  drought  hazard  are  actually  a  continuation  of  the 
drying and wetting trends observed across Europe over the past 50 years: more droughts 
in the west of the Mediterranean region and less droughts in Central and Eastern Europe. 

401  Vousdoukas  et  al.  2018,  Climatic  and  socioeconomic  controls  of  future  coastal  flood  risk  in  Europe. 

Nature Climate Change 8: 776–780, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0260-4 

207 

 
 
 
                                                 
4. Agriculture  

Even  under  2°C  warming,  irrigated  crop  yield  declines  for  most  crops  and  regions  in 
Europe, in large part due to a shortening of the growing season. Yield changes for rain-
fed crops depend on regional water availability and crop-specific water requirements.  

5. Energy  

By  the  end  of  century,  under  a  high  warming  scenario,  residential  energy  demand  for 
heating and cooling is projected to decline by 27%. However, this positive EU average 
result hides strong differences between EU Member States. 

6. Transport infrastructure 

By  the  end  of  the  century,  under  a  high  warming  scenario,  about  200  airports  and  850 
seaports of different  size across the EU could  face the risk of inundation due to  higher 
sea  levels  and  extreme  weather  events.  Especially  countries  by  the  North  Sea  have  the 
greatest number of airports at risk of coastal flooding that exceeds 1m.  

7. Water resources 

Under  2°C  warming,  annual  median  river  flows  are  projected  to  increase  in  most  of 
Europe, except  for the  Mediterranean, where a  decrease in  flow is  projected in  all four 
seasons.  Southern  European  countries  are  projected  to  face  increased  water  shortages. 
For  many  countries  in  Central  Europe,  the  projections  indicate  a  reduced  reliance  on 
upstream inflow to meet local water demands.  

8. Habitat loss in the Mediterranean  

Under  a  high  warming  scenario,  16%  of  the  present  Mediterranean  climate  zone  may 
become arid by the end of the century: an area equivalent to around half of Italy.  

9. Forest fires 

Mediterranean  soils  become  drier,  particularly  under  a  high  warming  scenario.  Areas 
exhibiting  low  soil  moisture  extend  further  northwards  from  the  Mediterranean  than 
nowadays. The present area of high moisture surrounding the Alps decreases in size with 
climate  change.  The  danger  of  forest  fires  increases  with  climate  change  around  the 
Mediterranean,  with  Spain,  Portugal  and  Turkey  being  the  three  countries  with  the 
highest danger risk. 

10. Labour productivity 

Under the high warming scenario, by the end of the century daily average outdoor labour 
productivity could decline by around 10-15% from present-day levels in several Southern 
European countries. Countries in northern Europe could also see some smaller declines in 
daily average outdoor labour productivity. 

11. Heat-related mortality 

Climate  change-attributable  impacts  on  heat-related  mortality  are  also  studied  under 
PESETA III, under a high warming scenario. EU annual mortality could largely increase 

208 

 
by  the  end  of  the  century,  reaching  132,000  additional  deaths/year,  with  most  of  the 
increase occurring in the Southern regions 402.  

402 Forzieri G, Cescatti  A, Batista e Silva  F, Feyen  L 2017.  Increasing risk over time of  weather-related 
hazards  to  the  European  population:  a  data-driven  prognostic  study.  The  Lancet  Planetary  Health  5 
(e200-e208). 

209 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex XIV  Case studies 

Four  case  studies  were  developed  in  the  evaluation  support  study403  to  enhance  and 
support the key conclusions and recommendations for the final report of the study. 

Each case study was supported by a targeted literature review and up to 3 interviews with 
key stakeholders.  

The format of each case study was tailored to its specific demands rather than adhering to 
a strict template. 

As  they  constitute  valuable  evidence  for  the  purposes  of  the  evaluation  SWD,  they  are 
reproduced in full in this Annex. 

The case studies address: 

1.  Fire preparedness 
2.  Impacts  of  climate  change  of  neighbouring  countries  and  implications  for  EU 

trade 

3.  The  Danube  Macro-regional  strategy  and  its  contribution  to  action  at  Member 

State level  

4.  Adaptation of infrastructure in the energy sector. 

403 See footnote 4. 

210 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Case Study 1 

Fire preparedness and the impact of climate change 

Context and the EU response 

The purpose of this case study is to support the wider evaluation of the EU Adaptation 
Strategy  by  providing  evidence  about  forest  fire  preparedness  and  coherence  with 
adaptation at an EU level and in Member States.  

The  issue  of  forest  fire  preparedness  in  response  to  climate  change  has  received  EU 
attention for many years. It was the focus of an EU-wide workshop in 2010, convened by 
Forest Europe (the brand name of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests 
in Europe, which is the pan-European voluntary high-level political process for dialogue 
and  cooperation  on  forest  policies  in  Europe).  The  workshop  sought  to:  review  current 
national  forest  fire  prevention  systems;  identify  innovative  strategies,  best  available 
practices  and  possible  policy  instruments;  and  develop  policy  conclusions  and 
recommendations  for  the  EU.404  Deliberations  within  the  framework  of  Forest  Europe 
eventually  culminated  in  the  establishment  of  a  Forest  Europe  Expert  Group  on 
Adaptation  to  Climate  Change  in  2017.  Consideration  of  forest  fire  preparedness  in 
relation  to  climate  change  adaptation  planning  has  progressed  since  this  workshop  at 
national, regional and EU levels. 

The  EU  Adaptation  Strategy  recognises  the  importance  of  ensuring  a  coherent  and 
coordinated approach to the impacts of climate change at local, regional, national and EU 
levels. In particular, the Strategy acknowledges that more needs to be done to strengthen 
preparedness  for  natural  and  man-made  hazards,  and  ensure  disaster  risk  reduction  and 
climate change adaptation are better aligned and integrated into planning. The evaluation 
of  the  Strategy  has  identified  that,  currently,  both  policy  areas  are  sometimes 
mainstreamed  in  parallel  into  key  EU  policies  and  strategies  rather  than  in  consort. 
However,  with  specific  reference  to  forest  fires,  the  EU  LIFE  Climate  Action  sub-
programme  has  funded  a  number  of  projects  that  aim  to  address  fire  preparedness  and 
climate  change  adaptation,  including  in  relation  to  cross-border  forest  fires.  A  list  of 
these  projects  and  further  details  can  be  viewed  by  visiting  the  LIFE  projects  online 
database,  selecting  “Themes”,  “Risk  management”  and  “Natural  risks  –  Flood,  Forest 
fire, Landslide” 405.  

Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and the Mediterranean region of France account for around 
85% of the total burnt area in Europe each year.406 For many countries within the EU, the 
likely impact of climate change on the severity/frequency of forest fires will be of great 
importance, based on current trends and projections. It is becoming ever more a reality, 
as noted in the most recent EEA report on climate change impacts in Europe.407 In 2017, 
it  was  reported  that  the  number  of  wild  fires  in  forests  across  Europe  had  more  than 
doubled compared to the previous year. These were severe across southern Europe, with 
Portugal experiencing the most intense forest fires in October last year408. Up-to-date and 

404 Forest Europe, 2010, Assessment of Forest Fire Risks and Innovative Strategies for Fire Prevention, 4–6 

May 2010 Rhodes, Greece, Workshop Report. 

405 A selection of LIFE projects funded since 2014 that address forest fires across the EU can be viewed 

here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm 

406 Forest Fires in Europe, Middle East and North Africa 2016, European Commission, 2017. 
407 See footnote 113 
408 http://www.euronews.com/2017/10/16/how-europe-s-wildfires-have-more-than-trebled-in-2017  

211 

 
                                                 
comparable  data  across  Europe  is  maintained  by  the  European  Forest  fire  Information 
System (EFFIS)409.  

The  JRC  PESETA  II  study410  estimated  that  the  burnt  area  of  southern  Europe  would 
more  than  double  with  climate  change.411  Other  researchers  have  concluded  the  same 
using  current  models  (SREX  A2),  as  noted  in  EEA’s  report.412  They  also  cited  recent 
findings  that  suggest  a  warmer  climate  across  Europe  will  lead  to  a  greater  area 
becoming fire-prone with longer fire seasons. Specifically, the impact of fire events may 
be strongest in southern Europe.413  

A follow-up JRC PESETA  III  study identified that  the three countries  with  the highest 
fire risk are Spain, Portugal and Turkey; with Greece, part of central and southern Italy, 
Mediterranean  France,  and  the  coastal  region  of  the  Balkans  also  being  in  increasing 
danger both in relative and absolute terms414. A detailed mapping of wildfire risks by the 
University  of  Leicester  (2016)  found  Catalonia,  Madrid  and  Valencia  are  among  those 
cities/regions that are most at risk415. EFFIS supports Member States’ services in charge 
of  forest  protection  against  fires  and  provides  Commission  Services  and  the  European 
Parliament with updated and reliable information on wildland fires in Europe416. 

Countries need to address forest fire preparedness by planning and implementing actions 
to  reduce  climate  vulnerability  and  increase  adaptive  capacities.  Research  suggests  that 
forest  fire  risks  could  be  substantially  reduced  if  further  adaptation  measures  are 
introduced,  including  silvicultural  management  to  increase  the  structural  diversity  of 
plantations and simplified forest  ecosystems,  prescribed burning and use of fire breaks, 
and behavioural changes.417  

Feedback from consultees 

Representatives  from  a  national  authority  in  Spain  and  from  the  Provincial  Council  of 
Barcelona,  Catalonia  provided  input  to  this  case  study.  In  addition  to  describing  the 
overall  approach  to  forest  fire  preparedness  and  climate  change  adaptation  in  the 
Province, the latter also referred to the LIFE Montserrat project (described below), as an 
example of best practice. 

409 http://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
410 Projection of economic impacts of climate change in sectors of the European Union based on bottom-up 

analysis, see https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/peseta  

411 Climate impacts in Europe: The JRC PESETA II Project, European Commission, 2014. 
412 See footnote 113 
413 See footnote 113 
414  de  Rigo,  D.,  Libertà,  G.,  Houston  Durrant,  T.,  Artés  Vivancos,  T.,  San-Miguel-Ayanz,  J.,  Forest  fire 
danger  extremes  in  Europe  under  climate  change:  variability  and  uncertainty,  EUR  28926  EN, 
Publications  Office  of 
the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  2017,  ISBN:  978-92-79-77046-3, 
doi:10.2760/13180, JRC10897European 

415 https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2016/march/wildfire-map-reveals-countries-in-

europe-most-at-risk-of-catastrophic-fire-damage 

416 http://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
417  Khabarov,  N  et  al.,  2014,  Forest  Fires  and  adaptation  options  in  Europe,  Regional  Environmental 
Change  16)1,  21-30  (doi:  10.1007/s101130-014-0621-0);  and  European  Commission,  Modelling  the 
impacts of climate change on forest fire danger in Europe Sectorial results of the PESETA II Project, 
2017. 

212 

 
 
                                                 
Spain  has  been  proactive  in  seeking  to  integrate  disaster  risk  reduction  and  climate 
change adaptation planning at the national level418, as well as at the provincial and local 
levels.  The EU Adaptation  Strategy has been a useful guide in  preparing  strategies and 
plans where the needs of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation coincide. 
For  example,  the  Provincial  Council  of  Barcelona  has  followed  EU  and  national-level 
guidance  in  supporting  local  administrations  to  develop  supra-municipal  strategies  for 
forest  fire  preparedness;  identifying  and  coordinating  all  actors  in  the  territory. 
Importantly,  by  downscaling  EU  and  national  strategies,  sub-national  responses  have 
been tailored to local circumstances. 

The  Provincial  Council  of  Barcelona  has  learnt  from  experience  that  planning  and 
monitoring  is  essential  to  forest  fire  preparedness.  A  comprehensive  stakeholder 
engagement plan is a critical part of this process. Engaging key actors (e.g. forest owners, 
the  fire  service,  local  authorities  and  the  Catalan  Government)  minimises  barriers  to 
preventing  forest  fires.  The  Provincial  Council  adopts  a  holistic  approach  to  forest  fire 
preparedness  through  plans  in  relation  to  land,  forest  management,  fire  prevention  and 
surveillance,  fire  management  and  land  restoration.  The  Provincial  Council  encourages 
and actively supports dissemination of lessons, project-level  actions and success stories 
at the regional level and networking with other national and community projects. 

The LIFE Montserrat project419 in Spain provides evidence of ongoing adaptation actions 
in relation to fire risks. The Provincial Council reports that an increase in the frequency 
of wildfires in the Montserrat Mountain region is attributable to changes in land use and 
socioeconomic activities, and that climate change may have made fires more intense and 
severe.  Increased  development  has  led  to  a  decline  in  traditional  rural  activities  in  the 
region  while  forest  and  scrubland  areas  with  increased  fuel  load  have  expanded.  The 
project  is  seeking  to  address  the  high  fire  risk  in  the  region  through  nature-based 
solutions  (e.g.  sustainable  forest  management  and  livestock  grazing)  and  increasing 
public  awareness  of  the  risks.  The  project  provides  additional  co-benefits  through 
conserving and restoring wildlife habitats, habitat connectivity and associated ecosystem 
services  for  people.  The  recent  wildfires  at  the  end  of  2017  suggest  that  the  LIFE 
Montserrat project is a model that is worth replicating across the Mediterranean area, i.e. 
creating large managed areas to prevent widespread forest fires by combining extensive 
forest management with extensive grazing and restoring a traditional mosaic landscape. 

Considerations for the future 

The stakeholders who contributed to this case study identified a need to further enhance 
coherence between climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction across all levels 
of  governance  (global,  European,  national  levels)  via  closer  vertical  and  horizontal, 
cross-border and transnational coordination and collaboration. In particular, while the EU 
supports  Member  States  through  existing  platforms  (e.g.  Climate-ADAPT),  EU-wide 
conferences  and  research  (e.g.  LIFE,  H2020)  to  capture  and  disseminate  relevant 
experiences,  lessons  and  approaches,  the  stakeholders  felt  that  the  EU  Adaptation 
Strategy could seek to strengthen collective and interconnected planning. 

418 Moreno Rodriquez, 2014, Los incendios forestales en España en un contexto de cambio climático: 

Información y herramientas para la adaptación. Available: 
http://www.adaptecca.es/sites/default/files/editor_documentos/infoadapt_memoria_final_proyecto.pdf  

419 http://lifemontserrat.eu/en/  

213 

 
 
 
                                                 
Case Study 2 

Spillover  effects  from  climate  change  impacts  occurring 

outside the EU 

Context and the EU response 

Some  stakeholders  interviewed  for  the  evaluation  of  the  EU  Adaptation  Strategy  have 
suggested  that  the  Strategy  does  not  sufficiently  recognise  and  address  the  EU’s 
vulnerabilities  to  climate  change  impacts  outside  Europe,  and  of  missing  potential 
opportunities  for  cooperation  with  non-EU  countries  in  that  regard.  Climate  change 
worldwide  may  have  consequences  for  trade,  food  security,  immigration,  and 
biodiversity.  The  purpose  of  this  case  study  is  to  provide  supporting  evidence  for  the 
wider evaluation of the Strategy specifically with regard to the impact of climate change 
outside the EU on food production and supply within the EU.  

The  Strategy  states  that  it  takes  account  of  global  climate  change  impacts,  including 
disruptions to supply chains and reduced access to food supplies, and spillover effects on 
the  EU.420  However,  the  Strategy  focuses  on  EU  level  and  Member  State  actions  and 
does not explicitly address international climate change adaptation. Under Action 2 of the 
Strategy,  the  LIFE  programme  does  give  priority  to  adaptation  flagship  projects  that 
address  key  cross-sectoral,  trans-regional  and/or  cross-border  issues.  Guidance  on  the 
development  of  NASs  also  refers  to  transboundary  issues.  In  addition,  the  Global 
Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy identifies external climate 
risks  and  resilience  challenges  for  the  EU  and  addresses  the  potential  impacts  from  a 
development policy perspective.421 

In 2012, DG CLIMA commissioned a study to investigate spillover effects in the EU of 
climate change impacts  occurring outside the  EU. The research focused particularly  on 
European  neighbourhood  countries.422  It  identified  that  at  that  time,  policy  responses 
generally at the EU, national and regional level did not address spillover effects of global 
climate  change  on  the  EU.  The  report  went  on  to  conclude  that  no  matter  how  robust 
adaptation planning is within the EU, it will remain vulnerable to the impacts of climate 
change outside the EU, in particular, from neighbouring countries. Food production and 
supply  has  been  recognised  as  a  vulnerable  priority  sector  to  such  spillover  effects, 
especially in relation to crops grown elsewhere on which the EU is reliant.423 

The  EEA’s  latest  report  on  climate  impacts  in  Europe,  in  2016,424  highlighted  how 
climate  change  impacts  (e.g.  heatwaves,  prolonged  drought  and  water  scarcity)  have 
already  affected  agricultural  production  outside  the  EU  and  had  spillover  effects  on 
Europe  through  regional  or  global  markets  and  supply  chains.  For  example,  the  2010 
wheat  crisis  in  Russia,  caused  by  severe  heatwaves,  destroyed  30%  of  Russia’s  grain 

420 See footnote 1 
421  Shared  Vision,  Common  Action:  A  Stronger  Europe:  A  Global  Strategy  for  the  European  Union's 

Foreign and Security Policy, European Commission, 2016. 

422 AMEC, Assessing the spillover effects in the EU of the adverse effects of climate change in the rest of 
the world, in particular the EU's Neighbourhood countries, Study for the European Commission, 2013 
423  Stockholm  Environment  Institute,  Introducing  the  transnational  climate  impacts  index:  indicators  of 

country-level exposure – methodology report, 2016 

424 'Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016, Report No 1/2017', European Environment 

Agency, 2017: Chapter 6.4 

214 

 
                                                 
harvest, resulting in an export ban on wheat that contributed to a 60% to 80% increase in 
global wheat prices.425  

Based  on  an  assessment  of  current  evidence  (as  summarised  above),  the  EEA426 
identified  a  number  of  priority  vulnerabilities  for  Europe  from  climate  change  impacts 
outside the EU that are of relevance to food production and supply:  

  Economic effects through climate-induced price volatilities. 
  Disruption  to  transport networks  and  possible new shipping  routes (e.g.  melting 

of polar ice). 

Feedback from Member States 

Representatives of three Member State authorities were consulted with regard to this case 
study.  It  appears  from  these  consultations  that  the  issue  of  spillover  effects,  at  least  in 
relation to food production and supply, has not yet been addressed by some, and perhaps 
all, NASs or plans. One Member State confirmed that it was unaware of this issue at the 
time of preparing its first national adaptation plan and that, as it had not been raised as a 
concern,  it  was  not  factored  in  to  its  future  adaptation  planning  priorities.  Another 
Member  State  noted  that  while  its  current  national  adaptation  plan  did  not  address  the 
issue  of  spillover  effects,  future  iterations  of  the  plan  would  consider  such  impacts.  A 
third  Member  State  reflected  that  there  is  a  need  for  clarity  as  to  what  is  meant  by 
spillover effects, for example, in relation to their link with climate change as compared 
with  other  drivers  and  policies.  It  noted  also  that  there  is  very  little  literature  and 
guidance  available  on  this  issue  and  that  a  subsequent  EU-level  review  of  relevant 
existing studies at the sector level would be helpful, for example, in relation to impacts 
on  food  production  and  supply  within  the  EU.  In  addition,  it  questioned  if  the  EU 
Adaptation Strategy is the best place to address spillover effects or whether they should 
be addressed by other policies. 

Considerations for the future  

Reflecting on the EU response to date and feedback from Member States, there appears 
to  be  a  need  for  the  EU  to  review  existing  evidence  and  invest,  where  necessary,  in 
further  research  in  order  to  identify  Europe’s  vulnerabilities  to  climate  change  impacts 
elsewhere,  particularly  in  neighbouring  countries.  This  would  then  enable  the  EU  to 
consider  the  extent  of  likely  impacts  from  spillover  effects  on  Member  States  and 
commensurate actions required within and beyond Europe to increase the EU’s resilience 
to  climate  change.  Guidance  could  subsequently  be  provided  to  Member  States  on  the 
potential urgency of preparing for these impacts, for example, through/during review and 
further development of NASs. 

References 

Benzie, M., T. Carter, F. Groundstroem H. Carlsen, G. Savvidou, N. Pirttioja, R. Taylor 
& A. Dzebo (2017). Implications for the EU of cross-border climate change impacts, EU 
FP7 IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D3A.2. 

425  Foresight,  2011,  The  future  of  food  and  farming.  Final  project  report,  the  Government  office  for 
Science;  and  Coghlan  et  al.,  2014,  A  sign  of  things  to  come?  Examining  four  major  climate-related 
disasters, 2010-2013. 

426 'Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016, Report No 1/2017', European Environment 

Agency, 2017: Chapter 6.4 

215 

 
                                                 
Ercin A.E, Chico D., and Chapagain A. K. (2016) Dependencies of Europe’s economy on 
other  parts  of  the  world  in  terms  of  water  resources,  Horizon2020  -  IMPREX  project, 
Technical Report D12.1, Water Footprint Network. 

AMEC Environment & infrastructure UK Limited, Bio Intelligence Service, Cambridge 
Econometrics and Millieu (2012) Assessing the spillover effects in the EU of the adverse 
effects of climate change in the rest of the world, in particular the EU's Neighbourhood 
countries', European Commission – DG CLIMA 

European Commission (2013) An EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change, COM 
216 

European  Commission  (2016)  Shared  vision,  common  action:  a  stronger  Europe.  A 
Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. 

European  Environment  Agency  (2017)  Climate  change,  impacts  and  vulnerability  in 
Europe 2016: An indicator-based report, EEA Report, No 1/2017 

216 

 
 
 
Case Study 3 

The  Danube  macro-regional  strategy  and  its  contribution  to 

action at Member State level 

Context and the EU response 

The  Danube  macro-regional  strategy  was  presented  by  the  Commission  in  2010427, 
following a request from the European Council in June 2009428; and was then endorsed 
by  Council  and  European  Council429.  It  was  developed  in  consultation  with  Member 
States in the region and other stakeholders. The strategy proposed a focus on three issues: 
improved  connections  within  the  Danube  region;  better  protection  of  the  environment; 
and  shared  action  to  increase  prosperity.  The  climate  adaptation  aspects  of  the  macro-
regional strategy are addressed under the environmental heading (Priority Action 5), with 
a reference to the need for: “Preventive and disaster management measures implemented 
jointly, for example as required by the Floods, Seveso, Mining Waste or Environmental 
Liability Directives. Work undertaken in isolation simply displaces the problem and puts 
neighbouring regions in difficulty. Increasing frequency of droughts is also an issue, as is 
adaptation  to  climate  change.”  The  macro-regional  strategy  goes  on  to  note  that: 
“Regional  cooperation  must  facilitate  Green  Infrastructure,  application  of  long-term, 
ecosystem-based solutions, and learning from previous events.” 

While the macro-regional strategy was neither directly focused on climate adaptation nor 
directly  addressed  the  importance  of  Member  States  adopting  adaptation  strategies,  it, 
nevertheless,  had  the  potential  to  encourage  and  facilitate  both  the  development  of 
national  strategies  and,  as  importantly,  a  better  focus  on  transboundary  issues.  The  EU 
Adaptation Strategy itself notes the relevance of macro-regional strategies including the 
EU  Strategy  for  the  Danube  Region  (EUSDR),  as  a  framework  for  transboundary 
projects under cohesion policy.   

Feedback from stakeholders 

The main focus of the case study has been on the experience of national focal points, who 
are  important  elements  in  the  governance  arrangements  for  the  macro-regional 
strategy430.  Different  countries  coordinate  the  individual  priority  actions  of  the  macro-
regional  strategy;  Hungary,  for  example,  coordinates 
the  priority  actions  on 
environmental  protection  (Priority  Action  5)  and  water  quality  (Priority  Action  4).  For 
each  priority  action,  coordination  points  are  established  in  each  of  the  14  participating 
countries431. Participants felt that this was a highly important element in progress made 
under the macro-regional strategy; if an issue needed to be addressed, it was possible to 
identify  relatively  quickly,  using  the  contact  points,  relevant  interlocutors,  either  in  a 
national administration, or in academia in a neighbouring country.  

427 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  European  Union  Strategy  for  Danube 
Region, COM (2010) 0715 final 

428 Presidency conclusions of the 18/19 June 2009. Council of the European Union, 2009.  
429 Council conclusions on the European Union Strategy for the Danube Region 13 April 2011. Council of 
the  European  Union,  2011;  and  Conclusions  of  the  European  Council  23/24  June  2011,  European 
Council, 2011. 

430  For  a  fuller  account  of  governance  arrangements  for  the  strategies,  see;  Council  conclusions  of  the 

governance of macro-regional strategies 21 October 2014, General Affairs Council, 2014 

431  EU  Member  States:  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Hungary,  Romania, 
Slovakia, Slovenia. Non Member States: Ukraine, Moldova, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro 

217 

 
                                                 
Adoption  of  the  macro-regional  strategy  built  on  the  views  of  stakeholders,  as  well  as 
experience working in the more formal structures of the International Convention on the 
Protection  of  the  Danube  River;  although  the  subjects  covered  by  the  EUSDR  were 
broader,  going  beyond  those  connected  to  the  river  itself.  Interviewees  noted  that  the 
EUSDR structures were less formal and, therefore, more flexible, but also less capable of 
securing commitments backed by the full authority of a participating country.  

The EUSDR does not have its own funding sources (the so-called “three no’s” – no new 
funding;  no new legislation; and no new institutions  – were important  principles in  the 
development  of  EU  policy  on  macro-regional  strategies)432.  However,  participating 
countries  can  commit  funding  jointly  or  individually;  and  the  EUSDR  has  a  close 
relationship with the managing authority for the Danube Transnational Programme under 
European  Territorial  Cooperation  (ETC).  This  managing  authority  has  funding  of  EUR 
274  million  available  over  the  current  2014-2020  programming  period  and  can  issue 
letters  of  recommendation  for  projects,  which  are  closely  aligned  to  EUSDR  priorities. 
The letters of recommendation are regarded as an effective means of influencing funding 
decisions.  

Under  the  EUSDR,  action  plans  are  established  for  three-year  periods.  The  focus  on 
adaptation has strengthened following the adoption by the International Commission for 
the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) of  the “ICPDR Strategy on Adaptation  to 
Climate Change”. The current plan under Priority Action 5 covers the 2017-2019 period. 
It  focuses  particularly  on  improved  knowledge  and  understanding  of  climate-related 
risks, including stakeholder and practitioner seminars and guidance documents on issues 
such as flood protection education and flood risk assessment in the Danube. Other areas 
include  drought  management,  sectoral  impacts  (including  forestry  and  agriculture)  on 
water  management,  and  improving  forecasting  models.  Examples  of  action  under  the 
macro-regional  strategy  include  the  development  –  in  partnership  with  the  EU-funded 
SEERISK  research  project  –  of  a  “Guideline  on  Climate  Change  Adaptation  and  Risk 
Assessment  in  the  Danube  Macro-region”433,  published  in  2014,  which  provides 
guidance  on  a  common  approach  to  identification  and  management  of  risk.  The 
transboundary  nature  of  the  issue  means  that  “collaboration  between  neighbouring 
countries and harmonization of the  existing practices and methods are  essential”. More 
recent  work  has  included  the  WaterAtRisk  project,  which  is  providing  improved 
monitoring and shared risk management systems for watercourses vulnerable to flooding 
events  on  the  Hungary/Serbia  border434;  and  workshops  on  improving  flood  protection 
education.  

The  climate  adaptation  priorities,  or  water  management  priorities,  of  the  countries 
involved in the EUSDR differ, based particularly on geography. For example, upstream 
countries tend to be less concerned about ice flow management in winter, while this is an 
issue for downstream countries such as Hungary, Serbia and Bulgaria. Similarly, in terms 
of  modelling,  upstream  countries  place  a  higher  priority  on  the  accuracy  of  short-term 
meteorological forecasting, given their exposure to rapidly-developing flood risks; while 
downstream countries have a much greater interest in hydrological forecasting, including 
long-term  projections  for  the  types  of  flood  risk  that  they  may  face  (and  may  need  to 

432 See, for instance, the emphasis on these principles in the Council conclusions on governance mentioned 

in footnote 430.  

433  SEERISK  2014.  Guideline  on  climate  change  adaptation  and  risk  assessment  in  the  Danube  macro-

region 

434 See information on the EUSDR website at https://www.danubeenvironmentalrisks.eu/wateratrisk-1  

218 

 
                                                 
prepare  for)435.  The  benefit  of  the  EUSDR  is  in  providing  a  framework  for  discussion, 
which ensure that the needs of downstream countries are take into account by upstream 
countries  (e.g.  through  enhanced  provision  of  data  for  modelling  purposes).  It  was 
stressed by interviewees that full alignment of priorities was not necessary for improved 
cooperation.  

Interviewees were clear that the EUSDR had helped participating countries identify and 
respond to transboundary adaptation challenges, particularly through improved dialogue 
and exchange of information. The EUSDR is referred to directly in NASs adopted since 
it  was  put  in  place  (e.g.  in  the  Hungarian  revised  NAS,  adopted  in  2017).  It  is  also 
notable  that  three  of  the  four  countries  identified  in  the  Commission’s  assessment  of 
Member State adaptation activity are participants in the EUSDR (criterion 3d, “Climate 
risks/  vulnerability  assessments  take  transboundary  risks  into  account,  when  relevant”, 
assessed  as  met  by  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  and  Romania).  The  EUSDR  has  also 
proved  to  be  a  valuable  structure  for  enabling  cooperation  on  river  basin  management 
plans and flood risk management plans required under EU legislation, and for developing 
projects  which can then apply for funding from  other sources, particularly  cross-border 
and  pre-accession  programmes  under  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund.  As 
such, the macro-regional strategy maximises the coherence in practice of EU instruments, 
including  through  effective  cross-border  implementation  of  legislation  and  investment 
programmes.  

In  line  with  the  principle  that  new  institutions  should  not  be  established  by  the  macro-
regional strategies, the EUSDR has been able to make use of structures and cooperation 
already  in  place  under  the  auspices  of  the  ICPDR.  A  joint  paper  on  cooperation  and 
synergy436  sets  out  steps  to  further  strengthen  that  cooperation  and  to  improve 
information  flows.  Participants  explain  that  while  the  ICPDR  provides  a  formal 
mechanism through which the participating countries can make commitments which have 
the full backing of their governments, EUSDR mechanisms provide a more informal but 
flexible approach to cooperation. 

Considerations for the future 

A  number  of  suggestions  were  identified  by  interviewees  for  future  work,  either  under 
the  Danube  Strategy  or  as  lessons  which  could  be  considered  by  other  macro-regional 
cooperative approaches to tackling climate adaptation.  

Future  work  under  the  Danube  Strategy  could  particularly  focus  on  improving  shared 
models for climate and hydrology, as well as on improving the understanding and use of 
the outputs of those models. A clear strength of the EUSDR approach was that it enabled 
an exchange of views and experience at the level of technical practitioners. 

Another  potentially  fruitful  area  would  be  cooperation  at  the  local  level,  including 
through  Covenant  of  Mayors  participants.  Cooperation  to  date  has  been  mainly  at  the 
level of national authorities, although the benefits of sharing experience and best practice 
are clearly relevant at city level. 

435 An issue also of particular relevance to the insurance sector: see for example the “Short response to the 
EU Adaptation Strategy Consultation  – March 2018”, a consultation response submitted by the Oasis 
consortium 

436 See ICPDR and EUSDR: “ICPDR – EUSDR PA4 & PA5 Coordination: Joint Paper on Cooperation and 

Synergy for the EUSDR Implementation.” 

219 

 
                                                 
In  terms  of  lessons  for  other  macro-regions,  it  is  important  to  identify  areas  of  broad 
general interest for activity. Where issues appear of less relevance to a Member State, it 
is less likely that its experts will attend meetings; which could weaken the relevance and 
completeness of the understanding emerging from discussions.  

The  approach  of  providing  letters  of  recommendation  in  support  of  projects,  which  are 
aligned with, or necessary for implementing, the goals of the macro-regional strategy has 
been a valuable mechanism to enable relevant projects to demonstrate their importance to 
potential funders. 

Where  regional  cooperation  also  depends  on  non-EU  Member  States  participation, 
particular attention needs to be paid to the means of maximising cooperation. It is notable 
that in the EUSDR cooperation with some non-EU partners is effectively confined to the 
border  zone  itself,  rather  than  to  broader  integrated  water  management  within  the 
relevant  country.  One  simple  approach,  which  has  been  useful,  is  to  provide  travel 
funding for expert participation from those countries.  

The  existence  of  the  ICPDR  and  its  established  structures  for  formal  cooperation  has 
facilitated  work  under  relevant  EUSDR  priority  areas.  The  relatively  less  formal 
structures of the EUSDR are seen by participants as providing a more flexible means for 
taking forward cooperation (as the Commission’s 2016 report on implementation of the 
macro-regional strategies notes, “the EUSDR has very clearly contributed to an improved 
culture of cooperation”). In contrast, the formal endorsement of policies and agreements 
under the ICPDR provides greater certainty that governments are fully committed. Both 
approaches  have  been  part  of  an  improved  culture  of  cooperation,  however,  careful 
attention  to  ensuring  that  relationships  between  the  bodies  maximise  the  synergies  and 
effectiveness of cooperation is recommended. 

Summary and conclusions 

Experience  in  the  EUSDR  suggests  that  transboundary  cooperation  mechanisms  can 
significantly  facilitate  and  enhance  cooperation  on  climate  adaptation  issues,  including 
those where the degree of political priority for action was greater in some countries than 
in  others.  The  process  is,  however,  a  gradual  one;  networks  of  contacts  develop  over 
time,  as  does  a  shared  willingness  to  address  challenges.  The  Danube’s  geography 
provides  a  clear  geographical  rationale  for  cooperation,  and  helps  to  ensure  that  all 
relevant  countries  participate.  Similar  geographical  structures  and  shared  biophysical 
climate risks (based on shared river basins, or seas) are, therefore, likely to be the most 
effective  basis  for  similar  strategies  in  future.  However,  more  ad  hoc  structures  could 
also be of value, including the enhanced sharing of experience and best practice through 
mechanisms such as the Covenant of Mayors.  

220 

 
 
 
 
Case Study 4 

Adaptation of infrastructure in the energy sector 

Context 

Energy  infrastructures  are  critical.  Due  to  the  long  economic  life-spans  of  energy 
infrastructure, it is important to understand the hazards to which they are exposed at an 
early  stage  in  order  to  carry  out  actions  to  protect  them.  The  vulnerability  of  energy 
transmission  system  operators  and  distribution  system  operators  have  been  well 
documented,437 with a projected increase in frequency and intensity of storms, snowfall 
and  flooding  events  causing  damages  and  disruptions  throughout  Europe.  Specific 
examples  are  falling  trees  from  strong  winds  breaking  transmission  cables,  flooding 
leading to the short-circuiting of networks and heavy snow or ice loads causing failures 
of overhead cables.438 

Climate variable 

Wind  speed  and 
storms 

Physical 
components  
Wind  and 
damage 
Increased 
convection 

Key impacts 

storm 

Overhead  lines  and 
pylons 

heat 

Overhead lines 

Increasing 
temperatures 

Extreme heat 

Increasing drought 

Flooding  

Decreased 
conductivity 

Overhead 
and 
underground cables 

Sag 

Overhead cable 

Thawing permafrost 

Buckling 
structures 
Alteration  of 
moisture  

of 

soil 

Shifting soil  

Flood  

Cable breakage 

Substations 
pylons 

and 

Pylons 

Underground 
cables 
Underground 
cables 

Substations 

Underground 
cables 

to 

of 

20% 

Level 
impact 
Moderate 
high 
Up 
to 
capacity  
Cable 
resistance 
increases 
~0.4%  per  1°C 
rise 
4.5cm  per  1°C 
rise 
Potential loss of 
supply 
Potential loss of 
supply 
Reduces  cable 
capacity 

Repair costs 

Potential loss of 
supply 
Potential loss of 
supply 

437  Bartos  et  al.,  2016,  Impacts  of  rising  air  temperatures  on  electric  transmission  ampacity  and  peak 
electricity load in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 11(11); and Asian Development 
Bank, 2012, Climate risk and adaptation in the electric power sector; and WBCSD, 2014, Building a 
resilient power sector, World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 

438  Panteli  and  Mancarella,  2015,  Influence  of  extreme  weather  and  climate  change  on  the  resilience  of 
power systems: Impacts and possible mitigation strategies, Electric Power Systems Research, 127, 259-
270. 

221 

 
 
                                                 
Security of energy supply is crucial for business continuity and the well-being of citizens. 
The impacts of energy transmission disruptions can vary spatially and temporally, based 
upon  the  relative  magnitude  of  the  climate  event  and  the  resilience  of  the  energy 
infrastructure.  Prolonged  or  frequent  disruptions  can  cause  reputational  damage  to 
service  operators,  with  customers  seeking  more  reliable  alternate  providers  as  a  result. 
This  is  in  addition  to  the  short-term  repair  costs  and  the  longer-term  costs  from 
potentially  higher 
insurance  premiums  and  costs  associated  with  necessary 
reconfigurations  to  networks.  Finally,  financial  implications  can  arise  via  reduction  of 
subsidies  or  financial  penalties  by  governments  for  failure  to  supply  electricity.  By 
contrast, preventing climate disturbances transmission can benefit the security of supply.  

In  order  to  alleviate  the  impacts  of  climate  change  on  transmission  and  distribution 
services,  actors  are  taking  innovative  steps  to  protect  their  infrastructure.  One  such 
method, which is being employed throughout Europe, is the deployment of underground 
cabling.  Such  adaptation  measure  is  versatile  due  to  its  ability  to  combat  multiple 
climate-related  risks,  including  flooding.  Due  to  its  resilience  against  such  events,  the 
undergrounding  of  cables  has  been  included  as  a  potential  adaptation  measure  in  the 
Scottish  and  Southern  Climate  Change  Adaptation  Report  and  has  been  implemented 
throughout  the  entire  transmission  grid  by  Radius  in  Denmark.  A  few  more  detailed 
specific examples are presented below: 

Finland: In areas of Europe which suffer from heavy snow such as Finland, energy DSO 
Elenia  are  currently  installing  underground  cabling  networks  due  to  their  perceived 
climate-proofing  benefits.  Jorma  Myllymäki,  Chief  Operating  Officer  of  Elenia,  stated 
that “due to the aging infrastructure, the increased frequency of storms and heavy snow 
loads, Elenia began to  think  about  the most cost-effective  ways  to  adapt back in 2004-
2006.  We  then  decided  that  after  2009  we  would  place  no  new  overhead  cables.”  This 
has resulted in plans for 2017-2018 to include a further EUR 120 million investment to 
replace 3 000 km  of overhead lines with  underground equivalents,  with  an overarching 
goal to have 70% of over ground cabling underground by 2028. The costs of the action 
were  not  aided  by  EU  funding,  but  will  be  carried  by  customers  in  the  long  term,  in 
addition 
leveraging  costs  from  other  financial  mechanisms,  such  as  bond 
programmes439.  

to 

Such  adaptation  measures  are  stimulated  by  Finnish  legislation  stipulating  that  energy 
networks  must  be  designed  so  that  storms  or  snow  load  does  not  cause  more  than  6h 
breakdowns in town areas or more than 36h breakdowns in other areas440. In addition, the 
legislation  requires  distribution  networks  to  comply  with  such  rules  by  2028,  which 
coincides  with  Elenia’s  planned  goal  of  70%  of  cabling  placed  underground.  Jorma 
added  that  ‘to  achieve  the  targets  of  having  less  than  6  hours  of  blackouts  would  be 
difficult to achieve with the previous overhead infrastructure’ whilst other companies are 
continuing to use conventional strategies such as tree clearing to prevent outages441. This 
represents the potential to gain an upper hand in the market for such firms, by avoiding 
reputational damage in addition to potential regulatory fines for not fulfilling their legal 
requirements.  

Germany: The German government has opted to install 600 miles of underground cables 
to transmit energy throughout the country. Germany’s position with regard to uptake of 

439 Communication with Jorma Myllymäki, February 12th 2018 
440 The Electricity Market Act was revised broadly in September of 2013 
441 Communication with Jorma Myllymäki, February 12th 2018 

222 

 
                                                 
wind power and step away from nuclear has resulted in the requirement for new power-
link constructions  to  transport renewable energy from  the windy north to consumers in 
the south. Underground construction of such transmissions has been partly implemented 
due  to  projected  increased  frequency  of  extreme  weather  events  causing  disruption  to 
transmission  and  distribution  networks.  Another  major  determinant  of 
these 
infrastructural measures  was lack of community acceptance of traditional above-ground 
power  lines.  The  additional  construction  costs  of  installing  underground  cables  is 
estimated to cost between EUR 3-8 billion, which will likely to be added to consumers’ 
electricity bills442. 

Considerations for the future 

The examples show that energy companies are starting to take action to adapt to climate 
risks,  prompted  by  governments  and  the  financial  implications  of  climate  change.  Yet 
these examples tend to be the exception rather than the rule. It is apparent that the focus 
will  be  on  the  private  stakeholders  in  the  energy  system  to  invest  in  adaptation 
themselves.  However,  there  can  also  be  a  role  for  the  EU  and  national  governments  in 
creating the right market framework, funding research and sharing knowledge and good 
practice, such as we have seen in the case of Finland. Within the EU Adaptation Strategy 
the guidelines for project developers (Action 7 – ensuring more resilient infrastructure), 
standards  for  infrastructure  development  (Action  7),  promotion  of  climate  resilient 
investments (Action 8 - insurance) and infrastructure and knowledge development can all 
play  a  role  in  this,  as  would  improving  the  requirements  for  these  as  a  condition  for 
structural  funding  (Action  6  -  climate  proofing  EU  policies).  Doing  so  can  result  in 
benefits  to  Member  States,  such  as  contributing  to  the  stability  and  security  of  energy 
supply. 

442 Reuters staff, 2015. 

223