In Bologna, climate change is something to manage, every summer and every time heavy rain falls. Repeated floods in recent years have caused billions of euros in damage and taken lives. Heatwaves are becoming more frequent and more deadly, particularly for older people and those living in dense historic neighbourhoods. Looking ahead, the city expects average temperatures to rise by three degrees by mid century, with more tropical nights, heavier rainfall and mounting pressure on infrastructure never designed for these conditions.
“In 2023 and 2024, we had two important floods: €10 billion in damages and 18 dead people,” recalls Matteo Lepore, Mayor of Bologna, Eurocities Chair of the Environment Forum and Member of the European Committee of the Regions. “So we reflect where we are, and what we probably have to tackle in the future.”
Bologna’s experience reflects what cities across Europe are facing and why the debate on a European Framework for Climate Resilience has become so urgent.
Cities are adapting, but the ground is shifting faster
Across Europe, cities have moved quickly to recognise climate risks and develop strategies to address them. Climate action has been the top priority of European mayors for several years in a row. Local authorities are mapping risks, updating plans and experimenting with solutions, from cooling public spaces to restoring waterways and green areas.
Cities are aware, but the speed and scale of what they are faced with is growing, as is the gap between planning and delivery.
“Many of the solutions and challenges are the everyday reality of local and regional authorities,” recognises Elina Bardram, Director at the European Commission DG CLIMA. “We need to empower and equip the people who are on the front lines.”
For cities, this matters because resilience is not something that can be delivered from Brussels alone.
The real gap: from plans to action
New research from the CIDOB Monograph ‘Urban Climate Resilience in Europe’, developed with Eurocities, helps explain where cities are getting stuck.
Based on detailed responses from 54 cities in 17 countries, the research shows steady progress on planning, but persistent obstacles when it comes to implementation.
Cities are advancing adaptation and emergency planning, but for many, human and financial resources remain a significant challenge.
“Cities are advancing adaptation and emergency planning, but for many, human and financial resources remain a significant challenge,” explains Ricardo Martinez, Senior Research Fellow at CIDOB.
Heatwaves are the most commonly identified climate risk, followed closely by flooding. More than half of cities now carry out climate risk and vulnerability assessments. Yet turning analysis into action remains difficult.
“67% of climate plans mention risks to vulnerable groups,” Martinez noted. “But only 44% of these include corresponding adaptation measures.”
An even starker gap appears when looking at investment. Nearly 90% of cities set targets for nature based solutions, such as greening and water retention. Yet, only 11% have a dedicated budget to deliver them.
“This points to a clear gap between planning and investment,” write Diana Kupper, Green Finance Officer at the Global Green Growth Institute, and Stelios Grafakos, Deputy-Director and Principal Economist at the Global Green Growth Institute. “Cities need support to translate risk assessments into effective policies and bankable action.”
In other words, the challenge is no longer knowing what to do. It is having the capacity, governance and funding to do it consistently and at scale.
From reacting to crises to designing resilience
For policymakers, this gap raises a fundamental question: how does Europe move from emergency response to prevention?
For Analisa Corrado, Member of the European Parliament, the answer starts with recognising where climate impacts are actually felt. “Adaptation and resilience are territorial realities,” she said. “Climate related disasters have caused more than €820 billion in losses in the EU since 1980, and the trend is accelerating.”
We still spend far more after disasters happen than before. The issue is not only how much money is available, but how we prioritise and structure public investment.
She pointed to a structural imbalance in public spending. “We still spend far more after disasters happen than before. The issue is not only how much money is available, but how we prioritise and structure public investment.”
What Europe needs, she argued, is a shift in how decisions are made. “Scaling resilience does not mean multiplying projects. It means embedding resilience into all planning and investment decisions, moving from reacting to crises to designing resilience by default.”
Or as DG CLIMA Director Bardram puts it: “If we don’t do resilience by design, we will be looking at disaster by default.”
MEP Corrado was also clear that this shift is ultimately a political choice. Europe’s climate resilience ambitions, she argued, will only be credible if they are reflected in how money is spent. The next 7‑year EU budget will be the moment of truth: whether adaptation is treated as a core investment priority, or whether public authorities continue to spend far more after disasters than before them. Without that shift, she warned, Europe risks repeating the same cycle of damage, repair and underinvestment in prevention.
This bears another question: why does prevention remain so difficult when it comes to climate? In other policy areas, investing upfront to reduce future risk is standard practice. But on climate resilience, Europe still spends far more on repairing damage than on preventing it. This is not a lack of evidence; it is a political and budgetary choice.
Why one off projects are not enough
Experts working closely with cities see the same pattern across Europe: good ideas struggle to scale when they remain trapped in short term projects.
“What works is not single projects, but portfolios of solutions,” says Thomas Koetz, Senior Advisor on Climate at Climate KIC. “You need a common framework, a strong community of practice, and the right enabling conditions.”
Without them, cities are left with plans they cannot fully implement. “There is a big gap between having very good plans and actually moving to implementation with a bankable project in your hand,” Koetz warns.
From REGEA, Miljenko Sedlar linked this directly to how public money is planned and spent. “If we fail with mainstreaming, adaptation will still be seen as a silo or a secondary issue,” he says. “We have to move from reacting to disasters to a proactive and systemic approach.”
If we don't do resilience by design, we will be looking at disaster by default.
That includes making Europe’s largest funding tools work for resilience. “We need to climate proof all infrastructure,” Sedlar said.
While climate risks differ from place to place, the obstacles cities face – limited capacity, fragmented funding, unclear responsibilities – are widely shared. What also allows solutions to spread is learning how other cities have embedded resilience into their everyday decisions.
As Koetz explains, “what really helps solutions scale is a community of practice: that’s where cities and regions learn most from their peers.” For local authorities, peer‑to‑peer exchange is often the most effective way to adapt approaches to different local contexts, avoid repeating mistakes and move faster.
This kind of collaboration also helps turn isolated experiences into shared evidence. As André Sobczak, Secretary General of Eurocities, notes, “going beyond case studies and building a more systematic understanding of what is happening in cities is essential if we want to influence policy.”
In practice, collaboration between cities is one of the main ways climate resilience moves from ambition to delivery.
A framework that closes the gap
“In Europe, we don’t have a lack of plans. We have a lack of implementation.” says César Luena, Member of the European Parliament. “Cities already know what needs to be done. The problem is that they lack the resources, the tools and the right framework to deliver.”
For him, adaptation must move from aspiration to obligation. “Resilience must be the starting point of urban planning, infrastructure and public investment.”
Bologna’s experience shows what is at stake. Climate impacts are accelerating, and cities are adapting often with limited resources and fragmented support.
This is where the upcoming European Framework for Climate Resilience becomes decisive. And cities are calling for a clear shift from ambition to delivery.
First, the framework needs to bring clarity. Cities are expected to manage climate risks that cut across housing, health, transport and emergency response, yet responsibility for those risks is often fragmented. Without clear roles, and without sustained investment in skills and staff, even the best strategies struggle to translate into action. Capacity building should be treated as a core pillar of resilience.
Cities already know what needs to be done. The problem is that they lack the resources, the tools and the right framework to deliver.
Second, the framework must break Europe’s dependence on short‑term, competitive, project‑based funding. The research shows that cities are too often forced to chase temporary windows of opportunity rather than build stable, long‑term investment plans. This undermines their ability to prepare project pipelines, invest in prevention and attract partners. A credible framework would give cities predictable support over time, allowing them to plan for the future.
Crucially, the evidence also points to the need to embed resilience across EU policies, not confine it to adaptation strategies alone. As several speakers underlined, if resilience is not built into transport, housing, infrastructure, water management and public investment rules, Europe will continue to default to repairing damage after disasters strike. A framework that truly works for cities would help shift this logic, making resilience a starting point for decision‑making.
Finally, the research highlights the importance of stronger and more structured multilevel governance. Consultation alone is not enough. Cities and national authorities need permanent mechanisms to align climate risk assessments, planning and investment decisions. Without this, resilience efforts remain fragmented, and opportunities to reduce risk before disasters strike are consistently missed.
Will Europe’s Climate Resilience Framework give cities what they need to keep people safe?
–
This conversation was held in the framework of the event ‘Europe’s Territorial Resilience and Risk Management at a turning point’ that took place at the Committee of the Regions on 6 May and was co-organised by Eurocities, CIDOB and Fedarene.
The CIDOB Monograph Urban Climate Resilience in Europe is a collaboration between Eurocities and CIDOB to provide expert analysis of the status, challenges and needs of cities on climate resilience. The Monograph builds on data from the Eurocities Pulse on Climate Resilience, which was co-designed by Eurocities and CIDOB experts and received responses from 54 cities across 17 countries.
