After extreme flooding in October 2024, Bologna was forced to rethink what preparedness looks like in practice – from civil protection and early warnings to long-term planning that helps the city absorb heavy rain. In this interview, Anna Lisa Boni, Deputy Mayor of Bologna and Chair of Eurocities Environment Forum, reflects on what has changed, what still blocks progress, and what Europe’s next climate resilience framework must deliver for cities.
Flooding that changes decisions
For Boni, the climate risk that dominates day-to-day thinking is clear: “the fear of extreme weather events and more particularly flooding.”
The impact is not only physical, but psychological too. Boni describes how the flood shifted expectations and created anxiety across the city: “Now, every time it starts raining a bit too much and for many days, and particularly heavy rain, that starts creating fear and worry, both in citizens and in us as policy makers.”
In response, the city has focused on measures that can work under pressure. These include reinforced civil protection planning, clarity on roles and organisation, and how volunteers will be mobilised “in an efficient and effective way”. The city has also strengthened its early warning approach so that people understand what alerts mean, and what guidance to follow.
A key step has been improving readiness for evacuations by mapping where people live, especially people who have special needs, so services can prepare the right support.
From hidden water to ‘sponge city’ thinking
Boni also points to a challenge that is structural as much as it depends on the climate: “Bologna is a city on water, with canals that have been covered many decades ago.”
The main issue is about how to make the city a sponge, and to make sure that when there is a lot of rain, this is absorbed.
That reality has pushed the city to look closely at water systems and thresholds, and to update its understanding of risk. A city-led study revealed a higher risk than what had previously been considered, triggering the need for follow up measures.
Alongside protection, information, and regulation, the direction of travel is towards capturing rain where it falls. As Boni puts it: “the main issue is about how to make the city a sponge, and to make sure that when there is a lot of rain, this is absorbed.”
Financing greening and nature-based solutions
When the conversation turns to nature-based solutions, the challenge becomes less about popularity and more about keeping them alive over time.
Boni is direct about capacity limits for maintenance: “The city itself cannot do it all.” Bologna is taking care of its current trees, budgeting for that upkeep, and planting more – using the public resources available. But scaling up requires shared responsibility, particularly in a dense historic context where land is limited.
Boni points to a model based on “co-ownership with private actors” – businesses and citizens – with more greening on private land and shared responsibility for maintenance. In Bologna, and many other European cities, the constraints on the public purse are all too real.
Procurement as a climate lever
Procurement, in this perspective, is a tool to reshape what the market offers and how cities invest. “Procurement is a great change maker, especially in terms of changing the market,” says Boni.
Procurement is a great change maker, especially in terms of changing the market.
She contrasts traditional tendering with longer-term partnership approaches: “It’s more about building partnerships where both sides see that as an investment, and therefore a co-investment.”
Bologna applied this logic in an energy transition partnership, which takes six traditional city-level investments, such as solar panels on schools, which the company then maintains over a 15-year period.
Turning controversy into participation
Greening is technical and political. Boni notes that demands to green more, and disputes over tree cutting, are “a source of conflict at the local level.”
One response, which Boni describes as working well for now, was to involve residents who had complained that the city was not doing enough in a project to green their neighbourhood.
What cities need from Europe next
Looking ahead to the EU’s forthcoming Climate Resilience and Risk Management framework, Bologna’s priority is governance that matches where impacts land.
“The one thing that we need to make sure the framework contains is a very strong, clear and sustainable subnational dimension,” says Boni.
The reasoning is straightforward: “Climate is happening in our cities. The impacts are concentrated in the cities.” For that to translate into better outcomes, Boni argues that cities must be part of how resilience is shaped at national level – and that local government’s role needs to be protected and strengthened as the European Commission, Parliament and Council finalise the framework.
On a broader scale: implications for Europe’s cities
Bologna’s experience is not an isolated case; it reflects a growing reality across Europe’s urban landscape. The latest Eurocities Pulse Survey on climate resilience in cities shows that heatwaves, flooding and drought dominate the list of climate threats. Yet, despite this clear recognition of risk, cities report that their ability to adapt is constrained by limited funding, staffing shortages and fragmented governance. Many are working hard to develop emergency response plans and early warning systems – indeed, most have these in place or underway – but the same survey reveals that gaps in data quality and coordination between agencies continue to slow progress.
Climate is happening in our cities. The impacts are concentrated in the cities.
Financing resilience remains a critical bottleneck. While cities overwhelmingly rely on municipal revenues and EU funds, only about half have a dedicated financing strategy for adaptation. This leaves long-term investments, such as nature-based solutions and retrofitting existing buildings, vulnerable to uncertainty. The challenge is compounded by regulatory ambiguity: although most cities are introducing resilience requirements for new developments, far fewer are doing so for retrofits, partly because current EU legislation sends mixed signals.
Against this backdrop, the European Commission’s Environment Omnibus adds another layer of complexity. Framed as a simplification package, it aims to cut administrative burdens, but in doing so risks weakening the monitoring and permitting obligations that underpin enforcement and investment certainty. For cities like Bologna, which depend on clear governance and robust data flows to plan evacuations, manage water systems and scale green infrastructure, such changes could undermine years of progress.
This is why cities are calling for a strong urban dimension in the forthcoming EU Climate Resilience and Risk Management Framework. They need a common understanding of risk ownership backed by concrete support; they’re calling for dedicated funding streams, capacity-building support and governance structures that recognise where climate impacts truly land: in Europe’s cities. They need support in carrying out climate risk and vulnerability assessments and translating these into policy actions, crucial to embedding resilience by design into all sectoral policies. Without these, the ambition to make urban areas liveable, equitable and sustainable for future generations will remain out of reach – not because cities lack ideas or commitment, but because they lack the tools and resources to match their ambition.
