Europe has “robust” policies on climate change adaptation, but they are poorly implemented. Since 2014, 4 out of 10 projects aimed at improving adaptation capacity have had a “modest or no” impact. The risk? Failing to keep up with climate change and seeing the damage from extreme events increase.
This evaluation comes from the European Court of Auditors. “We analyzed how the EU is responding to the urgent need to adapt to recurring extreme weather conditions,” said Klaus-Heiner Lehne, the Court member responsible for the audit. “We found issues in the practical implementation of the policies. If EU action is not better executed, the EU’s adaptation ambitions risk falling behind climate change.”
Climate Change Adaptation: Ineffective EU Reporting
In its 70-page report, the European Court of Auditors outlines the major issues with the approach taken by Brussels and EU member states toward climate change adaptation. While the adoption of EU regulations is a positive note—national plans, strategies, and laws generally align with Brussels’ directives—the assessment changes when looking at practical implementation.
One of the strongest criticisms concerns the reporting of concrete adaptation actions, which is deemed “ineffective” and “insufficient.” The main issue? Member states provide qualitative rather than quantitative assessments, staying at a general level rather than detailing the progress made. Another significant problem is the lack of common indicators.
Municipalities Unaware of Adaptation Tools and Plans
There is also a lack of awareness at the local level regarding adaptation tools. The auditors conducted a survey of 400 municipalities in four member states, finding that most were unaware of various adaptation strategies and plans.
Specifically:
- Nearly 70% were unaware of the EU’s adaptation strategy;
- 60% were unaware of national adaptation plans;
- 54% were unaware of regional adaptation plans;
- 77% were unaware of the Climate-ADAPT platform;
- 74% were unaware of Copernicus services.
Cases of Maladaptation
While most of the concrete actions reviewed by the auditors effectively addressed climate risks, and some best practices were identified, 40% of the projects produced poor results. Moreover, cases of “maladaptation” were frequently observed.
In these cases, conflicting priorities led to climate adaptation goals having to coexist with other objectives, such as competitiveness or regional development. Agricultural needs often played a role, such as irrigation (conflicting with water consumption levels and scarcity). The proposed solutions often increased—rather than decreased—vulnerability or exposure to climate change.
Examples include promoting irrigation for water-intensive crops instead of switching to less water-demanding ones or investing in energy-efficient snow cannons for artificial snow instead of focusing on year-round tourism.