The Commission called this a “summer of truth”. Europe needs to prepare for climate disruption before it becomes a crisis. The Systems Transformation Hub welcomes the Climate Resilience Framework as a step towards that goal: bringing the risks facing essential systems into a shared European approach. Decisions made now will shape how well those systems serve people for decades.
Those decisions must address both the impacts of warming and its causes. Global emissions reductions have so far fallen short, increasing the risks Europe must prepare for. How much adaptation will ultimately be needed depends above all on how far warming can still be limited. Mitigation is therefore the first and most effective line of resilience, and the Framework’s implementation should strengthen, not compete with, emissions reduction.
A drought can reduce electricity generation just as heat pushes up demand for cooling. Such pressures do not stay within the boundaries of individual sectors, and their consequences often fall hardest on people with the fewest resources to respond. Our members’ and partners’ work shows why these connections must shape resilience planning.
The Framework recognises these connections and brings them into a common European approach. Its proposals for a shared reference warming trajectory, clearer responsibility for managing climate risks and more coordinated national plans provide a basis for preparing for future conditions across policy areas and levels of government.
This matters because many decisions made today will remain with us for decades. A local authority planning housing or public spaces needs to account for future heat. An energy provider needs to consider how changing water availability affects generation. These choices require knowledge of local conditions and an understanding of pressures elsewhere. Looking across systems can reveal solutions that serve several needs and help avoid investments that create additional vulnerabilities.
For people, resilience means being able to meet essential needs even under pressure. Energy, food, the built environment and mobility meet most of these needs, account for around 90 per cent of global material demand and depend closely on land and water. Our work on these systems provides a practical way to assess whose needs are being met, where exposure remains high and how resources should be directed. Building renovation, for example, can protect people from heat while reducing energy demand and emissions.
Financing will help determine whether these complementary goals are pursued together or forced into competition. The Framework’s investment measures, the EIB’s planned adaptation financing and the proposed Climate Insurance Alliance create concrete avenues for cooperation. The Alliance’s focus on uptake, prevention and insurance capacity addresses concerns already facing households, businesses and public authorities. These avenues operate within tight limits. Public funds are constrained, and most member states have little budgetary room to absorb new demands. In several member states, with the Commission’s agreement, funding intended for preventing climate change is already being redirected towards adaptation. This does strengthen resilience, but it leaves less for mitigation, which over time increases the adaptation burden itself. Prioritising investments that address both will make the most of limited resources.
Applying these measures will require sustained work with those responsible for planning, financing and delivering essential services, as well as the communities that depend on them. Their involvement can help turn the Framework’s provisions into workable decisions about investment, costs and protection.
These questions also run through our work with members and partners. As the Framework moves through negotiations, we look forward to bringing that experience into discussions with EU institutions and working with stakeholders on its application. The Framework provides a shared basis for these choices. Connecting decisions across sectors and identifying investments that address several risks while reducing emissions can give it practical effect, reducing the disruption and costs communities face in the years to come.