The triple planetary environmental crisis – climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution – is intensifying socio-economic and geopolitical pressures. They require a holistic and ambitious approach. Adaptation to climate impacts is no longer optional. On 10 March 2024, the European Environment Agency (EEA) released the first European Climate Risk Assessment which clearly shows the wide range of risks already facing people, economies and ecosystems across Europe, and the far greater risks for an even hotter future. Since then, many Europeans across the continent have been exposed to extreme events, from North to South and from East to West. Two recent examples illustrate this: Europe had its most destructive wildfire season in recorded history as of September 2025. The floods in Spain in October 2024 killed more than 200 people, displaced more than 400 people, and saw hundreds of thousands without water and electricity. Studies show such events to be significantly more likely in a fossil-fuel driven heating climate.
An EU climate resilience framework expected in 2026
As the recent ESABCC report published on 17 February has highlighted, current adaptation efforts are insufficient, following other similar findings such as by the European Court of Auditors. The expected climate impacts “could increasingly weaken Europe’s competitiveness, strain public budgets and increase security risks”, if adaptation is not stepped up. Therefore, it is critical that the “European climate resilience and risk management – integrated framework” which the European Commission plans to present in Q4 of 2026, will show the possible pathways and political agreements necessary and conducive for making the EU’s adaptation efforts fit for purpose.
Citizens, businesses and civil society organisations were invited to share views through a public consultation. According to the European Commission announcements on the consultation page, the framework “will consist of a balanced policy package which, following a thorough impact assessment process, is expected to be adopted during the second half of 2026.” Its main objective will be “to establish a more ambitious, comprehensive and coherent EU approach to climate resilience and preparedness, covering individual Member States and the EU as a whole.”
Discussions ahead of the proposal and how it can enhance the EU’s adaptation and climate resilience response are helpful to shape and strengthen it ahead of its publication. For example, researchers at IDDRI recently identified, based on various expert interviews including with CAN Europe staff, three critical levers:
- Setting up common standards and definitions to foster a common understanding;
- Setting up EU-level resilience targets and guidelines as a starting point for nationally-determined specific targets; and
- Ensuring greater coherence of national plans.
Due to the cross-boundary and multi-sectoral nature of climate impacts, this is not a matter for the “climate community” only, and, as IDDRI rightly finds, the effectiveness of the framework will depend on the “capacity to mobilize beyond the climate community to get a real political endorsement within sectors and countries is what will determine the effectiveness of this framework.”
CAN Europe priorities
Representing 200+ member organisations from across Europe, which operate in a variety of contexts, CAN Europe also participated in the consultation. Our priorities in the consultation were:
The EU should base this framework on the latest available science, including from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)’s Adaptation Gap reports, or European Climate Risk Assessment (EUCRA), and higher warming scenarios derived from the currently insufficient level of aggregate emission reduction efforts, while pursuing efforts to keep within the Paris Agreement 1.5°C goal. It is also clear that adaptation and resilience building is a permanent process of adaptation itself, as societies learn, as climate impacts unfold, and as new scientific findings might also require adjustments in political strategies and implementation efforts. Adaptation and mitigation go hand in hand: it would be almost impossible and overly costly to adapt to a 2 or 3°C world, with Europe warming even faster. The EU must achieve domestic climate neutrality by 2040 to do its fair share. In very concrete terms, there is a huge potential for measures that create synergies between adaptation and mitigation (e.g. agroecology; forests/sinks, renewables for cooling, water access etc.) which the EU’s strategy should also highlight.
The framework should set intermediary targets and milestones (for 2030 and 2040) towards the Strategy’s 2050 resilience objective including indicators to track progress. As also highlighted by ESABCC, it should be guided by a “fair and just climate resilience by design” approach, prioritising support to households/communities that are most exposed to climate risks and with the least resources to adapt, while ensuring it benefits large segments of society and is developed in an intersectional, inclusive approach.
The framework should elaborate concrete proposals to enhance the mainstreaming of adaptation in all levels of governance and sectoral policies, showing that a greener and resilient economy will preserve and create jobs that reduce inequalities and create a safer, prosperous society fostering green and social entrepreneurship and innovation and reducing climate-related fiscal risks. Just transition policies across sectors should support high quality jobs which are resilient to increasing climate impacts (e.g. adjustments to working hours due to heat stress).
Preserving and restoring Europe’s ecosystems is critical. Using nature first to help people adapt can maximise the co-benefits that nature-based solutions provide: for water, food security, health. Nature can be one of our most powerful allies in tackling the climate crisis, and healthy ecosystems are foundational to social wellbeing. Hence, any rollback of existing legislation must be resisted, and instead the new framework should promote the implementation in areas such as the Nature Restoration Law or the Water Framework Directive. The EU andMember States should introduce specific spatial planning measures that prohibit new construction in high-risk areas.
It will be critical to dedicate sufficient funds to adaptation. The EU should ensure that such funds are made more easily accessible to community-led initiatives under the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). CAN Europe calls for a €2-trillion EU budget that earmarks 50% for closing the climate and biodiversity investment gaps: EU funds should have accurate horizontal mainstreaming targets and earmarking, incl. strong definitions of qualifying adaptation actions; a more robust implementation of the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ (DNSH) principle, incl. to adaptation objectives and avoiding maladaptation; dedicated finance for a socially just transition should be protected and expanded. Funds should be generated applying progressive taxation options reflecting the polluter pays principle.
Europe`s global obligation on climate adaptation
Finally, the EU’s climate resilience and risk management efforts do not take place in a borderless vacuum. Climate impacts do not care about administrative boundaries. What happens outside the EU, both successes and failures in adaptation, will directly concern Europe. It will therefore be critical for the EU to increase finance for vulnerable developing country regions as part of its responsibility to support such affected areas. In the next MFF the Commission’s proposal for EUR 200 billion for Global Europe should be maintained, and the EU institutions should agree 15% biodiversity, 35% climate spending targets (equal distribution to mitigation, adaptation and addressing loss and damage) and 85% to projects promoting gender equality. CAN Europe will also measure the proposals by the European Commission against our positions once it is published.