From adaptation planning to action: Insights into progress and challenges across Europe

Adaptation actions for climate preparedness and resilience

As extreme weather becomes more common and economic losses continue to rise, implementing adaptation actions to strengthen Europe’s climate preparedness and resilience is essential. EUCRA’s results demonstrate that proactive adaptation is needed to protect ecosystems, people and infrastructure from escalating risks while safeguarding Europe’s competitiveness, stability and security.

This briefing provides insights into progress and challenges of climate adaptation policies and actions. It tracks Europe’s progress towards climate resilience. It is based on information EU Member States reported in 2025 under Article 19 of the Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action (Governance Regulation). Unless stated otherwise, the analysis covers the EU-27 data reported until 31 August 2025 and includes comparisons with previous reporting cycles. When available, data from voluntary reporting and desk research extends the scope to all 32 EEA member countries (Note 1). The findings highlight collective progress while also revealing key implementation challenges and measuring adaptation actions’ effectiveness across Europe.

Adaptation policy readiness: an opportunity for successful implementation

The 2025 reported data confirm that all EEA member countries have adopted adaptation policies to address climate risks, reduce vulnerability and strengthen climate resilience. Countries also continue to make progress across all stages of the adaptation policy cycle (Note 2). They are using a variety of policy instruments, including dedicated national or federal adaptation laws, climate laws, other legislative acts with adaptation provisions, national adaptation strategies and plans, and standalone sectoral or regional and subnational policies to guide adaptation planning and implementation. The well-developed policy landscape indicates a broad foundation of policy readiness across Europe, building on more than a decade of national and EU-level experience with developing adaptation policies.

As of 2025, all 27 EU Member States have adopted adaptation policies (Map 1). Of these, 24 reported having established national adaptation strategies (NASs), which provide high-level frameworks for coordinating adaptation efforts. All five additional EEA member countries also have a NAS in place. National adaptation plans (NAPs) have been reported by 21 EU Member States. These translate strategies into operational actions, which are often sector specific. Switzerland and Türkiye reported their NAPs in 2025. NAS and NAP adoption reflects a strong commitment to strategic planning, a foundation for effective implementation.

Depending on the governance structure of each country, adaptation policies can be designated as ‘national’, or ‘whole-of-country’ approach, emphasising that responsibility for action is shared across all levels of governance and is not limited to the national level alone.

Standalone sectoral adaptation plans (SAPs) allow countries to address sector-specific climate risks. SAPs make adaptation actions more tailored to the needs of high-impact sectors like agriculture, forestry, biodiversity, public health, defence, the built environment, marine and water management, and transport. They are less-commonly developed but are gaining traction as several countries are beginning to require their development through climate legislation (ETC CA, 2024). Finland, Ireland, Spain and Sweden reported having standalone sectoral adaptation plans in place. Regional adaptation plans (RAPs) facilitate adaptation action at the subnational level and were reported by Belgium, Finland, Greece, Portugal and Sweden.

Since 2023, 11 Member States have adopted or revised their NASs and/or NAPs, with a few others in the process of doing so. This reflects steady progress in revising national adaptation policies over the past 2.5 years. An increasing number of countries is adopting integrated ‘NASAPs’ (joint national adaptation strategies and adaptation plans) by adopting a single standalone document containing both strategic direction and an implementation plan. Türkiye adopted a NASAP in 2024.

Map 1. 2025 National adaptation policies - state of play in the EEA-32

Please select a resource that has a preview image available.

Emerging legal provisions for climate adaptation

Desk research, conducted in 2024 by the European Topic Centre on Climate Change Adaptation and LULUCF, shows national or federal climate laws are playing an increasingly important role in institutionalising adaptation policymaking and its governance. Moreover, they are being used to strengthen the legal basis for the adaptation policy cycle (Note 3). This trend signals a stronger commitment towards adaptation policymaking and legally-binding adaptation frameworks. As of 2025, 13 EU Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain) have included adaptation in national climate legislation. In addition, four EEA member countries (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Türkiye) have adopted laws that also include adaptation. Germany is currently the only country in Europe with a specific and standalone federal adaptation act (Map 1).

The content and scope of adaptation provisions in the national or federal climate laws vary considerably across countries. More comprehensive laws include provisions covering the overall adaptation policy cycle. These typically set out the obligations for conducting climate risk assessments, mandate adaptation policy development, require regular policy revisions and establish institutional frameworks with clear coordination roles. They may also promote mainstreaming, establish financial mechanisms, and introduce requirements for subnational adaptation policy and for monitoring, reporting and evaluation activities.

Most national or federal climate laws include a legal obligation to develop and/or revise an adaptation policy. In some cases, this applies to a single policy document, such as a NAS or NAP. In others, the mandate covers both or extends to additional policy instruments, such as SAPs in Ireland, Portugal and Spain, or RAPs (Greece).

National or federal climate laws vary in their coverage of governance levels. Some mandate actions solely at the national level while others extend requirements to subnational levels, requiring regional and/or local authorities to develop and implement their own adaptation policies. For example, Ireland requires local authority climate action plans; Greece mandates regional adaptation action plans; and Germany requires federal states (Länder) and local authorities to develop, implement and update adaptation strategies. Hungary’s climate law addresses climate change on a macroregional scale — the Carpathian basin.

National or federal climate laws generally do not define adaptation objectives. If qualitative objectives are included, which is rarely the case, then they are typically broad, such as reducing vulnerability or increasing resilience. No country has set clear, measurable targets for adaptation in climate laws. In most cases, they identify a NAS or NAP as a policy instrument through which adaptation objectives or targets are to be established.

National or federal climate laws with legal provisions for adaptation are relatively recent. In 12 out of the 17 countries with such provisions, climate laws have been adopted or updated within the past 5 years. Even the oldest laws are less than a decade old. As a result, practical implementation is often still in its early stages.

Besides national or federal climate laws, adaptation in Europe is addressed by other legal instruments which most often legislate spatial or territorial development, water management or nature protection. For example, Portugal’s planning law requires the development of a national programme for spatial planning policies which addresses climate risks, prevention and adaptation. The Delta Act is the Netherlands’ key legislation governing climate adaptation through the Delta Programme, particularly for water management and flood resilience. Sweden’s Ordinance on Climate Adaptation requires national government agencies and regional county administrative boards to integrate climate adaptation measures into their operations, strengthening resilience to climate impacts. Poland uses its nature protection law to introduce obligations for local adaptation. In France, employers are legally required to protect workers from intense heat episodes when weather-alert thresholds set by Météo-France are reached.

As legal instruments with adaptation provisions are not reported in a systematic way and due to the complexity and resource intensity of mapping, a comprehensive overview is currently unavailable. This lack of an overview limits a full understanding of the European landscape in relation to the legal mandate for adaptation. At the same time, the absence of legal provisions does not mean that relevant adaptation practices are not already in place or functioning effectively in a country.

As legal instruments with adaptation provisions are not reported in a systematic way and due to the complexity and resource intensity of mapping, a comprehensive overview is currently unavailable. This lack of an overview limits a full understanding of the European landscape in relation to the legal mandate for adaptation. At the same time, the absence of legal provisions does not mean that relevant adaptation practices are not already in place or functioning effectively in a country.

Acknowledging hazards and affected sectors

In 2025, EU Member States, Iceland, Switzerland and Türkiye continued to report heatwaves, floods, droughts and heavy precipitation as the most frequently-occurring acute climate hazards, consistent with the 2023 reported data. Chronic hazards remain dominated by changing temperatures and hydrological variability. Notably, an increasing number of countries reported a water scarcity hazard, pointing to evolving risk profiles and intensified challenges in 2025. Reporting also suggests a shift in how countries perceive how key hazards will develop in the future. An increasing number of countries moved from a state of uncertainty or lack of knowledge towards anticipating a significant increase in the occurrence of certain hazards, which points to growing awareness (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Key future hazards reported in 2025 by EU-27, Iceland, Switzerland and Türkiye

Agriculture and food was the most frequently reported key affected sector in 2025. The health, biodiversity, forestry and energy sectors follow, reflecting a broadening recognition of sectoral vulnerability (Figure 2). Overall, in comparison with 2023, countries reported more affected sectors, indicating a growing awareness about climate impacts. These findings underpin the need for robust and up-to-date knowledge on climate risks to guide evidence-based and preventative adaptation planning.

Figure 2. Key affected sectors reported in 2025 by EU-27, Iceland, Switzerland and Türkiye

EUCRA — a common inspiration for comprehensive climate risk assessments

Comprehensive climate risk assessments (CRAs) (Note 4) are cornerstones of robust adaptation policy and planning. They provide a systemic understanding of current and future climate risks across sectors and regions, help identify risk ownership, and can guide how to prioritise adaptation action. By doing so, they strengthen preparedness and resilience, support integration across governance levels and reduce the risk of maladaptation.

The 2025 reported data demonstrate further progress in developing and updating knowledge on climate risks, reinforcing the foundation for evidence-based policymaking on adaptation across Europe. Nearly all countries address climate risks in some form, ranging from thematic or sector-specific analyses to multi-risk and multi-sectoral, comprehensive CRAs. Most countries integrate CRA results into their adaptation policy cycles, ensuring that the next generation of policies is informed by the latest available knowledge on climate risks.

Between 2023 and 2025, six EU Member States completed new or updated CRAs with country-wide coverage, addressing multiple hazards and risks across sectors. As a result, 21 Member States now have comprehensive CRAs in place. Iceland has four reports mapping out potential vulnerabilities. Türkiye reported its first comprehensive vulnerability and risk assessment spanning 11 sectors while Switzerland reported its assessment in 2025. 13 Member States, including Belgium and the Netherlands, indicated that new CRAs are planned or currently in progress, or are revising their comprehensive CRAs. Several are drawing on EUCRA’s analytical approach as a reference.

Some countries continue to produce thematic, sector-specific or subnational risk analyses to support adaptation integration across sectors and governance levels.

Legal provisions in national or federal climate laws are increasingly common and support the institutionalisation of CRAs. 14 countries have introduced legal obligations to carry out CRAs, often tied to regular revision cycles. Two different models of obligatory CRAs can be distinguished. In roughly half of these countries (Finland, Germany, Ireland, Iceland, Spain and Switzerland) national or federal climate laws require the delivery of stand-alone, dedicated CRA reports. In others, including Croatia and Greece, the requirement is more implicit, embedded within the broader legal mandate to base adaptation strategies or plans (NASs/NAPs) on comprehensive assessments of impacts, vulnerabilities, and risks (ETC CA, 2024).

Learning gap: evaluation is key to informing and further strengthening future adaptation policies

In the 2025 data reporting, as in the 2021 and 2023 reporting cycles, monitoring and reporting remain the most frequently described component of monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) frameworks. Monitoring often focuses on climate trends, climate indices and adaptation planning or on partly tracking implementation. However, the focus is rarely on the outcomes of adaptation actions, which makes it difficult to evaluate effectiveness and efficiency or to inform future adaptation policies.

A growing number of countries reported more developed MEL frameworks or referred to recent progress reports or policy evaluations, suggesting that these frameworks are gradually maturing. Others have provided updates on existing adaptation actions, often linking them to ongoing adaptation-related projects. A few countries note that MEL systems are still under preparation.

National or federal climate laws play a growing role in supporting MEL as most of them introduce legal provisions requiring at least one component of MEL. Mostly monitoring, regular progress reports and reporting back from government to parliament are required, while those responsible for data collection and coordination are formally appointed. While legal provisions are an important enabler, their existence does not guarantee full implementation. In many cases, climate laws are relatively recent, and MEL systems are still being developed and operationalised (ETC CA, 2024).

Evaluations are less frequently reported. This trend has persisted across three reporting cycles. While many countries indicate that evaluation activities are planned or expected, only a few follow up with details on existing or finalised evaluations. As a result, little is known about their results. Where evaluations are carried out, they often rely on qualitative methods, criteria or proxies, with only a limited number of countries applying dedicated adaptation indicators.

The learning dimension is rarely mentioned; therefore, its role in adaptation policy development remains unclear. However, the revised adaptation policies increasingly reflect an evolving understanding of climate risks and reconsider improvements in scope, structure and approach. This indicates that learning is happening, even if not yet systematically captured or communicated.

Opportunities for smarter policy and progress reporting to support adaptation action

In 2025, countries reported shared challenges and gaps that slow down implementation. Knowledge and tools remain a common issue as data are often insufficient or inaccessible. These gaps include spatial datasets or information on adaptation costs and benefits at the sectoral and subnational levels. Countries also mention difficulties in interpreting available data and the lack of practice-oriented and user-friendly tools supporting decision-making. Governance barriers are widespread. These include unclear institutional roles and responsibilities (e.g. clear risk owners), limited implementation capacity (e.g. human, technical or financial resources) at the local and in some cases regional levels, and persistent challenges with cross-sectoral coordination (e.g. mostly project-based or single-sector actions instead of a holistic view). Adaptation is reported to be unevenly mainstreamed or integrated into key sectors such as agriculture, health or water management. Financial constraints persist as well, including insufficient long-term funding, difficulties in accessing national or EU funds, the absence of clear budget lines for adaptation and the lack of a clear visibility of private sector financing in adaptation. Finally, stakeholder engagement is still limited in some cases, particularly when it comes to involving the private sector.

Conceptual clarity remains a challenge in adaptation policy across Europe. The absence of common definitions, measurable adaptation targets and jointly-agreed adaptation indicators limits a shared understanding of adaptation progress and compromises monitoring, evaluation and learning effectiveness. While many countries apply diverse approaches to track adaptation actions’ outputs, insights remain limited to actual outcomes — such as reduced vulnerability, lowered climate risks and increased resilience.

The scope and structure of current reporting obligations under the Governance Regulation place strong emphasis on national circumstances, institutional arrangements, policies and the planning processes. These factors provide a good overview of adaptation policy frameworks across Europe. By contrast, implementation and outcomes are addressed and covered less in the reporting. The only structured insights into implementation come from voluntary Key Type Measure (ETC CA, 2021) reporting. However, as this information is optional, it remains incomplete and provides only a fragmented picture of adaptation actions on the ground. In addition, differing interpretations of the reporting requirements and the absence of common methodological approaches further reduce the consistency of reported information on adaptation actions, resulting in heterogeneous data.

The upcoming Governance Regulation review offers an opportunity to address these limitations and those highlighted in the 2024 European Court of Auditors’ special report Climate adaptation in the EU: Action not keeping up with ambition, which pointed to the descriptive nature of current reporting and the lack of quantifiable data. Refining reporting requirements would enable a clearer understanding of national adaptation policy and action implementation, and the progress made towards climate resilience.