Presentation
With the European Commission having presented on 28 October, 2026, its Framework for Climate Resilience, IDDRI is shedding light on the subject by publishing a Study covering EU Member States, which analyzes decisions relating to the resilience of critical infrastructure and how these are coordinated with operators’ planning. The diversity of practices is illustrated through sector-specific examples (electricity and rail networks) rooted in different national contexts.
Key Messages
- National experience shows that decision-making on climate resilience of critical infrastructure is fragmented across stakeholders and policy documents with different priorities and timeframes. Adaptation trade-offs and priority setting between public and private stakeholders can be based on various criteria, ranging from ensuring economic viability to societal value of critical infrastructure. In the absence of explicit public directives, operators are responsible for the strategic decisions to set the resilience levels to adapt infrastructure.
- Setting and aligning responsibilities (for choosing the level of resilience, the type of adaptation and the level of investment) is a prerequisite to ensuring that adaptation decisions reflect societal priorities. This is determined by mandates, governance, financing models and capacity, which vary across countries and sectors. As national authorities are starting to clarify risk ownership, the IFCR can act as an enabler by clearly mandating national authorities to act and creating a space for structured exchange of practices.
- Both public and private stakeholders are shifting their approach from protecting or strengthening specific assets to ensuring broader system resilience, integrating climate resilience in the operation of infrastructure systems and addressing interconnections across networks and territories. But gaps remain that cannot be solved by national authorities alone. The IFCR is an opportunity to provide the right coordination mechanism for addressing transboundary and cascading risks, and a common language and methods to integrate “resilience by design” within sectors.
- There is still limited recognition that full resilience will not be possible in all situations due to time and financial constraints. The relocation of assets or anticipation of transformations are only marginally discussed as long-term options, and nature-based solutions are often undervalued due to co-benefits that are harder to monetize. With post-disaster costs generally backed by public authorities, insufficient anticipation is putting growing pressure on public budgets. Clearer directives are therefore needed on levels of ambition and priorities for resilience.
