More than 75% of Europeans live in cities, which are becoming the main battlegrounds in the fight against the climate crisis. It is in these urban centres that we will decide whether we win or lose this fight. It is therefore natural assume that local governments are actively working to prepare their cities for increasing risks such as heat waves, floods, or droughts.

However, a recent large-scale survey of European cities has revealed some surprising and worrying facts. Despite planning and discussion, gaps persist in critical areas that threaten our collective resilience. This article presents five of the most surprising findings, showing where plans diverge from reality.

1. The Paradox of Empty Chairs: The Plans Are There, But the People Are Missing

It is encouraging that most cities are realising the seriousness of the situation and are preparing strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Data shows that as many as 65 % European cities already have or are developing an integrated climate strategy.

But here’s a fundamental paradox. While plans exist, a worrying 19 % cities – almost a fifth – do not have a single staff member dedicated to climate change adaptation. This lack of human resources raises a serious question: How can ambitious plans be implemented and transformed from strategic documents into real action on the ground when no one is directly accountable for them?

2. Financial time bomb: Cities don't have disaster budgets

Financial preparedness is fundamental to resilience. However, the survey revealed an alarming lack of proactive financing. Only half (50 %) of cities have or are developing a dedicated climate resilience finance strategy.

Even more worrying is the finding that only 9 % cities have a dedicated budget for climate-related disasters. This financial unpreparedness is further highlighted by the fact that only 20 % cities work with insurance companies to support investments in resilience, and only 7 % use any tool to assess and prioritize the costs and benefits of adaptation measures. It is not just a lack of disaster budgets, but an absence of basic mechanisms for strategic financial planning.

3. Conscious risk: We still allow construction in flood zones

Flooding caused by torrential rains is one of the three biggest climate threats facing European cities, so it would be logical to expect urban planning to actively prevent further development in high-risk areas.

The reality is different, however. The survey found that as many as 13 % cities do not restrict development in flood-prone areas. This approach is in stark contrast to the principles of adaptation and knowingly increases the risk to new residents and property. It is a clear example of where short-term developer interests can outweigh long-term safety and sustainability.

4. Blind spot in regulations: We protect new buildings, but ignore old ones

Building codes are a key tool for ensuring the resilience of urban infrastructure. Cities are truly future-focused – as many as 81 % of them have or are developing building codes focused on the resilience of new buildings.

The problem, however, is with existing buildings, which make up the vast majority of urban environments. Only 57 % cities have equivalent regulations in place for the renovation and modernization of older buildings. This regulatory blind spot is critical because it is the older, less resilient housing stock that is most vulnerable to extreme weather, and therefore poses the greatest risk to residents.

5. The data dilemma: We have the information, but we lack the resources to use it

In today’s world, it might seem like the problem with decision-making is a lack of data. However, research shows that cities collect a wealth of climate data, but they face fundamental barriers to using it. These barriers are not technical in nature.

The biggest obstacles to using climate data are not missing information, but lack of finance and personnel.

This point ties together the previous findings: the problem is not a lack of knowledge, but a systemic crisis of capacity. Without people (the Paradox of Empty Chairs) and without money (the Financial Time Bomb), even the best data remains unused.

Are we ready for reality?

The survey does not reveal five separate problems, but one central one: European cities are trapped between planning and implementation. Ambitious strategies clash with the harsh reality of missing staff, non-existent budgets and inconsistent policies, leading to paradoxical decisions such as allowing construction in flood zones.

Plans on paper are not enough. If we want to truly protect our cities, we need to move from strategy to implementation.

When you look at your city, do you believe it is truly prepared for what is coming? JRi