Why can climate resilience efforts fall through the cracks?

In the past 20 years, climate-related disasters have nearly doubled.

2024 was the hottest year on record, with extreme weather causing US$318 billion in global losses.

Every dollar spent on resilience can save six in future costs. But the longer we wait, the more expensive it becomes.

There are ways to adapt to this changing climate, but to do so, strong governance is key.

This means clear leadership, coordination across all levels, binding frameworks, and sustained funding.

A new ICE insights paper explores how governments are structuring their policies, institutions, and governance systems to build this infrastructure resilience.

Clear roles and responsibilities are essential

Climate adaptation efforts involve many people at different levels. Without clear mandates or instructions, action becomes uncoordinated and might even overlap.

This makes it hard to track accountability and causes progress to stall. Setting out clear responsibilities and establishing central leadership can improve this.

For example, in its National Adaptation Strategy, Canada has clearly outlined the distinct roles and responsibilities of national, regional and local governments.

In Australia, the Queensland Reconstruction Authority leads the state government’s programme of infrastructure renewal and recovery within disaster-affected communities.

Climate resilience grows when siloes are broken down

Climate resilience planning is often fragmented. National, regional, and local strategies don’t always align.

Working in siloes can lead parties to overlook certain risks. Effective governance needs to coordinate vertically across government levels and horizontally among regions, agencies, and communities.

The Netherlands’ Delta Programme is a strong example of aligning national and local efforts on flood risk.

An independent Delta commissioner presents an annual plan to Parliament to ensure long-term accountability.

The commissioner then works closely with the ministries, provincial and municipal authorities, regional water boards, the business community, social organisations and the public to action the plan.

Governments can also improve coordination through inclusive public engagement. In New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, indigenous communities are actively involved in adaptation planning.

Clear targets and long-term plans help outlast political cycles

National adaptation plans can be vague, lacking clear targets and dedicated funding.

To drive real action, these plans should include specific, measurable goals tied to specific budgets.

Establishing long-term targets and regularly reporting on progress can also promote accountability and ensure continuity beyond election cycles.

For instance, Canada’s 2023 National Adaptation Strategy sets clear goals and metrics across five priority areas, including infrastructure.

The corresponding adaptation plan includes 73 actions, annual reporting, and a goal for all infrastructure to be climate resilient by 2050.

Governments need to build resilience before the disaster strikes

Governments often respond to climate impacts after they happen. Being reactive makes their countries more vulnerable and raises future costs when having to rebuild.

Planning ahead would involve being forward-looking, embedding climate risks into policies and investing in retrofitting and maintaining current infrastructure.

The Queensland Reconstruction Authority’s approach has evolved from one of reactive recovery to one that emphasises ‘building back better’ and enhancing resilience.

The Queensland Betterment Fund has enabled local councils to upgrade infrastructure to a more resilient standard. It has approved over 750 projects across 70 local government areas, with a total value exceeding AUD$533 million.

Resilience needs to be embedded into all infrastructure planning

Governments should consider baking climate risk into core planning processes, from national infrastructure strategies to land use plans.

For existing structures and assets, there must be programmes to systematically retrofit and upgrade them.

Governments should update standards, codes and project appraisal frameworks to require that new infrastructure is designed to withstand current and future climate risks.

In the UK, the upcoming 10-year infrastructure strategy must set out how the government will integrate climate adaptation into infrastructure delivery.

In addition, as the ICE previously recommended, making the Adaptation Reporting Power mandatory for infrastructure operators and adopting outcome-based resilience standards would further strengthen the UK’s climate resilience.

Infrastructure resilience requires system thinking

Infrastructure failures from natural disasters show how deeply connected our systems are.

Extreme weather events can create cascading failures, as seen during Cyclone Gabrielle in New Zealand in 2023.

Power outages, road closures and communication breakdowns compounded the disaster's impact across the country's north island.

To manage these risks, governance needs to support systems thinking in the planning, delivery, operation and recovery of infrastructure networks.

Data-driven technologies also provide a huge opportunity. Digital twins – a virtual representation of a structure – can highlight how infrastructure assets work together in a system to become more resilient.

Empowering local governments drives climate adaptation

Local governments often lack the capacity they need to take climate action. Many don’t have the technical expertise and skilled workforce required.

They need to be empowered with resources, authority, and opportunities for knowledge sharing. For example, there are platforms that can help build capacity and skills that are tailored to local needs.

National governments can also mandate local adaptation measures. This helps to ensure that resilience building becomes an intrinsic part of local decision-making.

In 2013, Denmark’s government required all municipalities to create climate plans.

Through the DK2020 Project, they received technical support and tools, improving plan quality and building long-term capacity.

The UK government could consider a similar approach - mandating local authorities to adapt to climate change and allocating funding to support this duty.

The funding gap for adaptation remains a major barrier

While large sums are spent on infrastructure, too little is directed at resilience and adaptation.

In part, because it’s hard to capture the return on investment that these measures provide. Traditional cost-benefit tools often undervalue the long-term savings from avoided climate impacts.

Governments face tight budgets and competing priorities. Private investors hesitate without clear, consistent policy signals.

To close this gap, governments should consider:

• Launching dedicated adaptation funds;
• Reforming how investment success is determined;
• Using innovative finance tools;
• Requiring climate risks to be disclosed; and
• Enforcing resilience standards.

For example, in Australia, the Disaster Ready Fund provides up to AUD $200 million a year for flood levees, fire breaks, and hazard mapping. Some projects are also co-designed with First Nations communities.

Public funding should be aligned with resilience goals.

In the UK, the upcoming spending review must allocate enough funds for proactive adaptation.

The UK government should also consider a national review of the economics of adaptation to understand the long-term costs of inaction.