Description
What is “maladaptation”? Maladaptation to climate change refers to an action presented as adaptation but which ultimately increases vulnerability rather than reducing it—either directly or by shifting the risk to other places, groups, or future periods. In practice, it is the opposite of good adaptation: a measure may seem useful in the short term but become costly or counterproductive in the medium and long term.
Generally speaking, there are three common scenarios involving “misalignment”: inefficient use of resources, such as investing in a solution that costs more and provides less protection than another; a transfer of vulnerability, when protecting one sector weakens another, or shifts the problem elsewhere; a calibration error, when the response is too weak, too rigid, or ill-suited to future developments.
The central idea is that true adaptation must reduce net vulnerability, not merely respond to an immediate threat. The statistics are clear: Europe is the continent warming the fastest, and 2024 was the hottest year on record in Europe. The impacts are already highly visible: widespread flooding, storms, heat stress, heatwave-related deaths, and the spread of certain health risks. In this context, the risk of maladaptation is high if policies prioritize rapid but inflexible responses, such as overly specialized infrastructure or developments that increase future exposure. The 2024 European State of the Climate report, co-authored by the EEA and the World Meteorological Organization, is clear: adaptation is progressing, but unevenly. Fifty-one percent of European cities now have a climate adaptation plan, which demonstrates real momentum but also significant room for improvement. The real challenge, therefore, is not just to increase the number of plans, but to ensure they are not poorly designed…
Effective adaptation is often described as “no-regrets” adaptation: it reduces vulnerability today while remaining useful regardless of future scenarios. This means prioritizing solutions that are flexible, reversible, consistent with ecosystems, and do not preclude future options. But poor adaptation, often called “failed” adaptation, comes at a double cost: first, we pay for an ineffective measure, and then we pay again to correct its negative effects later.
At the European level, the overall costs of inaction or poor preparation are becoming very high, making adaptation decisions particularly important: According to the World Bank’s report “The State of Private Investment in Climate Change Adaptation,” to ensure resilient infrastructure, investment estimates cited in the literature range from $140 to $300 billion by 2030, and then from $280 to $500 billion by 2050.
This does indeed show that proper adaptation comes at a cost, but what is the real cost of maladaptation—both financially and in terms of its impact on local communities and the long-term sustainability of a region? How could the future European climate change adaptation strategy sustainably address the issue of maladaptation for Member States?
Speakers
- Alexandra DE JONG, Expert in the economics of climate resilience at the European Environment Agency
- Virginia SCHREURS, Director of Sustainable Development and European Affairs, Assuralia
- Adèle TANGUY, Researcher on climate risks and adaptation policies at IDDRI
- Jean Pascal VAN YPERSELE, Climatologist, member of the IPCC
Moderator: Bruno REBELLE, Independent Consultant at ECOLOGIKA and member of Climate Chance