In May 2025, partners from ICA, BES, UFZ, SINTEF, AQUA, BC3, Gabrovo Municipality, GVA, CRA, G&Co, and EAEE came together for the 3rd Communities of Practice session. Representing all case study regions under the SOTERIA project, participants brought diverse regional perspectives to the table.

This session focused on the question: “Which institutions are responsible for prevention, and how do their roles differ across regions?” While the discussions highlighted strong awareness of climate risks across regions, they also revealed persistent challenges- limited funding, unclear institutional roles, and misaligned incentives continue to hinder the coordination and implementation of effective preventive measures.

Norway: Reflections on the Existing Infrastructure

Our Partners from SINTEF shared Norway’s challenges in implementing preventive measures for existing infrastructure at risk from floods and landslides. While municipalities are responsible for new developments under the Planning and Building Act, the responsibility for existing buildings is less defined, often split between landowners and municipalities, depending on the scale and public interest.

Municipalities are key actors in climate change adaptation (CCA), but lack clear mandates for prevention. Funding is available through the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE), yet less than half of eligible projects are approved, even when they are socioeconomically beneficial. Prevention remains outside municipalities’ core duties, with focus still on risk assessments and emergency preparedness.

Key recommendations included:

• – Develop clear guidelines defining the roles of landowners and municipalities.
• – Require municipalities to conduct cost-benefit analyses for preventive measures.
• – Encourage insurance models that reward prevention efforts
• – Improve tracking of adaptive investments within municipal insurance policies.
• – Explore coverage for indirect damages, such as property value loss due to risk restrictions.

Roundtable discussion highlights

Following the presentation, a roundtable brought together representatives from various case study regions, highlighting diverse institutional approaches and shared challenges:

Gabrovo, Bulgaria

In Gabrovo, the discussion is centered on the availability and coordination of data across departments. Currently, the Environmental Protection, Fire, and Water Departments each maintain their data separately. These organizations operate in silos, and the municipality does not intervene in their internal operations. To improve data sharing and foster collaboration, Gabrovo needs a Municipal Data Hub, one that empowers departments to share responsibilities and take collective action for the benefit of the region.

Germany (Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt & Bavaria)

The discussion highlighted different situations in the Saxony and Bavarian regions. Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt showcased a market-driven approach. Here, prevention is focused on personal incentives, particularly insurance. The “Flood Certificate” provides property owners with risk data, encouraging them to prepare effective preventative measures.

In Bavaria, farmers don’t receive any subsidies and are carrying out preventative measures on their own. Subsidies by the MPCI are limited to insurance premiums, and not prevention measures. With the lack of legal frameworks or policies defining roles, these farmers implement what brings them the most profit.

Valencia, Spain

The Ministry of Ecological Transition at the national level leads on adaptation policies, overseeing climate projections and early warning systems provided by the state meteorological agency (AEMET). The civil protection and emergency directorate manages national and regional emergency planning and response, focusing on risk prevention.

The Valencian Observatory for Climate Resilience and Management of Dana (Observatorio valenciano), a grassroots coalition of academics and storm survivors, plays a key role in bridging gaps between institutions to better prepare for future extreme events.

Zadar, Croatia

Paul Eberlein outlined Croatia’s robust-sounding system: the Ministry of Economy integrates climate risk into planning, the Agriculture Ministry funds insurance subsidies, and meteorological services feed data into early warnings. However, on the ground, limited insurance coverage, reactive compensation mechanisms, and the impacts of climate change on agriculture dominate.

The developments and best practices include:

• – Parametric drought insurance was introduced by Croatia Osiguranje in 2021
• – Insurance premium subsidies
• – Integration into the CAP strategic plan
• – Emergency financial support

In summary, while Croatia has made strides in integrating climate change adaptation into its agricultural policies and insurance frameworks, challenges remain in terms of insurance uptake and proactive risk management

Key takeaways

• – Institutional responsibilities, particularly for existing infrastructure, are often unclear or fragmented.
• – Municipalities frequently lack legal mandates, resources, or incentives to take preventive action.
• – Innovative tools are emerging, including:
  • – Insurance mechanisms that promote adaptation.
  • – Grassroots initiatives that support coordination and resilience.
  • – Data hubs to improve cross-departmental collaboration.

This session emphasized the importance of establishing clearer frameworks, strengthening funding mechanisms, and enhancing the integration of prevention into everyday institutional practices.