[Publication] The Use of Cohesion Policy in Disaster Response and Recovery

Background and aim of the study

In recent years, the European Union has faced an increasing number of natural disasters, including floods, wildfires, droughts, landslides, earthquakes and cyclones (in the EU’s outermost regions). Climate change is expected to further intensify both the frequency and severity of these events. While civil protection and disaster risk management remain primarily Member State competences, the EU plays a key supporting role by coordinating, complementing and reinforcing national actions through common frameworks, financial instruments and technical assistance.

To strengthen resilience, the EU has developed a range of policies and tools, including the Floods Directive, the EU Adaptation Strategy, the Copernicus Emergency Management Service, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM) and the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF). Cohesion Policy also plays a significant role in supporting disaster prevention, preparedness and recovery.

This study examines how Cohesion Policy supports EU regions in managing emergencies, strengthening short- and medium-term resilience, and promoting the reconstruction of infrastructure capable of withstanding future natural hazards. It also assesses how the ‘Build Back Better’ principle is currently integrated into Cohesion Policy and identifies options to strengthen its incorporation in future programming, in order to support more resilient and sustainable post-disaster reconstruction.

Use and effectiveness of EU policy instruments in disaster response and recovery:

The role of Cohesion Policy

The EU has developed a comprehensive set of instruments covering all phases of the disaster risk management (DRM) cycle, from prevention and preparedness to emergency response and post-disaster recovery. While this architecture offers broad coverage, partial overlaps between instruments raise issues of coherence, interoperability and strategic coordination. Available evidence on their overall effectiveness and efficiency remains limited.

Cohesion Policy plays a key role, particularly in prevention and resilience-building. In the 2021–2027 programming period, approximately EUR 17.9 billion (around 4.5% of the total budget of the European Regional Development Fund, Cohesion Fund and Just Transition Fund) has been programmed for climate change adaptation and risk management. This share varies significantly across Member States. Supported interventions focus mainly on climate adaptation and the prevention of floods and landslides, but overall spending on disaster risk management remains relatively low compared to total Cohesion Policy allocations. Several adjustments were introduced in the 2021–2027 period, including the Regional Emergency Support to Reconstruction (RESTORE), which increases flexibility for post-disaster reconstruction financing. As of September 2025, around EUR 1.6 billion has been allocated under RESTORE across five Member States and 14 programmes. Despite these developments and the positive contribution of Cohesion Policy to preparedness and resilience—through investments in protective infrastructure, risk mapping, the literature on governance capacity and nature-based solutions (NBS) and stakeholder evidence point to persistent gaps. These include insufficient coordination between key actors (Managing Authorities, civil protection bodies and environmental authorities), a lack of consistently risk-based project selection criteria, outdated territorial risk assessment tools, and monitoring systems that do not adequately capture long-term resilience and adaptation outcomes.

A survey of national and regional Managing Authorities conducted for this study confirms these findings. Respondents highlight major strengths of Cohesion Policy, such as predictable long-term funding, support for infrastructure and climate adaptation, and scope for innovation and flexibility. However, they also underline significant weaknesses, including administrative complexity, slow implementation, limited suitability for emergency response, competing investment priorities and overlaps with other EU funding instruments. Overall, the survey confirms that there is considerable scope to strengthen the role of Cohesion Policy in addressing disaster risks more effectively.

The “Build Back Better” approach

The Build Back Better (BBB) approach represents a shift from restoring pre-disaster conditions to strengthening resilience and reducing future vulnerabilities through a combination of structural and non-structural measures.

In the context of Cohesion Policy, BBB refers to using post-disaster recovery and reconstruction not merely to restore assets, but to rebuild safer, more resilient and future-proof communities, infrastructure and economies. It reframes recovery as an opportunity to reduce structural vulnerabilities, adapt to future climate and hazard conditions and strengthen institutional and social resilience. In operational terms, BBB within Cohesion Policy combines: risk-informed planning (e.g. reconstruction based on multi-hazard risk assessments and updated spatial data); resilient and green design (e.g. application of enhanced construction, environmental and digital standards anticipating future shocks); inclusive recovery (e.g. addressing the needs of vulnerable groups and restoring livelihoods and essential services); learning and continuous improvement (e.g. integrating lessons from past disasters into design, regulatory and governance frameworks).

Empirical evidence indicates that BBB generates long-term economic and social benefits. However, its implementation is often constrained by governance challenges, including limited community participation, post-disaster time pressure, and the lack of standardised metrics to assess BBB performance. EU instruments such as the EUSF and RESTORE are increasingly aligned with BBB principles by promoting resilience, sustainability and inclusiveness in post-disaster reconstruction.

Strengthening the integration of BBB into Cohesion Policy requires targeted legal, financial and governance adjustments to support risk-based solidarity and to incentivise resilience-oriented reconstruction rather than simple asset replacement.

Case studies of successful initiatives

Four EU case studies and one non-EU case study were carried out. The EU case studies are focused on providing an in-depth understanding of how Cohesion Policy funding has been used to respond to disasters and to strengthen resilience across different regional contexts. The non-EU case study is focused on conditions for applying the BBB principles.

The EU case studies show that where clear legal frameworks for disaster reconstruction are in place, countries are able to mobilise resources more rapidly while embedding resilience requirements. Strong pre-disaster planning and risk zoning emerge as essential conditions for BBB, as they facilitate more resilient reconstruction processes. Key bottlenecks within the EU include weaknesses in governance coordination and limited technical capacity at the local level.

Outside the EU, the experience of Canada’s Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) demonstrates that financial incentives can drive the adoption of higher resilience standards. Overall, the analysis confirms that effective BBB implementation requires measurable indicators and transparent monitoring mechanisms.

Conclusions and recommendations

Cohesion Policy has proven to be an essential source of financing for prevention, preparedness and, to a lesser extent, recovery measures. Its role in immediate emergency response remains limited. The main challenges in its use include administrative complexity, lengthy procedures, insufficient disaster-specific guidance and overlaps with other instruments.

On the basis of the analysis carried out, several recommendations can be formulated to strengthen the contribution of Cohesion Policy. At the EU level, it is recommended to recognise that recovery and reconstruction often extend beyond a single programming cycle, streamline procedures, promote innovation and knowledge exchange, and strengthen RESTORE as well as the integration of the BBB approach. Recommendations for national and regional policymakers include: enhancing the local capacity, improving coordination and planning, prioritising preventive infrastructure, reducing administrative burdens and strengthening monitoring systems.

Many of the study’s recommendations are consistent with the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) proposal, which promotes simplification, integration, flexibility and a streamlined monitoring framework. However, certain features of the post-2027 MFF proposal risk weakening Cohesion Policy’s role in reducing regional disparities, in particular due to a more centralised approach that could limit regional and local involvement, despite their key role in addressing climate-related vulnerabilities. To mitigate this risk, regional participation in disaster risk management should be ensured, funding for disaster risk management and climate adaptation increased, and dialogue between public authorities and businesses strengthened.

Future Cohesion Policy regulations should explicitly incorporate BBB principles into National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs), require risk-based reconstruction strategies, and integrate BBB criteria into project eligibility and selection processes to prioritise long-term resilience over simple restoration.

Operationalising BBB will require appropriate incentive and capacity-building mechanisms, including differentiated co-financing rates for verified resilience upgrades, simplified procedures for BBB-compliant projects and advance payments for early design phases. In addition, regional advisory mechanisms, peer-learning networks and EU-wide BBB indicators (such as the share of rebuilt assets exceeding pre-disaster standards, avoided losses and service continuity metrics) would support institutional learning, transparency and performance-based reconstruction.