Europe is experiencing an exceptionally hot and dry summer. Temperature records are being broken, rivers are drying up, agriculture is facing crop losses, and even in Germany entire communities are now being evacuated because of wildfires.

It is therefore hardly surprising that the debate about the consequences of climate change - and how we adapt to them - is gaining momentum. In Germany, the discussion has focused in particular on the question of responsibility. Is heat protection primarily a municipal task, or does it require greater involvement from the federal government, potentially even an amendment to the constitution? In practice, the federal government’s room for manoeuvre is limited. Under Germany’s federal system, responsibility for heat protection lies primarily with the federal states. The federal government can establish funding programmes, and it does. What is missing, however, is a permanent joint financing mechanism for climate adaptation. Establishing climate adaptation as a joint federal-state responsibility under the German constitution would make this possible. The federal government itself is divided on the issue.

Municipalities know where action is needed

So far, the practical implementation of heat protection has largely been left to the federal states and municipalities. In particularly heat-exposed cities in south-western Germany, some municipalities are already considerably further ahead. Worms is one example. It was one of the first cities in Germany to introduce a comprehensive Heat Action Plan. The plan explicitly distinguishes between emergency measures during a heatwave, preparatory measures ahead of the summer, and long-term urban transformation.

Worms recognised early on that heat is both a systemic risk and a municipal management challenge. And much of the necessary knowledge does indeed need to exist locally: Which public square heats up particularly badly? Which schoolyard should be depaved? Which childcare centre needs more shade?

The challenge on the ground is therefore often less a lack of commitment than implementation. Municipal budgets are notoriously tight. Progress often depends on federal states putting appropriate funding programmes in place. Rhineland-Palatinate did so, for example, following the Ahr Valley disaster. In 2022, the state created the Municipal Investment Programme for Climate Protection and Innovation, known as KIPKI, with a total volume of €250 million. Most of the funding was allocated to municipalities based on population size. Of these funds, 75% had to be spent on climate mitigation, while up to 25% could be invested in climate adaptation.

One positive aspect was that the programme funded concrete investments. For schools and childcare centres, for example, eligible measures explicitly included shading, depaving, greening outdoor areas, and green roofs and façades.

Money alone does not solve the problem

But eligibility for funding does not answer the most important question: Which measure delivers the greatest benefit for the money invested?

This is often difficult for municipalities to assess, and funding is therefore not automatically directed towards the measures with the greatest impact. While the costs of an intervention are immediately visible, its benefits often materialise over many years in the form of avoided damage, lower economic follow-on costs, and greater resilience to future extreme weather events. Even with good risk data, determining this cost-benefit ratio is far from straightforward.

What France does differently

France shows that local implementation and national responsibility do not have to be contradictory. Following the catastrophic heatwave of 2003, the country developed a more nationally coordinated system for heat protection.

Heat is now embedded in existing civil protection and emergency management structures. The national government sets the framework, prefectures coordinate at the regional level, and municipalities and institutions have defined responsibilities on the ground. Météo-France operates a four-level warning system, municipalities maintain registers for particularly vulnerable people, and protection and emergency procedures are institutionalised in care facilities. Schools are also subject to systematic requirements for analysing heat risks.

In addition, France now bases its climate adaptation planning on a nationally consistent reference scenario. The country plans for warming of 4°C by 2100, providing a common basis for long-term adaptation planning and investment decisions.

France therefore by no means implements everything centrally. But the different levels of government operate more consistently within a common framework — and that is the key difference compared with Germany.

What Germany should change now

Germany has so far relied more heavily on recommendations and on action by the federal states, municipalities and individual institutions. There are many good approaches and building blocks, such as the “Heat Protection Plan for Health” introduced under former Health Minister Karl Lauterbach. A Climate Adaptation Act has also been in force since 2024, placing greater responsibility on the federal states.

But that will not be enough. This summer has shown just how urgent the need for action has become. By early August, the Robert Koch Institute estimated that around 14,000 heat-related deaths had already occurred in Germany in 2026.

Adapting to human-induced climate change is a generational challenge. Germany’s debate about which level of government is responsible therefore falls short. What is needed are more common standards, clearly defined responsibilities and coordinated response mechanisms across all levels of government — as well as long-term financing for investments that demonstrably work.

If climate adaptation is a generational challenge, it must also become a shared national responsibility.