Future Climate Change Assessment in Flood Risk Management: A Synthesis of Practices in Germany and the BeNeLux Countries

Climate change, with its links to an intensified water cycle, heavier rainfall, and potentially higher flood peaks, raises concerns about the adequacy of current flood risk management. The devastating July 2021 floods in western Europe underscored these concerns, highlighting the need for transboundary cooperation and shared expertise in adapting flood risk management to climate change. However, uncertainty in future flood projections presents challenges for agencies and governments in upgrading existing measures or designing new ones. Here, we review how climate change information is integrated into flood risk management, focusing on flood design values and flood hazard and risk maps. Focusing on Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg—the countries significantly impacted by the 2021 floods—we examine regional practices, as flood risk management is often organized at the sub‐national level. Specifically, we assess whether regions have published flood policy papers, developed future flooding scenarios under climate change, and translated these scenarios to flood hazard and risk maps and the design of protection measures. Our findings reveal that all 20 regions have adaptation plans addressing climate change and almost all regions have developed future flood projections but only three incorporate them into climate‐adjusted design values and only one provides flood hazard and risk maps under future climate scenarios. Assessments of the future climate vary widely. For example, Flanders in Belgium uses a full range of CMIP5 emission scenarios (RCP2.6 to RCP8.5), while Baden‐Württemberg and Bavaria in Germany rely on the worst‐case scenario (RCP8.5). Similarly, The Netherlands adopts an approach using 33 global climate models and a dynamic adaptation pathway framework to address uncertainties, whereas Saxony in Germany argues that the spread of projections is too large to derive design values and emphasizes the need for standardized scenarios and methods. In summary, our synthesis highlights substantial gaps in climate‐proofing flood risk management and significant regional variation in approaches. Enhanced and faster cross‐border learning could improve the effectiveness of climate‐informed flood risk management.