…and resilience depends on supply chains and logistics

(Thanks to Karl Wright for edits and suggestions)

At the recent Energy Security Hub 2026, organized by BMW Foundation on the fringes of the Munich Security Conference, I escaped the ‘climate bubble’ and entered the ‘energy security huddle’.

The atmosphere this year was politer than last. This time around, politicians sugar-coated their speeches. But the call was loud and clear. Europe’s energy security is at stake.

On our ability to secure an abundant supply of affordable energy hangs the future of European industry, AI and defense. Only if we build European capabilities in all these areas, and more, will Europe remain investable, prosperous, sustainable, resilient and sovereign.

It was refreshing to hear senior policymakers discuss these issues in Munich. What I did not hear in the resilience discussion was a rigorous analysis of the role and significance of physical climate risk.

Floods, extreme heat and storms are already affecting energy assets and the supporting infrastructure and operations we rely on. Energy security is not only about supply and generation, but also about whether the supply chains and logistics for key components, including transformers, cables, copper, steel and critical raw materials, hold up under increasing weather disruption.

Why Resilience: the opportunity for change

Yes, this conference was focused on Europe. But many of the findings relate to markets around the world. Rather than stacking up the problems, I’ve tried to phrase my observations as solutions and bring in the Life-Links relevance of climate, resilient supply chains and logistics. Note: quotes have been abridged for clarity.

Safeguard Europe from unfair competition because of subsidized goods from outside Europe​

• “This is a structural crisis we now have, and this is more a question of weeks and months rather than years. Electrical steel is a high-end niche product that you need for transformers, so no energy transition can happen without this steel. We are the last ones in Europe with no safeguards at all from unfair competition. Asian producers know that, so they sell their steel below production prices into Europe, doubled their exports within the last month. We are reducing capacity, shutting down plans, short-term labor, and if nothing happens Europe will be totally dependent on Chinese and Asian producers.” – Marie Jaroni, CEO, thyssenkrupp Steel Europe.

• “We want to avoid the ‘solar error’, whereby Europe was subsidizing demand and China was subsidizing supply. As a result, Europe lost its market share of 40% to 0% within 10 years. – Michael Brigl, Head of Europe, Boston Consulting Group.

  Life-Links: Competitiveness is also a resilience issue: if logistics costs spike after extreme weather (rerouting, damaged infrastructure, insurance), carbon and energy costs are no longer the only drivers of offshoring.

Support industry to reduce its operating costs​

• “There is not a country in the world that has a strong manufacturing sector without a strong chemical industry, Economics are driving value chains out of Europe. It’s energy costs, but the increasing cost of carbon makes us completely uncompetitive against the rest of the world where there is no price on carbon. The CBAM works in theory but in practice it will fail in the marketplace.” – Markus Kameith, CEO BASF.

  Life-Links: energy is the critical link in every single supply chain. It is possible to engineer a future zero-carbon European energy grid that delivers security and affordability. But only if all three factors are conscious system-design principles now. And only if we act on those principles.

Accelerate access to grids and electricity​

• “We have fantastic assets in Europe to build our own demand, but the market is not single or one. We must speed up permitting for grid expansions and connections to bring production costs down.” – Jessika ROSWALL, EU Commissioner for Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy.

• “The money is not the question, there are trillions out there. It’s getting the investable opportunities that are acceptable to the public. The relationship between what people are prepared to pay for their energy and what the cost of energy is going to be is a very crucial one. Where AI and data centers are being built, this is having an impact on the local population because they are facing much higher electricity costs.” – Julia Prescot, Co-Founder, Meridiam & Deputy Chair, National Infrastructure Commission, UK.

• “Energy policy is security policy. We have to rely mainly on renewable energy because we can produce that ourselves. There is no electrification without grids, and without electrification we will have no industry in Europe. Grids are essential to our independence. The good news is that Europe has all the capabilities, such as on HVDC [for long-distance transmission], and at TenneT 75% of the value creation is in Europe” – Tim Meyerjürgens, CEO, TenneT Germany and Vice-Chair, ENTSO-E.

• “The principal constraint of hyperscale data centers is the access to energy. It’s no longer just the end-product that you’re investing in. Cables have been mentioned, and we just finished a comprehensive study on copper in the age of AI: by the year 2040 we’re going to have a 10 million tons of shortage of copper, and it takes 17 years to open a new copper mine. The growth of electricity has a direct interrelationship with supply chains and who owns those supply chains.” – Carlos Pascual, Senior VP for Geopolitics and International Affairs, S&P Global Community Insights; former Ambassador to Mexico and Ukraine.

  Life-Links: This is exactly where the resilience conversation needs to expand: grids don’t just need permits and capital but also climate-resilient corridors to move components, and resilient ports/roads/rail and other transport links to keep replacements flowing when storms, floods or heat events hit.

Regulations, integration and cooperation between countries​

• “Policymakers used to set ambitious targets. But at the North Sea Summit they moved to implementation for offshore wind power, which is not about the technology but about the regulation, cooperation and sharing costs and benefits between European countries. For example, build hybrid interconnectors (that connect clusters of offshore wind farms to multiple countries), because then you use this asset not for 3,000 hours but 8,000 hours which makes it much cheaper.” – Tim Meyerjürgens, CEO, TenneT Germany and Vice-Chair, ENTSO-E.

• “You will need an integrated financial market within Europe to get the investments in innovation. We also have to rethink the dual use of innovation for industry and defense.” – Christian Bruch, CEO, Siemens Energy.

  Life-Links: The same logic applies to physical risk: climate hazards don’t respect borders, and neither do supply chains. Cooperation should include joint risk mapping and upgrades of the transport and logistics links that underpin Europe’s energy system.

Stimulate demand for green products made in Europe​

• “The stuff that goes into critical infrastructure has to be made in Europe. We think we are getting a good deal because it is cheaper, but in building a new energy infrastructure we need to think of not just short-term costs but long-term security and resilience. You really need to be willing to pay what I call the sovereignty premium, which in the long term is a good investment in home-grown energy with European companies. I expect policymakers to think 10-20 years ahead, so that companies can make the necessary investments.” – Anne Mettler, Board Member, European Innovation Council and Co-Founder Energy Resilience Leadership Group, who articulated her views on energy security in an article and LinkedIn post.

• “We invest in hydrogen, but will it be used? Our activities on hydrogen are very much demand-driven, but asking customers what they need is too complicated for them because they have a good sight for the next 3, 5, maybe 10 years, but our industry needs 20 years. Clients won’t be able to make a commitment which makes me secure enough for the investment.” – Egbert Laege, CEO SEFE (Safe Energy for Europe).

• “Funding or capital is not the bottle neck. I can invest in green technologies myself. My problem is ongoing operational costs. We have built the largest electrolyser in Europe with public funding, 54 megawatts, making 8,000 tons of green hydrogen. I have no market. Nobody wants green hydrogen.” – Markus Kameith, CEO BASF.

• “If you ask consumer if they are willing to pay for sustainable products the answer of 80% is yes. The reality in front of the shelf is that 95% take the product that is a little bit less expensive. For a new product the briefing is bring me the sustainability impact, but it should not cost more because consumer is not willing today to pay more”. – Carsten Knobel, CEO Henkel.

• “We look at the whole ecosystem: start-ups, technologies, classic renewable energy, battery energy storage, and so on. For example, how can we scale up the production of European inverters used for solar panels, so that we don’t depend anymore on the mainly China-driven production. But what kind of premium are we ready to pay so that we have our energy security and sovereignty over our production?” – Nicola Beer, Vice-President and Member of the Management Committee, European Investment Bank (EIB), and former Vice-President of the European Parliament.

  Life-Links: A sovereignty premium without a resilience premium is incomplete. If the transport links to industrial sites and critical infrastructure are disrupted by climate impacts, we may still end up dependent on crisis logistics and emergency repairs.

Take decisions now on new and renewable energy projects with longer-term certainty​

• “The projects have become much bigger and higher quality within the renewable energy, which is still quite a young industry, and that is opening up the field for us as investors.” – Harald Von Heyden, Global Head of Energy and Infrastructure, Norges Bank Investment Management.

• “Decisions on new offshore wind projects are needed in the next 12 months, or you will see the industry decline at the end of this decade. For utility companies it is difficult to get the financing and the sentiment on the private banking side is pretty negative against offshore wind. Yet from a levelized cost of electricity these are relatively competitive projects.” – Christian Bruch, CEO, Siemens Energy.

• “We have good talent, physicists, engineers and an industrial ecosystem in Europe. We need financing for the accelerator phase, clarity on the regulatory framework for innovation, such as for nuclear fusion, and collaboration between start-ups and industrial companies. – Heike Freund, Chief Operating Officer, Marvel Fusion.

  Life-Links: Longer-term certainty on projects is also affected by the physical climate risks that the assets and supply lines are exposed to, and by whether resilience has been built into the design.

Connect energy security to the energy transition​

• “Energy security, energy as a source of economic competitiveness, and the energy transition are now thought of in parallel. There is a desire to derisk supply chains, but no country can do this alone. When an issue like energy security becomes a national security issue then there is bigger momentum than if it is seen as a climate issue alone.” – Jason Bordoff, Founding Director, Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University; Former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Energy and Climate Change on the Staff of the US National Security Council

• “Diversification of energy sources and suppliers must happen now. Reducing dependence on critical raw materials (CRM) and circularity are important over the longer term.” - Tim Meyerjürgens, CEO, TenneT Germany and Vice-Chair, ENTSO-E.

• “Europe depends on other countries for critical raw materials, for example, 100% rare earths come from China, 82% of niobium used for high grade steel comes from Brazil, and 78% of lithium is imported from Chile. Policy can support diversifying supplies in two ways: by remaining open and looking for new alliances and by making the system more circular, low-carbon and efficient. – Jessika ROSWALL, EU Commissioner for Environment, Water Resilience and a Competitive Circular Economy.

  Life-Links: If energy policy is security policy, then logistics policy is energy policy. Europe’s next resilience upgrade should be a joint effort: map the critical supply chain links behind grids and renewables, assess their exposure to climate hazards, and co-invest in the upgrades (physical, operational and workforce) that keep them functioning under stress. That is where the Life-Links Framework contributes: connecting physical climate risk to practical measures for supply chains and logistics resilience.

To have a future, the sustainability agenda must adapt to the world as it is today, not hopelessly long for the world as we imagined it would be yesterday.

This does not mean abandoning our principles. Quite the contrary. It means adapting practice, so that we can build those principles into the bedrock of tomorrow’s world.

And that requires a hardheaded, practical approach to the world as it really is.

When the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) guide on Assessing Climate Risk, Framing Resilience, and Reporting Impact – A Guide for Climate Finance Practitioners was published last week, I was curious to see how its three goals would translate to transport and logistics in supply chains.

The CPI Guide targets fund managers, investors and other finance practitioners to help them to manage physical climate risk and design “climate finance vehicles” in support of adaptation and resilience. Think of debt or equity funds, guarantees, or insurance.

What struck me is how naturally its focus on risk, beneficiaries and implementation connects with the Life-Links Framework, now available both as a downloadable pdf and as an online version. For example, its steps for assessing and managing climate risks explicitly list examples of transport assets, infrastructure and supply chain nodes: distribution centers and roads, transportation routes, cold chain logistics and downstream distributors

That made it straightforward to develop a crosswalk that applies the CPI goals and associated steps more explicitly to transport and logistics links. This crosswalk can be accessed here, and below I briefly explain it using the same three headings as the CPI Guide.

Resource: CPI Guide applied to Transport for Resilient Supply Chains

A. Why it matters​

Including transport and logistics is critical to the success of climate finance investments. Many climate investments apply to a clearly defined location or activity, such as a mine, factory, farm, or power plant. In those cases, beneficiaries (stakeholders and actors) are relatively easy to identify, risks are tied to a place, and roles and responsibilities are clearer.

Transport and logistics links are different. A road, a port terminal, a rail segment, or a logistics hub typically serves many supply chains at once. Benefits of adaptation investments are therefore spread across multiple stakeholders rather than benefiting a single company or actor.

As a result, transport and logistics links are often not considered explicitly in climate risk assessments, adaptation planning, or climate finance. This reflects a familiar issue in the Life-Links Framework: transport and logistics often belong to no one in particular, even though many depend on them. That market failure helps explain why transport and logistics frequently become the weakest part of climate risk assessments and climate finance investments, despite being central to supply chain performance.

B. How to do it​

The CPI Guide provides guiding steps and advice under three goals:

CPI Goal 1 focuses on assessing and managing climate risk. For transport and logistics, this requires looking beyond physical infrastructure to also consider operations, workforce, and the flow of goods, finance, and data, as well as the stakeholders that depend on them. It also requires explicitly identifying and prioritizing the critical transport or logistics link(s) within a supply chain, recognizing that not all links can be assessed in depth, particularly in complex, multi-tier supply chains.

CPI Goal 2 focuses on defining how and why an investment strengthens climate resilience. For transport and logistics, this means being explicit about why strengthening a specific transport or logistics link matters beyond the asset itself, and how it reduces vulnerability across supply chains. The Life-Links Framework supports this by describing resilience in transport and supply chains through nine concrete attributes: sourcing, intermodality, redundancy, scheduling, diversity, visibility, workforce, cyber/digital, and protection of goods in transit.

CPI Goal 3 focuses on impact measurement and reporting that captures adaptation and resilience outcomes. For transport and logistics, this is often the most challenging part, because benefits are shared across many supply chain stakeholders rather than sitting with one actor. Impact measurement therefore needs to make these shared benefits visible, while recognizing that not all supply chains can be assessed in depth. Data availability is a further constraint. For transport and logistics, data is often limited because responsibility is fragmented across multiple stakeholders, and data sits in different places.

C. Outputs and resources​

Using the CPI Guide together with the Life-Links Framework helps strengthen concrete outputs across the investment cycle (as set out in the CPI Guide), in particular:

• Risk assessment that more consistently includes transport and logistics systems and their stakeholders within climate investment pipelines.
• Risk management plan and adaptation action packages that explicitly include measures to strengthen transport and logistics links, with a clearer rationale for investors.
• Adaptation and resilience investment thesis that is stronger because it reflect benefits created at the level of transport and logistics that affect the resilience of broader supply chains and value chains.
• Impact measurement and reporting strategy that looks beyond individual stakeholders to capture supply chain and logistics resilience as a shared outcome, making follow-through by investors and supply chain actors more likely.

We will be using this crosswalk in our own work, alongside the CPI Guide and the Life-Links Framework. It is intended as a practical resource for people working at the intersection of supply chains, transport, and climate finance.

I welcome any feedback, especially from climate finance practitioners out there!

Transport is a sector, but it is also a system that enables all other sectors, economies and societies to function. If we want to secure a livable future, this distinction matters now more than ever.

Treating transport as a sector is outdated​

Transport is almost always treated as a sector, listed alongside agriculture, manufacturing, health, education and other sectors, and often mentioned last. Objectives typically focus on cost optimization, transport efficiency and decarbonization.

What this framing misses is that transport is not only an activity in its own right, but also a system that allows other sectors and societies to function. How it is planned and governed shapes whether people and companies can access work, goods, services and markets.

This framing is also reflected in major global agendas. In the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), transport appears only indirectly, despite underpinning progress across many goals, as illustrated by SLOCAT’s Wheel on Transport and the SDGs. In the Sharm El-Sheikh Adaptation Agenda in support of the Paris Agreement, transport is explicitly included but listed last among sectors, with a focus on infrastructure assets.

This sectoral framing is reproduced in national planning and budgeting processes, and increasingly in corporate climate strategies, where transport is often treated as something to be built or decarbonized, but rarely managed as a system.

As a result, transport is often discussed late, funded late and integrated poorly into wider development, climate and resilience strategies.

A broader paradigm shift makes transport systems framing urgent​

Thinking of transport as a system reflects a broader shift in how global challenges are being understood and addressed:

• Leadership: from global institutions and universal consensus on a broad range of challenges toward national and local leadership, and coalitions of selected countries around specific challenges.
• Conceptual framing: from climate change, ESG and SDGs toward risk, resilience and system performance.
• Objectives: from decarbonization and “net zero” toward ensuring a livable planet for all people.
• Systems thinking: from isolated sectors toward connected economies, supply chains and natural assets.
• Finance: from development aid and climate finance framed as moral obligation toward mainstream finance shaped by shared interests and risks to economies, societies and nature.
• Stakeholder value: from abstract benefits “for the world” toward direct and tangible benefits for specific communities, companies and countries.
• Execution: from research, roadmaps and pathways toward action, learning and innovation.

Transport sits at the intersection of all these shifts, and this is why it is urgent that transport is governed as a sector and a system.

What changes when transport is (also) seen as a system​

Under a sector lens, transport is typically described through its direct footprint: roughly 7% of global GDP and around 200 million jobs worldwide. These figures are significant, but they capture only transport’s direct activity.

A system lens tells a different story. For example, in the context of international trade: transport is essential to global trade, which accounts for roughly 57% of global GDP, directly supports 465 million jobs, and helped lift some one billion people out of poverty. This is because transport is more than a stand-alone sector, it enables trade in goods and allows people to participate in economic activity.

This role extends beyond trade. Transport underpins access to work, education, healthcare, markets and services. It shapes whether businesses can receive inputs, reach customers and retain a workforce. This is why transport belongs alongside other foundational systems including energy, water, finance and ICT/digital, all of which people and businesses rely on daily (often without noticing, until they fail).

The opportunity this creates​

Looking at transport through a sector-and-system lens unlocks a much larger opportunity. It allows transport systems to be designed and governed in ways that really matter:

• Help tackle interconnected global challenges articulated by the World Bank and the WEF Global Risk Report 2026, such as such as climate change, geopolitical and economic tensions, armed conflicts, pandemics and health, and energy and water access.
• Support sustainability in a broader sense, as reflected in the SDGs, including inclusive development, health, environmental protection and resilience.
• Deliver tangible value to communities, companies and countries whose prosperity directly or indirectly depends on a functioning and resilient transport system.

This shift also aligns transport with where decision-making is increasingly happening: in risk management, resilience planning, economic security and system performance, rather than in siloed sector strategies alone.

Transport is already included in global agendas, national and corporate plans, and strategies of development agencies, NGOs and others. This provides a strong foundation to build on by making its role as an enabling system more explicit.

Connecting transport, systems and resilience​

Recognizing transport as a system does not replace the sector lens. Transport still needs sector-specific policies, regulations and investment. Nor does treating transport as a system diminish the importance of other sectors. It recognizes a simple fact: no sector can be resilient, productive or inclusive without transport.

The importance of this reframing becomes clearest when those risks materialize. During disruptions from geopolitical conflicts, extreme weather, strikes, accidents and other causes, well-functioning transport systems ensure that people can continue to carry out everyday activities and access essential services, and that companies can continue to receive inputs and keep supply chains moving.

And here comes the real opportunity: if you make the transport system more resilient and less dependent on fossil fuels, other sectors and entire supply chains benefit too, becoming more resilient, sustainable and less carbon-intensive as a result.

This is where a systems perspective becomes essential, and why it underpins the Life-Links approach to strengthening transport links in supply chains in ways that benefit communities, countries, companies and consumers.

Several people have asked me for my takeaways from COP30, especially related to resilient supply chains and logistics. Here is my top 10, in line with the Life-Links Framework: looking at the logistics system as a whole, the critical transport links within it, and the communities, companies and countries who depend on those links to “stay alive”. I tried to be constructive, because there are real opportunities emerging despite the gaps.

1. Adaptation gained political weight: now address supply chains clearly​

The call in the COP30 “Global Mutirão” decision to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035 is important. It shows that adaptation is no longer treated as secondary. It also mentions international trade to say that climate measures should not be used to restrict it. What is missing is equally important: it does not talk about cooperation on international trade, it does not acknowledge the importance of global supply chains that all of us depend on, and it does not address the adaptation needs of logistics systems and the transport links essential for moving goods.

Opportunity: There is now a political opening for governments, companies and funders to make the case that supply chains and logistics systems need to be included in future adaptation finance frameworks.

2. New adaptation indicators were adopted: propose supply chain and logistics metrics​

COP30 agreed on 59 indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). These indicators are intended to help countries track adaptation progress across sectors such as water, food systems, ecosystems, health, livelihoods, infrastructure and human settlements. But they don’t touch on supply chains or logistics/transport systems that interact with these sectors. Climate hazards often disrupt these weakest transport links first, so leaving them out is surprising.

Opportunity: The two-year (i.e. until COP32) “Belém-Addis work programme” to refine these indicators gives space to propose supply chain and logistics relevant metrics, and to go beyond infrastructure to also cover operations and the workforce. The Life-Links Framework provides example indicators for risk and resilience for logistics. Then we can measure resilience at the places where resilience might break!

3. COP30 Action Agenda: connect the transport pieces across “Plans to Accelerate Solutions”​

COP30 launched the Action Agenda under the next Global Stocktake cycle, built around seven Plans to Accelerate Solutions (PAS) and 22 activation groups. Transport is spread across several PAS, mainly through work on cities, energy, industry and food systems. This creates useful touchpoints: passenger mobility, zero-emission vehicles (two new Green Road Corridors were announced: e-Dutra from Rio to São Paulo and the Hume Corridor from Melbourne to Sydney), shipping and aviation, and resilient and adaptive transport infrastructure. The biggest omission is rural roads, which are critical for first-mile access of people and goods.

Opportunity: With transport spread across the Action Agenda, there are multiple entry points to influence. SLOCAT and the International Transport Forum (ITF), as transport focal points for non-state actors, can help connect these pieces so transport is seen as a system as well. Life-Links can bring in the logistics and resilience perspective.

4. The Resilience Hub focused on systems thinking: connect with supply chains and logistics​

The Resilience Hub (hosted by Peru – thank you!) had a strong emphasis on science “Must-Knows”, long-term risks, interconnected systems and avoiding siloed approaches. These themes are very relevant for supply chains, because climate impacts move through connected links and affect many actors at once. Sessions also emphasised the importance of communities. First-mile impacts often fall on those with the least resources, yet they are essential for supply chain continuity.

Opportunity: The systems lens used in the Resilience Hub provides an opportunity to introduce supply chain and logistics resilience more clearly in future COP discussions. The logic is there, but it now needs to include the systems that keep goods moving. The ITF Summit 2026 themed financing resilience could be that opportunity!

5. Infrastructure resilience was treated as part of development: integrate into national plans and corporate supply chain risk management​

CDRI’s Disaster Resilient Infrastructure Hub made the case that resilient infrastructure is a core economic and development strategy. Their Global Infrastructure Resilience 2025 report showed that for every 1 dollar in direct infrastructure damage, there are another 7.4 dollars in wider economic losses. Early investment pays off: disaster-resilient infrastructure could cut economic losses by 50%. This applies directly to roads, ports, rail lines, bridges and logistics hubs. ICSI launched a new Climate Resilient Infrastructure Report with a rural roads case study by ORIS and UNIDO in Côte d’Ivoire that reflects the Life-Links concept.

Opportunity: There is growing alignment between economic development and infrastructure resilience, supported by the Action Agenda. This helps make the case for climate-compatible upgrades to transport links, logistics hubs and corridors as part of national development priorities and corporate supply chain risk management. The Life-Links applications to Africa supply chains with Kuehne Climate Center will give concrete examples.

6. Development banks invest in adaptation, resilience and nature: introduce supply chain thinking and bring in insurers​

A joint statement from 17 multilateral development banks committed to scale up climate finance, with a strong focus on adaptation, resilience and nature-positive investments that could create 150 million jobs. In 2024, MDBs provided USD 66 billion in climate finance, including USD 22 billion for adaptation, and they already invest in ports, corridors and other transport infrastructure. Earlier this year, foundations launched a USD 50 million Adaptation and Resilience Fund. Insurance is part of this picture as climate change may destabilize financial markets. Record payouts and insurers withdrawing from high-risk regions make it harder to finance and maintain critical transport links. Collective insurance standards could help, because in practice insurability determines investability.

Opportunity: Their collective commitment makes it easier for governments and logistics actors to work with MDBs on building and strengthening critical transport links. The real opportunity is to frame development loan proposals in the context of supply chain resilience and give insurers, foundations and other investors a seat at the table early on.

7. Transport had its own pavilion: unite to shape the climate agenda and fill the transport gap​

COP30 hosted a Transport Pavilion for the first time, co-organised by Brazil and the SLOCAT Partnership. SLOCAT updated its Global Status Report for sustainable transport, and set out five transport priorities: Global Transport Goal (11 countries set a goal for low-emissions transport!), stronger NDCs (NDC tracker), climate finance, adaptation and resilience, and UNFCCC platforms. These priorities helped position transport as a climate, development and resilience issue, and not only a mitigation topic. A Life-Links, Asociación Sustentar and Kuehne Climate Center’s session delivered its own 10 takeaways to make transport links in supply chains more resilient and sustainable.

Opportunity: The transport community can now shape the climate agenda more effectively in a united way, and fill the transport gap in national, corporate and funder climate strategies. There is no better moment to start the UN Decade for Sustainable Transport 2026-2035 and taking SLOCAT's ideas on board!

8. Cities showed strong leadership on adaptation: connect with transport systems and supply chains​

COP30’s urban discussions came through two pavilions: the official Cities & Regions Hub and the Resilient Cities Pavilion hosted by IBAM. Both were almost entirely about adaptation. They covered heat, flooding and recovery, community vulnerability, nature-based solutions, ecological infrastructure, cooling, climate-resilient urban design and local financing. But aside from decarbonizing urban mobility, there was little coverage of how climate hazards disrupt transport systems and supply chains going in and out of cities.

Opportunity: With cities putting adaptation at the centre of development, there is a chance to bring transport and logistics into this conversation. Connecting urban resilience planning with supply chain needs can strengthen both communities and the systems that keep goods moving.

9. Brazil’s strong climate risk data: build resilient transport links in supply chains with trade partners​

As COP30 host, Brazil’s AdaptaBrasil platform includes climate risk assessments for federal roads, rail lines and ports. These studies show where extreme heat, rainfall and flooding are likely to disrupt critical links in the coming decades. At COP30, Brazil’s transport association CNT also presented results from its climate-resilience survey: 70.6% of Brazilian transport companies reported financial losses in the past five years due to extreme climate events, including delays, route changes and asset damage. Few countries have this combination of government-level infrastructure data and company-level operational data.

Opportunity: This gives Brazil, companies and international partners a solid basis to work together on strengthening critical road, rail and port links, especially those serving major export and import supply chains such as soy and coffee through the Port of Santos.

10. The NAP Technical Guidelines make room for logistics: don’t stop at national borders​

The updated UNFCCC NAP Technical Guidelines for National Adaptation Plans emphasize connected systems, transport networks, resilient infrastructure, food security, food distribution, and climate-proof livelihoods. All of this fits well with logistics and supply chain resilience and mirrors much of the Life-Links thinking. But supply chains are not mentioned explicitly. Like most NAP processes, they focus on adaptation within national borders. That leaves a gap, because most countries rely on global supply chains for food, medicines, inputs and exports.

Opportunity: Countries updating their NAPs can choose to bring logistics systems and critical transport links into their adaptation priorities, especially where disruptions already affect livelihoods, production or supply chains. It can open doors for strategic and practical collaboration between countries that connects climate action, economic cooperation and resilience.

What does all of this mean?​

COP30 confirmed that adaptation is now taken more seriously. It also showed growing interest in infrastructure resilience, finance and the role of communities. But supply chains and logistics still appear only indirectly. They show up in transport, infrastructure and city discussions, but rarely in an integrated way that reflects how these links work across communities, sectors and countries.

For me, the core insight is straightforward: climate adaptation will not work if the logistics systems and transport links that supply chains rely on are left out. These systems feel climate impacts early and often. COP30 opened space for this discussion, but the specifics still need to be built.

The good news is that there is real interest from governments, companies, development partners, financiers and insurers, and civil-society actors to understand how strengthening logistics systems and critical transport links can support climate action, trade and local sustainable development.

The next step is turning this interest into concrete work that strengthens the links supply chains depend on. The Life-Links way of course!

The ALICE Logistics Innovation Summit 2025 on 23-24 October in Brussels was a treat for anyone interested in the intersection between logistics, resilience, climate, and the physical internet. This connects directly with the focus of the Life-Links Framework that I presented at the summit: collaborative action to strengthen the transport and logistics links that underpin supply chains.

Foreword to the white paper "Logistics in a +2oC World" of the Kuehne Climate Center.

Supply chains are disrupted everywhere, all the time. Wildfires, cyberattacks, floods, power black outs, storms, strikes, tariffs – we can add a new event to the list every week. Add to the mix the growing geopolitical instability, and we have a perfect storm.

Supply-chain disruptions are ALWAYS! Sophie Punte, CEO of Life-Links on why supply-chain, procurement and logistics managers can no longer rely on either the just-in-time or the just-in-case strategies but should build resilience into their supply chains.

A new multipolar world order puts trade above aid. Sophie Punte, CEO of Life-Links on how the EU should leverage supply chains to combine trade with aid, boost competitiveness, and keep our SDGs and climate goals within reach.

Climate action is under attack. Sophie Punte, CEO of Life-Links on how we can create a new momentum by an added focus on resilience and adaptation of supply chains that connect us all.

Sophie Punte, Co-Founder & CEO, Life-Links. October 2024

I am really pleased to announce that Life-Links is now officially registered as a global non-profit organization in The Netherlands, with the mission to make resilient supply chains a force for good!

As Life-Links founding CEO I look forward to working with our co-founder Kuehne Climate Center, our esteemed first board members Mark Major and Ákos Wetters, the Life-Links Council of 20+ experts, and many more of you on this important journey!

Let me briefly explain what Life-Links is about.