part of The Paris Agreement 10 years later
Start readingSenior Expert Andreas Hoy argues that the Paris Agreement will be judged not only by whether it limits global temperature rise but also by whether it fosters new resilience of urban areas, where the majority of the world’s population lives.
Ten years after the Paris Agreement, clear, measurable evidence of climate change surrounds us. Heatwaves are more intense and prolonged. Heavy rainfall more often exceeds local drainage capacity. Periods of drought are also growing. Urban areas, where the majority of the world’s population lives, face risks from the stress on infrastructure and on the most vulnerable residents. These patterns have been apparent for some time, but their frequency and societal impacts have grown, underlining the need to adapt.
From a scientific point of view, the Paris Agreement set a clear, long-term direction. Under it, climate goals, reporting and transparency became standard practice. That matters. Without it, alignment would be weaker, fewer national adaptation plans would exist, and there would be less shared ground for tracking climate action.
From my experience working with local and regional authorities, however, there is a persistent gap: knowing the risks does not automatically mean being prepared for them. Climate information has improved, but its practical use varies widely. Many local authorities still face limited capacity, fragmented tools and short funding cycles. As a result, adaptation often begins but does not become part of routine decision-making.
As I look back, two achievements stand out.
First, the mainstreaming of climate adaptation. Measures like urban heat mitigation, stormwater upgrades and nature-based solutions are increasingly considered in municipal planning. Ten years ago, much of this was seen as forward-looking; today, it is increasingly regarded as a necessary part of maintaining safe and resilient urban spaces.
Second, better information and tools: open data, models, analysis, local climate studies, and climate services. The have given planners and decision-makers concrete, location-specific information they can apply in practice. They make it easier to move the discussion along, from “why act” to “how to act”.
Still, translating knowledge into action remains uneven. Municipalities can identify vulnerabilities and produce solid adaptation plans, but they struggle to implement measures consistently. The challenge rarely involves motivation. Instead, municipalities face a trio of obstacles: of limited capacity, short-term funding and political cycles, and a lack of clarity over which tools are best suited for a given location. As a result, adaptation is still too often a “project” rather than a continuous part of urban management.
Decisions about which streets to shade, how to upgrade drainage systems for heavy rainfall, and how to implement early-warning systems for heat and floods are context specific. To make viable decisions requires reliable data, clear procedures and sustained resources. Without these, even well-designed plans risk remaining plans realized only on paper.
It is important to understand that even with limited resources, progress is possible.
Copenhagen offers a good example. The city tracks urban rainfall and temperatures, adjusts stormwater infrastructure accordingly, and uses nature-based solutions: permeable surfaces, and shading and cooling measures. In addition, the city reviews the results each year. These are small, practical steps that allow gradual improvements and adjustments as things change.
This is a critical aspect for municipalities to understand. Adaptation is not an end point. It is a process. It works best when it is ongoing, supported by reliable data and simple guidance and procedures that inform specific decisions for specific places and communities: for streets, parks, public buildings and groups at greatest risk.
What needs to happen next? Three priorities stand out: strengthening efforts to provide the data to underpin evidence-based decision-making; building municipal capacity by adding needed skills and setting up adequate, long-term budgets; and establishing routine practices and workflows that incorporate regular reviews and responsive improvements of risk-assessments and adaptation measures.
Technology, such as high-resolution modelling and emerging AI tools, can support – but not replace – these efforts. They can provide early signals of emerging risks and speed up analysis of valuable information. Yet their value depends on integrating what they bring with local knowledge and professional judgement. The most effective adaptation comes from people who understand their municipality, know its limitations and can make pragmatic, context-specific decisions.
Global indicators – of temperature rise and greenhouse gas emissions – are important. But for me, the real measure of success going forward will be less about these global markers and more about whether cities and communities can turn climate science into everyday resilience. That is where the focus should be over the next decade – and where the most meaningful progress can be made.
This is perspective is part of a series by SEI researchers worldwide marking the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement by examining the lessons from its first decade and the implications for the next.
Feature / SEI and partners created a climate village at a historic arts festival in Hungary to bring youth views and artistic expression into climate policy discussions.
Event on 18 May – 21 May in Cavtat / Luke Gooding will present a new paper which focuses on scaling participatory retrofit across diverse housing stocks.
Perspective / This perspective argues for a systemic approach by integrating mitigation and adaptation by default into every policy, budget and planning decision.
