How can we build resilient territories in the context of climate change? Principles and steps
In this article, we delve into adaptation strategies with Joëlle Munari and Laura Rouch (ACTeon), who support cities and regions in building robust territories – beyond resilience.
From diagnosing vulnerabilities to financing solutions and avoiding maladaptation, their message is clear: ‘Adaptation is not an option, but a path to be built together.’
Building robust territories: feedback from the MIP4Adapt programme
Since 2024, we have been supporting French cities and regions in their adaptation to climate change through the European MIP4Adapt programme. Nantes, Paris, Lille, La Rochelle, but also the PACA, Normandy and Occitanie regions… Eight cities and six regions in total. So many different territories, so many different contexts. Yet everywhere, the same questions arise: Where to start? How to experiment? And above all, how to build something sustainable to cope with a climate that will never return to its previous state?
Robustness, or how to stop believing in performance
At ACTeon, we have made a semantic choice that may seem technical, but which changes everything: we talk about robustness rather than resilience. Laura explains it simply: ” Resilience is the idea that we will absorb the shock and return to normal. But what normal? The old normal no longer exists. Robustness, on the other hand, aims to transform territories so that they are adaptable to increasingly severe fluctuations.”
This approach is based on three principles that we have drawn from the work of Olivier Hamant:
- Circularity: finding levers for action at the local level rather than waiting for solutions to come from elsewhere. A robust territory maximises its own room for manoeuvre.
- Cooperation: going beyond simple collaboration to define truly common objectives; not just ‘doing things together’, but ‘aiming for the same thing together’
- Adaptability: developing the ability to ‘deal with’ uncertainty; it is not a question of pretending to foresee everything, but of giving ourselves the means to adjust course when necessary
It is also a question of restoring the place of ‘sub-optimalities’ — heterogeneity, trial and error, redundancy, etc. — characteristics that are omnipresent in nature but which our quest for performance has often erased. In seeking to optimise everything, we forget that these apparent imperfections are in fact essential drivers of collective robustness. Accepting sub-optimalities means giving up immediate efficiency in order to preserve future adaptability: they open up room for manoeuvre and allow new options to emerge when conditions change.
‘The important thing is not so much to successfully cope with climate risks,
but rather to deal with them, to have the capacity to adapt to these fluctuations.’ – Laura Rouch
What territories really need
In supporting these local authorities, we quickly realised that the needs of elected representatives and technical services are different, but complementary.
Elected officials: learning about other cultures to make bold decisions in uncertain times
Elected officials first need to **understand**. Understand what the Reference Warming Trajectory (TRACC) actually means: +2.7°C in 2050, +4°C by 2100 in mainland France. They need to understand the vulnerabilities of their territory, today and tomorrow, and anticipate the consequences of the extreme events that will mark the path to 2050 and 2100. Beyond average trends, it is variability – successive heatwaves exceeding 50°C, prolonged droughts, or extreme events – that must guide our decisions and adaptation strategies. The role of politics is crucial: without strong support from elected officials, technicians cannot move forward.
Technicians: diagnose, facilitate, adjust
For technical services, it’s a different story. They are on the front line when it comes to handling data, coordinating studies and facilitating regional dialogue. Joëlle explains: ” Their mission begins with a vulnerability assessment. This is based on three factors: exposure to climate risks, the sensitivity of the area – i.e. who and what is impacted – and the area’s capacity to adapt.”
An uninhabited flood zone? Exposure is high, but sensitivity is low. A working-class neighbourhood with no cool spots during heatwaves? Maximum vulnerability.
Six stages of adaptation – where are you at?
The MIP4Adapt methodology identifies six phases of adaptation, which overlap with those of Ademe. Our job is to place each local authority on this trajectory and then help it move on to the next stage. Watch the workshop replay here: For territories adapted to climate change, local authorities should draw inspiration from each other to take more effective action
Joëlle explains: ‘Some local authorities have no formal strategy. We therefore start by identifying all the initiatives that already exist in other policy areas – water, biodiversity, mobility – and which already contribute to adaptation without being labelled as such.’
Others are more advanced and already have a strategy. ‘In these cases, we help them to question the adequacy of their plan in relation to a +4°C climate and their quantified targets. For example, in greening programmes: should I aim for 20%, 30% or 40% canopy cover? Where should I strategically plant vegetation? This numerical target makes it possible to track progress and measure ambition.’
One of the major risks is maladaptation: solutions that seem good in the short term but worsen the situation in the long term. A classic example? Individual air conditioning.
Adopt a 360° view
This is where Laura’s systemic vision comes in: ‘We need to reintegrate climate change into a broader set of fluctuations – geopolitical, health-related, social. We need to take a systemic view in understanding the problems, but also in finding solutions.’
Regional nature parks offer an interesting model for this approach: they have territorial monitoring tools and a governance structure in which multiple stakeholders regularly express their views. This ability to bring together different perspectives facilitates this overall vision.
The benchmark for solutions: SFN and beyond
Through our work with metropolitan areas, we have established a benchmark for adaptation solutions to three major risks: heat waves, drought and flooding.
‘Metropolitan areas were curious to know what others were doing in France,’ explains Joëlle. Two main categories of solutions have emerged:
- Nature-based solutions (NBS): greening, de-impermeabilisation, wetland restoration. These are ‘no-regrets actions’ that use ecosystem services.
- Technical solutions: when NBS are not enough to meet the scale of the challenge. Paris, for example, paints some roofs white to reflect heat and deploys geothermal cooling networks to cool schools and hospitals.
The key is not to copy and paste these solutions, but to draw inspiration from them based on your own context. Joëlle emphasises: ‘Even if these solutions exist elsewhere, they are not necessarily replicable. There is not necessarily the political will to see them through to the end.’
The issue of funding (and MIP4Adapt 2)
‘How do we finance all this?’ This question comes up time and time again. Fortunately, there is a wide range of financing tools available:
- The Green Fund, dedicated to adaptation
- Water agencies for biodiversity and water resources
- Regions and ADEME for technical projects
- Private institutions such as CDC Biodiversité and the Fondation du patrimoine
- Banks such as Banque des Territoires and Banque Postale
The reallocation of resources — particularly through a different allocation of public funds — is also an essential lever for financing adaptation plans.
The current MIP4Adapt programme ends at the end of 2025. But Laura has already announced what will happen next: ‘MIP4Adapt 2 is under consideration. It will focus more on financing adaptation and supporting local authorities in finding the funding they need to achieve their ambitions.‘
From the regional council to the community of municipalities, the aim is to provide practical assistance in putting together applications and identifying the right sources of funding.
Creating imagery to mobilise
Beyond the technical aspects, Laura points to an often overlooked issue: ‘We need to create scenarios to facilitate and mobilise more, to overcome the obstacles or fears that certain actors, particularly elected officials, may express about these territorial transformations.’
Transformation first requires understanding how we change: identifying, through behavioural sciences for example, what slows down or stimulates the evolution of our representations and collective mobilisation. But it is also about inspiring desire: calling on artists to create positive narratives and imaginations capable of opening up new and desirable horizons.
Because ultimately, building territorial robustness means transforming our relationship with living things and the way we inhabit places. It means combining environmental and social sciences to inform collective choices. It means turning local and global challenges into real opportunities.
Where to start tomorrow?
If you are an elected representative or technician in a local authority, here is what our MIP4Adapt experience has taught us:
1. Start with an honest self-assessment
Where do you really stand? Have you identified your vulnerabilities? Are there already measures in place to promote adaptation, even if they are not formalised?
2. Align the ambitions of elected officials, technicians and local stakeholders.
A common, shared ambition and the mobilisation of all parties are the keys to success.
3. Set quantified targets.
‘We’re going to plant more vegetation’ is not enough. How much? Where? When? What monitoring indicators will be used?
4. Think multi-risk and systemic vision
A solution that solves one problem but creates another is maladaptation. Think long term, not just about the immediate emergency.
5. Don’t let financing hold you back
The resources exist. You just need to know how to identify them and put together the necessary documentation.
Since our involvement in MIP4Adapt, we have learned one essential thing: regions are not lacking in willpower; they need clear methods, concrete support and confidence in their ability to transform themselves.
ACTeon combines environmental and social science approaches to highlight the interactions between humans and nature. We shed light on collective choices so that challenges become opportunities.
If you want to build the robustness of your region, we can support you with:
- Vulnerability assessment and positioning in the adaptation trajectory
- Setting quantified targets and co-construction with local stakeholders
- Identifying funding and putting together applications
- Monitoring, adjustment and identification of maladaptation
Laura Rouch and Joëlle Munari work at ACTeon on issues related to climate change adaptation and regional robustness.