Paris Agreement: "Adapting to climate change won’t be enough – we must mitigate it"

What goals did the Paris Agreement set, and why is it still an important reference framework? 

Even if global warming were stabilised at +2°C, the impacts would remain very significant, particularly in the most exposed regions.

The overarching goal that people remember is about climate change mitigation, with the aim being to stay under the threshold of a 2°C rise at most, or even 1.5°C, in the global temperature this century. But two other, less visible goals are also crucial. The first is that we cannot only mitigate emissions – we must also do more to adapt to climate change. Even if we manage to stabilize global warming at +1.5 or 2°C, there will still be consequential impacts, especially for the poorest countries and the most exposed regions, with rising water levels, extreme weather events, desertification and more. The other goal was to set aside USD 100 billion a year through 2025 to support the least advanced countries in reducing their emissions and implementing adaptation strategies. COP30, which has just come to a close, showed us that we still have a lot of work to do.

One real success, however, was that 195 countries signed the Agreement, and since 2019, nearly all have submitted their national contributions – meaning their post-2020 climate actions – with a review planned every five years. It’s true that the actual implementation has not kept pace with the initial ambitions, but despite the intervening crises, the Paris Agreement has shown a certain level of institutional resilience and still stands as the framework agreement for international action. Very few countries truly disengaged from it, and despite the United States’ withdrawal for the second time, major emitters such as China are moving forward with their efforts. Also, beyond the national commitments, many cities, companies and regions have developed their own carbon-neutral initiatives. 

Ten years on, what do climate trajectories look like now?

In 2015, we were heading towards a temperature rise of 4°C by the end of the century. But the forecasts have changed since then. With the policies that have been instituted, inspired or strengthened by the Paris Agreement, most estimates put the figure at around +3°C. However, while we’ve managed to alter the trajectory, the agreement alone is not going to be enough. Climate change is happening faster than what we thought at the time, and the impacts are already significant, especially in the poorest countries, with populations and ecosystems experiencing flooding, desertification, widespread fires, etc. We’re already seeing human migration occurring due to these impacts.

What are the major risks in France?

For reasons related to geography and climate dynamics, Europe – and especially France – are warming faster than the global average. For every 1°C rise in the global temperature, we’re at +1.7°C in France. If the global temperature rises 3°C, that will translate to around 4°C in France by the end of the century. This is the scenario France has adopted for its reference warming trajectory for adaptation (known by the acronym TRACC) and its third National Climate Change Adaptation Plan. There are multiple risks: rising sea levels and coastline retreat, as well as disruptions in the water cycle, characterized by winters that are very wet but with less snow and very dry summers, with impacts on biodiversity, water resources and agriculture. Heatwaves and droughts have become increasingly intense and frequent, and these phenomena go hand in hand with higher fire risks. We are also seeing significant levels of forest dieback, including in French Guiana. Carbon sinks in France and its territories are much lower than previous estimates. Urban areas are also experiencing impacts, with phenomena such as heat islands and damage to built structures.

What is particularly worrying are the multiple or combined risks. Take forests for example: a drought can weaken the trees, making them more susceptible to pests such as bark beetles, and if the drought persists and trees experience dieback or die off completely, the risk of fire or storm-related damage rises. We can no longer consider each phenomenon separately because every successive issue creates new vulnerabilities.

How is INRAE’s research evolving?

The Paris Agreement wasn’t so much a spark as it was an accelerator. The real turning point came during the heatwave of August 2003, when temperatures reached extreme highs over several days and exceeded 35°C and even 40°C across France, with major impacts on public health and agricultural production. INRAE’s experimental units were hit quite hard, and following this heatwave, we set up a “drought team” that began collecting data on France.

In 2011, climate adaptation was made a clear priority with the launch of the Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture and Forestry (ACCAF) metaprogramme, with adaptation now a core part of INRAE’s strategy. Since 2013, technical approaches have been studied to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in farming, resulting in the idea for the “4 per 1000” Initiative, which has been rolled out internationally. Research on soil and soil carbon also experienced an upswing, and is continuing today through Soil Carbon Futures (developed through the Soil Carbon International Research Consortium), as well as research carried out at the European level through EJP Soil. 
 

More recently, INRAE launched the CLIMAE metaprogramme to develop joint solutions for adaptation and mitigation and better understand how agricultural, food and forestry systems can evolve on a territory-wide scale within a context of agroecological transition, which is a core objective for the Institute. The large-scale FairCarboN PEPR exploratory programme, co-led by INRAE and CNRS, aims to significantly advance our understanding of carbon dynamics in continental ecosystems. 

How has INRAE helped advance efforts towards meeting the Paris Agreement goals? 

Across the board, it’s been through research carried out with our partners. In terms of future impacts, this includes modelling and forecasting projects, such as Explore 2, which has led to new knowledge on hydrology. We have also produced various analyses on agricultural yields, biodiversity, natural risks such as fires and other risks in mountainous areas, and forest vulnerability with regard to the future climate. I believe that our ability to support long-term experimental and observational projects is also important. For example, the TEMPO network is tracking the impact of climate change on the biological life cycles of organisms across France over several decades. We’re also able to provide useful data to key stakeholders. For instance, since 2019, the AgroMetInfo service has provided weather indicators and information on their impact on crops in real time. This helps farmers and territorial stakeholders adapt their practices. 

What matters is our ability to sustain long-term experimental and observational frameworks.

In terms of mitigation, efforts will be partly focused on soil carbon and reducing emissions related to livestock farming and nitrogen fertilizers. But we’re also working at the cutting edge of global satellite observation of forests and forest carbon stocks through the One Forest Vision initiative, which is co-coordinated by INRAE. With regard to adaptation, there are standout projects such as LACCAVE for grapevine, as well as long-term research on forest adaptation strategies carried out in partnership with the French National Forest Office (ONF) and other stakeholders, including the AFORCE Joint Technology Network. We have many options at our disposal, but the real issue is figuring out how to combine them based on local conditions, and how to scale up plot- or farm-level results to a much larger scale.

How is INRAE’s research supporting public action on climate change?

INRAE shares its public policy expertise at various levels. In France, we do this through collective scientific assessment and foresight studies that have long been used by public decision makers, such as those on droughts in 2006 or soil carbon in 2002, well before the Paris Agreement. More recently, we have been heavily involved in work on adaptation in agriculture and water management, such as during through national consultations on these issues (the “Varenne agricole de l’eau et de l’adaptation au changement climatique”) and forest strategies.

At the European level, our research has contributed to the European Commission’s Soil Mission and has played an important role in drafting the new European directive on soil health monitoring. At the global scale, INRAE experts are involved in the IPCC’s work, such as the Special Report on Climate Change and Land, which showed the importance of both mitigation and adaptation efforts in agricultural and forest systems.  

What does INRAE hope to accomplish by participating in international initiatives such as One Forest Vision or One Water Vision? 

These aren’t “climate” projects strictly speaking, but rather initiatives we co-coordinate with the aim of analysing the impacts on natural resources and ecosystems and identifying levers for action. By drawing from multiple data sources, such as remote sensing and field studies, we can improve monitoring of the status and dynamics of natural resources – water for One Water Vision, and carbon stocks and biodiversity in tropical forests for One Forest Vision – in cooperation with local stakeholders to help them implement tangible actions. Also, from a scientific standpoint, these initiatives help quantify uncertainties associated with the models. These initiatives are part a broader international strategy at INRAE that is based on major programmes for soil, forests, water, food systems, emerging zoonoses and the role of the microbiome. Some of them were presented at COP30. 

What should we expect from research going forward? 

First, to press on with mitigation efforts. Some would lead you to believe that adaptation will be enough, but we must remember that the climate dynamics involve long-term processes and mitigation is indispensable. Efforts must also be made to avoid maladaptation phenomena. To change opinions, we have to be able to quantify the cost of inaction – the longer we wait, the harder and more costly it will be. We also have to show that the solutions we’re offering work – backed up by proofs of concept at scale – and that they can be implemented. The storytelling aspect is also absolutely vital. When information from the IPCC reports is presented, there’s often a period of silence where people are just dumbfounded. And that’s when they start asking, “So what do we do now?” If we don’t set out a clear path forward or show what the future could look like, we leave people feeling discouraged and promote inaction. Pathways to transformation exist, and we have to get people on board.