Urban Heat Governance: Assessing Institutional Capacity to Manage Extreme Heat in Cities of the Global South
Extreme heat is the deadliest climate hazard — yet it remains the least governed. This policy brief, produced by the IFRC Climate Centre in partnership with University College London, presents findings from an analysis of heat-related urban governance across 83 coastal cities in the Global South. The central finding is stark: despite rapidly escalating heat risk, city-level governance has not kept pace. A “red zone” of 18 major urban centers — home to over 74 million people — faces intense heat stress with zero municipal budget and no local heat policy to protect residents. The brief identifies five structural barriers driving this governance gap: the absence of local institutional frameworks, data invisibility and siloed decision-making, crisis-driven rather than proactive planning, a near-total lack of policy impact evaluation, and chronic underfunding of heat adaptation at the city level.
The scale of the problem is best captured through the brief’s data: 60% of cities studied have no dedicated city-level heat policy; only 12% have a Heat Action Plan; 88% have no dedicated budget for heat adaptation; and fewer than 5% have ever evaluated the impact of their heat interventions. Regional patterns vary — South and Southeast Asia shows the most diversity, with some cities like Kochi, India leading on multi-stakeholder Heat Action Plans while others remain entirely unprotected; Sub-Saharan Africa exhibits the lowest levels of city-specific governance; and Latin America, while ahead on formalizing city-level roles, tends to act reactively following record-breaking events rather than in advance of them.
Each of the five findings is paired with concrete entry points for city governments, National Societies, development partners, and humanitarian actors. These range from institutionalizing multi-stakeholder heat committees and establishing dedicated municipal budget lines, to co-developing heat-health early warning systems that link weather forecasts to health thresholds, and shifting from event-based emergency funding to proactive anticipatory action frameworks. The brief also makes a strong case for integrating climate and humanitarian agendas — arguing that treating heat as a narrow meteorological problem, rather than a social-health crisis, is precisely what leaves the most vulnerable populations behind.