Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-17 (section)

==== 17.3.3.7 Cross-sectoral Overview of Synergies and Trade-offs Between Climate Change Mitigation and the SDGs ====

<div id="h3-10-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Based on a qualitative assessment in the sectoral Chapters 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, Figure 17.1 below provides an overview of the most likely links between sectoral mitigation options and SDGs in terms of synergies and trade-offs. The general overview provided in the figure is supplemented by specific sector-by-sector comments on how the synergies and trade-offs mapped depend on the scale of implementation and the overall development context of places where the mitigation options are implemented. For some mitigation options these scaling and context-specific issues imply that there can be both synergies and trade-offs in relation to specific SDGs. In addition to the information provided in Figure 17.1, Supplementary Material Table 17.SM.1 includes the detailed background material provided by the sectoral chapters in terms of qualitative information for each of the synergies and trade-offs mapped.

<div id="_idContainer005" class="_idGenObjectStyleOverride-1"></div>

[[File:e2aa4f4023c9634000360c7f7de62aec IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_17_1.png]]

'''Figure 17.1 | Trade-offs and synergies between sectoral mitigation options and the Sustainable Developmen''' '''t Goals (SDGs).'''

The assessment of synergies and trade-offs presented in Figure 17.1 depends on the underlying literature assessed by the sectoral chapters. In cases where no information about the links between specific mitigation options and SDGs are indicated, this does not imply that there are no links, but rather that the links have not been assessed by the literature.

Most of the energy-sector options are assessed as having synergies with several SDGs, but there could be mixed synergies and trade-offs between SDG 2 (zero hunger) for wind and solar energy, and for hydropower due to land-use conflicts and fishery damage. Offshore wind could also have both synergies and trade-offs with SDG 14 (life below water) dependent on scale and implementation site, and it is emphasised that land-use should be coordinated with biodiversity concerns. Both wind and solar energy are assessed as having trade-offs with SDG 12 (responsible production and consumption) due to significant material consumption and disposal needs.

Geothermal energy is assessed as having synergies with SDG 1 (no poverty) due to energy access, and mixed synergies and trade-offs in relation to SDG 3 (good health and well-being) due to reduced air pollution, but with some risks in relation to water pollution, and in relation to SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), if it is not well managed. Nuclear power is assessed as having synergies with SDG 3 (good health and well-being) due to reduced air pollution, but potential trade-offs in relation to SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) due to high water consumption, and water consumption issues are also possible in relation to many of the other mitigation options in the energy sector. Synergies are identified in relation to SDG 12 (responsible production and consumption) for nuclear power due to low material consumption. CCUS has been assessed as having trade-offs in relation to SDG 1 (no poverty) due to high costs and SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) due to high water consumption. Synergies are related to SDG 3 (good health and well-being), and to SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) due to the facilitation of decarbonisation of industrial processes. Both synergies and trade-offs could arrive in relation to SDG 12 (responsible production and consumption), since some rare chemicals and other inputs could in some cases be used with large-scale applications.

Bioenergy use as a fuel is assessed as one of the energy-sector mitigation options with most synergies and trade-offs with the SDGs. There could be synergies with SDG 1 (no poverty), with SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) and SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure). This option, however, if combined with CCS, can be expensive and can compromise SDG 1 (no poverty) due to the high costs involved.

Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) mitigation options are very closely linked to the SDGs and offer both synergies and trade-offs, which in many cases are highly dependent on the scale of implementation. All the mitigation options included in Figure 17.1 are assessed as potentially having synergies with SDG 1 (no poverty), but trade-offs could also happen if large areas are used for biocrops and taken away from other activities, thus causing poverty, as well as in relation to food costs if healthier diets are made more expensive. In relation to SDG 2 (zero hunger), most of the mitigation options are assessed as being associated with both synergies and trade-offs. Trade-offs are particularly a risk with large-scale applications of afforestation projects, bioenergy crops and other land-hungry activities, which can crowd out food production.

SDG 3 (good health and well-being) can be supported by many mitigation options in the agriculture, forestry and food sectors, primarily due to the reduced environmental impacts, and the same is the case with SDG 14 (life below water) due to decreased nutrient loads, and SDG 15 (life on land) due to increased biodiversity, with the caveat however, that SDGs 14 and 15 could have both synergies and trade-offs dependent on land use. It is considered that there could be both synergies and trade-offs in relation to SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) due to competition over land use related to the mitigation options reducing deforestation and reforestation and restoration, and the same is the case in relation to SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy) depending on the economic outcome of the mitigation options. Similarly, the mitigation option of reduced CH 4 and N 2 O emissions from agriculture are assessed as having mixed impacts on SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), and SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) depending on innovative food production. The mitigation options of reforestation and forest management are assessed as having mixed impacts on SDG 10 (reduced inequalities) depending on the involvement of local communities in projects. The assessment emphasises that the synergies and trade-offs of the mitigation options with the SDGs in this sector are very context- and scale-dependent, depending on how measures are carried out, for example, in relation to the enhanced production of renewables needed to replace fossil fuel-based products. If done on a massive scale and not adapted to local circumstances, there are adverse implications for food security, livelihoods and biodiversity.

All the urban mitigation options that have been assessed are considered to have synergies with the SDGs, and in a few cases both synergies and trade-offs are identified. In general, many links between mitigation options in the urban area and the SDGs have been identified in the literature. Urban land use and spatial planning, for example, can support SDG 1 (no poverty), and can also reduce vulnerability to climate change if integrated planning is undertaken, while access to food (SDG 2: zero hunger), and water (SDG 6: clean water and sanitation) can also be achieved if supported by integrated planning. Electrification, district heating, and green-and-blue infrastructure in urban areas are expected to have synergies with all the SDGs addressed by the reviewed studies.

Mitigation options like waste-prevention minimisation and management are also assessed as having many synergies with the SDGs, but trade-offs could depend on the application of air-pollution control technologies, and on the character of informal waste-recycling activities. The impacts of the possible synergies and/or trade-offs with the SDGs will change according to the specific urban context. Synergies and/or trade-offs may be more significant in certain contexts than others. Regarding the SDGs, urban mitigation can support shifting pathways of urbanisation towards sustainability. The feasibility of urban mitigation options is also malleable and can increase with more enablers. Strengthened institutional capacity that also supports the scale and coordination of the mitigation options can increase the synergies between urban mitigation options and the SDGs.

As for the urban mitigation options, the reviewed building-sector studies reveal a lot of links between mitigation and the SDGs. Highly efficient building envelopes are expected to have synergies with the SDGs in all cases except those with potential trade-offs in relation to SDG 10 (reduced inequalities). Many SDG synergies are also identified for the building design and performance, heating, ventilation and air conditioning, and efficient appliances mitigation options. However, some trade-offs could appear in relation to SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) due to macroeconomic impacts of reduced energy consumption, decreasing prices and stranded investments. Similar issues related to the economic impacts of reduced energy demand are also highlighted for all the other mitigation options, including for the building sector. In relation to construction materials and the circular economy, some trade-offs have been identified in relation to SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) and SDG 15 (life on land) related to the use of bio-based materials.

Consideration of the building sector highlights important context-specific issues related to synergies and trade-offs between mitigation options and SDGs such as the economic impacts (synergies and trade-offs) associated with reduced energy demand, resulting in lower energy prices, energy-efficiency investments, the fostering of innovation and improvements in labour productivity. Furthermore, the distributional costs of some mitigation policies may hinder the implementation of these measures. In this case, appropriate access policies should be designed to shield poor households efficiently from the burden of carbon taxation. Under real-world conditions, improved cookstoves have shown smaller, and in many cases limited, long-term health and environmental impacts than expected, as the households use these stoves irregularly and inappropriately, and fail to maintain them, so that their usage declines over time. Specific distributional issues are highlighted in relation to various cookstove programmes.

The mitigation options in the transportation sector are assessed as having synergies with SDG 1 (no poverty) and SDG 3 (good health and well-being) due to reduced environmental pollution, with exceptions in relation to pollution from biofuels and the risks of traffic accidents. Trade-offs are also mentioned in relation SDG 2 (zero hunger) where the production of biofuels takes land away from food production. Synergies are assessed in relation to SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) and SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure). It is emphasised that some mitigation options, like the increased penetration of electric vehicles, require innovative business models, and that digitalisation and automatic vehicles will support the socio-economic structures that impede adoption of EVs and the urban structures that enable reduced car dependence. In conclusion, there is a need for investments in infrastructure that can support alternative fuels for light-duty vehicles (LDVs). The large-scale electrification of LDVs requires the expansion of low-carbon power systems, while charging or battery-swapping infrastructure is needed for some segments.

The mitigation options in the industrial sector have been assessed primarily as having synergies with meeting the SDGs. Several options, including energy efficiency, material recycling and electrification, are assessed has being able to create increased employment and business opportunities related to SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), but material-efficiency improvements could reduce tax revenues. Electrification is assessed as having many synergies with SDGs, such as supporting SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), and SDG 3 (good health and well-being). CCS applied in industry is assessed as having synergies in terms of the control of non-CO 2 pollutants (such as sulphur dioxide), but increases in non-CO 2 pollutants (such as particulate matter, nitrogen oxide and ammonia). The conclusion is that 15–25% additional energy will be required by CCS technologies compared with conventional plants, implying that production costs could increase significantly. For the industrial sector in general, it is concluded that the balance between synergies and trade-offs between mitigation options and SDGs in industry depends on technology and the scale of the sharing of co-benefits across regions, as well as on the sharing of benefits in business models over whole value chains.

Thus, a number of cross-sectoral conclusions on synergies and trade-offs between mitigation options and the SDGs appear from the overview provided in Figure 17.1. There are many synergies in all sectors between mitigation options and the SDGs, and in a few cases there are also significant trade-offs that it is very important to address, since they can compromise major SDGs including SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), and in some cases SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land). In particular, mitigation options in relation to land use, such as afforestation and reforestation and bioenergy crops, can in some cases imply trade-offs with access to food and local sharing of benefits, but synergies can also exist if proper land management and cross-sectoral policies take sustainable land use into account. The impacts and trade-offs for this sector are highly scale- and context-dependent, so the final outcome of mitigation policies should be considered in detail.

The urban systems and transportation could potentially achieve many synergies between mitigation policies and the SDGs, but integrated planning and infrastructure management are critical to avoiding trade-offs. Similarly, the buildings sector and industry have identified many potential synergies between mitigation options and the SDGs, but that raises issues related to the costs of new technologies, and in relation to households and buildings, important equity issues are emerging in relation to the ability of low-income groups to afford the introduction of new technologies. Altogether these cross-sectoral conclusions call for a need to support policies that aid coordination between different sectoral domains and that include context-specific assessments of the sharing of benefits and costs related to the implementation of mitigation options.

<div id="17.4" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="key-barriers-and-enablers-of-the-transition-synthesising-results"></span>