Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-5 (section)

== 5.5 Sustainable Development Pathways to 1.5°C ==

<div id="article-5-5-block-1"></div>

This section assesses what is known in the literature on development pathways that are sustainable and climate-resilient and relevant to a 1.5°C warmer world. Pathways, transitions from today’s world to achieving a set of future goals (see Chapter 1, Section 1.2.3, Cross-Chapter Box 1), follow broadly two main traditions: first, as integrated pathways describing the required societal and systems transformations, combining quantitative modelling and qualitative narratives at multiple spatial scales (global to sub-national); and second, as country- and community-level, solution-oriented trajectories and decision-making processes about context- and place-specific opportunities, challenges and trade-offs. These two notions of pathways offer different, though complementary, insights into the nature of 1.5°C-relevant trajectories and the short-term actions that enable long-term goals. Both highlight to varying degrees the urgency, ethics and equity dimensions of possible trajectories and society- and system-wide transformations, yet at different scales, building on Chapter 2 (see Section 2.4) and Chapter 4 (see Section 4.5).

<span id="integration-of-adaptation-mitigation-and-sustainable-development"></span>
=== 5.5.1 Integration of Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development ===

<div id="section-5-5-1-block-1"></div>

Insights into climate-compatible development (see Glossary) illustrate how integration between adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development works in context-specific projects, how synergies are achieved and what challenges are encountered during implementation (Stringer et al., 2014; Suckall et al., 2014; Antwi-Agyei et al., 2017a; Bickersteth et al., 2017; Kalafatis, 2017; Nunan, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r265|265]]</sup> . The operationalization of climate-compatible development, including climate-smart agriculture and carbon-forestry projects (Lipper et al., 2014; Campbell et al., 2016; Quan et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r266|266]]</sup> , shows multilevel and multisector trade-offs involving ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ across governance levels ( ''high confidence'' ) (Kongsager and Corbera, 2015; Naess et al., 2015; Karlsson et al., 2017; Tanner et al., 2017; Taylor, 2017; Wood, 2017; Ficklin et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r267|267]]</sup> . Issues of power, participation, values, equity, inequality and justice transcend case study examples of attempted integrated approaches (Nunan, 2017; Phillips et al., 2017; Stringer et al., 2017; Wood, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r268|268]]</sup> , also reflected in policy frameworks for integrated outcomes (Stringer et al., 2014; Di Gregorio et al., 2017; Few et al., 2017; Tanner et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r269|269]]</sup> .

Ultimately, reconciling trade-offs between development needs and emissions reductions towards a 1.5°C warmer world requires a dynamic view of the interlinkages between adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development (Nunan, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r270|270]]</sup> . This entails recognition of the ways in which development contexts shape the choice and effectiveness of interventions, limit the range of responses afforded to communities and governments, and potentially impose injustices upon vulnerable groups (UNRISD, 2016; Thornton and Comberti, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r271|271]]</sup> . A variety of approaches, both quantitative and qualitative, exist to examine possible sustainable development pathways under which climate and sustainable development goals can be achieved, and synergies and trade-offs for transformation identified (Sections 5.3 and 5.4).

<span id="pathways-for-adaptation-mitigation-and-sustainable-development"></span>
=== 5.5.2 Pathways for Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development ===

<div id="section-5-5-2-block-1"></div>

This section focuses on the growing body of pathways literature describing the dynamic and systemic integration of mitigation and adaptation with sustainable development in the context of a 1.5°C warmer world. These studies are critically important for the identification of ‘enabling’ conditions under which climate and the SDGs can be achieved, and thus help the design of transformation strategies that maximize synergies and avoid potential trade-offs (Sections 5.3 and 5.4). Full integration of sustainable development dimensions is, however, challenging, given their diversity and the need for high temporal, spatial and social resolution to address local effects, including heterogeneity related to poverty and equity (von Stechow et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r272|272]]</sup> . Research on long-term climate change mitigation and adaptation pathways has covered individual SDGs to different degrees. Interactions between climate and other SDGs have been explored for SDGs 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14 and 15 (Clarke et al., 2014; Abel et al., 2016; von Stechow et al., 2016; Rao et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r273|273]]</sup> , while interactions with SDGs 1, 5, 11 and 16 remain largely underexplored in integrated long-term scenarios (Zimm et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r274|274]]</sup> .

Quantitative pathways studies now better represent ‘nexus’ approaches to assess sustainable development dimensions. In such approaches (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3.8), a subset of sustainable development dimensions are investigated together because of their close relationships (Welsch et al., 2014; Conway et al., 2015; Keairns et al., 2016; Parkinson et al., 2016; Rasul and Sharma, 2016; Howarth and Monasterolo, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r275|275]]</sup> . Compared to single-objective climate–SDG assessments (Section 5.4.2), nexus solutions attempt to integrate complex interdependencies across diverse sectors in a systems approach for consistent analysis. Recent pathways studies show how water, energy and climate (SDGs 6, 7 and 13) interact (Parkinson et al., 2016; McCollum et al., 2018b) <sup>[[#fn:r276|276]]</sup> and call for integrated water–energy investment decisions to manage systemic risks. For instance, the provision of bioenergy, important in many 1.5°C-consistent pathways, can help resolve ‘nexus challenges’ by alleviating energy security concerns, but can also have adverse ‘nexus impacts’ on food security, water use and biodiversity (Lotze-Campen et al., 2014; Bonsch et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r277|277]]</sup> . Policies that improve resource use efficiency across sectors can maximize synergies for sustainable development (Bartos and Chester, 2014; McCollum et al., 2018b; van Vuuren et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r278|278]]</sup> . Mitigation compatible with 1.5°C can significantly reduce impacts and adaptation needs in the nexus sectors compared to 2°C (Byers et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r279|279]]</sup> . In order to avoid trade-offs due to high carbon pricing of 1.5°C pathways, regulation in specific areas may complement price-based instruments. Such combined policies generally lead also to more early action maximizing synergies and avoiding some of the adverse climate effects for sustainable development (Bertram et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r280|280]]</sup> .

The comprehensive analysis of climate change in the context of sustainable development requires suitable reference scenarios that lend themselves to broader sustainable development analyses. The Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs) (Chapter 1, Cross-Chapter Box 1 in Chapter 1) (O’Neill et al., 2017a; Riahi et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r281|281]]</sup> constitute an important first step in providing a framework for the integrated assessment of adaptation and mitigation and their climate–development linkages (Ebi et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r282|282]]</sup> . The five underlying SSP narratives (O’Neill et al., 2017a) <sup>[[#fn:r283|283]]</sup> map well into some of the key SDG dimensions, with one of the pathways (SSP1) explicitly depicting sustainability as the main theme (van Vuuren et al., 2017b) <sup>[[#fn:r284|284]]</sup> .

To date, no pathway in the literature proves to achieve all 17 SDGs because several targets are not met or not sufficiently covered in the analysis, hence resulting in a sustainability gap (Zimm et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r285|285]]</sup> . The SSPs facilitate the systematic exploration of different sustainable dimensions under ambitious climate objectives. SSP1 proves to be in line with eight SDGs (3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 15) and several of their targets in a 2°C warmer world (van Vuuren et al., 2017b; Zimm et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r286|286]]</sup> . However, important targets for SDGs 1, 2 and 4 (i.e., people living in extreme poverty, people living at the risk of hunger and gender gap in years of schooling) are not met in this scenario.

The SSPs show that sustainable socio-economic conditions will play a key role in reaching stringent climate targets (Riahi et al., 2017; Rogelj et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r287|287]]</sup> . Recent modelling work has examined 1.5°C-consistent, stringent mitigation scenarios for 2100 applied to the SSPs, using six different IAMs. Despite the limitations of these models, which are coarse approximations of reality, robust trends can be identified (Rogelj et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r288|288]]</sup> . SSP1 – which depicts broader ‘sustainability’ as well as enhancing equity and poverty reductions – is the only pathway where all models could reach 1.5°C and is associated with the lowest mitigation costs across all SSPs. A decreasing number of models was successful for SSP2, SSP4 and SSP5, respectively, indicating distinctly higher risks of failure due to high growth and energy intensity as well as geographical and social inequalities and uneven regional development. And reaching 1.5°C has even been found infeasible in the less sustainable SSP3 – ‘regional rivalry’ (Fujimori et al., 2017b; Riahi et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r289|289]]</sup> . All these conclusions hold true if a 2°C objective is considered (Calvin et al., 2017; Fujimori et al., 2017b; Popp et al., 2017; Riahi et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r290|290]]</sup> . Rogelj et al. (2018) <sup>[[#fn:r291|291]]</sup> also show that fewer scenarios are, however, feasible across different SSPs in case of 1.5°C, and mitigation costs substantially increase in 1.5°C pathways compared to 2°C pathways.

There is a wide range of SSP-based studies focusing on the connections between adaptation/impacts and different sustainable development dimensions (Hasegawa et al., 2014; Ishida et al., 2014; Arnell et al., 2015; Bowyer et al., 2015; Burke et al., 2015; Lemoine and Kapnick, 2016; Rozenberg and Hallegatte, 2016; Blanco et al., 2017; Hallegatte and Rozenberg, 2017; O’Neill et al., 2017a; Rutledge et al., 2017; Byers et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r292|292]]</sup> . New methods for projecting inequality and poverty (downscaled to sub-national rural and urban levels as well as spatially explicit levels) have enabled advanced SSP-based assessments of locally sustainable development implications of avoided impacts and related adaptation needs. For instance, Byers et al. (2018) <sup>[[#fn:r293|293]]</sup> find that, in a 1.5°C warmer world, a focus on sustainable development can reduce the climate risk exposure of populations vulnerable to poverty by more than an order of magnitude (Section 5.2.2). Moreover, aggressive reductions in between-country inequality may decrease the emissions intensity of global economic growth (Rao and Min, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r294|294]]</sup> . This is due to the higher potential for decoupling of energy from income growth in lower-income countries, due to high potential for technological advancements that reduce the energy intensity of growth of poor countries – critical also for reaching 1.5°C in a socially and economically equitable way. Participatory downscaling of SSPs in several European Union countries and in Central Asia shows numerous possible pathways of solutions to the 2°C–1.5°C goal, depending on differential visions (Tàbara et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r295|295]]</sup> . Other participatory applications of the SSPs, for example in West Africa (Palazzo et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r296|296]]</sup> and the southeastern United States (Absar and Preston, 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r297|297]]</sup> , illustrate the potentially large differences in adaptive capacity within regions and between sectors.

Harnessing the full potential of the SSP framework to inform sustainable development requires: (i) further elaboration and extension of the current SSPs to cover sustainable development objectives explicitly; (ii) the development of new or variants of current narratives that would facilitate more SDG-focused analyses with climate as one objective (among other SDGs) (Riahi et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r298|298]]</sup> ; (iii) scenarios with high regional resolution (Fujimori et al., 2017b) <sup>[[#fn:r299|299]]</sup> ; (iv) a more explicit representation of institutional and governance change associated with the SSPs (Zimm et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r300|300]]</sup> ; and (v) a scale-up of localized and spatially explicit vulnerability, poverty and inequality estimates, which have emerged in recent publications based on the SSPs (Byers et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r301|301]]</sup> and are essential to investigate equity dimensions (Klinsky and Winkler, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r302|302]]</sup> .

<span id="climate-resilient-development-pathways"></span>
=== 5.5.3 Climate-Resilient Development Pathways ===

<div id="section-5-5-3-block-1"></div>

This section assesses the literature on pathways as solution-oriented trajectories and decision-making processes for attaining transformative visions for a 1.5°C warmer world. It builds on climate-resilient development pathways (CRDPs) introduced in the AR5 (Section 5.1.2) (Olsson et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r303|303]]</sup> as well as growing literature (e.g., Eriksen et al., 2017; Johnson, 2017; Orindi et al., 2017; Kirby and O’Mahony, 2018; Solecki et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r304|304]]</sup> that uses CRDPs as a conceptual and aspirational idea for steering societies towards low-carbon, prosperous and ecologically safe futures. Such a notion of pathways foregrounds decision-making processes at local to national levels to situate transformation, resilience, equity and well-being in the complex reality of specific places, nations and communities (Harris et al., 2017; Ziervogel et al., 2017; Fazey et al., 2018; Gajjar et al., 2018; Klinsky and Winkler, 2018; Patterson et al., 2018; Tàbara et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r305|305]]</sup> .

Pathways compatible with 1.5°C warming are not merely scenarios to envision possible futures but processes of deliberation and implementation that address societal values, local priorities and inevitable trade-offs. This includes attention to politics and power that perpetuate business-as-usual trajectories (O’Brien, 2016; Harris et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r306|306]]</sup> , the politics that shape sustainability and capabilities of everyday life (Agyeman et al., 2016; Schlosberg et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r307|307]]</sup> , and ingredients for community resilience and transformative change (Fazey et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r308|308]]</sup> . Chartering CRDPs encourages locally situated and problem-solving processes to negotiate and operationalize resilience ‘on the ground’ (Beilin and Wilkinson, 2015; Harris et al., 2017; Ziervogel et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r309|309]]</sup> . This entails contestation, inclusive governance and iterative engagement of diverse populations with varied needs, aspirations, agency and rights claims, including those most affected, to deliberate trade-offs in a multiplicity of possible pathways ( ''high confidence'' ) (see Figure 5.5) (Stirling, 2014; Vale, 2014; Walsh-Dilley and Wolford, 2015; Biermann et al., 2016; J.R.A. Butler et al., 2016; O’Brien, 2016, 2018; Harris et al., 2017; Jones and Tanner, 2017; Mapfumo et al., 2017; Rosenbloom, 2017; Gajjar et al., 2018; Klinsky and Winkler, 2018; Lyon, 2018; Tàbara et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r310|310]]</sup> .

<div id="section-5-5-3-block-2"></div>

<span id="figure-5.5"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure 5.5'''

<span id="pathways-into-the-future-with-path-dependencies-and-iterative-problem-solving-and-decision-making-after-fazey-et-al.-2016-311-."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Pathways into the future, with path dependencies and iterative problem-solving and decision-making (after Fazey et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r311|311]]</sup> .'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:1e5c5b8293e20ec5b1812a8753f58003 Figure5.5-1024x713.jpg]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-5-5-3-1"></div>

<span id="transformations-equity-and-well-being"></span>
==== 5.5.3.1 Transformations, equity and well-being ====

<div id="section-5-5-3-1-block-1"></div>

Most literature related to CRDPs invokes the concept of transformation, underscoring the need for urgent and far-reaching changes in practices, institutions and social relations in society. Transformations towards a 1.5°C warmer world would need to address considerations for equity and well-being, including in trade-off decisions (see Figure 5.1).

To attain the anticipated ''transformations'' , all countries as well as non-state actors would need to strengthen their contributions, through bolder and more committed cooperation and equitable effort-sharing ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Rao, 2014; Frumhoff et al., 2015; Ekwurzel et al., 2017; Millar et al., 2017; Shue, 2017; Holz et al., 2018; Robinson and Shine, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r312|312]]</sup> . Sustaining decarbonization rates at a 1.5°C-compatible level would be unprecedented and not possible without rapid transformations to a net-zero-emissions global economy by mid-century or the later half of the century (see Chapters 2 and 4). Such efforts would entail overcoming technical, infrastructural, institutional and behavioural barriers across all sectors and levels of society (Pfeiffer et al., 2016; Seto et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r313|313]]</sup> and defeating path dependencies, including poverty traps (Boonstra et al., 2016; Enqvist et al., 2016; Lade et al., 2017; Haider et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r314|314]]</sup> . Transformation also entails ensuring that 1.5°C-compatible pathways are inclusive and desirable, build solidarity and alliances, and protect vulnerable groups, including against disruptions of transformation (Patterson et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r315|315]]</sup> .

There is growing emphasis on the role of ''equity, fairness'' and ''justice'' (see Glossary) regarding context-specific transformations and pathways to a 1.5°C warmer world ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Shue, 2014; Thorp, 2014; Dennig et al., 2015; Moellendorf, 2015; Klinsky et al., 2017b; Roser and Seidel, 2017; Sealey-Huggins, 2017; Klinsky and Winkler, 2018; Robinson and Shine, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r316|316]]</sup> . Consideration for what is equitable and fair suggests the need for stringent decarbonization and up-scaled adaptation that do not exacerbate social injustices, locally and at national levels (Okereke and Coventry, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r317|317]]</sup> , uphold human rights (Robinson and Shine, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r318|318]]</sup> , are socially desirable and acceptable (von Stechow et al., 2016; Rosenbloom, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r319|319]]</sup> , address values and beliefs (O’Brien, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r320|320]]</sup> , and overcome vested interests (Normann, 2015; Patterson et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r321|321]]</sup> . Attention is often drawn to huge disparities in the cost, benefits, opportunities and challenges involved in transformation within and between countries, and the fact that the suffering of already poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged populations may be worsened, if care to protect them is not taken (Holden et al., 2017; Klinsky and Winkler, 2018; Patterson et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r322|322]]</sup> .

''Well-being for all'' (Dearing et al., 2014; Raworth, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r323|323]]</sup> is at the core of an ecologically safe and socially just space for humanity, including health and housing, peace and justice, social equity, gender equality and political voices (Raworth, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r324|324]]</sup> . It is in alignment with transformative social development (UNRISD, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r325|325]]</sup> and the 2030 Agenda of ‘leaving no one behind’. The social conditions to enable well-being for all are to reduce entrenched inequalities within and between countries (Klinsky and Winkler, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r326|326]]</sup> ; rethink prevailing values, ethics and behaviours (Holden et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r327|327]]</sup> ; allow people to live a life in dignity while avoiding actions that undermine capabilities (Klinsky and Golub, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r328|328]]</sup> ; transform economies (Popescu and Ciurlau, 2016; Tàbara et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r329|329]]</sup> ; overcome uneven consumption and production patterns (Dearing et al., 2014; Häyhä et al., 2016; Raworth, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r330|330]]</sup> and conceptualize development as well-being rather than mere economic growth ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Gupta and Pouw, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r331|331]]</sup> .

<div id="section-5-5-3-2"></div>

<span id="development-trajectories-sharing-of-efforts-and-cooperation"></span>
==== 5.5.3.2 Development trajectories, sharing of efforts and cooperation ====

<div id="section-5-5-3-2-block-1"></div>

The potential for pursuing sustainable and climate-resilient development pathways towards a 1.5°C warmer world differs between and within nations, due to differential development achievements and trajectories, and opportunities and challenges ( ''very high confidence'' ) (Figure 5.1). There are clear differences between high-income countries where social achievements are high, albeit often with negative effects on the environment, and most developing nations where vulnerabilities to climate change are high and social support and life satisfaction are low, especially in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) (Sachs et al., 2017; O’Neill et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r332|332]]</sup> . Differential starting points for CRDPs between and within countries, including path dependencies (Figure 5.5), call for sensitivity to context (Klinsky and Winkler, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r333|333]]</sup> . For the developing world, limiting warming to 1.5°C also means potentially severely curtailed development prospects (Okereke and Coventry, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r334|334]]</sup> and risks to human rights from both climate action and inaction to achieve this goal (Robinson and Shine, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r335|335]]</sup> (Section 5.2). Within-country development differences remain, despite efforts to ensure inclusive societies (Gupta and Arts, 2017; Gupta and Pouw, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r336|336]]</sup> . Cole et al. (2017) <sup>[[#fn:r337|337]]</sup> , for instance, show how differences between provinces in South Africa constitute barriers to sustainable development trajectories and for operationalising nation-level SDGs, across various dimensions of social deprivation and environmental stress, reflecting historic disadvantages.

Moreover, various equity and effort- or burden-sharing approaches to climate stabilization in the literature describe how to sketch national potentials for a 1.5°C warmer world (e.g., Anand, 2004; CSO Equity Review, 2015; Meinshausen et al., 2015; Okereke and Coventry, 2016; Bexell and Jönsson, 2017; Otto et al., 2017; Pan et al., 2017; Robiou du Pont et al., 2017; Holz et al., 2018; Kartha et al., 2018; Winkler et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r338|338]]</sup> . Many approaches build on the AR5 ‘responsibility –capacity– need’ assessment (Clarke et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r339|339]]</sup> , complement other proposed national-level metrics for capabilities, equity and fairness (Heyward and Roser, 2016; Klinsky et al., 2017a) <sup>[[#fn:r340|340]]</sup> , or fall under the wider umbrella of fair share debates on responsibility, capability and the right to development in climate policy (Fuglestvedt and Kallbekken, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r341|341]]</sup> . Importantly, different principles and methodologies generate different calculated contributions, responsibilities and capacities (Skeie et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r342|342]]</sup> .

The notion of nation-level fair shares is now also discussed in the context of limiting global warming to 1.5°C and the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) (see Chapter 4, Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 4) (CSO Equity Review, 2015; Mace, 2016; Pan et al., 2017; Robiou du Pont et al., 2017; Holz et al., 2018; Kartha et al., 2018; Winkler et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r343|343]]</sup> . A study by Pan et al. (2017) <sup>[[#fn:r344|344]]</sup> concluded that all countries would need to contribute to ambitious emissions reductions and that current pledges for 2030 by seven out of eight high-emitting countries would be insufficient to meet 1.5°C. Emerging literature on justice-centred pathways to 1.5°C points towards ambitious emissions reductions domestically and committed cooperation internationally whereby wealthier countries support poorer ones, technologically, financially and otherwise to enhance capacities (Okereke and Coventry, 2016; Holz et al., 2018; Robinson and Shine, 2018; Shue, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r345|345]]</sup> . These findings suggest that equitable and 1.5°C-compatible pathways would require fast action across all countries at all levels of development rather than late accession of developing countries (as assumed under SSP3, see Chapter 2), with external support for prompt mitigation and resilience-building efforts in the latter ( ''medium evidence, medium agreement'' ).

Scientific advances since the AR5 now also make it possible to determine contributions to climate change for non-state actors (see Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1) and their potential to contribute to CRDPs ( ''medium evidence, medium agreement'' ). These non-state actors includes cities (Bulkeley et al., 2013, 2014; Byrne et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r346|346]]</sup> , businesses (Heede, 2014; Frumhoff et al., 2015; Shue, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r347|347]]</sup> , transnational initiatives (Castro, 2016; Andonova et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r348|348]]</sup> and industries. Recent work demonstrates the contributions of 90 industrial carbon producers to global temperature and sea level rise, and their responsibilities to contribute to investments in and support for mitigation and adaptation (Heede, 2014; Ekwurzel et al., 2017; Shue, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r349|349]]</sup> (Sections 5.6.1 and 5.6.2).

At the level of groups and individuals, equity in pursuing climate resilience for a 1.5°C warmer world means addressing disadvantage, inequities and empowerment that shape transformative processes and pathways (Fazey et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r350|350]]</sup> , and deliberate efforts to strengthen the capabilities, capacities and well-being of poor, marginalized and vulnerable people (Byrnes, 2014; Tokar, 2014; Harris et al., 2017; Klinsky et al., 2017a; Klinsky and Winkler, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r351|351]]</sup> . Community-driven CRDPs can flag potential negative impacts of national trajectories on disadvantaged groups, such as low-income families and communities of colour (Rao, 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r352|352]]</sup> . They emphasize social equity, participatory governance, social inclusion and human rights, as well as innovation, experimentation and social learning (see Glossary) ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Sections 5.5.3.3 and 5.6).

<div id="section-5-5-3-3"></div>

<span id="country-and-community-strategies-and-experiences"></span>
==== 5.5.3.3 Country and community strategies and experiences ====

<div id="section-5-5-3-3-block-1"></div>

There are many possible pathways towards climate-resilient futures (O’Brien, 2018; Tàbara et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r353|353]]</sup> . Literature depicting different sustainable development trajectories in line with CRDPs is growing, with some of it being specific to 1.5°C global warming. Most experiences to date are at local and sub-national levels (Cross-Chapter Box 13 in this chapter), while state-level efforts align largely with green economy trajectories or planning for climate resilience (Box 5.3). Due to the fact that these strategies are context-specific, the literature is scarce on comparisons, efforts to scale up and systematic monitoring.

States can play an enabling or hindering role in a transition to a 1.5°C warmer world (Patterson et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r354|354]]</sup> . The literature on strategies to reconcile low-carbon trajectories with sustainable development and ecological sustainability through green growth, inclusive growth, de-growth, post-growth and development as well-being shows ''low agreement'' (see Chapter 4, Section 4.5). Efforts that align best with CRDPs are described as ‘transformational’ and ‘strong’ (Ferguson, 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r355|355]]</sup> . Some view ‘thick green’ perspectives as enabling equity, democracy and agency building (Lorek and Spangenberg, 2014; Stirling, 2014; Ehresman and Okereke, 2015; Buch-Hansen, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r356|356]]</sup> , others show how green economy and sustainable development pathways can align (Brown et al., 2014; Georgeson et al., 2017b) <sup>[[#fn:r357|357]]</sup> , and how a green economy can help link the SDGs with NDCs, for instance in Mongolia, Kenya and Sweden (Shine, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r358|358]]</sup> . Others still critique the continuous reliance on market mechanisms (Wanner, 2014; Brockington and Ponte, 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r359|359]]</sup> and disregard for equity and distributional and procedural justice (Stirling, 2014; Bell, 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r360|360]]</sup> .

Country-level pathways and achievements vary significantly ( ''robust evidence, medium agreement'' ). For instance, the Scandinavian countries rank at the top of the Global Green Economy Index (Dual Citizen LLC, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r361|361]]</sup> , although they also tend to show high spill-over effects (Holz et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r362|362]]</sup> and transgress their biophysical boundaries (O’Neill et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r363|363]]</sup> . State-driven efforts in non-member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development include Ethiopia’s ‘Climate-resilient Green Economy Strategy’, Mozambique’s ‘Green Economy Action Plan’ and Costa Rica’s ecosystem- and conservation-driven green transition paths. China and India have adopted technology and renewables pathways (Brown et al., 2014; Death, 2014, 2015, 2016; Khanna et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2015; Kim and Thurbon, 2015; Wang et al., 2015; Weng et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r364|364]]</sup> . Brazil promotes low per capita GHG emissions, clean energy sources, green jobs, renewables and sustainable transportation, while slowing rates of deforestation (see Chapter 4, Box 4.7) (Brown et al., 2014; La Rovere, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r365|365]]</sup> . Yet concerns remain regarding persistent inequalities, ecosystem monetization, lack of participation in green-style projects (Brown et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r366|366]]</sup> and labour conditions and risk of displacement in the sugarcane ethanol sector (McKay et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r367|367]]</sup> . Experiences with low-carbon development pathways in LDCs highlight the crucial role of identifying synergies across scale, removing institutional barriers and ensuring equity and fairness in distributing benefits as part of the right to development (Rai and Fisher, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r368|368]]</sup> .

In small islands states, for many of which climate change hazards and impacts at 1.5°C pose significant risks to sustainable development (see Chapter 3 Box 3.5, Chapter 4 Box 4.3, Box 5.3), examples of CRDPs have emerged since the AR5. This includes the SAMOA Pathway: SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (see Chapter 4, Box 4.3) (UNGA, 2014; Government of Kiribati, 2016; Steering Committee on Partnerships for SIDS and UN DESA, 2016; Lefale et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r369|369]]</sup> and the Framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific, a leading example of integrated regional climate change adaptation planning for mitigation and sustainable development, disaster risk management and low-carbon economies (SPC, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r370|370]]</sup> . Small islands of the Pacific vary significantly in their capacity and resources to support effective integrated planning (McCubbin et al., 2015; Barnett and Walters, 2016; Cvitanovic et al., 2016; Hemstock et al., 2017; Robinson and Dornan, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r371|371]]</sup> . Vanuatu (Box 5.3) has developed a significant coordinated national adaptation plan to advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, respond to the Paris Agreement and reduce the risk of disasters in line with the Sendai targets (UNDP, 2016; Republic of Vanuatu, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r372|372]]</sup> .

<div id="section-5-5-3-3-block-2" class="box"></div>

<span id="box-5.3-republic-of-vanuatu-national-planning-for-development-and-climate-resilience"></span>