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

== 5.6 Conditions for Achieving Sustainable Development, Eradicating Poverty and Reducing Inequalities in 1.5°C Warmer Worlds ==

<div id="article-5-6-block-1"></div>

This chapter has described the fundamental, urgent and systemic transformations that would be needed to achieve sustainable development, eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities in a 1.5°C warmer world, in various contexts and across scales. In particular, it has highlighted the societal dimensions, putting at the centre people’s needs and aspirations in their specific contexts. Here we synthesize some of the most pertinent enabling conditions (see Glossary) to support these profound transformations. These conditions are closely interlinked and connected by the overarching concept of governance, which broadly includes institutional, socio-economic, cultural and technological elements (see Chapter 1, Cross-Chapter Box 4 in Chapter 1).

<span id="finance-and-technology-aligned-with-local-needs"></span>
=== 5.6.1 Finance and Technology Aligned with Local Needs ===

<div id="section-5-6-1-block-1"></div>

Significant gaps in green investment constrain transitions to a low-carbon economy aligned with development objectives (Volz et al., 2015; Campiglio, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r445|445]]</sup> . Hence, unlocking new forms of public, private and public–private financing is essential to support environmental sustainability of the economic system (Croce et al., 2011; Blyth et al., 2015; Falcone et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r446|446]]</sup> (see Chapter 4, Section 4.4.5). To avoid risks of undesirable trade-offs with the SDGs caused by national budget constraints, improved access to international climate finance is essential for supporting adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development, especially for LDCs and SIDS ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Shine and Campillo, 2016; Wood, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r447|447]]</sup> . Care needs to be taken when international donors or partnership arrangements influence project financing structures (Kongsager and Corbera, 2015; Purdon, 2015; Phillips et al., 2017; Ficklin et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r448|448]]</sup> . Conventional climate funding schemes, especially the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), have shown positive effects on sustainable development but also adverse consequences, for example, on adaptive capacities of rural households and uneven distribution of costs and benefits, often exacerbating inequalities ( ''robust evidence, high agreement'' ) (Aggarwal, 2014; Brohé, 2014; He et al., 2014; Schade and Obergassel, 2014; Smits and Middleton, 2014; Wood et al., 2016a; Horstmann and Hein, 2017; Kreibich et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r449|449]]</sup> ''.'' Close consideration of recipients’ context-specific needs when designing financial support helps to overcome these limitations as it better aligns community needs, national policy objectives and donors’ priorities; puts the emphasis on the increase of transparency and predictability of support; and fosters local capacity building ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Barrett, 2013; Boyle et al., 2013; Shine and Campillo, 2016; Ley, 2017; Sánchez and Izzo, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r450|450]]</sup> ''.''

The development and transfer of technologies is another enabler for developing countries to contribute to the requirements of the 1.5°C objective while achieving climate resilience and their socio-economic development goals (see Chapter 4, Section 4.4.4). International-level governance would be needed to boost domestic innovation and the deployment of new technologies, such as negative emission technologies, towards the 1.5°C objective (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.7), but the alignment with local needs depends on close consideration of the specificities of the domestic context in countries at all levels of development (de Coninck and Sagar, 2015; IEA, 2015; Parikh et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r451|451]]</sup> . Technology transfer supporting development in developing countries would require an understanding of local and national actors and institutions (de Coninck and Puig, 2015; de Coninck and Sagar, 2017; Michaelowa et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r452|452]]</sup> , careful attention to the capacities in the entire innovation chain (Khosla et al., 2017; Olawuyi, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r453|453]]</sup> and transfer of not only equipment but also knowledge ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Murphy et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r454|454]]</sup> .

<span id="integration-of-institutions"></span>
=== 5.6.2 Integration of Institutions ===

<div id="section-5-6-2-block-1"></div>

Multilevel governance in climate change has emerged as a key enabler for systemic transformation and effective governance (see Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1). On the one hand, low-carbon and climate-resilient development actions are often well aligned at the lowest scale possible (Suckall et al., 2015; Sánchez and Izzo, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r455|455]]</sup> , and informal, local institutions are critical in enhancing the adaptive capacity of countries and marginalized communities (Yaro et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r456|456]]</sup> . On the other hand, international and national institutions can provide incentives for projects to harness synergies and avoid trade-offs (Kongsager et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r457|457]]</sup> .

Governance approaches that coordinate and monitor multiscale policy actions and trade-offs across sectoral, local, national, regional and international levels are therefore best suited to implement goals towards 1.5°C warmer conditions and sustainable development (Ayers et al., 2014; Stringer et al., 2014; von Stechow et al., 2016; Gwimbi, 2017; Hayward, 2017; Maor et al., 2017; Roger et al., 2017; Michaelowa et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r458|458]]</sup> ''.'' Vertical and horizontal policy integration and coordination is essential to take into account the interplay and trade-offs between sectors and spatial scales (Duguma et al., 2014; Naess et al., 2015; von Stechow et al., 2015; Antwi-Agyei et al., 2017a; Di Gregorio et al., 2017; Runhaar et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r459|459]]</sup> , enable the dialogue between local communities and institutional bodies (Colenbrander et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r460|460]]</sup> , and involve non-state actors such as business, local governments and civil society operating across different scales ( ''robust evidence, high agreement'' ) (Hajer et al., 2015; Labriet et al., 2015; Hale, 2016; Pelling et al., 2016; Kalafatis, 2017; Lyon, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r461|461]]</sup> ''.''

<span id="inclusive-processes"></span>
=== 5.6.3 Inclusive Processes ===

<div id="section-5-6-3-block-1"></div>

Inclusive governance processes are critical for preparing for a 1.5°C warmer world (Fazey et al., 2018; O’Brien, 2018; Patterson et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r462|462]]</sup> . These processes have been shown to serve the interests of diverse groups of people and enhance empowerment of often excluded stakeholders, notably women and youth (MRFCJ, 2015a; Dumont et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r463|463]]</sup> . They also enhance social- and co-learning which, in turn, facilitates accelerated and adaptive management and the scaling up of capacities for resilience building (Ensor and Harvey, 2015; Reij and Winterbottom, 2015; Tschakert et al., 2016; Binam et al., 2017; Dumont et al., 2017; Fazey et al., 2018; Lyon, 2018; O’Brien, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r464|464]]</sup> , and provides opportunities to blend indigenous, local and scientific knowledge ( ''robust evidence, high agreement'' ) (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.5.5, Box 4.3, Section 5.3) (Antwi-Agyei et al., 2017a; Coe et al., 2017; Thornton and Comberti, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r465|465]]</sup> ''.'' Such co-learning has been effective in improving deliberative decision-making processes that incorporate different values and world views (Cundill et al., 2014; C. Butler et al., 2016; Ensor, 2016; Fazey et al., 2016; Gorddard et al., 2016; Aipira et al., 2017; Chung Tiam Fook, 2017; Maor et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r466|466]]</sup> , and create space for negotiating diverse interests and preferences ( ''robust evidence, high agreement'' ) (O’Brien et al., 2015; Gillard et al., 2016; DeCaro et al., 2017; Harris et al., 2017; Lahn, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r467|467]]</sup> .

<span id="attention-to-issues-of-power-and-inequality"></span>
=== 5.6.4 Attention to Issues of Power and Inequality ===

<div id="section-5-6-4-block-1"></div>

Societal transformations to limit global warming to 1.5°C and strive for equity and well-being for all are not power neutral (Section 5.5.3). Development preferences are often shaped by powerful interests that determine the direction and pace of change, anticipated benefits and beneficiaries, and acceptable and unacceptable trade-offs (Newell et al., 2014; Fazey et al., 2016; Tschakert et al., 2016; Winkler and Dubash, 2016; Wood et al., 2016b; Karlsson et al., 2017; Quan et al., 2017; Tanner et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r468|468]]</sup> . Each development pathway, including legacies and path dependencies, creates its own set of opportunities and challenges and winners and losers, both within and across countries (Figure 5.5) ( ''robust evidence, high agreement'' ) (Mathur et al., 2014; Phillips et al., 2017; Stringer et al., 2017; Wood, 2017; Ficklin et al., 2018; Gajjar et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r469|469]]</sup> ''.''

Addressing the uneven distribution of power is critical to ensure that societal transformation towards a 1.5°C warmer world does not exacerbate poverty and vulnerability or create new injustices but rather encourages equitable transformational change (Patterson et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r470|470]]</sup> . Equitable outcomes are enhanced when they pay attention to just outcomes for those negatively affected by change (Newell et al., 2014; Dilling et al., 2015; Naess et al., 2015; Sovacool et al., 2015; Cervigni and Morris, 2016; Keohane and Victor, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r471|471]]</sup> and promote human rights, increase equality and reduce power asymmetries within societies ( ''robust evidence, high agreement'' ) (UNRISD, 2016; Robinson and Shine, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r472|472]]</sup> ''.''

<span id="reconsidering-values"></span>
=== 5.6.5 Reconsidering Values ===

<div id="section-5-6-5-block-1"></div>

The profound transformations that would be needed to integrate sustainable development and 1.5°C-compatible pathways call for examining the values, ethics, attitudes and behaviours that underpin societies (Hartzell-Nichols, 2017; O’Brien, 2018; Patterson et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r473|473]]</sup> . Infusing values that promote sustainable development (Holden et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r474|474]]</sup> , overcome individual economic interests and go beyond economic growth (Hackmann, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r475|475]]</sup> , encourage desirable and transformative visions (Tàbara et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r476|476]]</sup> , and care for the less fortunate (Howell and Allen, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r477|477]]</sup> is part and parcel of climate-resilient and sustainable development pathways. This entails helping societies and individuals to strive for sufficiency in resource consumption within planetary boundaries alongside sustainable and equitable well-being (O’Neill et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r478|478]]</sup> . Navigating 1.5°C societal transformations, characterized by action from local to global, stresses the core commitment to social justice, solidarity and cooperation, particularly regarding the distribution of responsibilities, rights and mutual obligations between nations ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Patterson et al., 2018; Robinson and Shine, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r479|479]]</sup> .

<span id="synthesis-and-research-gaps"></span>