Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-4 (section)

== 4.3 Shifting Development Pathways ==

<div id="4.3.1" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="framing-of-development-pathways"></span>
=== 4.3.1 Framing of Development Pathways ===

<div id="h2-12-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

<div id="4.3.1.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="what-are-development-pathways"></span>
==== 4.3.1.1 What are Development Pathways? ====

<div id="h3-29-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

The term development pathway is defined in various ways in the literature, and these definitions invariably refer to the evolution over time of a society’s defining features. A society’s development pathway can be described, analysed, and explained from a variety of perspectives, capturing a range of possible features, trends, processes, and mechanisms. It can be examined in terms of specific quantitative indicators, such as population, urbanisation level, life expectancy, literacy rate, GDP, carbon dioxide emission rate, average surface temperature, etc. Alternately, it can be described with reference to trends and shifts in broad socio-political or cultural features, such as democratisation, liberalisation, colonisation, globalisation, consumerism, etc. Or, it can be described in a way that highlights and details a particular domain of interest; for example, as an ‘economic pathway’, ‘technological pathway’, ‘demographic pathway’, or others. Any such focused description of a pathway is more limited, by definition, than the general and encompassing notion of a development pathway.

Development pathways represent societal evolution over time, and can be assessed retrospectively and interpreted in a historical light, or explored prospectively by anticipating and assessing alternative future pathways. Development pathways, and prospective development pathways in particular, can reflect societal objectives, as in ‘low-emission development pathways’, ‘climate-resilient development pathways’, ‘sustainable development pathways’, ‘inclusive development pathway’, and as such can embed normative assumptions or preferences, or can reflect potential dystopian futures to be avoided. A national development plan ( [[#4.3.2|Section 4.3.2]] ) is a representation of a possible development pathway for a given society reflecting its objectives, as refracted through its development planning process.

One approach for exploring shifts in future development pathways is through scenarios. Some examples of scenario exercises in the literature are provided in Table 4.11.

Different narratives of development pathways can have distinct and even competing focuses such as economic growth, shifts in industrial structure, technological determinism, and can embody alternative framings of development itself (from growth to well-being, see Chapter 5), and of sustainable development in particular (Sections 1.6 and 17.1). Scenario exercises are structured undertakings to explore alternative future development pathways, often drawing on stakeholder input and accepting the deep and irreducible uncertainty inherent in societal development into the future ( [[#Schweizer--2012|Schweizer and Kriegler 2012]] ; [[#Kahane--2012|Kahane 2012]] ; [[#Raskin--2020|Raskin and Swart 2020]] ). The results of scenario explorations, including modelling exercises, thus help clarify the characteristics of a particular future pathway, in light of a particular set of assumptions and choice of indicators for assessment. Processes of developing scenarios can inform choices by decision makers of various kinds.

Scenarios are useful to clarify societal objectives, understand constraints, and explore future shifts. Scenario exercises are effective when they enable multi-dimensional assessment, and accommodate divergent normative viewpoints ( [[#Kowarsch--2017|Kowarsch et al. 2017]] ). Such processes might take into account participants’ explicit and implicit priorities, values, disciplinary backgrounds, and world views. The process of defining and describing a society’s development pathway contributes to the ongoing process of understanding, explaining and defining the historical and contemporary meaning and significance of a society. The imagination of facilitated stakeholder process combined with the rigour of modelling helps improve understanding of constraints, trade-offs, and choices. ‘Scenario analysis offers a structured approach for illuminating the vast range of possibilities. A scenario is a story, told in words and numbers, describing the way events might unfold. If constructed with rigor and imagination, scenarios help us to explore where we might be headed, but more, offering guidance on how to act now to direct the flow of events toward a desirable future’ ( [[#Raskin--2002|Raskin et al. 2002]] ). Scenario processes are valuable for the quantitative and qualitative insights they can provide, and also for the role they can play in providing a forum and process by which diverse institutions and even antagonistic stakeholders can come together, build trust, improve understanding, and ultimately converge in their objectives ( [[#Kane--2018|Kane and Boulle 2018]] ; [[#Dubash--2021|Dubash 2021]] ).

'''Table 4.11 | Prospective development pathways at global, national a''' '''nd local scale.'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Scale

! Process and publication

! Description of development pathways

|-
| Global

| IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (Nakicenovic et al. 2000)

| Four different narrative storylines describing relationships between driving forces and the evolution of emission scenarios over the 21st century.

|-
| Global

| Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs)

( [[#Riahi--2017|Riahi et al. 2017]] ; [[#O’Neill--2017|O’Neill et al. 2017]] )

| Five narratives describing alternative socio-economic developments, including sustainable development, regional rivalry, inequality, fossil-fuelled development, and middle-of-the-road development, using alternative long-term projections of demographics, human development, economy and lifestyle, policies and institutions, technology, and environment and natural resources.

|-
| Global

| Income inequality projections for SSPs ( [[#Rao--2019|Rao et al. 2019]] )

| Alternative development pathways that explore several drivers of rising or falling inequality.

|-
| Global

| Futures of Work

( [[#World%20Economic%20Forum--2018|World Economic Forum 2018]] )

| Eight possible visions of the future of work in the year 2030, based on different combinations of three core variables: the rate of technological change and its impact on business models, the evolution of learning among the current and future workforce, and the magnitude of labour mobility across geographies – all of which are likely to strongly influence the nature of work in the future.

|-
| National

| Mont Fleur Scenarios

( [[#Galer--2004|Galer 2004]] )

| Four socio-political scenarios intended to explore possible futures of a newly post-apartheid South Africa, which included three dark prophecies and one bright vision which reportedly influenced the new leadership.

|-
| National

| Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS) ( [[#Winkler--2017|Winkler et al. 2017]] ; [[#Raubenheimer--2015|Raubenheimer et al. 2015]] )

| Mitigation and development-focused scenarios for Brazil, Chile, Peru, and Colombia, entailing linked sectoral and economy modelling including socio-economic implications, combined with intensive stakeholder engagement.

|-
| National

| Deep Decarbonisation Pathways (Bataille et al. 2016a; [[#Waisman--2019|Waisman et al. 2019]] )

| Mitigation-focused scenarios for sixteen countries from each country’s perspective, carried out by local institutes using national models. The common method is a tool for decision-makers in each context to debate differing concrete visions for deep decarbonisation, seek consensus on near-term policy packages, with aim to contribute to long-term global decarbonisation.

|-
| Local

| New Lenses on Future Cities

( [[#Shell%20Global--2014|Shell Global 2014]] )

| Six city archetypes used to create scenarios to help understand how cities could evolve through more sustainable urbanisation processes and become more efficient, while coping with major development challenges in the past.

|}

<div id="4.3.1.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="shifting-development-pathways-1"></span>
==== 4.3.1.2 Shifting Development Pathways ====

<div id="h3-30-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Development pathways evolve as the result of the countless decisions and actions at all levels of societal structure, as well due to the emergent dynamics within and between institutions, cultural norms, socio-technological systems, and the biogeophysical environment. Society can choose to make decisions and take actions with the shared intention of influencing the future development pathway toward specific agreed objectives.

The SDGs provide a lens on diverse national and local development objectives. Humankind currently faces multiple sustainability challenges that together present global society with the challenge of assessing, deliberating, and attempting to bring about a viable, positive future development pathway. Ecological sustainability challenges include reducing GHG emissions, protecting the ozone layer, controlling pollutants such as aerosols and persistent organics, managing nitrogen and phosphorous cycles, etc. ( [[#Steffen--2015|Steffen et al. 2015]] ), which are necessary to address the rising risks to biodiversity and ecosystem services on which humanity depends ( [[#IPBES--2019a|IPBES 2019a]] ). Socio-economic sustainability challenges include conflict, persistent poverty and deprivation, various forms of pervasive and systemic discrimination and deprivation, and socially corrosive inequality. The global adoption of the SDGs and their underlying indicators ( [[#UN--2017|UN 2017]] , 2018 and 2019) reflect a negotiated prioritisation of these common challenges.

Figure 4.7 illustrates the process of shifting development pathways. The lines illustrate different possible development pathways through time, some of which (shown here toward the top of the figure) remove obstacles to the adoption and effective implementation of sustainable development policies, and thus give access to a rich policy toolbox for accelerating mitigation and achieving SDGs. Other development pathways (shown here toward the bottom of the figure) do not overcome, or even reinforce the obstacles to adopting and effectively implementing sustainable development policies, and thus leave decision-makers with more limited policy toolbox ( [[#4.2.7|Section 4.2.7]] and Figure 4.6). A richer tool box enables faster, deeper and broader mitigation.

<div id="_idContainer030" class="Basic-Text-Frame"></div>

[[File:f373c509da4dc7131ce79f5bcf0d8d24 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_4_7.png]]

'''Figure 4.7 | Shifting development pathways to increased sustainability: choices by a wide range of actors at key decision points on development pathways can reduce barriers and provide more tools to accelerate mitigation and achieve other Sustainable Dev''' '''elopment Goals.'''

The development pathways branch and branch again, signifying how a diversity of decision-makers (policymakers, organisations, investors, voters, consumers, etc.) are continuously making choices that influence which of many potential development pathways society follows. Some of these choices fall clearly within the domain of mitigation policy. For example, what level carbon price, if any, should be imposed? Should fossil fuel subsidies be removed? Most decisions, of course, fall outside the direct domain of mitigation policy. ''Shifting development pathways toward sustainability'' involves this broader realm of choices beyond mitigation policy ''per se'' , and requires identifying those choices that are important determinants of the existing obstacles to accelerating mitigation and meeting other SDGs. Addressing these choices coherently shifts the development pathway away from a continuation of existing trends.

<div id="4.3.1.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="expanding-the-range-of-policies-and-other-mitigative-options"></span>
==== 4.3.1.3 Expanding the Range of Policies and Other Mitigative Options ====

<div id="h3-31-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Shifting development pathways aims to influence the ultimate drivers of emissions (and development generally), such as the systemic and cultural determinants of consumption patterns, the political systems and power structures that govern decision-making, the institutions and incentives that guide and constrain socio-technical innovation, and the norms and information platforms that shape knowledge and discourse, and culture, values and needs ( [[#Raskin--2002|Raskin et al. 2002]] ). These ultimate drivers determine the mitigative capacity of a society.

Decision-makers might usefully consider a broader palette of policies and measures as part of an overall strategy to meet climate goals and other sustainable development goals ( [[#4.3.2|Section 4.3.2]] and Table 4.12). This is consistent with the fact that mitigation is increasingly understood to be inseparable from broader developmental goals, which can be facilitated by policy coherence and integration with broader objectives and policies sectorally and societally. This is supported by other observations that mitigation measures based on conventional climate policy instruments, such as emissions taxes or permits, price incentives such as feed-in tariffs for low-carbon electricity generation, and fuel economy standards, and building codes, which aim to influence the proximate drivers of emissions alone will not achieve the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement ( [[#Méjean--2015|Méjean et al. 2015]] ; [[#Rogelj--2016|Rogelj et al. 2016]] ; [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC 2018a]] ; UNEP 2018). An approach of shifting development pathways to increased sustainability (SDPS) broadens the scope for mitigation.

<div id="4.3.1.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="an-approach-of-sdps-helps-manage-trade-offs-between-mitigation-and-other-sdgs"></span>
==== 4.3.1.4 An Approach of SDPS Helps Manage Trade-offs Between Mitigation and Other SDGs ====

<div id="h3-32-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Beyond removing structural obstacles to accelerated mitigation, broadening the approach to policies that facilitate shifts in development pathways also helps manage the potential trade-offs between mitigation and other development objectives discussed in [[#4.2.7|Section 4.2.7]] .

Systematic studies of the 17 SDGs have found the interactions among them to be manifold and complex ( [[#Nilsson--2016|Nilsson et al. 2016]] ; [[#Pradhan--2017|Pradhan et al. 2017]] ; [[#Weitz--2018|Weitz et al. 2018]] ; [[#Fuso%20Nerini--2019|Fuso Nerini et al. 2019]] ). Addressing them calls for interventions affecting fundamental, interconnected, structural features of global society (International Panel on Social Progress 2018; [[#TWI2050%20–%20The%20World%20in%202050--2018|TWI2050 – The World in 2050 2018]] ), such as to our physical infrastructure (e.g., energy, water, industrial, urban infrastructure) ( [[#Waage--2015|Waage et al. 2015]] ; Adshead et al. 2019; [[#Chester--2019|Chester 2019]] ; [[#Mansell--2019|Mansell et al. 2019]] ; [[#Thacker--2019|Thacker et al. 2019]] ; ), our societal institutions (e.g., educational, public health, economic, innovation, and political institutions) ( [[#Ostrom--2010|Ostrom 2010]] ; [[#Kläy--2015|Kläy et al. 2015]] ; [[#Messner--2015|Messner 2015]] ; [[#Sachs--2019|Sachs et al. 2019]] ), and behavioural and cultural tendencies (e.g., consumption patterns, conventional biases, discriminatory interpersonal and intergroup dynamics, and inequitable power structures) ( [[#Esquivel--2016|Esquivel 2016]] ; [[#Sachs--2019|Sachs et al. 2019]] ). These observations imply that attempt to address each SDG in isolation, or as independent technical challenges, would be insufficient, as would incremental, marginal changes. In contrast, effectively addressing the SDGs is likely to mean significant disruption of long-standing trends and transformative progress to shift development pathways to meet al. the SDGs, including climate action, beyond incremental changes targeted at addressing mitigation objectives in isolation. In other words, mitigation conceived as incremental change is not enough. Transformational change has implications for equity in its multiple dimensions ( [[#Steffen--2013|Steffen and Stafford Smith 2013]] ; [[#Klinsky--2017a|Klinsky et al. 2017a]] ; [[#Leach--2018|Leach et al. 2018]] ) including just transitions ( [[#4.5|Section 4.5]] ).

Working Group II examines climate resilient development pathways (CRDP) – continuous processes that imply deep societal changes and/or transformation, so as to strengthen sustainable development, efforts to eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities while promoting fair and cross-scalar capacities for adaptation to global warming and reduction of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. Transformative action in the context of CRDP specifically concerns leveraging change in the five dimensions of development (people, prosperity, partnership, peace, planet) (AR6 WGII, Chapter 18).

[[#4.3.2|Section 4.3.2]] provides more details on the way development pathways influence emissions and mitigative capacity. [[#4.3.3|Section 4.3.3]] provides examples of shifts in development pathways, as well as of policies that might facilitate those. Cross-Chapter Box 5 in this chapter details the links between SDPS and sustainability.

<div id="4.3.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="implications-of-development-pathways-for-mitigation-and-mitigative-capacity"></span>
=== 4.3.2 Implications of Development Pathways for Mitigation and Mitigative Capacity ===

<div id="h2-13-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

<div id="4.3.2.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="countries-have-different-development-priorities"></span>
==== 4.3.2.1 Countries Have Different Development Priorities ====

<div id="h3-33-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

At the global level, the SDGs adopted by all the United Nations Member States in 2015 are delineated with a view to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030. The 17 SDGs are integrated and imply that development must balance social, economic and environmental sustainability.

While all countries share the totality of the SDGs, development priorities differ across countries and over time. These priorities are strongly linked to local contexts, and depend on which dimensions of improvements in the well-being of people are considered the most urgent.

Development priorities are reflected in the decisions that actors within societies make, such as policy choices by governments and parliaments at all levels, votes over competing policy platforms by citizens, or selection of issues that non-state actors push for. Multiple objectives range from poverty eradication to providing energy access, addressing concerns of inequality, providing education, improving health, cleaning air and water, improving connectivity, sustaining growth and providing jobs, among others. For example, eradicating poverty and reducing inequality is a key development priority across many countries, such as Brazil ( [[#Grottera--2017|Grottera et al. 2017]] ), Indonesia ( [[#Irfany--2017|Irfany and Klasen 2017]] ), India (GoI 2015), South Africa ( [[#Winkler--2018|Winkler 2018]] ) and other low- and middle-income countries ( [[#Dorband--2019|Dorband et al. 2019]] ). Reducing inequality relates not only to income, but also to other dimensions such as in access to energy services ( [[#Tait--2017|Tait 2017]] ), gender, education, racial and ethnic profiles (Andrijevic et al. 2020), and thereby assumes relevance in both developing and developed countries. The development priorities of many poor countries and communities with low capacities to adapt, has been focused more on reducing poverty, providing basic infrastructure, education and improving health, rather than on mitigation ( [[#Chimhowu--2019|Chimhowu et al. 2019]] ).

<div id="4.3.2.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="the-nature-of-national-development-plans-is-changing"></span>
==== 4.3.2.2 The Nature of National Development Plans Is Changing ====

<div id="h3-34-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Governments are increasingly resorting to the development of national plans to build institutions, resources, and risk/shock management capabilities to guide national development. The number of countries with a national development plan has more than doubled, from about 62 in 2006 ( [[#World%20Bank--2007|World Bank 2007]] ) to 134 plans published between 2012 and 2018 ( [[#Chimhowu--2019|Chimhowu et al. 2019]] ). The comeback of planning may be linked to increased consideration given to sustainability, which is by construction forward-looking and far ranging, and therefore requires state and civil society to prepare and implement plans at all levels of governance. Governments are increasingly engaging in the development and formulation of national plans in an organised, conscious and continual attempt to select the best available alternatives to achieve specific goals.

A systematic assessment of 107 national development plans and 10 country case studies provides useful insights regarding the type and content of the plans ( [[#Chimhowu--2019|Chimhowu et al. 2019]] ). development plans are increasingly focusing on mobilising action across multiple actors and multiple dimensions to enhance resilience and improve the ability to undertake stronger mitigation actions. Various initiatives such as the World Summit for Children in 1990; the Heavily Indebted Poor Country initiative that started offering debt relief in exchange for commitments by beneficiary states to invest in health, education, nutrition and poverty reduction in 1996; and push towards Comprehensive Development Frameworks seem to have catalysed the development of national actions plans across countries to estimate, measure and track investments and progress towards SDGs.

The most recent development plans also tend to differ from the earlier ones in terms of their approach. Complexity science has over the years argued for new forms of planning based on contingency, behaviour change, adaptation and constant learning ( [[#Colander--2016|Colander and Kupers 2016]] ; [[#Ramalingam--2013|Ramalingam, 2013]] ), and new plans have increasingly focused on increasing resilience of individuals, organisations and systems ( [[#Hummelbrunner--2013|Hummelbrunner and Jones, 2013]] ). Finally, alongside short-term (typically five year) plans with operational purpose, countries have also expressed visions of their development pathways over longer time horizons, via, for example, Voluntary National Reviews submitted in the context of the UN High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development.

National development plans are also increasingly more holistic in their approach, linking closely with SDGs and incorporating climate action in their agendas. For instance, the Low Carbon Development Initiative (LCDI), launched in 2017 by the Government of Indonesia, seeks to identify the development policies that can help Indonesia achieve multiple (social, economic, and environmental) goals simultaneously along with preserving and improving the country’s natural resources ( [[#Bappenas--2019|Bappenas 2019]] ). Likewise, Nepal’s Fifteenth Plan (five-year) recognises the need for climate mitigation and adaptation and corresponding access to international finance and technologies. The plan suggests mobilisation of foreign aid in the climate change domain in line with Nepal’s priorities and its inclusion in the country’s climate-friendly development programs as the key opportunities in this regard ( [[#Nepal--2020|Nepal 2020]] ).

China’s development plans have evolved over time from being largely growth oriented, and geared largely towards the objectives of addressing poverty, improving health, education and public well-being to also including modernisation of agriculture, industry and infrastructure, new forms of urbanisation and a clear intent of focusing on innovation and new drivers of development (Central Compilation &amp; Translation Press 2016). China’s 14th Five Year Plan not only seeks to promote high quality development in all aspects and focus on strengthening the economy in the global industrial chain, but also includes a vision of an ‘ecological civilisation’, which had been developed ( [[#CPC-CC--2015|CPC-CC 2015]] ) and analysed earlier ( [[#He--2016|He 2016]] ; [[#Xiao--2017|Xiao and Zhao 2017]] ). It seeks to enhance China’s climate pledge to peak CO 2 emissions by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 through more vigorous policies and measures. Development plans tie in multiple development priorities that evolve and broaden over time as societies develop, as exemplified inter alia by the history of development plans in India (Box 4.4).

<div id="box-4.4" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

<span id="box-4.4-indias-national-d-evelopment-plan"></span>
=== Box 4.4 | India’s National Development Plan ===

<div id="h2-14-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

India’s initial national development plans focused on improving the living standards of its people, increasing national income and food self-sufficiency. Accordingly, there was a thrust towards enhancing productivity of the agricultural and industrial sectors. While the main focus was on maintaining high economic growth and industrial productivity, poverty eradication, employment and inclusive growth remained important priorities. The National Action Plan on Climate Change with eight National Missions focusing on mitigation as well as adaptation was launched in 2008 integrating climate change considerations in planning and decision-making ( [[#MoEF--2008|MoEF 2008]] ). The 12th Five-Year Plan (2012–2017) also brought in a focus on sustainability and mentioned the need for faster, sustainable and inclusive growth. The National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog) was set up in 2017 replacing the erstwhile Planning Commission, with a renewed focus towards bringing innovation, technology, enterprise and efficient management together at the core of policy formulation and implementation. However, while India has moved away from its Five-Year Plans, decision-making is more dynamic, with a number of sector-specific initiatives and targets focused on integrating sustainability dimensions through a series of policies and measures supporting resource efficiency, improved energy access, infrastructure development, low-carbon options and building resilient communities, among other objectives ( [[#MoEFCC--2018|MoEFCC 2018]] , 2021). India’s overall development pathway currently has a strong focus on achieving robust and inclusive growth to ensure balanced development across all regions and states and across sectors. There is a thrust on embracing new technologies while fostering innovation and upskilling, modernisation of agriculture, improving regional and interpersonal equity, bridging the gap between public and private sector performance, by focusing on efficient delivery of public services, rooting out corruption and black economy, formalising the economy and expanding the tax base, improving the ease of doing business, nursing the stressed commercial banking sector back to a healthy state, and stopping leakages through direct benefit transfers, among other measures (GoI 2015, 2018; [[#MoEFCC--2021|MoEFCC 2021]] ).

<div id="4.3.2.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="development-pathways-shape-emissions-and-capacities-to-mitigate"></span>
==== 4.3.2.3 Development Pathways Shape Emissions and Capacities to Mitigate ====

<div id="h3-35-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Analysis in the mitigation literature often frames mitigation policy as having development co-benefits, the main objective being climate stabilisation. This misses the point that development drives emissions, and not vice versa, and it is the overall development approach and policies that determine mitigation pathways ( [[#Munasinghe--2007|Munasinghe 2007]] ). A large body of literature supports the fact that development pathways have direct and, just as importantly, indirect implications for GHG emissions (Nakicenovic et al. 2000; [[#Winkler--2017b|Winkler 2017b]] ), through multiple channels, such as the nature of economic activity, spatial patterns of development, degree of inequality, and population growth.

'''Economic structure:''' [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-2|Chapter 2]] notes that overall, affluence (GDP per capita), economic growth and population growth have remained the main upward drivers of CO 2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion in the past decade, with energy efficiency the main countervailing force ( [[#Lin--2015|Lin and Liu 2015]] ; [[#Wang--2017|Wang and Feng 2017]] ) ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-2#2.4|Section 2.4]] ). A major component of the development pathway of a country is precisely the nature of the economic activities on which the country relies (e.g., agriculture and mining, heavy industry, services, high-tech products, etc.) as well as the way it articulates its economy with the rest of the World (e.g., export-led growth vs import substitution strategies). Hence, the development pathway ultimately drives the underlying structure of the economy, and to a large degree the relationship between activity and GHG emissions.

At country level, however, the picture is more nuanced. Both India and China show signs of relative decoupling between GDP and emissions because of structural change ( [[#Chen--2018a|Chen et al. 2018a]] ). [[#Sumabat--2016|Sumabat et al. (2016)]] indicate that economic growth had a negative impact on CO 2 emissions in Philippines. [[#Baek,%C2%A0J.%20and%C2%A0G.%20Gweisah--2013|Baek and Gweisah (2013)]] find that CO 2 emissions tend to drop monotonously as incomes increased. [[#Lantz--2006|Lantz and Feng (2006)]] also indicate that per capita GDP is not related to CO 2 emissions in Canada. Other studies point to an emerging consensus that the relationship between CO 2 emissions and economic indicators depends on the level of development of countries ( [[#Nguyen--2019|Nguyen and Kakinaka 2019]] ; [[#Sharma--2011|Sharma 2011]] ). While some literature indicates that absolute decoupling of economic growth and GHG emissions has occurred in some countries ( [[#Le%20Quéré--2019|Le Quéré et al. 2019]] ), a larger systematic review found limited evidence of this ( [[#Haberl--2020|Haberl et al. 2020]] ).

Looking ahead, choices about the nature of economic activities are expected to have significant implications for emissions. For example, a development pathway that focuses on enhancing economic growth based on manufacturing is likely to lead to very different challenges for mitigation compared to one that focuses on services-led growth. ( [[#Quéré--2018|Quéré et al. 2018]] ) find that choices about whether or not to export offshore oil in Brazil will have significant implications for the country’s GHG emissions. Similarly, in China, transforming industrial structure towards tertiary sectors ( [[#Kwok--2018|Kwok et al. 2018]] ) and restructuring exports towards higher value-added products ( [[#Wu--2019|Wu et al. 2019]] ) are expected to have significant implications for GHG emissions.

'''Spatial patterns of development:''' [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-2|Chapter 2]] notes that rapid urbanisation in developing and transition countries leads to increased CO 2 emissions, the substantial migration of rural populations to urban areas in these countries being the main factor leading to increased levels of income and expenditure of new urban dwellers which in turn leads to increased personal carbon footprints and overall emissions ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-2#2.4|Section 2.4]] ). Urbanisation, and more broadly spatial patterns of development, are in turned driven to a large part by development choices, such as, inter alia, spatial provision of infrastructure and services, choices regarding the agriculture and forestry sector, land-use policies, support to regional/local development, among others ( [[#World%20Bank--2009|World Bank 2009]] ). For example, [[#Dorin--2017|Dorin (2017)]] points out that if agriculture sectors in Africa and India follow the same development path that developed countries have followed in the past, namely increased labour productivity through enlargement and robotisation of farms, then unprecedented emigrations of rural workers towards cities or foreign countries will ensue, with large-scale social, economic and environmental consequences. Looking ahead, a development pathway that encourages concentrated influx of people to large urban centres will lead to very different energy and infrastructure consumption patterns than a pathway that prioritises the development of smaller, self-contained towns and cities.

'''Degree of inequality:''' [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-2|Chapter 2]] notes that while eradicating extreme poverty and providing universal access to modern energy services to poor populations across the globe has negligible implications for emissions growth, existing studies on the role of poverty and inequality as drivers of GHG emissions provide limited evidence that under certain contexts greater inequality can lead to a deterioration in environmental quality and may be associated with higher GHG emissions ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-2#2.4|Section 2.4]] ). In fact, factors affecting household consumption-based emissions include household size, age, education attainment, employment status, urban vs rural location and housing stock ( [[#Druckman--2015|Druckman and Jackson 2015]] ). There is evidence to indicate that at the household level, the increase in emissions from additional consumption of the lower income households could be larger than the reduction in emissions from the drop in consumption from the high income households ( [[#Sager--2019|Sager 2019]] ). Accordingly, as countries seek to fulfil the objective of reducing inequality, there are possibilities of higher increase in emissions ( [[#Sager--2019|Sager 2019]] ).

Since reducing inequality, as noted above, is globally one of the main development priorities, a large body of literature focuses on the compatibility of climate change mitigation and reduction in economic inequality ( [[#Baek,%C2%A0J.%20and%C2%A0G.%20Gweisah--2013|Baek and Gweisah 2013]] ; [[#Auffhammer,%C2%A0M.%20and%C2%A0C.D.%20Wolfram--2014|Auffhammer and Wolfram 2014]] ; [[#Berthe,%C2%A0A.%20and%C2%A0L.%20Elie--2015|Berthe and Elie 2015]] ; [[#Hao--2016|Hao et al. 2016]] ; [[#Grunewald--2017|Grunewald et al. 2017]] ; [[#Wiedenhofer--2017|Wiedenhofer et al. 2017]] ). However, the use of narrow approaches or simple methods of studying the relationships of income inequality and emissions by looking at correlations, may miss important linkages. For example, the influence of inequality on social values such as status and civic mindedness and non-political interests that shape environmental policy can influence overall consumption and its environmental impacts ( [[#Berthe,%C2%A0A.%20and%C2%A0L.%20Elie--2015|Berthe and Elie 2015]] ). Moreover, inequalities may also be reflected in gender, education, racial and ethnic profiles and could accordingly be associated with the level of emissions and mitigation prospects (Andrijevic et al. 2020).

The Illustrative Mitigation Pathways (IMP) developed for this Report (Box 3.1 and [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.2.5|Section 3.2.5]] ) provide another example of how development pathways influence mitigative capacity. Precisely, IMP1.5-SP (Shifting Pathways) and 1.5-Ren (Renewables) lead to the same long-term temperature, but differ in underlying socio-economic conditions. The former is based on Shared Socio-economic Pathway (SSP) 1 (sustainable development), whereas the latter is based on SSP2 (middle of the road). Comparing 1.5-Ren to 1.5-SP can thus be interpreted as a numerical translation of trying the reach the same long-term temperature goal without and with shifting development pathways towards sustainability. Data shows that the global price of carbon necessary to remain on target is 40–50% lower in the latter relative to the former, thus indicating that mitigation is cheaper with a shift in development pathway towards sustainability. Other cost indicators (e.g. consumption loss or GDP loss) tell the same story. Since both IMPs were computed using the same underlying model, the comparison is even more robust.

In sum, development pathways can lead to different emission levels and different capacities and opportunities to mitigate ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ). Thus, focusing on shifting development pathways can lead to larger systemic sustainability benefits.

<div id="4.3.2.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="integrating-mitigation-considerations-requires-non-marginal-shifts-in-development-pathways"></span>
==== 4.3.2.4 Integrating Mitigation Considerations Requires Non-marginal Shifts in Development Pathways ====

<div id="h3-36-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Concerns about mitigation are already being introduced in national development plans, as there is evidence that development strategies and pathways can be carefully designed so as to align towards multiple priorities and achieve greater synergistic benefits. For example, India’s solar programme is a key element in its NDC that can in the long run, not only provide energy security and contribute to mitigation, but can simultaneously contribute to economic growth, improved energy access and additional employment opportunities, if appropriate policies and measures are carefully planned and implemented. However, the environmental implications of the transition need to be carefully examined with regard to the socio-economic implications in light of the potential of other alternatives like green hydrogen, nuclear or carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS). Similarly, South Africa National Development Plan (2011) also integrates transition to low-carbon as part of the country development objectives (Box 4.5).

<div id="box-4.5" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

<span id="box-4.5-south-africas-national-d-evelopment-plan"></span>

=== Box 4.5 | South Africa’s National Development Plan ===

<div id="h2-15-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

South Africa adopted its first National Development Plan (NDP) in 2011 ( [[#NPC--2011|NPC 2011]] ), the same year in which the country adopted climate policy ( [[#RSA--2011|RSA 2011]] ) and hosted COP17 in Durban. [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5|Chapter 5]] of the NDP addresses environmental sustainability in the context of development planning, and specifically ‘an equitable transition to a low-carbon economy’ ( [[#NPC--2011|NPC 2011]] ). The chapter refers explicitly to the need for a just transition, protecting the poor from impacts and any transitional costs from emissions-intensive to low-carbon. The plan proposes several mitigation measures, including a carbon budgeting approach, reference to Treasury’s carbon tax, use of various low-carbon options while maintaining energy security, and the integrated resource plan for electricity. The NDP refers to coal in several chapters, in some places suggesting additional investment (including new rail lines to transport coal and coal to liquids),

Box 4.5

in others decommissioning coal-fired power ‘procuring at least 20,000 MW of renewable electricity by 2030, importing electricity from the region, decommissioning 11,000 MW of ageing coal-fired power stations and stepping up investments in energy-efficiency’ ( [[#NPC--2011|NPC 2011]] : p. 46). Reference to environmental sustainability is not limited to [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5|Chapter 5]] – the introductory vision statement includes acknowledgement ‘that each and every one of us is intimately and inextricably of this earth with its beauty and life-giving sources; that our lives on earth are both enriched and complicated by what we have contributed to its condition’ ( [[#NPC--2011|NPC 2011]] : p. 21); and the overview of the plan includes a section on climate change, addressing both mitigation and adaptation.

Looking ahead, given that different development pathways can lead to different levels of GHG emissions and to different capacities and opportunities to mitigate, there is increasing research on how to make development pathways more sustainable. Literature is also focusing on the need for a ‘new normal’ as a system capable of achieving higher quality growth while addressing multiple development objectives by focusing on ‘innovative development pathways’.

Literature suggests that if development pathways are to be changed to address the climate change problem, choices that would need to be made about development pathways would not be marginal (Stern 2009), and would require a new social contract to address a complex set of inter-linkages across sectors, classes and the whole economy ( [[#Winkler--2017b|Winkler 2017b]] ). Shifting development pathways necessitates planning in a holistic manner, rather than thinking about discrete and isolated activities and actions to undertake mitigation. Further, the necessary transformational changes can be positive if they are rooted in the development aspirations of the economy and society in which they take place ( [[#Dubash--2012|Dubash 2012]] ; [[#Jones--2013|Jones et al. 2013]] ), but they can also lead to carbon colonialism if the transformations are imposed by Northern donors or perceived as such.

Accordingly, influencing a societies’ development pathways draws upon a broader range of policies and other efforts than narrowly influencing mitigation pathways, to be able to achieve the multiple objectives of reducing poverty, inequality and GHG emissions. The implications for employment, education, mobility, housing and many other development aspects must be integrated and new ways of looking at development pathways which are low carbon must be considered (Bataille et al. 2016b; [[#Waisman--2019|Waisman et al. 2019]] ). For instance, job creation and education are important elements that could play a key role in reducing inequality and poverty in countries like South Africa and India ( [[#Winkler--2015|Winkler et al. 2015]] ; [[#Rao--2018|Rao and Min 2018]] ) while these also open up broader opportunities for mitigation.

<div id="4.3.2.5" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="new-tools-are-needed-to-pave-and-assess-development-pathways"></span>
==== 4.3.2.5 New Tools Are Needed to Pave and Assess Development Pathways ====

<div id="h3-37-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Relative to the literature on mitigation pathways described in 4.2.5 and in 4.3.3, the literature on development pathways is limited. The climate research community has developed the Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) that link several socio-economic drivers including equity in relation to welfare, resources, institutions, governance and climate mitigation policies in order to reflect many of the key development directions ( [[#O’Neill--2014|O’Neill et al. 2014]] ). In most modelling exercises however, development remains treated as an exogenous input. In addition, models may capture only some dimensions of development that are relevant for mitigation options, thereby not capturing distributional aspects and not allowing consistency checks with broader developmental goals ( [[#Valadkhani--2016|Valadkhani et al. 2016]] ). Quantitative tools for assessing mitigation pathways could be more helpful if they could provide information on a broader range of development indicators, and could model substantively different alternative development paths, thereby providing information on which levers might shift development in a more sustainable direction.

Doing so requires new ways of thinking with interdisciplinary research and use of alternative frameworks and methods suited to deeper understanding of change agents, determinants of change and adaptive management among other issues ( [[#Winkler--2018|Winkler 2018]] ). This includes, inter alia, being able to examine enabling conditions for shifting development pathways ( [[#4.4.1|Section 4.4.1]] ); re-evaluating the neo-classical assumptions within most models, both on the functioning of markets and on the behaviour of agents, to better address obstacles on the demand side, obstacles on the supply side and market distortions ( [[#Ekholm--2013|Ekholm et al. 2013]] ; [[#Staub-Kaminski--2014|Staub-Kaminski et al. 2014]] ; [[#Grubb--2015|Grubb et al. 2015]] ) improving representation of issues related with uncertainty, innovation, inertia and irreversibility within the larger development contexts, including energy access and security; improving the representation of social and human capital, and of social, technological and governance innovations ( [[#Pedde--2019|Pedde et al. 2019]] ).

Tools have been developed in that direction, for example in the Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS) community ( [[#La%20Rovere--2014b|La Rovere et al. 2014b]] ), but need to be further mainstreamed in the analysis. Back-casting is often a preferred modelling approach for assessment aiming to align national development goals with global climate goals like CO 2 stabilisation. Back-casting is a normative approach where modellers construct desirable futures and specify upfront targets and then find out possible pathways to attain these targets (IPCC et al. 2001). Use of approaches like back-casting are useful not only in incorporating the long term national development objectives in the models, but also evaluating conflicts and synergies more effectively ( [[#van%20der%20Voorn--2020|van der Voorn et al. 2020]] ). In back casting, the long-term national development objectives remain the key benchmarks guiding the model dynamics and the global climate goal is interfaced to realise the co-benefits. The models then delineate the roadmap of national actions such that the national goals are achieved with a comprehensive understanding of the full costs and benefits of low-carbon development (often including the costs of adaptation and impacts from residual climate change). Back-casting modelling exercises show that aligning development and climate actions could result in much lower ‘social cost of carbon’ ( [[#Shukla--2008|Shukla et al. 2008]] ). Back-casting does not aim to produce blueprints. Rather, it indicates the relative feasibility and the social, environmental, and political implications of different development and climate futures on the assumption of a clear relationship between goal setting and policy planning ( [[#Dreborg--1996|Dreborg 1996]] ). Accordingly, back-casting exercises are well suited for preparing local specific roadmaps like for cities ( [[#Gomi--2010|Gomi et al. 2010]] , 2011).

<div id="4.3.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="examples-of-shifts-in-development-pathways-and-of-supporting-policies"></span>

=== 4.3.3 Examples of Shifts in Development Pathways and of Supporting Policies ===

<div id="h2-16-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

As noted in [[#4.3.1|Section 4.3.1]] , policy approaches that include a broader range of instruments and initiatives would impact more fundamentally on the actors, institutions and structures of societies and the dynamics among them, aiming to alter the underlying drivers of emissions, opening up a wider range of mitigation opportunities and potential in the process of achieving societal development goals. While the evolution of these drivers is subject to varied influences and complex interactions, there are policy measures by which decision-makers might influence them. Table 4.12 provides some examples of policy measures that can affect key drivers (shown in the row headings).

'''Table 4.12 | Examples of policies that can help shift develo''' '''pment pathways.'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! '''Drivers'''

! '''Examples of''' '''policy measures'''

|-
| Behaviour

| – Progressive taxation

– Ecological tax reform

– Regulation of advertisement

– Investment in public transit

– Eco-labelling

|-
| Governance and institutions

| – Campaign finance laws

– Regulatory transparency

– Commitment to multilateral environmental governance

– Public investment in education and R&amp;D

– Public-service information initiatives

– Public sector commitment to science-based decision-making

– Anti-corruption policies

|-
| Innovation

| – Investment in public education

– Public sector R&amp;D support

– Fiscal incentives for private investments in public goods

– International technology development and transfer initiatives

|-
| Finance and investment

| – International investment treaties support common objectives

– Litigation and liability regulations

– Reform of subsidies and other incentives not aligned with

– Insurance sector and pension regulation

– Green quantitative easing

– Risk disclosure

|}

Policies such as those listed in Table 4.12 are typically associated with broader objectives than GHG mitigation. They are generally conceived and implemented in the pursuit of overall societal development objectives, such as job creation, macroeconomic stability, economic growth, and public health and welfare. However, they can have major influence on mitigative capacity, and hence can be seen as necessary tools if mitigation options are to be significantly broadened and accelerated ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ). The example of the UK shows how accelerated mitigation through dietary changes require a wide set of efforts to shift underlying drivers of behaviour. In this case, multiple forces have interacted to lead to reduced meat consumption, including health attitudes, animal welfare concerns, and an increasing focus on climate and other environmental impacts of livestock production, along with corporate investment in market opportunities, and technological developments in meat alternatives (Box 5.5).

Other historic cases that are unrelated to recent mitigation efforts might be more appropriate examples of major socio-technical shifts that were largely driven by intentional, coherent intentional policy initiatives across numerous domains to meet multiple objectives. The modernisation of agriculture in various national contexts fits such a mold. In the USA, for example, major government investments in agricultural innovation through the creation of agricultural universities and support for research provided advances in the technological basis for modernisation. A network of agricultural extension services accelerated the popularization and uptake of modern methods. Infrastructure investments in irrigation and drainage made production more viable, and investment in roadways and rail for transport supported market formation. Agricultural development banks made credit available, and government subsidies improved the profitability for farmers and agricultural corporations. Public campaigns were launched to modify food habits ( [[#Ferleger--2000|Ferleger 2000]] ).

Further examples of SDPS across many different systems and sectors are elaborated across this report. Concrete examples assessed in this chapter include high employment and low emissions structural change, fiscal reforms for mitigation and social contract, combining housing policies to deliver both housing and transport mitigation, and change economic, social and spatial patterns of development of the agriculture sector provide the basis for sustained reductions in emissions from deforestation (Sections 4.4.1.7–4.4.1.10). These examples differ by context. Examples in other chapters include transformations in energy, urban, building, industrial, transport, and land-based systems, changes in behaviour and social practices, as well as transformational changes across whole economies and societies (Cross-Chapter Box 5 in this chapter, Section 5.8, Box 6.2, Sections 8.2, 8.3.1, 8.4, 9.8.1, 9.8.2 and 10.4.1, and Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 16). These examples and others can be understood in the context of an explanation of the concept of SDPS, and how to shifting development pathways (Cross-Chapter Box 5 in this chapter).

<div id="cross-chapter-box-5" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

<span id="cross-chapter-box-5-shifting-development-pathways-to-increase-sustainability-and-broaden-mitigation-options"></span>
=== Cross-Chapter Box 5 | Shifting Development Pathways to Increase Sustainability and Broaden Mitigation Options ===

<div id="h2-17-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

'''Authors''' : Franck Lecocq (France), Harald Winkler (Republic of South Africa), Mustafa Babiker (Sudan/Saudi Arabia), Brett Cohen (Republic of South Africa), Heleen de Coninck (the Netherlands), Dipak Dasgupta (India), Navroz K. Dubash (India), María Josefina Figueroa Meza (Venezuela/Denmark), Michael Grubb (United Kingdom), Kirsten Halsnæs (Denmark), Şiir Kılkış (Turkey), William Lamb (Germany/United Kingdom), Sebastian Mirasgedis (Greece), Sudarmanto Budi Nugroho (Indonesia), Chukwumerije Okereke (Nigeria/United Kingdom), Minal Pathak (India), Joyashree Roy (India/Thailand), Ambuj Sagar (India), Yamina Saheb (France/Algeria), Priyadarshi Shukla (India), Jim Skea (United Kingdom), Youba Sokona (Mali), Julia Steinberger (United Kingdom/Switzerland), Mariama Williams (Jamaica/the United States of America)

1. What do we mean by development pathways?

In the present report, development pathways refer to patterns of development resulting from multiple decisions and choices made by many actors in the national and global contexts. Each society whether in the Global North or the Global South follows its own pattern of development (Figure 1.6). Development pathways can also be described at smaller scales (e.g., for regions or cities). By extension, the concept can also be applied to sectors and systems (e.g., the development pathway of the agricultural sector or of industrial systems).

2. Why do development pathways matter in a report about mitigation?

2a. Past development pathways determine both today’s GHG emissions and the set of opportunities to reduce emissions

Development pathways drive GHG emissions for a large part (Sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6). For example, different social choices and policy packages with regard to land use and associated rents will result in human settlements with different spatial patterns, different types of housing markets and cultures, and different degrees of inclusiveness, and thus different demand for transport services and associated GHG emissions (Sections 8.3.1 and 10.2.1).

There is compelling evidence to show that continuing along existing development pathways is unlikely to achieve rapid and deep emission reductions ( ''robust evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ). For example, investments in long-lived infrastructure, including energy supply systems, could lock-in high emissions pathways and risk making deep decarbonisation and sustainable policies more difficult and expensive.

Development pathways also determine the set of tools available to mitigate climate change (Figure 4.7). For example, the capacity of households to move closer to their workplace, in response to, for example, a price signal on carbon and thus on gasoline, depends on rents, which themselves depend on the spatial patterns of development of human settlements ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-8#8.3.1|Section 8.3.1]] ). Said differently, mitigation costs depend on past development choices. Similarly, development pathways determine the enablers and levers available for adaptation (AR6 WGII, Chapter 18) and for achieving other SDGs.

In the absence of shifts in development pathways, conventional mitigation policy instruments (e.g., carbon tax, emission quotas, technological norms, etc.) may not be able to limit emissions to a degree sufficient for deep decarbonisation or only at very high economic and social costs.

Policies to shift development pathways, on the contrary, make mitigation policies more effective. For example, policies that prioritise non-car transit, or limit rents close to work places would make it easier for households to relocate in response to a price signal on transport, and thus makes the same degree of mitigation achievable at lower economic and social cost.

2b. Shifting development pathways broadens the scope for synergies between development objectives and mitigation

Second, societies pursue a variety of development objectives, of which protecting the Earth’s climate is part. The SDGs provide a global mapping of these goals. Absent climate mitigation, our collective ability to achieve the SDGs in 2030 and to sustain them beyond 2030 is likely to be compromised, even if adaptation measures are put in place (AR6 WGII).

There are many instances in which reducing GHG emissions and moving towards the achievement of other development objectives can go hand in hand, in the near-, mid- and long-term (Sections 3.7, 6.7.7, 7.6.5, 8.2, 9.8, 10.1.1, 11.5.3 and 17.3, and Figures 3.40 and 12.1). For example, transitions from coal-based power to lower-emissions electricity generation technologies and from internal combustion engine to lower-carbon transport has large mitigation potential and direct benefits for health through reduction in local air pollution (Box 6.2 and [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-10#10.4.1|Section 10.4.1]] ). Energy efficiency in buildings and energy poverty alleviation through improved access to clean fuels also delivers significant health benefits (Sections 9.8.1 and 9.8.2).

Cross-Chapter Box 5

Careful design of mitigation policies is critical to achieving these synergies ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-13#13.8|Section 13.8]] ). Integrated policies can support the creation of synergies between climate change goals and other SDGs. For example, when measures promoting walkable urban areas are combined with electrification and clean renewable energy, there are several co-benefits to be attained (Figure SPM.8 and [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.2|Section 5.2]] ). These include reduced pressures on agricultural land from reduced urban growth, health co-benefits from cleaner air and benefits from enhanced mobility (Sections 8.2, 8.4 and 4.4.1.9).

Policy design can also manage trade-offs, for example through policy measures as part of just transitions ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-17#17.4|Section 17.4]] ). However, even with good policy design, decisions about mitigation actions, and the timing and scale thereof, may entail trade-offs with the achievement of other national development objectives in the near-, mid- and long term. In the near term, for example, regulations may ban vehicles from city centres to reduce congestion and local air pollution, but reduce mobility and choice. Increasing green spaces within cities without caps on housing prices may involve trade-offs with affordable housing and push low income residents outside the city ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-8#8.2.2|Section 8.2.2]] ). In the mid- and long-term, large-scale deployment of biomass energy raises concerns about food security and biodiversity conservation (Sections 3.7.1, 3.7.5, 7.4.4, 9.8.1, 12.5.2 and 12.5.3). Conflicts between mitigation and other development objectives can act as an impediment to climate action ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-13#13.8|Section 13.8]] ). Climate change is the result of decades of unsustainable energy production, land-use, production and consumption patterns, as well as governance arrangements and political economic institutions that lock in resource-intensive development patterns ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ). Reframing development objectives and shifting development pathways towards sustainability can help transform these patterns and practices, allowing space for transitions transforming unsustainable systems ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) (Chapter 17, Executive Summary).

Prioritising is one way to manage trade-offs, addressing some national development objectives earlier than others. Another way is to adopt policy packages aimed at shifting development pathways towards sustainability as they expand the range of tools available to simultaneously achieve multiple development objectives, including mitigation. In the city example of Section 2a, a carbon tax alone would run counter to other development objectives if it made suburban households locked into high emissions transport modes poorer or if it restricted mobility choices, in particular for low- and middle-income households. Policy packages combining affordable housing and provision of safe low-carbon mobility could both facilitate equitable access to housing (a major development objective in many countries) and make it easier to mitigate by shifting the urban development pathway.

Similarly, a fundamental shift in the service provision that helps reduce energy demand (Chapter 5), driven by targeted policies, investment and enabling socio-cultural and behavioural change, would reduce pressure on supply side mitigation need, hence limiting pressure on water and food and the achievement of associated SDGs. Some studies assume Western European lifestyle as a reference for the Global North and an improvement in the living standard for the Global South to reduce energy demand and emissions ( [[#Grubler--2018|Grubler et al. 2018]] ), while others explore a transformative change in the Global North to achieve a decent living standard for all (Bertram et al. 2018; [[#Millward-Hopkins--2020|Millward-Hopkins et al. 2020]] ) ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.7|Section 3.7]] .8). For example, in the UK, interaction between multiple behavioural, socio-cultural, and corporate drivers including NGO campaigns, social movements and product innovations resulted in an observed decline in meat consumption (Sections 5.4 and 5.6.4).

3. What does shifting development pathways towards sustainability entail?

Shifting development pathways towards sustainability implies making transformative changes that disrupt existing developmental trends. Such choices would not be marginal (Stern 2009), but include technology adoption, infrastructure availability and use, and socio-behavioural factors (Chapter 5).

These include creating new infrastructure, sustainable supply chains, institutional capacities for evidence-based and integrated decision-making, financial alignment towards low-carbon socially responsible investments, just transitions and shifts in behaviour and norms to support shifts away from fossil-fuel consumption ( [[#Green--2018|Green and Denniss 2018]] ). Adopting multi-level governance modes, tackling corruption where it inhibits shifts to sustainability, and improving social and political trust are also key for aligning and supporting long-term environmentally just policies and processes.

Shifting development pathways entails fundamental changes in energy, urban, building, industrial, transport, and land-based systems. It also requires changes in behaviour and social practices. Overcoming inertia and locked-in practices may face considerable opposition ( [[#Geels--2017|Geels et al. 2017]] ) ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.4.5|Section 5.4.5]] ). The durability of carbon intensive transport modes and electricity generating infrastructures increase the risk of lock-in to high emissions pathways, as these comprise not just consumer practices, but sunk costs in infrastructure, supporting institutions and rules ( [[#Seto--2016|Seto et al. 2016]] ; [[#Mattioli--2020|Mattioli et al. 2020]] ). Shifting investments towards low-GHG solutions requires a combination of conducive public policies, attractive investment opportunities, as well as the availability of financing to enable such a transition ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-15#15.3|Section 15.3]] ).

Cross-Chapter Box 5

4. How to shift development pathways?

Shifting development paths is complex. If history is any guide, practices that can easily supplant existing systems and are clearly profitable move fastest ( [[#Griliches--1957|Griliches 1957]] ). Changes that involve ‘dissimilar, unfamiliar and more complex science-based components’ take more time, acceptance and legitimation and involve complex social learning ( [[#Conley--2010|Conley and Udry 2010]] ), even when they promise large gains ( [[#Pezzoni--2019|Pezzoni et al. 2019]] ).

Yet despite the complexities of the interactions that result in patterns of development, history also shows that societies can influence the direction of development pathways based on choices made by decision-makers, citizens, the private sector and social stakeholders. For example, fundamentally different responses to the first oil shock shifted then-comparable economies on to different energy sector development and economic pathways in the 1970s and 80s ( [[#Sathaye--2009|Sathaye et al. 2009]] ). More recent examples have shown evidence of voluntary transitions for example, advanced lighting in Sweden, improved cook-stoves in China, liquefied petroleum gas stoves in Indonesia or ethanol vehicles in Brazil ( [[#Sovacool--2016|Sovacool 2016]] ).

There is no one-size-fits-all recipe for shifting development pathways. However, the following insights can be drawn from past experience and scenarios of possible future development pathways ( [[#4.4.1|Section 4.4.1]] ). For example, policies making inner-urban neighbourhoods more accessible and affordable reduce transport costs for low- and middle-income households, and also reduce transport emissions ( [[#4.4.1.9|Section 4.4.1.9]] ). Shifts in development pathways result from both sustained political interventions and bottom-up changes in public opinion. No single sector or policy action is enough to achieve this. Coordinated policy mixes would need to coordinate multiple actors – in other words, individuals, groups and collectives, corporate actors, institutions and infrastructure actors – to deepen decarbonisation and shift pathways towards sustainability ( [[#Pettifor--2020|Pettifor 2020]] ). One example was the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) Subsidy (‘Zero Kero’) Program in Indonesia which harnessed creative policy design to shift to cleaner energy by overcoming existing private interests. The objective of decreasing fiscal expenditures on domestic kerosene subsidies by replacing it with LPG was achieved by harnessing distribution networks of existing providers supported by government subsidised provision of equipment and subsidised pricing (Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 13).

Shifts in one country may spill over to other countries. Collective action by individuals as part of formal social movements or informal lifestyle changes underpins system change (Sections 5.2.3, 5.4.1, 5.4.5.3 and 13.5).

Sectoral transitions that aspire to shift development pathways often have multiple objectives, and deploy a diverse mix or package of policies and institutional measures (Figure 13.6). Context specific governance conditions can significantly enable or disable sectoral transitions, and play a determinative role in whether a sectoral transition leads to a shift in development pathway. For example, if implemented policies to tackle fuel poverty target the most socially vulnerable households, this can help address barriers poor households face in undertaking building retrofits. In the EU-28, it has been shown that accelerated energy efficiency policies coupled with strong social policies targeting the most vulnerable households, can help reduce the energy demand in residential sector, and deliver additional co-benefits of avoided premature deaths and reduced health impacts ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-9#9.8.2|Section 9.8.2]] ).

Literature suggests that through equitable resource distribution, high levels of human development can be provided at moderate energy and carbon levels by changing consumption patterns and redirecting systems in the direction of more sustainable resource use, suggesting that a special effort can be made in the near term for those on higher incomes who account for a disproportionate fraction of global emissions ( [[#Millward-Hopkins--2020|Millward-Hopkins et al. 2020]] ; [[#Hickel--2021|Hickel et al. 2021]] ) ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.2.2|Section 5.2.2]] and Figure 5.14).

The necessary transformational changes are likely to be more acceptable if rooted in the development aspirations of the economy and society within which they take place ( [[#Dubash--2012|Dubash 2012]] ; [[#Jones--2013|Jones et al. 2013]] ) and may enable a new social contract to address a complex set of inter-linkages across sectors, classes and the whole economy ( [[#Fleurbaey--2018|Fleurbaey et al. 2018]] ).

Taking advantage of windows of opportunity and disruptions to mindsets and socio-technical systems could advance deeper transformations. These might include the globally declining costs of renewables (Figure 1.7, [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-2#2.2|Section 2.2]] .5 and Box 16.2), emerging social norms for climate mitigation ( [[#Green--2018|Green and Denniss 2018]] ), or the COVID-19 pandemic, all of which might be harnessed to centre political action on protecting human and planetary health ( [[#Büchs--2020|Büchs et al. 2020]] ), but if not handled carefully could also risk undermining the support for transformation.

Cross-Chapter Box 5

5. How can shifts in development pathways be implemented by actors in different contexts?

Shifting development pathways to increased sustainability is a shared aspiration. Yet since countries differ in starting points (e.g., social, economic, cultural, political) and history, they have different urgent needs in terms of facilitating the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development and, therefore, give different priorities (Sections 4.3.2 and 17.4). The appropriate set of policies to shift development pathways thus depends on national circumstances and capacities.

In some developed countries and communities, affluence leads to high levels of consumption and emissions across sectors ( [[#Mazur--1974|Mazur and Rosa 1974]] ; [[#Wiedmann--2020|Wiedmann et al. 2020]] ). For some countries, reducing consumption can reduce emissions without compromising on wellbeing. However, some developing countries still face the challenge of escaping ‘middle-income traps’ ( [[#Agénor,%C2%A0P.-R.R.%20and%C2%A0O.%20Canuto--2015|Agénor and Canuto 2015]] ), as labour-saving technological change and globalisation have limited options to develop via the manufacturing sector ( [[#Altenburg,%C2%A0T.%20and%C2%A0D.%20Rodrik--2017|Altenburg and Rodrik 2017]] ). In least developed countries, infrastructure, industry, and public services are still being established, posing both a challenge to financial support to deploy technologies, and large opportunities to support accelerating low-to-zero carbon options – especially in terms of efficient and sufficient provision ( [[#Millward-Hopkins--2020|Millward-Hopkins et al. 2020]] ). Availability of capital, or lack thereof, is a critical discriminant across countries and requires international cooperation ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-15#15.2.2|Section 15.2.2]] ).

Shifting development pathways towards sustainability needs to be supported by global partnerships to strengthen suitable capacity, technological innovation ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-16#16.6|Section 16.6]] ), and financial flows (Sections 14.4.1, 15.2.4). The international community can play a particularly key role by helping ensure the necessary broad participation in climate-mitigation efforts, including by countries at different development levels, through sustained support for policies and partnerships that support shifting development pathways towards sustainability while promoting equity and being mindful of different transition capacities (Sections 4.3.2, 16.5, 16.6, 14.4 and 17.4).

In sum, development pathways unfold over time in response to complex dynamics among various drivers and diverse actors with varying interests and motivations ( ''high agreement'' , ''robust evidence'' ). The way countries develop determines the nature and degree of the obstacles to accelerating mitigation and achieving other sustainable development objectives ( ''medium-robust evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ). Meeting ambitious mitigation and development goals cannot be achieved through incremental change ( ''robust evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ). Shifting development pathways thus involves designing and implementing policies where possible to intentionally enhance enabling conditions and reduce obstacles to desired outcomes ( ''medium evidence'' , ''med'' ''ium agreement'' ) ''.''

[[#4.4|Section 4.4]] elaborates mechanisms through which societies can develop and implement policies to substantially shift development pathways toward securing shared societal objectives. Such policies entail overcoming obstacles ( [[#4.2.7|Section 4.2.7]] ) by means of favourable enabling conditions: governance and institutions, behaviour, innovation, policy and finance. These enabling conditions are amenable to intentional change – to greater or lesser degrees and over longer or shorter time scales – based on a range of possible measures and processes ( [[#4.4|Section 4.4]] ).

<div id="4.4" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="how-to-shift-development-pathways-and-accelerate-the-pace-and-scale-of-mitigation"></span>