Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-6 (section)

=== 6.4.3 Impacts of integrated response options on Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ===

<div id="section-6-4-3-impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-natures-contributions-to-people-ncp-and-the-un-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-block-1"></div>

In addition to evaluating the importance of our response options for climate mitigation, adaptation, land degradation, desertification and food security, it is also necessary to pay attention to other co-benefits and trade-offs that may be associated with these responses. How the different options impact progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) can be a useful shorthand for looking at the social impacts of these response options. Similarly, looking at how these response options increase or decrease the supply of ecosystem services/Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) (see Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 6) can be a useful shorthand for a more comprehensive environmental impact beyond climate and land. Such evaluations are important as response options may lead to unexpected trade-offs with social goals (or potential co-benefits) and impacts on important environmental indicators such as water or biodiversity. Similarly, there may be important synergies and co-benefits associated with some response options that may increase their cost-effectiveness or attractiveness. As we note in Section 6.4.4, many of these synergies are not automatic, and are dependent on well-implemented and coordinated activities in appropriate environmental contexts (Section 6.4.4.1), often requiring institutional and enabling conditions for success and participation of multiple stakeholders (Section 6.4.4.3).

In the following sections and tables, we evaluate each response option against 17 SDGs and 18 NCPs. Some of the SDG categories appear similar to each other, such as SDG 13 on ‘climate action’ and an NCP titled ‘climate regulation’. However, SDG 13 includes targets for both mitigation and adaptation, so options were weighed by whether they were useful for one or both. On the other hand, the NCP ‘regulation of climate’ does not include an adaptation component, and refers specifically to ‘positive or negative effects on emissions of GHGs and positive or negative effects on biophysical feedbacks from vegetation cover to atmosphere, such as those involving albedo, surface roughness, long-wave radiation, evapotranspiration (including moisture-recycling) and cloud formation or direct and indirect processes involving biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC), and regulation of aerosols and aerosol precursors by terrestrial plants and phytoplankton’ (Díaz et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1266|1266]]</sup> ).

In all tables, colours represent the direction of impact: positive (blue) or negative (brown), and the scale of the impact (dark colours for large impact and/or strong evidence to light colours for small impact and/ or less certain evidence). Supplementary tables show the values and references used to define the colour coding used in all tables. In cases where there is no evidence of an interaction, or at least no literature on such interactions, the cell is left blank. In cases where there are both positive and negative interactions and the literature is uncertain about the overall impact, a note appears in the box. In all cases, many of these interactions are contextual, or the literature only refers to certain co-benefits in specific regions or ecosystems, so readers are urged to consult the supplementary tables for the specific caveats that may apply.

<div id="section-6-4-3-2-impactsofintegratedresponseoptionsontheunsdgs"></div>

<span id="impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-the-unsdgs"></span>
==== 6.4.3.2 Impacts of integrated response options on the UNSDGs ====

<div id="section-6-4-3-2-impactsofintegratedresponseoptionsontheunsdgs-block-1"></div>

Tables 6.73–6.75 summarise the impact of the integrated response options on the UN SDGs. Some of the synergies between response options and SDGs in the literature include positive poverty eradication impacts (SDG 1) from activities like improved water management or improved management of supply chains, or positive gender impacts (SDG 5) from livelihood diversification or use of local seeds. Because many land management options only produce indirect or unclear effects on SDGs, we did not include these where there was no literature. Therefore, the value chain and governance options appear to offer more direct benefits for SDG.

However, it is noted that some SDG are internally difficult to assess because they contain many targets, not all of which could be evaluated (e.g., SDG 17 is about partnerships, but has targets ranging from foreign aid to debt restructuring, technology transfer to trade openness). Additionally, it is noted that some SDG contradict one another – for example, SDG 9 to increase industrialisation and infrastructure and SDG 15 to improve life on land. More industrialisation is likely to lead to increased resource demands with negative effects on habitats. Therefore, a positive association on one SDG measure might be directly correlated with a negative measure on another, and the table needs to be read with caution for that reason. The specific caveats on each of these interactions can be found in the supplementary material tables in the Chapter 6 Appendix.

Overall, several response options have co-benefits across 10 or more SDGs with no adverse side effects on any SDG: increased food production, improved grazing land management, agroforestry, integrated water management, reduced post-harvest losses, sustainable sourcing, livelihood diversification and disaster risk management. Other response options may have strengths in some SDGs but require trade-offs with others. For example, use of local seeds brings many positive benefits for poverty and hunger reduction, but may reduce international trade (SDG 17). Other response options like enhanced urban food systems, management of urban sprawl, or management of supply chains are generally positive for many SDGs but may trade-off with one, like clean water (SDG 6) or decent work (SDG 8), as they may increase water use or slow economic growth. Several response options, including avoidance of grassland conversion, reduced deforestation and forest degradation, reforestation and afforestation, biochar, restoration and avoided conversion of peatlands and coastlands, have trade-offs across multiple SDGs, primarily as they prioritise land health over food production and poverty eradication. Several response options such as bioenergy and BECCS and some risk-sharing instruments, such as crop insurance, trade-off over multiple SDG with potentially significant adverse consequences.

Overall, across categories of SDG and NCPs; 17 of 40 options deliver co-benefits or no adverse side effects for the full range of NCPs and SDGs.This includes most agriculture- and soil-based land management options, many ecosystem-based land management options, forest management, reduced post-harvest losses, sustainable sourcing, improved energy use in food systems, and livelihood diversification. Only three options (afforestation, bioenergy and BECCS and some types of risk-sharing instruments, such as crop insurance) have potentially adverse side effects for five or more NCPs or SDGs.

<div id="section-6-4-3-2-impactsofintegratedresponseoptionsontheunsdgs-block-2"></div>

<span id="table-6.73"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.73'''

<span id="impacts-of-integrated-response-options-based-on-land-management-on-the-un-sdgs."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Impacts of integrated response options based on land management on the UN SDGs.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:fe61ae3ab82c708cc88f5cb96c310764 table-6.73a.png]] [[File:bc4aa72df3babd425570082cc77c305f table-6.73b.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-4-3-2-impactsofintegratedresponseoptionsontheunsdgs-block-3"></div>

<span id="table-6.74"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.74'''

<span id="impacts-of-integrated-response-options-based-on-value-chain-interventions-on-the-un-sdgs."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Impacts of integrated response options based on value chain interventions on the UN SDGs.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:a539ef06414d1c73695c73e2387ac377 table-6.74.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-4-3-2-impactsofintegratedresponseoptionsontheunsdgs-block-4"></div>

<span id="table-6.75"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.75'''

<span id="impacts-of-integrated-response-options-based-on-risk-management-on-the-un-sdgs."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Impacts of integrated response options based on risk management on the UN SDGs.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:b09ea636e50e3ac64e3cac5e48af88c8 table-6.75.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-4-3-1-impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-ncp"></div>

<span id="impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-ncp"></span>
==== 6.4.3.1 Impacts of integrated response options on NCP ====

<div id="section-6-4-3-1-impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-ncp-block-1"></div>

Tables 6.70–6.72 summarise the impacts of the response options on NCP supply. Examples of synergies between response options and NCP include positive impacts on habitat maintenance (NCP 1) from activities like invasive species management and agricultural diversification. For the evaluation process, we considered that NCP are about ecosystems, therefore options which may have overall positive effects, but which are ''not'' ecosystem-based are not included; for example, improved food transport and distribution could reduce ground-level ozone and thus improve air quality, but this is not an ecosystem-based NCP. Similarly, energy-efficiency measures would increase energy availability, but the ‘energy’ NCP refers specifically to biomass-based fuel provisioning. This necessarily means that the land management options have more direct NCP effects than the value chain or governance options, which are less ecosystem focused.

In evaluating NCP, we have also tried to avoid ‘indirect’ effects – that is, a response option might increase household income which could then be invested in habitat-saving actions, or dietary change would lead to conservation of natural areas, which would then lead to increased water quality. Similarly, material substitution would increase wood demand, which in turn might lead to deforestation, which might have water regulation effects. These can all be considered ''indirect'' impacts on NCP, which were not evaluated. <sup>[[#fn:8|8]]</sup>   Instead, the assessment focuses as much as possible on ''direct'' effects only: for example, local seeds policies preserve local landraces, which ''directly'' contribute to ‘maintenance of genetic options’ for the future. Therefore, this NCP table is a conservative estimation of NCP effects; there are likely many more secondary effects, but they are too difficult to assess, or the literature is not yet complete or conclusive.

Further, many NCPs trade-off with one another (Rodríguez et al. 2006 <sup>[[#fn:r1043|1043]]</sup> ), so supply of one might lead to less availability of another – for example, use of ecosystems to produce bioenergy will likely lead to decreases in water availability if mono-cropped high-intensity plantations are used (Gasparatos et al. 2011 <sup>[[#fn:r1044|1044]]</sup> ).

Overall, several response options stand out as having co-benefits across 10 or more NCP with no adverse impacts, including: improved cropland management, agroforestry, forest management and forest restoration, increased soil organic content, fire management, restoration and avoided conversion of coastal wetlands, and use of local seeds. Other response options may have strengths in some NCP but require trade-offs with others. For example, reforestation and afforestation bring many positive benefits for climate and water quality but may trade-off with food production (Table 6.70). Several response options, including increased food productivity, bioenergy and BECCS, and some risk-sharing instruments, like crop insurance, have significant negative consequences across multiple NCPs.

<div id="section-6-4-3-1-impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-ncp-block-2"></div>

<span id="table-6.70"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.70'''

<span id="impacts-on-natures-contributions-to-people-ncp-of-integrated-response-options-based-on-land-management."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Impacts on Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) of integrated response options based on land management.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:506c9b7eebd00db668aa566af1675b64 table-6.70.png]] [[File:96b79c98a4ea676f3bd76a2b99f9f689 table-6.70b.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-4-3-1-impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-ncp-block-3"></div>

<span id="table-6.71"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.71'''

<span id="impacts-on-ncp-of-integrated-response-options-based-on-value-chain-management."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Impacts on NCP of integrated response options based on value chain management.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:d67a561cbb6517dcfa8727a06c027c97 table-6.71.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-6-4-3-1-impacts-of-integrated-response-options-on-ncp-block-4"></div>

<span id="table-6.72"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- TABLE IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Table 6.72'''

<span id="impacts-on-ncp-of-integrated-response-options-based-on-risk-management."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Impacts on NCP of integrated response options based on risk management.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:3efea47b74440256aae0d8c971df2401 table-6.72.png]]

<!-- END IMG -->
<span id="opportunities-for-implementing-integrated-response-options"></span>