Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-12 (section)

==== 12.6.1.1 A Cross-sectoral Perspective on Co-benefits and Adverse Side Effects of Mitigation Measures, and Links with the SDGs ====

<div id="h3-16-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

A body of literature has been developed which addresses the co-benefits of climate mitigation action ( [[#Karlsson--2020|Karlsson et al. 2020]] ). Adverse side effects of mitigation are also well documented. Co-benefits and adverse side effects in individual sectors and associated with individual mitigation measures are discussed in the individual sector chapters (Sections 5.2, 6.7.7, 7.4, 7.6, 8.2, 8.4, 9.8, 10.1.1 and 11.5.3), as well as in previous IPCC General and Special Assessment reports. The term ‘co-impacts’ has been proposed to capture both the co-benefits and adverse side effects of mitigation. An alternative framing is one of multiple objectives, where climate change mitigation is placed alongside other objectives when assessing policy decisions ( [[#Ürge-Vorsatz--2014|Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2014]] ; [[#Mayrhofer--2016|Mayrhofer and Gupta 2016]] ; [[#Cohen--2017|Cohen et al. 2017]] ; [[#Bhardwaj--2019|Bhardwaj et al. 2019]] ).

The identification and assessment of co-benefits has been argued to serve a number of functions ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-1#1.4|Section 1.4]] ) including using them as leverage for securing financial support for implementation, providing justification of actions which provide a balance of both short- and long-term benefits and obtaining stakeholder buy-in ( ''robust evidence'' , ''low agreement'' ) ( [[#Karlsson--2020|Karlsson et al. 2020]] ). Assessment of adverse side effects has been suggested to be useful in avoiding unforeseen negative impacts of mitigation and providing policy- and decision-makers with the information required to make informed trade-offs between climate and other benefits of actions ( [[#Ürge-Vorsatz--2014|Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2014]] ; [[#Bhardwaj--2019|Bhardwaj et al. 2019]] ; [[#Cohen--2019|Cohen et al. 2019]] ) ( ''high evidence'' , ''low agreement'' ).

Various approaches to identifying and organising co-impacts in specific contexts and across sectors have been proposed towards providing more comparable and standardised analyses. However, consistent quantification of co-impacts, including cost-benefit analysis, and the utilisation of the resulting information, remain a challenge ( [[#Ürge-Vorsatz--2014|Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2014]] ; [[#Floater--2016|Floater et al. 2016]] ; [[#Mayrhofer--2016|Mayrhofer and Gupta 2016]] ; [[#Cohen--2019|Cohen et al. 2019]] ; [[#Karlsson--2020|Karlsson et al. 2020]] ). This challenge is further exacerbated when considering that co-impacts of a mitigation measure in one sector can either enhance or reduce the co-impacts associated with mitigation in another, or the achievement of co-benefits in one geographic location can lead to adverse side effects in another. For example, the production of lithium for batteries for energy storage has the potential to contribute to protecting water resources and reducing wastes associated with coal-fired power in many parts of the world, but mining of lithium has the potential for creating water and waste challenges if not managed properly ( [[#Agusdinata--2018|Agusdinata et al. 2018]] ; [[#Kaunda--2020|Kaunda 2020]] ).

While earlier literature has suggested that co-impacts assessments can support adoption of climate mitigation action, a more recent body of literature has suggested limitations in such framing ( [[#Ryan--2015|Ryan 2015]] ; [[#Bernauer--2016|Bernauer and McGrath 2016]] ; [[#Walker--2018|Walker et al. 2018]] ). Presenting general information on co-impacts as a component of a mitigation analysis does not always lead to increased support for climate mitigation action. Rather, the most effective framing is determined by factors relating to local context, type of mitigation action under consideration and target stakeholder group. More work has been identified to be required to bring context into planning co-impacts assessments and communication thereof ( [[#Ryan--2015|Ryan 2015]] ; [[#Bernauer--2016|Bernauer and McGrath 2016]] ; [[#Walker--2018|Walker et al. 2018]] ) ( ''low evidence'' , ''low agreement'' ).

An area where the strong link between the cross-sectoral co-impacts of mitigation action and global government policies is being clearly considered is in the achievement of the SDGs ( [[#Obergassel--2017|Obergassel et al. 2017]] ; [[#Doukas--2018|Doukas et al. 2018]] ; [[#Markkanen--2019|Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi 2019]] ; Smith et al. 2019; [[#van%20Soest--2019|van Soest et al. 2019]] ) (Chapters 1 and 17, individual sectoral chapters). Figure 12.9 demonstrates these relationships from a cross-sectoral perspective. It shows the links between sectors which give rise to emissions, the mitigation measures that can find application in the sector, and co-benefits and adverse side effects of mitigation measures and the SDGs (noting that the figure is not intended to be comprehensive). Such a framing of co-impacts from a cross-sectoral perspective in the context of the SDGs could help to further support climate mitigation action, particularly within the context of the Paris Agreement ( [[#Gomez-Echeverri--2018|Gomez-Echeverri 2018]] ) ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ). Literature sources utilised in the compilation of this diagram are presented in Supplementary Material 12.SM.3.

<div id="_idContainer124" class="_idGenObjectStyleOverride-1"></div>

[[File:c941fa42bb9802b82a6cf08fb78d4d14 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_12_9.png]]

'''Figure 12.9 | Co-benefits and adverse side effects of mitigation actions with links to the SDGs.''' The inner circle represents the sectors in which mitigation occurs. The second circle shows different generic types of mitigation actions (A to G), with the symbols showing which sectors they are applicable to. The third circle indicates different types of climate related co-benefits (green letters) and adverse side effects (red letters) that may be observed as a result of implementing each of the mitigation actions. Here I relates to climate resilience, II-IV economic co-impacts, V-VII environmental, VIII-XII social, and XIII political and institutional. The final circle maps co-benefits and adverse side effects relevant to the SDGs. Source: re-used with permission from [[#Cohen--2021|Cohen et al. (2021)]] .

<div id="12.6.1.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="mitigation-measures-from-a-cross-sectoral-perspective"></span>