Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-18 (section)

=== 18.1.2 Pathways for Climate Resilient Development ===

<div id="h2-2-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

One approach for operationalising the concept of CRD in a decision making context is to link the concept of CRD to that of pathways (Figure 18.1). A pathway can be defined as ‘ ''a trajectory in time, reflecting a particular sequence of actions and consequences against a background of autonomous developments, leading to a specific future situation'' ’ ( [[#Haasnoot--2013|Haasnoot et al., 2013]] ; [[#Bourgeois--2015|Bourgeois, 2015]] ). As such, a pathway represents changes over time in response to policies and practices, as well spontaneous and exogenous events. For example, the SR1.5 report suggested that CRD pathways are ‘ ''a conceptual and aspirational idea for steering societies towards low-carbon, prosperous and ecologically safe futures'' ’ ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] : 468), and a way to highlight the complexity of decision making processes at different levels. Here, consistent with the aforementioned definition of CRD, we define CRD pathways as ''development trajectories that successfully integrate mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development'' .

<div id="_idContainer004" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:b8cfcc9e17aad4913cb9c0862ee388fe IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_18_001.png]]

'''Figure 18.1 |''' ''''''Climate Resilient Development Pathways are development trajectories that successfully integrate GHG mitigation and adaptation efforts to support sustainable development for all.''''''

''''''(a)'''''' Climate resilient development is a process that takes place through continuous societal choices towards higher CRD (illustrative green pathways) or lower CRD (illustrative red pathways).

'''(b)''' CRD is described by five development dimensions – people, prosperity, partnership, peace, planet – on which the SDGs build (18.2).

Some societal choices have mixed outcomes for CRD (illustrative orange pathways). This figure builds on figure SPM.9 in AR5 WGII depicting climate resilient pathways by describing how CRDPs emerge from societal choices about adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development within multiple arenas – rather than solely from discrete decision points (18.4). Dimensions of CRD characterize both development outcomes as well as the interactions and societal choices that make up the development process. Societal choices, often contested, are made in arenas of engagement through interactions between key actors in civil society, the private sector and government (see Figure 18.2). The quality of interactions, such as degree of inclusion and empowerment of diverse voices, determine whether societal choices and associated actions shift development towards or away from CRD. The five CRD dimensions underline the close interconnectedness between the biosphere and humans, the two necessarily intertwined in interactions, actions, transitions, and futures (see Figure 18.3). There is a narrow and closing window of opportunity to make transformational changes to move towards and not away from development futures that are more climate-resilient and sustainable (Box 18.1). Pathways not taken (dotted line) illustrate that opportunities have been missed for higher CRD pathways due to past societal choices and increasing temperatures. Present societal choices determine whether we shift towards higher CRD in future or whether pathways will be limited to lower CRD '''.'''

As illustrated in Figure 18.1, the ultimate aim of CRDPs is to support sustainable development for ensuring planetary health and human well-being. CRD is both an outcome at a point in space and time, as observed through SDG achievement indicators, but also a process consisting of actions and social choices made by multiple actors—government, industry, media, civil society, and science ( [[#18.4|Section 18.4]] ). These actions and social choices are performed within different dimensions of governance—politics, institutions (norms, rules), and practice, and bounded by ethics, values and worldviews. The development outcomes and processes pertain to political, economic, ecological, socio-cultural, knowledge-technology and community arenas (Figure 18.2). A CRDP will, for example, aspire to achieve ecological outcomes in terms of planetary health and achievement of Paris Agreement goals as well as human well-being, solidarity and social justice, in addition to political, economic and science–technology outcomes. These outcomes are enabled by achieving progress in core system transitions that catalyse broader societal transformations (Figure 18.3).

<div id="_idContainer008" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:2348beff1d99dffcc62bb51b7426ba60 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_18_003.png]]

'''Figure 18.3 |''' ''''''Transformative actions and system transitions characterize Climate Resilient Development Pathways''''''

'''(a)''' Societal choices that generate fragmented climate action or inaction and unsustainable development perpetuate business as usual and entrenched systems.

'''(b)''' Societal choices that support CRD involve transformative adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development actions that drive five systems transitions (energy, land and other ecosystems, urban and infrastructure, industrial and societal). There is close interdependence between these systems. The system transition framework allows for a comprehensive assessment of the synergies and trade-offs between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development. For example, land and water use in one system impacts the other systems and their surrounding ecosystems, thus reflecting how agricultural practices can have an impact on energy usage in urban centers. Finally, societal system transitions within each of the other systems enable the transitions to occur (18.3, Box 18.1).

<div id="_idContainer006" class="Figure"></div>

[[File:cd413a9a83b940db10f02ba21e3b66b7 IPCC_AR6_WGII_Figure_18_002.png]]

'''Figure 18.2 |''' ''''''Societal choices made in arenas of engagement shape actions and systems.'''''' The settings, places and spaces in which key actors from government, civil society and the private sector interact to influence the nature and course of development can be called arenas of engagement, including political, economic, socio-cultural, ecological, knowledge-technology and community arenas (18.4) For instance, political arenas include formal political settings such as voting procedures to elect local representatives as well as less formal and transparent political arenas. Streets, town squares and post-disaster landscapes can become sites of interaction and political struggle as citizens strive to have their voices heard. Arenas of engagement can take the form of “struggle arenas” – in which power and influence are used to include/exclude, set agendas, and make and implement decisions – with inevitable winners and losers. The quality of interactions in these arenas leads to development outcomes that can be characterized as CRD dimensions that underpin the SDGs – people, prosperity, partnership, peace, planet (see Figure 18.1).

'''(a)''' Interactions characterized by inequitable relations and domination of some actors over others may lead to societal choices away from CRD, including mitigation and adaptation actions that exacerbate vulnerability among marginalized groups.

'''(b)''' Prospects for moving towards CRD increase when governance actors work together constructively in these different arenas. Interactions and actions that are inclusive and synchronous, as opposed to fragmented or contradictory, enable system transitions and transformational change towards CRD (see Figure 18.3). Most societal choices and associated decisions are characterized by a mix of the dimensions shown in (a) and (b), with mixed outcomes for CRD.

'''(c)''' Arenas exist across scales from the local to national level, and beyond. Community arenas of engagement constitute the many interactions between governance actors and the political, economic, socio-cultural, ecological, knowledge-technology arenas, reflecting emergent societal choices across scales. Together, the decisions made by multiple actors within and across these arenas of engagement form societal choices. Unlocking the potential of these societal choices and associated mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development actions is central to advancing human well-being and planetary health.

While there are many possible successful pathways to future development in the context of climate change, history has shown that pathways that are positive for the vast majority often induce notable impacts and costs, especially on marginal and vulnerable people ( [[#Hickel--2017|Hickel, 2017]] ; [[#Ramalho--2019|Ramalho, 2019]] ), placing them in direct contradiction with the commitment to ‘leave no one behind’ ( [[#United%20Nations--2015|United Nations, 2015]] ). Similarly, contemporary scenario analyses find that there are plausible development trajectories that lead towards sustainability (Figure 18.1, [[#18.2.2|Section 18.2.2]] ). Yet, a number of plausible trajectories that perpetuate or exacerbate unstainable forms of development also appear in the literature (Figure 18.1, [[#18.2.2|Section 18.2.2]] ). A significant challenge lies in identifying pathways that address current climate variability and change, while allowing for improvements in human well-being. Furthermore, while a given pathway might lead to a set of desired outcomes for one region or set of actors, the process of getting there may come at high environmental, socio- and economic cost to others ( ''very high confidence'' ) ( [[#Raworth--2017|Raworth, 2017]] ; [[#Faist--2018|Faist, 2018]] ). Frequently, considerations of social difference and equity are not prioritised in the evaluation of different development choices. The assumption that a growing economy lifts opportunity for all could, for example, further marginalise those who are the most vulnerable to climate change ( [[#Matin--2018|Matin et al., 2018]] ; [[#Diffenbaugh--2019|Diffenbaugh and Burke, 2019]] ; [[#Hickel--2021|Hickel et al., 2021]] ).

Placing pathways and climate actions within development processes implies a broadening of enablers to include the ethical–political quality of socio-environmental processes that are required to shift such processes in directions that support CRD and the pursuit of sustainability outcomes. This chapter therefore departs from the AR5s alignment of CRD with adaptation pathways and the emphasis on decision points that enable one to manage (or fail to manage) climate risk, towards a framing that integrates a range of possible futures each offering different opportunities, risks and trade-offs to different actors and stakeholders (see WGII AR5, [[#IPCC--2014b|IPCC, 2014b]] , Figure SPM.9). Instead, CRD emerges from everyday formal and informal decisions, actions, and adaptation or mitigation policy interventions. This is inclusive of system transitions, increased resilience, environmental integrity, social justice, equity, and reduced poverty and vulnerability, all facets of human well-being and planetary health. Rather than encompassing a formula or blueprint for particular actions, sustainable development is a process that provides a compass for the direction that these multiple actions should take (Anders, 2016). This creates opportunities for actors to apply a diverse toolkit of adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development interventions, thereby opening up the solution space.

This understanding of CRD implies that different actors—governments, businesses and civic organisations—will have to design and navigate their own CRD pathways towards climate-resilient and sustainable development. This includes determining the appropriate balance of adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development actions and investments that are consistent with individual actors’ development circumstances and goals, while also ensuring that the collective actions remain consistent with global agreements and goals (such as the SDGs, Sendai Framework and the Paris Agreement; [[#18.1.3|Section 18.1.3]] ), planetary boundaries and other principles of CRD including social justice and equity ( [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al., 2018]] ). Empowering individual actors to pursue CRD in a context-specific manner while coordinating action among actors and a diversity of scales, local to global, is a key challenge associated with achieving CRD ( ''high agreement'' , ''limited evidence'' ).

<div id="18.1.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="policy-context-for-climate-resilient-development"></span>