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

=== 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>