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

=== 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>