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

=== Cross-Chapter Box 5 | Shifting Development Pathways to Increase Sustainability and Broaden Mitigation Options ===

<div id="h2-17-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

'''Authors''' : Franck Lecocq (France), Harald Winkler (Republic of South Africa), Mustafa Babiker (Sudan/Saudi Arabia), Brett Cohen (Republic of South Africa), Heleen de Coninck (the Netherlands), Dipak Dasgupta (India), Navroz K. Dubash (India), María Josefina Figueroa Meza (Venezuela/Denmark), Michael Grubb (United Kingdom), Kirsten Halsnæs (Denmark), Şiir Kılkış (Turkey), William Lamb (Germany/United Kingdom), Sebastian Mirasgedis (Greece), Sudarmanto Budi Nugroho (Indonesia), Chukwumerije Okereke (Nigeria/United Kingdom), Minal Pathak (India), Joyashree Roy (India/Thailand), Ambuj Sagar (India), Yamina Saheb (France/Algeria), Priyadarshi Shukla (India), Jim Skea (United Kingdom), Youba Sokona (Mali), Julia Steinberger (United Kingdom/Switzerland), Mariama Williams (Jamaica/the United States of America)

1. What do we mean by development pathways?

In the present report, development pathways refer to patterns of development resulting from multiple decisions and choices made by many actors in the national and global contexts. Each society whether in the Global North or the Global South follows its own pattern of development (Figure 1.6). Development pathways can also be described at smaller scales (e.g., for regions or cities). By extension, the concept can also be applied to sectors and systems (e.g., the development pathway of the agricultural sector or of industrial systems).

2. Why do development pathways matter in a report about mitigation?

2a. Past development pathways determine both today’s GHG emissions and the set of opportunities to reduce emissions

Development pathways drive GHG emissions for a large part (Sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6). For example, different social choices and policy packages with regard to land use and associated rents will result in human settlements with different spatial patterns, different types of housing markets and cultures, and different degrees of inclusiveness, and thus different demand for transport services and associated GHG emissions (Sections 8.3.1 and 10.2.1).

There is compelling evidence to show that continuing along existing development pathways is unlikely to achieve rapid and deep emission reductions ( ''robust evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ). For example, investments in long-lived infrastructure, including energy supply systems, could lock-in high emissions pathways and risk making deep decarbonisation and sustainable policies more difficult and expensive.

Development pathways also determine the set of tools available to mitigate climate change (Figure 4.7). For example, the capacity of households to move closer to their workplace, in response to, for example, a price signal on carbon and thus on gasoline, depends on rents, which themselves depend on the spatial patterns of development of human settlements ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-8#8.3.1|Section 8.3.1]] ). Said differently, mitigation costs depend on past development choices. Similarly, development pathways determine the enablers and levers available for adaptation (AR6 WGII, Chapter 18) and for achieving other SDGs.

In the absence of shifts in development pathways, conventional mitigation policy instruments (e.g., carbon tax, emission quotas, technological norms, etc.) may not be able to limit emissions to a degree sufficient for deep decarbonisation or only at very high economic and social costs.

Policies to shift development pathways, on the contrary, make mitigation policies more effective. For example, policies that prioritise non-car transit, or limit rents close to work places would make it easier for households to relocate in response to a price signal on transport, and thus makes the same degree of mitigation achievable at lower economic and social cost.

2b. Shifting development pathways broadens the scope for synergies between development objectives and mitigation

Second, societies pursue a variety of development objectives, of which protecting the Earth’s climate is part. The SDGs provide a global mapping of these goals. Absent climate mitigation, our collective ability to achieve the SDGs in 2030 and to sustain them beyond 2030 is likely to be compromised, even if adaptation measures are put in place (AR6 WGII).

There are many instances in which reducing GHG emissions and moving towards the achievement of other development objectives can go hand in hand, in the near-, mid- and long-term (Sections 3.7, 6.7.7, 7.6.5, 8.2, 9.8, 10.1.1, 11.5.3 and 17.3, and Figures 3.40 and 12.1). For example, transitions from coal-based power to lower-emissions electricity generation technologies and from internal combustion engine to lower-carbon transport has large mitigation potential and direct benefits for health through reduction in local air pollution (Box 6.2 and [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-10#10.4.1|Section 10.4.1]] ). Energy efficiency in buildings and energy poverty alleviation through improved access to clean fuels also delivers significant health benefits (Sections 9.8.1 and 9.8.2).

Cross-Chapter Box 5

Careful design of mitigation policies is critical to achieving these synergies ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-13#13.8|Section 13.8]] ). Integrated policies can support the creation of synergies between climate change goals and other SDGs. For example, when measures promoting walkable urban areas are combined with electrification and clean renewable energy, there are several co-benefits to be attained (Figure SPM.8 and [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.2|Section 5.2]] ). These include reduced pressures on agricultural land from reduced urban growth, health co-benefits from cleaner air and benefits from enhanced mobility (Sections 8.2, 8.4 and 4.4.1.9).

Policy design can also manage trade-offs, for example through policy measures as part of just transitions ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-17#17.4|Section 17.4]] ). However, even with good policy design, decisions about mitigation actions, and the timing and scale thereof, may entail trade-offs with the achievement of other national development objectives in the near-, mid- and long term. In the near term, for example, regulations may ban vehicles from city centres to reduce congestion and local air pollution, but reduce mobility and choice. Increasing green spaces within cities without caps on housing prices may involve trade-offs with affordable housing and push low income residents outside the city ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-8#8.2.2|Section 8.2.2]] ). In the mid- and long-term, large-scale deployment of biomass energy raises concerns about food security and biodiversity conservation (Sections 3.7.1, 3.7.5, 7.4.4, 9.8.1, 12.5.2 and 12.5.3). Conflicts between mitigation and other development objectives can act as an impediment to climate action ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-13#13.8|Section 13.8]] ). Climate change is the result of decades of unsustainable energy production, land-use, production and consumption patterns, as well as governance arrangements and political economic institutions that lock in resource-intensive development patterns ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ). Reframing development objectives and shifting development pathways towards sustainability can help transform these patterns and practices, allowing space for transitions transforming unsustainable systems ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) (Chapter 17, Executive Summary).

Prioritising is one way to manage trade-offs, addressing some national development objectives earlier than others. Another way is to adopt policy packages aimed at shifting development pathways towards sustainability as they expand the range of tools available to simultaneously achieve multiple development objectives, including mitigation. In the city example of Section 2a, a carbon tax alone would run counter to other development objectives if it made suburban households locked into high emissions transport modes poorer or if it restricted mobility choices, in particular for low- and middle-income households. Policy packages combining affordable housing and provision of safe low-carbon mobility could both facilitate equitable access to housing (a major development objective in many countries) and make it easier to mitigate by shifting the urban development pathway.

Similarly, a fundamental shift in the service provision that helps reduce energy demand (Chapter 5), driven by targeted policies, investment and enabling socio-cultural and behavioural change, would reduce pressure on supply side mitigation need, hence limiting pressure on water and food and the achievement of associated SDGs. Some studies assume Western European lifestyle as a reference for the Global North and an improvement in the living standard for the Global South to reduce energy demand and emissions ( [[#Grubler--2018|Grubler et al. 2018]] ), while others explore a transformative change in the Global North to achieve a decent living standard for all (Bertram et al. 2018; [[#Millward-Hopkins--2020|Millward-Hopkins et al. 2020]] ) ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.7|Section 3.7]] .8). For example, in the UK, interaction between multiple behavioural, socio-cultural, and corporate drivers including NGO campaigns, social movements and product innovations resulted in an observed decline in meat consumption (Sections 5.4 and 5.6.4).

3. What does shifting development pathways towards sustainability entail?

Shifting development pathways towards sustainability implies making transformative changes that disrupt existing developmental trends. Such choices would not be marginal (Stern 2009), but include technology adoption, infrastructure availability and use, and socio-behavioural factors (Chapter 5).

These include creating new infrastructure, sustainable supply chains, institutional capacities for evidence-based and integrated decision-making, financial alignment towards low-carbon socially responsible investments, just transitions and shifts in behaviour and norms to support shifts away from fossil-fuel consumption ( [[#Green--2018|Green and Denniss 2018]] ). Adopting multi-level governance modes, tackling corruption where it inhibits shifts to sustainability, and improving social and political trust are also key for aligning and supporting long-term environmentally just policies and processes.

Shifting development pathways entails fundamental changes in energy, urban, building, industrial, transport, and land-based systems. It also requires changes in behaviour and social practices. Overcoming inertia and locked-in practices may face considerable opposition ( [[#Geels--2017|Geels et al. 2017]] ) ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.4.5|Section 5.4.5]] ). The durability of carbon intensive transport modes and electricity generating infrastructures increase the risk of lock-in to high emissions pathways, as these comprise not just consumer practices, but sunk costs in infrastructure, supporting institutions and rules ( [[#Seto--2016|Seto et al. 2016]] ; [[#Mattioli--2020|Mattioli et al. 2020]] ). Shifting investments towards low-GHG solutions requires a combination of conducive public policies, attractive investment opportunities, as well as the availability of financing to enable such a transition ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-15#15.3|Section 15.3]] ).

Cross-Chapter Box 5

4. How to shift development pathways?

Shifting development paths is complex. If history is any guide, practices that can easily supplant existing systems and are clearly profitable move fastest ( [[#Griliches--1957|Griliches 1957]] ). Changes that involve ‘dissimilar, unfamiliar and more complex science-based components’ take more time, acceptance and legitimation and involve complex social learning ( [[#Conley--2010|Conley and Udry 2010]] ), even when they promise large gains ( [[#Pezzoni--2019|Pezzoni et al. 2019]] ).

Yet despite the complexities of the interactions that result in patterns of development, history also shows that societies can influence the direction of development pathways based on choices made by decision-makers, citizens, the private sector and social stakeholders. For example, fundamentally different responses to the first oil shock shifted then-comparable economies on to different energy sector development and economic pathways in the 1970s and 80s ( [[#Sathaye--2009|Sathaye et al. 2009]] ). More recent examples have shown evidence of voluntary transitions for example, advanced lighting in Sweden, improved cook-stoves in China, liquefied petroleum gas stoves in Indonesia or ethanol vehicles in Brazil ( [[#Sovacool--2016|Sovacool 2016]] ).

There is no one-size-fits-all recipe for shifting development pathways. However, the following insights can be drawn from past experience and scenarios of possible future development pathways ( [[#4.4.1|Section 4.4.1]] ). For example, policies making inner-urban neighbourhoods more accessible and affordable reduce transport costs for low- and middle-income households, and also reduce transport emissions ( [[#4.4.1.9|Section 4.4.1.9]] ). Shifts in development pathways result from both sustained political interventions and bottom-up changes in public opinion. No single sector or policy action is enough to achieve this. Coordinated policy mixes would need to coordinate multiple actors – in other words, individuals, groups and collectives, corporate actors, institutions and infrastructure actors – to deepen decarbonisation and shift pathways towards sustainability ( [[#Pettifor--2020|Pettifor 2020]] ). One example was the liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) Subsidy (‘Zero Kero’) Program in Indonesia which harnessed creative policy design to shift to cleaner energy by overcoming existing private interests. The objective of decreasing fiscal expenditures on domestic kerosene subsidies by replacing it with LPG was achieved by harnessing distribution networks of existing providers supported by government subsidised provision of equipment and subsidised pricing (Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 13).

Shifts in one country may spill over to other countries. Collective action by individuals as part of formal social movements or informal lifestyle changes underpins system change (Sections 5.2.3, 5.4.1, 5.4.5.3 and 13.5).

Sectoral transitions that aspire to shift development pathways often have multiple objectives, and deploy a diverse mix or package of policies and institutional measures (Figure 13.6). Context specific governance conditions can significantly enable or disable sectoral transitions, and play a determinative role in whether a sectoral transition leads to a shift in development pathway. For example, if implemented policies to tackle fuel poverty target the most socially vulnerable households, this can help address barriers poor households face in undertaking building retrofits. In the EU-28, it has been shown that accelerated energy efficiency policies coupled with strong social policies targeting the most vulnerable households, can help reduce the energy demand in residential sector, and deliver additional co-benefits of avoided premature deaths and reduced health impacts ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-9#9.8.2|Section 9.8.2]] ).

Literature suggests that through equitable resource distribution, high levels of human development can be provided at moderate energy and carbon levels by changing consumption patterns and redirecting systems in the direction of more sustainable resource use, suggesting that a special effort can be made in the near term for those on higher incomes who account for a disproportionate fraction of global emissions ( [[#Millward-Hopkins--2020|Millward-Hopkins et al. 2020]] ; [[#Hickel--2021|Hickel et al. 2021]] ) ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-5#5.2.2|Section 5.2.2]] and Figure 5.14).

The necessary transformational changes are likely to be more acceptable if rooted in the development aspirations of the economy and society within which they take place ( [[#Dubash--2012|Dubash 2012]] ; [[#Jones--2013|Jones et al. 2013]] ) and may enable a new social contract to address a complex set of inter-linkages across sectors, classes and the whole economy ( [[#Fleurbaey--2018|Fleurbaey et al. 2018]] ).

Taking advantage of windows of opportunity and disruptions to mindsets and socio-technical systems could advance deeper transformations. These might include the globally declining costs of renewables (Figure 1.7, [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-2#2.2|Section 2.2]] .5 and Box 16.2), emerging social norms for climate mitigation ( [[#Green--2018|Green and Denniss 2018]] ), or the COVID-19 pandemic, all of which might be harnessed to centre political action on protecting human and planetary health ( [[#Büchs--2020|Büchs et al. 2020]] ), but if not handled carefully could also risk undermining the support for transformation.

Cross-Chapter Box 5

5. How can shifts in development pathways be implemented by actors in different contexts?

Shifting development pathways to increased sustainability is a shared aspiration. Yet since countries differ in starting points (e.g., social, economic, cultural, political) and history, they have different urgent needs in terms of facilitating the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development and, therefore, give different priorities (Sections 4.3.2 and 17.4). The appropriate set of policies to shift development pathways thus depends on national circumstances and capacities.

In some developed countries and communities, affluence leads to high levels of consumption and emissions across sectors ( [[#Mazur--1974|Mazur and Rosa 1974]] ; [[#Wiedmann--2020|Wiedmann et al. 2020]] ). For some countries, reducing consumption can reduce emissions without compromising on wellbeing. However, some developing countries still face the challenge of escaping ‘middle-income traps’ ( [[#Agénor,%C2%A0P.-R.R.%20and%C2%A0O.%20Canuto--2015|Agénor and Canuto 2015]] ), as labour-saving technological change and globalisation have limited options to develop via the manufacturing sector ( [[#Altenburg,%C2%A0T.%20and%C2%A0D.%20Rodrik--2017|Altenburg and Rodrik 2017]] ). In least developed countries, infrastructure, industry, and public services are still being established, posing both a challenge to financial support to deploy technologies, and large opportunities to support accelerating low-to-zero carbon options – especially in terms of efficient and sufficient provision ( [[#Millward-Hopkins--2020|Millward-Hopkins et al. 2020]] ). Availability of capital, or lack thereof, is a critical discriminant across countries and requires international cooperation ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-15#15.2.2|Section 15.2.2]] ).

Shifting development pathways towards sustainability needs to be supported by global partnerships to strengthen suitable capacity, technological innovation ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-16#16.6|Section 16.6]] ), and financial flows (Sections 14.4.1, 15.2.4). The international community can play a particularly key role by helping ensure the necessary broad participation in climate-mitigation efforts, including by countries at different development levels, through sustained support for policies and partnerships that support shifting development pathways towards sustainability while promoting equity and being mindful of different transition capacities (Sections 4.3.2, 16.5, 16.6, 14.4 and 17.4).

In sum, development pathways unfold over time in response to complex dynamics among various drivers and diverse actors with varying interests and motivations ( ''high agreement'' , ''robust evidence'' ). The way countries develop determines the nature and degree of the obstacles to accelerating mitigation and achieving other sustainable development objectives ( ''medium-robust evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ). Meeting ambitious mitigation and development goals cannot be achieved through incremental change ( ''robust evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ). Shifting development pathways thus involves designing and implementing policies where possible to intentionally enhance enabling conditions and reduce obstacles to desired outcomes ( ''medium evidence'' , ''med'' ''ium agreement'' ) ''.''

[[#4.4|Section 4.4]] elaborates mechanisms through which societies can develop and implement policies to substantially shift development pathways toward securing shared societal objectives. Such policies entail overcoming obstacles ( [[#4.2.7|Section 4.2.7]] ) by means of favourable enabling conditions: governance and institutions, behaviour, innovation, policy and finance. These enabling conditions are amenable to intentional change – to greater or lesser degrees and over longer or shorter time scales – based on a range of possible measures and processes ( [[#4.4|Section 4.4]] ).

<div id="4.4" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="how-to-shift-development-pathways-and-accelerate-the-pace-and-scale-of-mitigation"></span>