Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-16 (section)

=== 16.6.1 Linking Sustainable Development and Technological Change ===

<div id="h2-26-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Sustainable development and technological change are deeply related ( [[#UNCTAD--2019|UNCTAD 2019]] ). Technology has been critical for increasing productivity as the dominant driving force for economic growth. Also, the concentration of technology in few hands has boosted consumption of goods and services which are not necessarily aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ( [[#Walsh--2020|Walsh et al. 2020]] ). It has been suggested that, in order to address sustainable development challenges, science and technology actors would have to change their relation to policymakers ( [[#Ravetz--1999|Ravetz and Funtowicz 1999]] ) as well as the public ( [[#Jasanoff--2003|Jasanoff 2003]] ). This has been further elaborated for the SDGs. The scale and ambition of the SDGs call for a change in development patterns that require a fundamental shift in: current best practices; guidelines for technological and investment decisions; and the wider socio-institutional systems ( [[#UNCTAD--2019|UNCTAD 2019]] ; [[#Pegels--2020|Pegels and Altenburg 2020]] ). This is needed as not all innovation will lead to sustainable development patterns ( [[#Altenburg--2012|Altenburg and Pegels 2012]] ; [[#Lema--2015|Lema et al. 2015]] ).

Current SDG implementation gaps reflect, to some extent, inadequate understanding of the complex relationships among the goals ( [[#Waiswa--2019|Waiswa et al. 2019]] ; [[#Skene--2020|Skene 2020]] ), as well as their synergies and trade-offs, including how they limit the range of responses available to communities and governments, and potential injustices ( [[#Thornton--2017|Thornton and Comberti 2017]] ). These relationships have been approached by focusing primarily on synergies and trade-offs while lacking the holistic perspective necessary to achieve all the goals ( [[#Nilsson--2016|Nilsson et al. 2016]] ; [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al. 2018]] ).

A more holistic framework could envisage the SDGs as outcomes of stakeholder engagement and learning processes directed at achieving a balance between human development and environmental protection ( [[#Gibbons--1999|Gibbons 1999]] ; [[#Jasanoff--2003|Jasanoff 2003]] ), to the extent that the two can be separated. From a science, technology and innovation perspective, [[#Fu--2019|Fu et al. (2019)]] distinguish three categories of SDGs. The first category comprises those SDGs representing essential human needs for which inputs that put pressure on sustainable development would need to be minimised. These include Zero hunger (SDG 2), Clear water and sanitation (SDG 6) and Affordable and clean energy (SDG 7) resources, which continue to rely on production technologies and practices that are eroding ecosystem services, potentially hampering the realisation of SDGs 15 (Life on land) and 14 (Life below water) ( [[#Díaz--2019|Díaz et al. 2019]] ). The second category includes those related to governance and which compete with each other for scarce resources, such as Industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9) and Climate action (SDG 13), which require an interdisciplinary perspective. The third category are those that require maximum realisation, include No poverty (SDG 1), Quality education (SDG 4) and Gender equality (SDG 5) ( [[#Fu--2019|Fu et al. 2019]] ).

Resolving tensions between the SDGs requires adoption and mainstreaming of novel technologies that can meet needs while reducing resource waste and improving resource-use efficiency, and acknowledging the systemic nature of technological innovation, which involves many levels of actors, stages of innovation and scales ( [[#Anadon--2016b|Anadon et al. 2016b]] ). Changes in production technology have been found effective to overcome trade-offs between food and water goals ( [[#Gao--2017|Gao and Bryan 2017]] ). Innovative technologies at the food, water and energy nexus are transforming production processes in industrialised and developing countries, such as developments in agrivoltaics, which is co-development of land for agriculture and solar with water conservation benefits ( [[#Barron-Gafford--2019|Barron-Gafford et al. 2019]] ; [[#Lytle--2020|Lytle et al. 2020]] ; [[#Schindele--2020|Schindele et al. 2020]] ), and other renewably powered low- to zero-carbon food, water and energy systems ( [[#He--2019|He et al. 2019]] ). [[#Silvestre--2019|Silvestre and Ţîrcă (2019)]] indicate that maximising both social and environmental aims is not possible, but that sustainable innovations include satisfactory solutions for social, environmental and economic pillars (Figure 16.4).

<div id="_idContainer039" class="_idGenObjectStyleOverride-1"></div>

[[File:e5981026f972d6d8119673c17556a7a7 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_16_4.png]]

'''Figure 16.4 | Considerations and typology of innovations for sustainable development.''' Source: [[#Silvestre--2019|Silvestre and Ţîrcă (2019)]] .

There is evidence that technological changes can catalyse implementation of the reforms needed to the manner in which goods and services are distributed among people ( [[#Fu--2019|Fu et al. 2019]] ). A recently developed theoretical framework based on a capability approach (CA) has been used to evaluate the quality of human life and the process of development ( [[#Haenssgen--2018|Haenssgen and Ariana 2018]] ). Variations of the CA have been applied to exploratory studies of the link between technological change, human development, and economic growth ( [[#Mayer--2001|Mayer 2001]] ; [[#Mormina--2019|Mormina 2019]] ). This suggests that the transformative potential of technology as an enabling condition is not intrinsic, but is assigned to it by people within a given technological context. A failure to recognise and account for this property of technology is a root cause of many failed attempts at techno-fixing sustainable development projects ( [[#Stilgoe--2013|Stilgoe et al. 2013]] ; [[#Fazey--2020|Fazey et al. 2020]] ).

The basic rationale for governance of technological change is the creation and maintenance of an enabling environment for climate and SDG-oriented technological change ( [[#Avelino--2019|Avelino et al. 2019]] ). Such an environment poses high demands on governance and policy to coordinate with actors and provide a direction for innovation and technological change. Cross-Chapter Box 12 illustrates how the dynamics of socio-technical transitions and shifting development pathways towards sustainable development offer options for policymakers and other actors to accelerate the system transitions needed for both climate change mitigation and sustainable development. Governance interventions to implement the SDGs will need to be operationalised at sub-national, national and global levels and support integration of resource concerns in policy, planning and implementation ( [[#UNEP--2015|UNEP 2015]] ; [[#Williams--2020|Williams et al. 2020]] ).

<div id="Cross-Chapter Box 12 | Transition Dynamics" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="cross-chapter-box-12-transition-dynamics"></span>