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

==== 4.4.1.2 Policy Packages That Include Climate and Development Policies ====

<div id="h3-39-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Although many transformations in the past have been driven by the emergence and diffusion of an innovative technology, policy intervention was frequent, especially in the more rapid ones ( [[#Michaelowa--2018|Michaelowa et al. 2018]] ; [[#Grubb--2021|Grubb et al. 2021]] ). Likewise, it is not expected that spontaneous behaviour change or market evolution alone yield the type of transformations outlined in the accelerated mitigation pathways described in [[#4.2.5|Section 4.2.5]] , or in the shifts in development pathways described in [[#4.3.3|Section 4.3.3]] . On the contrary, stringent temperature targets imply bold policies in the short term ( [[#Rockström--2017|Rockström et al. 2017]] ; [[#Kriegler--2018|Kriegler et al. 2018]] ) to enforce effective existing policy instruments and regulations, as well as to reform or remove harmful existing policies and subsidies ( [[#Díaz--2019|Díaz et al. 2019]] ).

Policy integration, addressing multiple objectives, is an essential component of shifting development pathways and accelerating mitigation ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ). A shift in development pathways that fosters accelerated mitigation may best be achieved through integrated actions that comprise policies in support of the broader SDG agenda, based on country-specific priorities (Sections 4.3.2, 13.8 and 13.9). These may include for example, fiscal policies, or integrating industrial ( [[#Nilsson--2021|Nilsson et al. 2021]] ) and energy policies ( [[#Fragkos--2021|Fragkos et al. 2021]] ) with climate policies. Similarly, sectoral transitions that aspire to shifting development pathways towards sustainability often have multiple objectives, and deploy a diverse mix or package of policies and institutional measures (Cross-Chapter Box 5).

Because low-carbon transitions are political processes, analyses are needed ''of'' policy as well as ''for'' policy ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-13#13.6|Section 13.6]] ). Political scientists have developed a number of theoretical models that both ''explain'' policy-making processes and provide useful insights for ''influencing'' those processes. Case studies of successes and failures in sustainable development and mitigation offer equally important insights. Both theoretical and empirical analysis reinforce the argument that single policy instruments are not sufficient ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ). Policymakers might rather mobilise a range of policies, such as financial instruments (taxes, subsidies, grants, loans), regulatory instruments (standards, laws, performance targets) and processual instruments (demonstration projects, network management, public debates, consultations, foresight exercises, roadmaps) ( [[#Voß--2007|Voß et al. 2007]] ). Policies can be designed to focus on limiting or phasing out high-carbon technology. The appropriate mix is likely to vary between countries and domains, depending on political cultures and stakeholder configurations ( [[#Rogge--2016|Rogge and Reichardt 2016]] ), but is likely to include a combination of: (i) standards, nudges and information to encourage low-carbon technology adoption and behavioural change; (ii) economic incentives to reward low-carbon investments; (iii) supply-side policy instruments including for fossil fuel production (to complement demand-side climate policies) and (iv) innovation support and strategic investment to encourage systemic change ( [[#Grubb--2014|Grubb 2014]] ). These approaches can be mutually reinforcing. For example, carbon pricing can incentivise low-carbon innovation, while targeted support for emerging niche technologies can make them more competitive encourage their diffusion and ultimately facilitate a higher level of carbon pricing. Similarly, the success of feed-in tariffs in Germany only worked as well as it did because it formed part of a broader policy mix including ‘supply-push’ mechanisms such as subsidies for research and ‘systemic measures’ such as collaborative research projects and systems of knowledge exchange ( [[#Rogge--2015|Rogge et al. 2015]] ).

<div id="4.4.1.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="governance-and-institutional-capacity"></span>