Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-13 (section)

=== 13.7.2 Policy Integration for Multiple Objectives and Shifting Development Pathways ===

<div id="h2-23-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

This sub-section assesses policy integration and packages required to enable shifts in development pathways, with a particular focus on sectoral scale transitions. However, because shifting development pathways requires broad transformative change, it complements discussion on broader shifts in policymaking such as fiscal, educational, and infrastructure policies (Cross-Chapter Box 5 in Chapter 4) and to the alignment of a wide range of enabling conditions required for system transitions ( [[#13.9|Section 13.9]] ).

In many countries, and particularly when climate policy occurs in the context of sustainable development, policymakers seek to address climate mitigation in the context of multiple economic and social policy objectives ( ''medium evidence'' , ''robust agreement'' ) ( [[#Halsnæs--2014|Halsnæs et al. 2014]] ; [[#Campagnolo--2019|Campagnolo and Davide 2019]] ; [[#Cohen--2019|Cohen et al. 2019]] ). Studies suggest that co-benefits of climate policies are substantial, especially in relation to air quality, and can yield better mitigation and overall welfare, yet these are commonly overlooked in policymaking ( ''robust evidence'' , ''robust agreement'' ) ( [[#Nemet--2010|Nemet et al. 2010]] ; [[#Ürge-Vorsatz--2014|Ürge-Vorsatz et al. 2014]] ; [[#von%20Stechow--2015|von Stechow et al. 2015]] ; [[#Mayrhofer--2016|Mayrhofer and Gupta 2016]] ; [[#Roy--2018|Roy et al. 2018]] ; [[#Bhardwaj--2019|Bhardwaj et al. 2019]] ; [[#Karlsson--2020|Karlsson et al. 2020]] ). Other studies have shown the existence of strong complementarities between the SDGs and realisation of NDC pledges by countries ( [[#McCollum--2018|McCollum et al. 2018]] ). An explicit attention to development pathways can enhance the scope for mitigation, by paying explicit attention to development choices that lock-in or lock-out opportunities for mitigation, such as around land use and infrastructure choices (Cross-Chapter Box 5 in Chapter 4). While the pay-offs are considerable to an approach to mitigation that takes into account linkages to multiple objectives and the opportunity to shift development pathways, there are also associated challenges with implementing this approach to policymaking.

First, spanning policy arenas and addressing multiple objectives places considerable requirements of coordination on the policymaking process (Howlett and del Rio 2015; [[#Obersteiner--2016|Obersteiner et al. 2016]] ). Climate policy integration suggests several steps should precede actual policy formulation, beginning with a clear articulation of the policy frame or problem statement ( [[#Adelle--2013|Adelle and Russel 2013]] ; [[#Candel--2016|Candel and Biesbroek 2016]] ). For example, a greenhouse gas limitation framework versus a co-benefits framing would likely yield different policy approaches. It is then useful to identify the range of actors and institutions involved in climate governance – the policy subsystem, the goals articulated, the level at which goals are articulated and the links with other related policy goals such as energy security or energy access ( [[#Candel--2016|Candel and Biesbroek 2016]] ). The adoption of specific packages of policy instruments should ideally follow these prior steps that define the scope of the problem, actors and goals.

In practice, integration has to occur in the context of an already existing policy structure, which suggests the need for finding windows of opportunity to bring about integration, which can be created by international events, alignments with domestic institutional procedures, and openings created by policy entrepreneurs ( [[#Garcia%20Hernandez--2020|Garcia Hernandez and Bolwig 2020]] ). Integration also has to occur in the context of existing organisational routines and cultures, which can pose a barrier to integration ( [[#Uittenbroek--2016|Uittenbroek 2016]] ). Experience from the EU suggests that disagreements at the level of policy instruments are amenable to resolution by deliberation, while normative disagreements at the level of objectives require a hierarchical decision structure ( [[#Skovgaard--2018|Skovgaard 2018]] ). As this discussion suggests, the challenge of integration operates in two dimensions: horizontal – between sectoral authorities such as ministries or policy domains such as forestry – or vertical – either between constitutional levels of power or within the internal mandates and interactions of a sector ( [[#Howlett--2015|Howlett and del Rio 2015]] ; [[#Di%20Gregorio--2017|Di Gregorio et al. 2017]] ). There are also important temporal dimensions to policy goals, as policy and benchmarks have to address not just immediate success but also indications of future transformation ( [[#Dupont--2012|Dupont and Oberthür 2012]] ; [[#Dupont--2015|Dupont 2015]] ).

Second policymaking for shifting development pathways has to account for inherent uncertainties in future development paths ( [[#Moallemi--2018|Moallemi and Malekpour 2018]] ; [[#Castrejon-Campos--2020|Castrejon-Campos et al. 2020]] ). These uncertainties may be greater in developing countries that are growing rapidly and where structural features of the economy including infrastructure and urbanisation patterns are fluid. For example, reviews of modelling studies of Chinese ( [[#Grubb--2015|Grubb et al. 2015]] ) and Indian emissions futures (Spencer and [[#Dubash--2021|Dubash 2021]] ) find that differences in projections can substantially be accounted for by alternative assumptions about future economic structural shifts. Consequently, an important design consideration is that policy packages should be robust, that is, perform satisfactorily for all key objectives under a broad range of plausible futures ( [[#Kwakkel--2016|Kwakkel et al. 2016]] ; [[#Maier--2016|Maier et al. 2016]] ; [[#Castrejon-Campos--2020|Castrejon-Campos et al. 2020]] ). Such an approach to decision-making can be contrasted with one that tries to design an optimal policy package for the ‘best guess’ future scenario ( [[#Maier--2016|Maier et al. 2016]] ). Moreover, policy packages can usefully be adapted dynamically to changing circumstances as part of the policy process ( [[#Haasnoot--2013|Haasnoot et al. 2013]] ; [[#Hamarat--2014|Hamarat et al. 2014]] ; [[#Maier--2016|Maier et al. 2016]] ) including by using exploratory modelling techniques that allow comparison of trade-offs across alternative future scenarios ( [[#Hamarat--2014|Hamarat et al. 2014]] ). Another approach is to link quantitative models with a participatory process that enables decision-makers to test the implications of alternative interventions ( [[#Moallemi--2018|Moallemi and Malekpour 2018]] ). [[#Rosenbloom--2019|Rosenbloom et al. (2019)]] suggest that because policy mixes should adapt to changing circumstances, instead of stability of a particular mix, transitions require embedding policies within a long-term orientation toward a low-carbon economy, including a transition agenda, social legitimacy for this agenda, and an appropriate ecosystem of institutions.

Third, achieving changes in development pathways requires engaging with place-specific context. It requires attention to existing policies, political interests that may gain or lose from a transition, and locally specific governance enablers and disablers. As a result, while there may be approaches that carry over from one context to another, implementation requires careful tailoring of transition approaches to specific policy and governance contexts. Cross-Chapter Box 9 in this chapter summarises case studies of sectoral transitions from other chapters in this report (Chapters 5 to 12) to illustrate this complexity. Broader macroeconomic transformative shifts are discussed in more detail in [[#13.9|Section 13.9]] .

Common to all the sectoral cases in Cross-Chapter Box 9 is a future-oriented vision of sectoral transition often focused on multiple objectives, such as designing tram-based public transport systems in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe to simultaneously stimulate urban centers, create jobs and enable low-carbon transportation. Sectoral transitions are enabled by policy mixes that bring together different combinations of instruments – including regulations, financial incentives, convening, education and outreach, voluntary agreements, procurement and creation of new institutions – to work together in a complementary manner. The effectiveness of a policy mix depends on conditions beyond design considerations and also rests on the larger governance context within which sector transitions occur, which can include enabling and disabling elements. Enabling factors illustrated in Cross-Chapter Box 9 include strong high level political support, for example to address deforestation in Brazil despite powerful logging and farmer interests, or policy design to win over existing private interests, for example, by harnessing distribution networks of kerosene providers to new LPG technology in Indonesia. Disabling conditions include local institutional contexts, such as the lack of tree and land tenure in Ghana, which, along with the monopoly of the state marketing board, posed obstacles to Ghana’s low-carbon cocoa transition. These examples emphasise the importance of attention to local context if policy integration and the design of policy mixes are to effectively lead to transitions guided by multiple climate and development objectives.

<div id="Cross-Chapter Box 9 | Case Studies of Integrated Policymaking for Sector Transitions" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="cross-chapter-box-9-case-studies-of-integrated-policymaking-for-sector-transitions"></span>