Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-7 (section)

==== 7.5.6.2 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Synergies and trade-offs ====

<div id="section-7-5-6-2-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-synergies-and-trade-offs-block-1"></div>

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an international persuasive policy instrument that apply to all countries, and measure sustainable and socially just development of human societies at all scales of governance (Griggs et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1178|1178]]</sup> ). The UN SDGs rest on the premise that the goals are mutually reinforcing and there are inherent linkages, synergies and trade-offs (to a greater or lesser extent) between and within the sub-goals (Fuso Nerini et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1179|1179]]</sup> ; Nilsson et al. 2016b <sup>[[#fn:r1180|1180]]</sup> ; Le Blanc 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1181|1181]]</sup> ). There is high confidence that opportunities, trade-offs and co-benefits are context – and region-specific and depend on a variety of political, national and socio-economic factors (Nilsson et al. 2016b <sup>[[#fn:r1182|1182]]</sup> ) depending on perceived importance by decision-makers and policymakers (Figure 7.7 and Table 7.6). Aggregation of targets and indicators at the national level can mask severe biophysical and socio-economic trade-offs at local and regional scales (Wada et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1183|1183]]</sup> ).

There is ''medium evidence'' and ''high agreement'' that SDGs must not be pursued independently, but in a manner that recognises trade-offs and synergies with each other, consistent with a goal of ‘policy coherence’. Policy coherence also refers to spatial trade-offs and geopolitical implications within and between regions and countries implementing SDGs. For instance, supply-side food security initiatives of land-based agriculture are impacting on marine fisheries globally through creation of dead-zones due to agricultural run-off (Diaz and Rosenberg 2008 <sup>[[#fn:r1184|1184]]</sup> ).

SDGs 6 (clean water and sanitation), 7 (affordable and clean energy) and 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure) are important SDGs related to mitigation with adaptation co-benefits, but they have local trade-offs with biodiversity and competing uses of land and rivers (see Case study: Green energy: Biodiversity conservation vs global environment targets) ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Bogardi et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1185|1185]]</sup> ; Nilsson and Berggren 2000 <sup>[[#fn:r1186|1186]]</sup> ; Hoeinghaus et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1187|1187]]</sup> ; Winemiller et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1188|1188]]</sup> ). This has occurred despite emerging knowledge about the role that rivers and riverine ecosystems play in human development and in generating global, regional and local ES (Nilsson and Berggren 2000 <sup>[[#fn:r1189|1189]]</sup> ; Hoeinghaus et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1190|1190]]</sup> ). The transformation of river ecosystems for irrigation, hydropower and water requirements of societies worldwide is the biggest threat to freshwater and estuarine biodiversity and ecosystems services (Nilsson and Berggren 2000 <sup>[[#fn:r1191|1191]]</sup> ; Vörösmarty et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1192|1192]]</sup> ). These projects address important energy and water-related demands, but their economic benefits are often overestimated in relation to trade-offs with respect to food (river capture fisheries), biodiversity and downstream ES (Winemiller et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1193|1193]]</sup> ). Some trade-offs and synergies related to SDG7 impact on aspirations of greater welfare and well-being, as well as physical and social infrastructure for sustainable development (Fuso Nerini et al. 2018 <sup>[[#fn:r1194|1194]]</sup> ) (Section 7.5.6.1, where trade-offs exist between climate mitigation and food).

There are also spatial trade-offs related to large river diversion projects and export of ‘virtual water’ through water-intensive crops produced in one region and exported to another, with implications for food security, water security and downstream ES of the exporting region (Hanasaki et al. 2010 <sup>[[#fn:r1195|1195]]</sup> ; Verma et al. 2009 <sup>[[#fn:r1196|1196]]</sup> ). Synergies include cropping adaptations that increase food system production and eliminate hunger (SDG2) (Rockström et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1197|1197]]</sup> ; Lipper et al. 2014a <sup>[[#fn:r1198|1198]]</sup> ; Neufeldt et al. 2013 <sup>[[#fn:r1199|1199]]</sup> ). Well-adapted agricultural systems are shown to have synergies, positive returns on investment and contribute to safe drinking water, health, biodiversity and equity goals (DeClerck 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1200|1200]]</sup> ). Assessing the water footprint of different sectors at the river basin scale can provide insights for interventions and decision-making (Zeng et al. 2012 <sup>[[#fn:r1201|1201]]</sup> ).

Sometimes the trade-offs in SDGs can arise in the articulation and nested hierarchy of 17 goals and the targets under them. In terms of aquatic life and ecosystems, there is an explicit SDG for sustainable management of marine life (SDG 14, Life below water). There is no equivalent goal exclusively for freshwater ecosystems, but hidden under SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation) out of six listed targets, the sixth target is about protecting and restoring water-related ecosystems, which suggests a lower order of global priority compared to being listed as a goal in itself (e.g., SDG 14).

There is ''limited evidence'' and ''limited agreement'' that binary evaluations of individual SDGs and synergies and trade-offs that categorise interactions as either ‘beneficial’ or ‘adverse’ may be subjective and challenged further by the fact that feedbacks can often not be assigned as unambiguously positive or negative (Blanc et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1202|1202]]</sup> ). The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) notes: ‘A reductive focus on specific SDGs in isolation may undermine the long-term achievement of sustainable climate change mitigation’ (Holden et al. 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1203|1203]]</sup> ). Greater work is needed to tease out these relationships; studies have started that include quantitative modelling (see Karnib 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1204|1204]]</sup> ) and nuanced scoring scales (ICSU 2017 <sup>[[#fn:r1205|1205]]</sup> ) of these relationships.

A nexus approach is increasingly being adopted to explore synergies and trade-offs between a select subset of goals and targets (such as the interaction between water, energy and food – see for example, Yumkella and Yillia 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1206|1206]]</sup> ; Conway et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1207|1207]]</sup> ; Ringler et al. 2015 <sup>[[#fn:r1208|1208]]</sup> ). However, even this approach ignores systemic properties and interactions across the system as a whole (Weitz et al. 2017a <sup>[[#fn:r1209|1209]]</sup> ). Pursuit of certain targets in one area can generate rippling effects across the system, and these in turn can have secondary impacts on yet other targets. Weitz et al. (2017a) <sup>[[#fn:r1210|1210]]</sup> found that SDG target 13.2 (climate change policy/planning) is influenced by actions in six other targets. SDG 13.1 (climate change adaption) and also SDG 2.4 (food production) receive the most positive influence from progression in other targets.

There is ''medium evidence'' and ''high agreement'' that, to be effective, truly sustainable, and to reduce or mitigate emerging risks, SDGs need knowledge dissemination and policy initiatives that recognise and assimilate concepts of co-production of ES in socio-ecological systems, cross-scale linkages, uncertainty, spatial and temporal trade-offs between SDGs and ES that acknowledge biophysical, social and political constraints and understand how social change occurs at various scales (Rodríguez et al. 2006 <sup>[[#fn:r1211|1211]]</sup> ; Norström et al. 2014 <sup>[[#fn:r1212|1212]]</sup> ; Palomo et al. 2016 <sup>[[#fn:r1213|1213]]</sup> ). Several methods and tools are proposed in literature to address and understand SDG interactions. Nilsson et al. (2016a) <sup>[[#fn:r1214|1214]]</sup> suggest going beyond a simplistic framing of synergies and trade-offs to understanding the various relationship dimensions, and proposing a seven-point scale to understand these interactions.

This approach, and the identification of clusters of synergy, can help indicate that government ministries work together or establish collaborations to reach their specific goals. Finally, context-specific analysis is needed. Synergies and trade-offs will depend on the natural resource base (such as land or water availability), governance arrangements, available technologies, and political ideas in a given location (Nilsson et al. 2016b <sup>[[#fn:r1215|1215]]</sup> ). Figure 7.7 shows that, at the global scale, there is less uncertainty in the evidence surrounding SDGs, but also less agreement on norms, priorities and values for SDG implementation. Although there is some agreement on the regional and local scale surrounding SDGs, there is higher certainty on the science surrounding ES.

<div id="section-7-5-6-2-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-synergies-and-trade-offs-block-2"></div>

<span id="figure-7.7"></span>
<!-- START IMG -->
<!-- IMG TITLE -->
'''Figure 7.7'''

<span id="risks-at-various-scales-levels-of-uncertainty-and-agreement-in-relation-to-trade-offs-among-sdgs-and-other-goals."></span>
<!-- IMG CAPTION -->
'''Risks at various scales, levels of uncertainty and agreement in relation to trade-offs among SDGs and other goals.'''
<!-- IMG FILE -->
[[File:6e0a5ce500b52cb10d27750d8ced14c4 Figure-7.7.jpg]]

Risks at various scales, levels of uncertainty and agreement in relation to trade-offs among SDGs and other goals.

<!-- END IMG -->
<div id="section-7-5-6-3-forests-and-agriculture"></div>

<span id="forests-and-agriculture"></span>