The current basis for international action is the Sustainable Development Goals
that were adopted by the General Assembly in 2015. They consist of seventeen
goals and 169 Targets, which are really specific objectives to be achieved by
2030 and can be measured, although as we will see, the process of developing
indicators is a work in progress.
Looking at these is not easy, given the breadth of issues addressed. A
number of UN organizations used them as a way of reviewing their structure and
approach. One of these was the Division for Inclusive Social Development of the
Department of Economic and Social Affairs. This is actually where I started my
work in the United Nations in 1966 and, with some shifts, I was part of its
headquarters staff from 1971-1974 and 1976-1980. I was asked, after the SDGs
were adopted, to do an analysis of the implications of them for the Division
and for the Commission for Social Development. This is an internal document,
but I have requested permission to use it in the course. It was called Social
Development in the Implementation of the Post-2015 SDGs. It was completed
at the time that the SDGs were adopted, but before much of the implementation
framework was agreed. The Executive Summary indicates some of the directions:
There are several major issues in determining how to achieve the SDGs. One
of the issues being considered is how to use evaluations as part of the SDG
monitoring. As part of an assignment to undertake an assessment of the
evaluations done by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, I did an
analysis of measurement issues in terms of the targets related to drugs and
crime.
A second issue that has come up recently is the relationship between the
SDGs and Climate Change. In fact, Goal 13 is about climate change, but the
recent 1.5 C assessment had an entire chapter on the relationship between
climate change and the SDGs. I have included the executive summary of its
Chapter 5 as an example of the analysis.
Executive Summary
This chapter takes sustainable development as the starting point and focus for
analysis. It considers the broad and multifaceted bi-directional interplay
between sustainable development, including its focus on eradicating poverty and
reducing inequality in their multidimensional aspects, and climate actions in a
1.5°C warmer world. These fundamental connections are embedded in the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The chapter also examines synergies and
trade-offs of adaptation and mitigation options with sustainable
development and the SDGs and offers insights into possible pathways, especially
climate-resilient development pathways toward a 1.5°C warmer world.
Sustainable Development, Poverty, and Inequality in a 1.5°C Warmer
World
Limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C would make it markedly
easier to achieve manyaspects of sustainable development,
with greater potential to eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities (medium
evidence, high agreement). Impacts avoided with the lower temperature
limit could reduce the number of people exposed to climate risks and vulnerable
to poverty by 62 to 457 million, and lessen the risks of poor people to
experience food and water insecurity, adverse health impacts, and economic
losses, particularly in regions that already face development challenges
(medium evidence, medium agreement) {5.2.2, 5.2.3}. Avoided impacts between
1.5°C and 2°C warming would also make it easier to achieve certain SDGs, such
as those that relate to poverty, hunger, health, water and sanitation, cities,
and ecosystems (SDGs 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, and 15) (medium evidence, high agreement)
{5.2.3, Table 5.3 available as a supplementary pdf }.
Compared to current conditions, 1.5°C of global warming would
nonetheless pose heightened risks to eradicating poverty, reducing inequalities
and ensuring human and ecosystem well-being (medium evidence, high agreement).
Warming of 1.5°C is not considered ‘safe’ for most nations, communities,
ecosystems and sectors and poses significant risks to natural and human systems
as compared to current warming of 1°C (high confidence) {Cross-Chapter Box 12
in Chapter 5}. The impacts of 1.5°C would disproportionately affect
disadvantaged and vulnerable populations through food insecurity, higher food
prices, income losses, lost livelihood opportunities, adverse health impacts,
and population displacements (medium evidence, high agreement) {5.2.1}. Some of
the worst impacts on sustainable development are expected to be felt among
agricultural and coastal dependent livelihoods, indigenous people, children and
the elderly, poor labourers, poor urban dwellers in
African cities, and people and ecosystems in the Arctic and
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) (medium evidence, high agreement) {5.2.1
Box 5.3, Chapter 3 Box 3.5, Cross-Chapter Box 9 in Chapter 4}.
Climate Adaptation and Sustainable Development
Prioritisation of
sustainable development and meeting the SDGs is consistent with efforts to
adapt to climate change (high confidence). Many strategies for
sustainable development enable transformational adaptation for a 1.5°C warmer
world, provided attention is paid to reducing poverty in all its forms and to
promoting equity and participation in decision-making (medium evidence, high
agreement). As such, sustainable development has the potential to significantly
reduce systemic vulnerability, enhance adaptive capacity, and promote
livelihood security for poor and disadvantaged populations (high confidence)
{5.3.1}.
Synergies between adaptation strategies and the SDGs are expected to
hold true in a 1.5°C warmer world, across sectors and contexts (medium evidence,
medium agreement). Synergies between adaptation and sustainable
development are significant for agriculture and health, advancing SDGs 1
(extreme poverty), 2 (hunger), 3 (healthy lives and well-being), and 6 (clean
water) (robust evidence, medium agreement) {5.3.2}. Ecosystem- and
community-based adaptation, along with the incorporation of
indigenous and local knowledge, advances synergies with SDGs 5 (gender
equality), 10 (reducing inequalities), and 16 (inclusive societies), as
exemplified in drylands and the Arctic (high evidence, medium agreement)
{5.3.2, Box 5.1, Cross-Chapter Box 10 in Chapter 4}.
Adaptation strategies can result in trade-offs with and among the
SDGs (medium evidence, high agreement). Strategies that advance one
SDG may create negative consequences for other SDGs, for instance SDGs 3 versus
7 (health and energy consumption) and agricultural adaptation and SDG 2 (food
security) versus SDGs 3, 5, 6, 10, 14, and 15 (medium evidence, medium
agreement) {5.3.2}.
Pursuing place-specific adaptation pathways toward a 1.5°C warmer
world has the potential forsignificant positive
outcomes for well-being, in countries at all levels of development (medium
evidence, high agreement). Positive outcomes emerge when adaptation
pathways (i) ensure a diversity of adaptation options
based on people’s values and trade-offs they consider acceptable, (ii) maximise synergies with sustainable development through
inclusive, participatory, and deliberative processes, and (iii) facilitate
equitable transformation. Yet, such pathways would be difficult to achieve
without redistributive measures to overcome path dependencies, uneven power
structures, and entrenched social inequalities (medium evidence, high
agreement) {5.3.3}.
Mitigation and Sustainable Development
The deployment of mitigation options consistent with 1.5°C pathways
leads to multiple synergies across a range of sustainable development dimensions.
At the same time, the rapid pace and magnitude of change that would be required
to limit warming to 1.5°C, if not carefully managed, would lead to trade-offs
with some sustainable development dimensions (high confidence). The
number of synergies between mitigation response options and sustainable
development exceeds the number of tradeoffs in energy demand and supply
sectors, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) and for oceans (very
high confidence) {Figure 5.3, Table 5.3 available as a supplementary pdf }. 1.5°C pathways indicate robust synergies particularly
for the SDGs 3 (health), 7 (energy), 12 (responsible consumption and
production), and 14 (oceans) (very high confidence) {5.4.2, Figure 5.4}. For
SDGs 1 (poverty), 2 (hunger), 6 (water), and 7 (energy), there is a risk of
trade-offs or negative side-effects from stringent mitigation actions
compatible with 1.5°C (medium evidence, high agreement) {5.4.2}.
Appropriately designed mitigation actions to reduce energy demand
can advance multiple SDGs simultaneously. Pathways compatible with 1.5°C that
feature low energy demand show the most pronounced synergies and the lowest
number of trade-offs with respect to sustainable development
and the SDGs (very high confidence). Accelerating energy
efficiency in all sectors has synergies with SDG 7, 9,11, 12, 16, 17 {5.4.1,
Figure 5.3, Table 5.2} (robust evidence, high agreement). Low demand pathways,
which would reduce or completely avoid the reliance on Bioenergy with Carbon
Capture and Storage (BECCS) in 1.5°C pathways, would result in significantly
reduced pressure on food security, lower food prices, and fewer people at risk
of hunger (medium evidence, high agreement) {5.4.2, Figure 5.4}.
The impacts of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) options on SDGs depend on
the type of options and the scale of deployment (high confidence). If
poorly implemented, CDR options such as bioenergy, BECCS and AFOLU would lead
to trade-offs. Appropriate design and implementation requires
considering local people´s needs, biodiversity, and other sustainable
development dimensions (very high confidence) {5.4.1.3, Cross-Chapter Box 7 in
Chapter 3}. The design of the mitigation portfolios and policy instruments to
limit warming to 1.5°C will largely determine the overall synergies and
trade-offs between mitigation and sustainable development (very high
confidence). Redistributive policies that shield the poor and vulnerable can
resolve tradeoffs for a range of SDGs (medium evidence, high agreement).
Individual mitigation options are associated
with both positive and negative interactions with the SDGs (very high
confidence) {5.4.1}. However, appropriate choices across the mitigation
portfolio can help to maximize positive side-effects while minimizing negative
side-effects (high confidence) {5.4.2, 5.5.2}. Investment needs for
complementary policies resolving trade-offs with a range of SDGs are only a
small fraction of the overall mitigation investments in 1.5°C pathways (medium
evidence, high agreement) {5.4.2, Figure 5.5}. Integration of mitigation with
adaptation and sustainable development compatible with 1.5°C requires a systems
perspective (high confidence) {5.4.2, 5.5.2}.
Mitigation measures consistent with 1.5°C create high risks for
sustainable development in countries
with high dependency on fossil fuels for revenue and employment
generation (high confidence). These risks are caused by the
reduction of global demand affecting mining activity and export revenues and
challenges to rapidly decrease high carbon intensity of the domestic economy
(robust evidence, high agreement) {5.4.1.2, Box 5.2}. Targeted policies that
promote diversification of the economy and the energy sector could ease this
transition (medium evidence, high agreement) {5.4.1.2, Box 5.2}.
Sustainable Development Pathways to 1.5°C
Sustainable development broadly supports and often enables the
fundamental societal and systems transformations that would be required for
limiting warming to 1.5°C (high confidence). Simulated pathways
that feature the most sustainable worlds (e.g., Shared Socioeconomic Pathways
(SSP)1) are associated with relatively lower mitigation and adaptation
challenges and limit warming to 1.5°C at
comparatively lower mitigation costs. In contrast, development pathways with
high fragmentation, inequality and poverty (e.g., SSP3) are associated with
comparatively higher mitigation and adaptation challenges. In such pathways, it
is not possible to limit warming to 1.5°C for the vast majority of the
integrated assessment models (medium evidence, high agreement) {5.5.2}. In all
SSPs, mitigation costs substantially increase in
1.5°C pathways compared to 2°C pathways. No pathway in the literature
integrates or achieves all 17 SDGs (high confidence) {5.5.2}. Real-world
experiences at the project level show that the actual integration between
adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development is challenging as it
requires reconciling tradeoffs across sectors and spatial scales (very high
confidence) {5.5.1}.
Without societal transformation and rapid implementation of ambitious
greenhouse gas reduction measures, pathways to limiting warming to 1.5°C and
achieving sustainable development will be exceedingly difficult, if not
impossible, to achieve (high confidence). The potential for pursuing such
pathways differs between and within nations and regions, due to different
development trajectories, opportunities, and challenges (very high confidence)
{5.5.3.2, Figure 5.1}. Limiting warming to 1.5°C would
require all countries and non-state actors to strengthen their contributions
without delay. This could be achieved through sharing of efforts based on
bolder and more committed cooperation, with support for those with the least
capacity to adapt, mitigate, and transform (medium evidence, high agreement)
{5.5.3.1, 5.5.3.2}. Current efforts toward reconciling low-carbon trajectories
and reducing inequalities, including those that avoid difficult trade-offs
associated with transformation, are partially successful yet demonstrate
notable obstacles (medium evidence, medium agreement) {5.5.3.3 Box 5.3,
Cross-Chapter Box 13 in this Chapter}.
Social justice and equity are core aspects of climate-resilient
development pathways for transformational social change. Addressing challenges
and widening opportunities between and within countries and communities would
be necessary to achieve sustainable development and limit warming
to 1.5°C, without making the poor and disadvantaged worse off (high
confidence). Identifying and navigating inclusive and socially
acceptable pathways toward low-carbon, climate-resilient futures is a
challenging yet important endeavour, fraught with
moral, practical, and political difficulties and inevitable
trade-offs (very high confidence) {5.5.2, 5.5.3.3 Box 5.3}. It entails
deliberation and problem-solving processes to negotiate societal values,
well-being, risks, and resilience and determine what is desirable and fair, and
to whom (medium evidence, high agreement). Pathways that encompass joint,
iterative planning and transformative visions, for instance in Pacific SIDS
like Vanuatu and in urban contexts, show potential for liveable
and sustainable futures (high confidence) {5.5.3.1, 5.5.3.3, Figure 5.6, Box
5.3, Cross-Chapter Box
13 in this Chapter}.
The fundamental societal and systemic changes to achieve sustainable
development, eradicate poverty and reduce inequalities while limiting warming
to 1.5°C would require a set of institutional, social, cultural, economic and
technological conditions to be met (high confidence). The coordination
and monitoring of policy actions across sectors and spatial scales is essential
to support sustainable development in 1.5°C warmer conditions (very high
confidence) {5.6.2, Box 5.3}. External funding and technology transfer better
support these efforts when they consider recipients’ context-specific needs
(medium evidence, high agreement) {5.6.1}. Inclusive processes can facilitate
transformations by ensuring participation, transparency, capacity building, and
iterative social learning (high confidence) {5.5.3.3, Cross-Chapter Box 13,
5.6.3}. Attention to power asymmetries and unequal opportunities for
development, among and within countries is key to adopting 1.5°C-compatible
development pathways that benefit all populations (high confidence) {5.5.3,
5.6.4, Box 5.3}. Re-examining individual and collective values could help spur
urgent, ambitious, and cooperative change (medium evidence, high agreement)
{5.5.3, 5.6.5}.
©1999-2023, John R. Mathiason, All Rights Reserved.