Harmonising climate mitigation and sustainable development outcomes

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4358820/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Harmonising climate mitigation and sustainable development outcomes

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4358820/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Actions to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions can contribute to a country’s wider development targets, a concept emphasised in the most recent IPCC report on mitigation. Almost every country globally has defined their Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs, which provide a formalised mechanism to communicate these commitments. Driven by the urgency imposed by the decade of action, and opportunities presented by ongoing NDC updates, we argue for a more explicit indicator-based alignment of these pledges with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Here, we illustrate a methodology for quantifying and aligning NDC actions with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) performance. We demonstrate this approach using four established SDG indicators using data from 196 countries, from a diverse range of socio-economic contexts. In doing so, we highlight the potential for harmonised emissions reductions and SDG action to underpin the transition towards a more sustainable and resilient future for people and the planet.

Environmental Policy

Mitigation

climate policy

sustainable development

The IPCC Sixth Assessment report on mitigation (WPIII) has emphasised the need for enhanced coordination between mitigation and development policy, recognising a) that historical growth in human development is associated with a greater per capita level of GHG emissions; and b) that national conditions and capabilities will inform different priorities in pursuing Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) growth and emissions reduction¹. In other words, reaching a ‘sustainable development corridor’, where reduced per capita GHG emissions are paired with improved levels of human development, requires policy pathways based on each country’s starting point. Nations face continued resource constraints, complex synergies and trade-offs in policymaking, and other barriers in the political and financing realms. The large number of positive and negative interactions between SDG targets themselves^2,3, including from a transboundary perspective⁴, adds further complexity. There is an increasing need to demonstrate the impacts of mitigation policy on a country’s development trajectory in order to structure decision-making in practice and to provide an overall direction of development that nations can commit to. The nationally-determined contributions (NDC) revision process provides an opportunity to connect these dual aspects and shape the design of projects and policies that can deliver on multiple fronts.

Actions undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are known to have benefits across a range of development outcomes beyond climate change mitigation itself^2,5. On the other hand, ill-planned action to cut carbon emissions can present detrimental trade-offs with a variety of SDGs, potentially also reducing support for the needed actions to achieve the Paris Agreement. With the world not on track to achieve the vast majority of its SDG targets⁶, coordinated mitigation actions and policies should be used as a tool to target development outcomes where they are most needed, accounting for established co-benefits and trade-offs between them⁷. Recognising the various ways mitigation action can translate into development progress can help to motivate and strengthen urgent action, including the required financing, especially in the most resource-strapped countries.

The Paris Agreement offers a reporting mechanism through which to assess and compare countries’ approaches to integrating mitigation and national development goals. This framework, however, is not formally aligned with the SDGs, and only a handful of countries assess the connections between their NDCs actions and SDGs achievements². Furthermore, the national strategies for achieving mitigation and development targets can differ vastly between countries. As specified by the agreement’s ‘ambition mechanism’, all 197 countries party to the agreement are expected to update and communicate their NDCs to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to strengthen their mitigation and adaptation responses to climate change⁸. As of 2024, the majority of countries (90%) have updated their first or interim NDCs, while only 7% have officially submitted a second NDC⁹.

The need for emissions reductions is greatest among middle and high-income countries, with industrialised countries contributing a much higher proportion of current global emissions than their less-developed counterparts on a per capita basis. At the same time, high-income countries remain off track to achieve their SDG targets, averaging around 80 percent achievement across the 17 SDGs according to major global indices¹⁰ (Figure 1). Notably, they fare poorly in the environmental targets (SDGs 12 through 15) owing to disproportionate environmental degradation, which is linked to higher and unsustainable levels of consumption and waste generation¹¹. Measures taken to reduce emissions can target these outstanding gaps by linking them to other benefits, such as reductions in air and water pollution. On the other hand, lower-income countries generate fewer per capita emissions but face larger gaps in achieving social and economic development targets; mitigation measures can therefore target these social and economic indicators where improvement is most needed.

Here, we address the trajectory of existing mitigation commitments in the context of SDG performance and demonstrate a means to measure progress toward the IPCC concept of a ‘sustainable development corridor’. Due to limited guidance provided early in the submission process, there is extremely large variation in the content, form, scope and coverage of NDCs^13,14. Thus, there are numerous mechanisms available to decision-makers to increase ambition levels, including introducing or strengthening GHG targets, non-GHG sectoral targets, related policies and actions, and so on. These targets, policies, and actions are distributed across various sectors, focusing on major infrastructure types (e.g. energy, transport, industry, and waste) as well as natural resource sectors and land uses, primarily forestry and agriculture. Updating these commitments through the SDG lens can lead to more targeted, comprehensive ambitions in the next NDC cycles¹⁵.

We emphasise a new dimension to previous initiatives that have sought to examine the points of intersection between the mitigation and sustainable development agendas. These have largely focused on textual analysis of NDCs, including by using keywords¹⁶ or manual coding of textual content¹⁷, with linkages expressed qualitatively through interpretation of their wording. The growing literature on SDG interlinkages and interactions^2,18,19 provides a means to quantify the extent of SDG synergy and trade-off potential²⁰ and implement them in policy²¹, including from a sectoral perspective²². Building on these approaches, avenues for policy coherence with NDCs have been identified at the country level²³, as have priority areas for thematic coherence between the two agendas, such as energy efficiency, sustainable forest management, and sustainable agriculture²⁴. Thematic areas found to be under-prioritised in NDC activities have similarly been identified²⁵, and development impacts of the NDCs have been assessed at the local scale²⁶, with calls for targeted action to be mainstreamed throughout project lifecycles²⁷. While this body of knowledge supports the concept of low-carbon development and provides a basis for addressing potential alignment between these two agendas, little research has been done to quantitatively link up mitigation and development aspiration.

Assessments of the societal transformations required to achieve the Paris Agreement’s objectives²⁸ offer some insight into the advantages and trade-offs of the sectoral mitigation actions found most commonly throughout the NDCs (see Supplementary Information for a summary of these actions). The potential for various types of infrastructure to influence sustainable development outcomes is well-documented^19,29, as are the extensive SDG impacts of measures related to land use and restoration^30,31. Not surprisingly, the development of renewable energy generation capacity has been identified as the most feasible direction to meet climate mitigation objectives³², although the early implementation of stringent demand reductions and efficiencies are also predicted to increase flexibility to meet emissions targets in the long run³³. While proportional contributions from the transport sector have been considered difficult to achieve³⁴, a nuanced approach to identifying effective emissions reductions measures and policies can realise greater mitigation potential within the sector³⁵. In the waste sector, where the large role of methane in global warming is recognised, a range of potential actions can come together as part of an effective management and mitigation strategy³⁶. However, the efficacy of such a strategy has been shown to be context-specific, based on factors such as the characteristics of the waste stream³⁷.

Among the land use sectors, large-scale afforestation and reforestation are considered key components of carbon dioxide removal efforts³⁸. In agriculture, policy options through which to increase mitigation ambition remain comparatively diverse³⁹, and efforts to integrate non-uniform mitigation targets into national policy frameworks have proven challenging⁴⁰. In addition to highlighting potential areas of focus for policymakers designing mitigation strategies, trade-offs between certain types of policies and development outcomes in key areas such as food security and energy access have been identified⁴¹.

In Figure 2, we depict the objective of coordinated mitigation action between GHG emissions reductions and sustainable development for countries at different starting points in both of these measures, based on the IPCC concept of a ‘sustainable development corridor’. The latter is represented by overall national progress toward all 169 social, economic, and environmental targets, of which each country will have achievement gaps according to their context and characteristics, which can be targeted by NDC mitigation actions.

We demonstrate this concept in practice for four indicators used in the Sustainable Development Report¹⁰ to represent SDG target performance. We identify where unconditional sectoral actions included in NDCs can directly enhance target performance, and its magnitude if implemented as committed, focusing here on the impact of specific NDC actions on relevant indicators for four SDG targets: renewable energy (7.2); clean cooking (7.1); municipal solid waste generation (12.5); and deforestation (15.2). While desired targets are generally defined at the national level⁴², we use the long-term objective defined by the Sustainable Development Report¹⁰ for each indicator to improve comparability, representing ‘full achievement’ of the target: renewable energy (55%); clean cooking (100%), municipal solid waste per capita (0.1 kg/day); and permanent deforestation (0%). Calculating changes in SDG target outcomes and emissions across these four indicators (see Methods for details), we observe varying levels of sustainable development benefit from current NDC commitments, as depicted in Figure 3.

Renewable energy commitments – the most commonly reported mitigation action in the NDCs – show high potential both to improve energy security as measured by SDG 7 and to achieve mitigation targets, although only 36% of countries commit to reaching a long-term target of at least 55% renewable share. While baseline performance varies by income group, countries classed as lower-middle income (LMIC) report the most quantified actions (59% of countries), followed by upper-middle income (UMIC) (56%), and low-income (LIC) (50%) countries, with high-income countries (HIC) at only 22%. In terms of magnitude, UMIC average around 33% improvement on baseline levels, followed by LIC (32%), LMIC (30%), and HIC (23%).

In contrast, access to efficient cookstoves is strongly correlated to income group, with many low-income countries scoring poorly as a baseline. Most targets related to the implementation of efficient cookstoves therefore focus on these low- and lower-middle income countries (29 and 22% of each group respectively), with large gains in access expected as a consequence of these NDCs - an average of 49% improvements on baseline levels for LIC and 11% for LMIC. Due to the reliance on wood and biomass for cooking in many of these countries, emissions reductions are strongly evident as a share of the overall energy emissions budget. Only 31% of countries actually commit to the long-term objective of 100% access, although many middle- and high-income countries have a high baseline of >95% access.

Despite improvements in recycling and compost rates, higher income countries tend to score more poorly on indicators of municipal solid waste generation given their higher consumption and waste generation rates. Fewer countries report quantified waste targets, with the majority found among LMIC (24% of the income group), however larger improvements on baseline performance are pledged in LIC (40%), and UMIC (24%). Overall, only 3% of countries are in position to achieve the 0.1 kg/capita/day long-term objective, mostly through ambitious landfill and recycling initiatives in a handful of low- and lower-middle income countries. These NDC commitments contribute to limited overall mitigation reductions, although given different waste stream content in each country (e.g. recyclable and organic material having been sorted to a greater extent in HIC), the emissions reduction potential of a percentage reduction may vary.

Afforestation and reforestation targets suggest moderate to large sectoral mitigation potential owing to increased carbon uptake, with 25% of countries committing to forestation programmes that have potential to counteract deforestation trends. However, countries that lack quantified commitments show a negative trajectory as continued deforestation leads to increased emissions in the sector. While high income countries generally score well as a deforestation baseline, the limited areas of existing or remaining forested land in many of these regions mean that reforestation potential is often greater. On average, LMICs show the most commitment to improving on current deforestation rates through their NDC actions (28% of the income group), while these numbers are only 14%, 5%, and 3% for LIC, UMIC, and HIC, respectively.

The importance of utilising the SDG framework as a basis for evaluating climate action is now recognised as a major development in the IPCC mitigation assessment¹, which needs to be operationalised in reporting and implementation mechanisms. We emphasise two main points. First, as shown in our analysis of representative indicators, existing commitments for mitigation action across the majority of countries are not ambitious enough to propel related development outcomes to a level considered to be ‘full achievement’ of the relevant SDG targets. Second, from the perspective of the NDC formulation process, there is a need to be more specific and targeted in outlining commitments in line with a consistent, measurable approach. This learning can be utilised to set the agenda for actors involved in the ongoing NDC revision process, specifically the stakeholders and decision-makers in national governments and academia tasked with ensuring the two-degree target is met.

Impacts of mitigation action can be magnified through co-benefits

Here, we have presented the example of four specific indicators through mitigation policy, linked to a specific SDG target, but in practice the benefits to society are much more diverse. Although many of these co-benefits are not easily quantified⁴³, dedicated studies show potential effects to be significant. Renewables are key to ensuring economic resilience in the energy sector, and were the only energy source that posted a growth in demand during the initial shock of the COVID-19 lockdowns, while demand in the sector overall declined globally by 3.8%⁴⁴. Access to clean cookstoves translates into a host of socioeconomic net benefits, including morbidity and mortality reduction, time saved for participation in education and the economy, and avoided health care and emissions costs⁴⁵. Increased landfilling including MSW threatens environmental integrity and human health⁴⁶, resulting in a wide range of pollution outcomes including groundwater, air, odour, and marine pollution from runoff, as well as local population exposure to health risks, including carcinogenic material. Afforestation and reforestation enhance ecosystem diversity and the ability of natural systems to provide nature-based services through increased soil and water quality, climate regulation, pollination, and the provision of resources, among other things⁴⁷. Given the importance of health, education, economic, ecosystem and other outcomes to future national prosperity, stronger mitigation action should be seen as a catalyst for delivering in these crucial domains. As these linkages are established further, they should be embedded holistically in the NDC revision process.

A roadmap for mitigation action aligned with sustainable development needs

The current NDC landscape should be reframed so that the pursuit of enhanced benefits through stronger commitments is evident both to high-income countries as well as lower-income countries, which may justify less ambition due to their lower historical emissions responsibility. This should use a more evidence-based approach that operationalises NDC commitments to deliver on development benefits tailored to each specific country context. Figure 4 proposes a process for decision-makers to strengthen mitigation-development outcomes in ongoing NDC revisions, stressing in particular the importance of developing quantified sectoral actions (still lacking for many sectors) and the shaping of these to structure appropriate policies and targets for each country’s development trajectory.

A consistent reporting process should also provide estimations of emissions reductions associated with proposed mitigation actions. While this exists to some extent in the current NDCs, many of these quantified GHG impacts are not reported. Country-specific reporting can allow policymakers to capture differences at a more granular level between factors such as renewable generation technologies, types of cookstove, waste streams, or forest categories. While NDC target enhancement or ambition has not been found to be affected by economic or structural factors, the importance of stakeholder consultation in this continued process is significant⁴⁸. Furthermore, differentiating between quantified conditional and unconditional mitigation commitments can reveal the extent of SDG progress possible with additional finance⁴⁹, and provide an impetus for financers to justify and direct additional funding toward the dual objectives of emissions reduction and performance in specific socioeconomic or environmental outcomes.

Role for the research community in facilitating effective mitigation policy

More robust methods for assessing and tracking countries’ progress toward climate and sustainable development goals are needed, providing opportunities to address some of the methodological shortcomings raised with existing low carbon development and interlinkages frameworks. This includes consolidating the vast web of policy commitments into an improved NDC reporting framework clearly linked to outcomes and which can be used to more fairly compare contributions from countries at different stages of socio-economic development. Increasing the selection of indicators will give decision-makers a greater ability to target mitigation strategies to desired outcomes. While these can draw on established indicator sets as done here, they should be justified in terms of the quantitative interactions included in the analysis; for example, examining the links between transport mitigation targets and road safety and satisfaction⁵⁰; industrial or waste pollution and population health⁵¹; or specific agricultural practices and water or food security⁵².

Given the ever-increasing length and complexity of NDC policies throughout the revision process, manual assessment and comparison of these documents at a global scale becomes infeasible. We see potential for natural language models to synthesise relevant quantitative commitments contained in the NDCs in order to facilitate policymaking. Enhanced text analysis driven by machine-learning methods may be used to extract relevant information on mitigation action across all sectors, which can more easily be updated as new policies are created⁵³. Such models are already being developed or in use on SDG interlinkages or policy integration⁵⁴. These can provide a more granular assessment of sectoral actions and their proposed impacts on development targets, bringing the climate science community behind standardised metrics used across countries within the global reporting system.

Greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets, which are reported at the economy-wide scale for the vast majority of countries, must be underpinned by actions in order to be achieved. This emphasises the need for a consistent and transparent target-setting and reporting process in order to direct resources to appropriate actions, to identify gaps, and to update commitments where targets are misaligned with desired impacts. This can create a policy environment where ambition levels and targets can be realistically set, which can provide momentum for the development of new policies, action plans, governance structures and capacities in the climate domain⁵⁵. Furthermore, aligning climate finance with the development imperative will be fundamental to avoiding perceptions that it is unfair or self-serving.

Alignment with a country’s development objectives increases the motivation for national action to reduce GHG emissions. A dual scale-up of climate and development ambition, characterised by the integration of mitigation and SDG indicators that we have exemplified here, is essential to direct countries along a sustainable and low-carbon trajectory as called for in the IPCC mitigation report. Harmonising climate and development outcomes across countries and contexts, regardless of starting points, can provide a clearer picture of what needs to be implemented, where, and by how much if we are to keep global temperature change to two degrees. With NDC contributions under continued revision, such a discussion will provide clarity and robustness to national climate policy for the remainder of the delivery timeframe for these important global agendas.

We aim to demonstrate the integration of quantified SDG targets and emissions reductions, consolidating quantified NDC commitments that are expressed in various ways (e.g. % change, % of total, project sizes) for indicators representing four SDG targets. We first categorised specific sectoral targets and actions by type across the most recent NDC revisions for all countries in the energy, transport, industry, and waste sectors, as well as the major land use categories of forestry and agriculture (see Supplementary table 1). Where applicable, targets related to quantified actions (e.g. “30% renewable energy share in electricity production by 2030” or “Scale up access and adoption of 2 million efficient cook stoves up to 2030”) in each of these sectors were identified.

We use the Sustainable Development Report¹⁰ to identify SDG target indicators whose progress can be explicitly or directly measured by quantitative sectoral targets or actions found in the NDCs. We estimate how a subset of these SDG outcomes across countries are projected to change with the implementation of NDC targets as currently stated. We focus on a cross-sectoral subset of four indicators whose adjusted performance can be calculated using the targets established in the NDCs: (1) renewable energy generation; (2) access to clean cookstoves; (3) municipal solid waste generation; (4) deforestation. At the same time, we quantify the equivalent mitigation implications associated with the commitments, using the assumptions below. We use 2015 as the baseline year, corresponding to the signing of the Paris Agreement.

Renewable energy generation is shown as a change from 2015 levels, first by using overall renewable targets or growth (as %) stated in NDCs⁹. Where NDC commitments are instead expressed in terms of individual projects or generation values (e.g. “Extension of National Wind Plan to 2,000 MW by 2030”), these values are added to current renewable capacity, derived from the IRENA global dataset⁵⁶, to estimate the NDC-based target. We assume zero emissions for renewable technologies, which is factored into the emissions reduction calculation (obtained from the UNFCCC emissions registry⁹ and subtracting transport-related emissions). We do not account for indirect (embodied) emissions of renewable energy generation which are insignificant in relation to savings⁵⁷ and will depend on a variety of other factors (technology, materials, transport, etc.).

Access to clean cooking is shown as a percent of total population access, with a ‘current’ baseline defined by the Sustainable Development Report¹⁰. Where NDC commitments are made to implement a certain number of efficient cookstoves, the implications for clean cooking access across the overall population are estimated using assumptions from UN DESA⁵⁸ data on average household size by country. Change in clean cooking access is derived first from a stated access rate target or growth (%), or alternatively the number of additional cook stoves committed in the NDC. Emissions reductions are estimated at 4 kg CO₂ / efficient cookstove per day, as per Wilson et al.⁵⁹.

Municipal solid waste (MSW) actions and targets comprise quantified NDC commitments on reduced landfill, recycling and compost (e.g. “Reduce solid waste disposed in landfills to 60% from 80% by 2025” or “Increase recycling by X%“). Total country-level waste composition data (total MSW, recycling and compost rates) are taken from World Bank Data Catalog⁶⁰. Recycled and composted waste shares are subtracted from the total waste stream before calculating estimates of further MSW reductions linked to the NDC commitments. Achievement is attained once per capita MSW generation is equal or lower than 0.1 kg/capita/day¹⁰. Emissions reductions from reduced per capita MSW generation were estimated at 0.58 t CO₂/t MSW⁶¹.

Deforestation commitments were calculated as a projected net increase from the 2015 baseline⁶⁰ for nationally stated targets (e.g. “Increase in the forest cover from 6 to 10 percent by the year 2030”). Where non-agricultural forest commitments are expressed in hectares (e.g. “100,000 ha reforestation by 2030”), these values are added to baseline coverage in hectares to estimate the national target, accounting for the commitments being either annual or cumulative in the afforestation programme. We apply the most recent 3-year average deforestation rate¹⁰ annually until 2030 to approximate cumulative deforestation and add the estimated growth from combined NDC commitments (in added % or hectares). A target deforestation rate of 0 is designated full SDG achievement of the target¹⁰, although this is exceeded for some countries with large afforestation commitments. We estimate emissions reductions at 10 t CO₂/ha in line with typical sequestration rates for afforestation / reforestation, in tonnes of carbon per hectare per year, considered a standard for tropical regions which represent a large share of significant NDC forestry commitments⁶².

IPCC, Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. (2022) : Climate Change (2022) Mitigation of Climate Change. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA
Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M, Policy (2016) Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534:320–322
Fuso Nerini F et al (2019) Connecting climate action with other sustainable development goals. Nat Sustain 2:674–680
Xiao H, Bao S, Ren J et al (2024) Global transboundary synergies and trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals from an integrated sustainability perspective. Nat Commun 15:500
Roy J, Some S, Das N, Pathak M (2021) Demand side climate change mitigation actions and SDGs: literature review with systematic evidence search. Environ Res Lett 16(4):043003
Malekpour S et al (2023) What scientists need to do to accelerate progress on the SDGs. Nature 621:250–254
Cohen B, Cowie A, Babiker M, Leip A, Smith P (2021) Co-benefits and trade-offs of climate change mitigation actions and the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Prod Consum 26:805–813
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) The Paris Agreement (2015)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2024) NDC Registry. https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NDCStaging/Pages/All.aspx
Sachs JD, Lafortune G, Fuller G, Drumm E (2023) Implementing the SDG Stimulus. Sustainable Development Report 2023. Dublin: Dublin University Press (2023)
Scherer L, Behrens P, de Koning A, Heijungs R, Sprecher B, Tukker A (2018) Trade-offs between social and environmental Sustainable Development Goals. Environ Sci Policy 90:65–72
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2024) Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - Detailed data by Party. Available online: https://di.unfccc.int/detailed_data_by_party
Taibi F-Z, Konrad S (2018) Pocket Guide to NDCs under the UNFCCC
Roelfsema M et al (2020) Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement. Nat Commun 11
Brandi C, Dzebo A, Janetschek H (2017) The Case for Connecting the Implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik. Briefing Paper 21/2017
Northrop E, Biru H, Lima S, Bouye M, Song R (2016) Examining the Alignment Between the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions and Sustainable Development Goals. Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute
Dzebo A, Janetschek H, Brandi C, Iacobuta G (2019) Connections between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda: the case for policy coherence. SEI Working Paper. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm
Weitz N, Carlsen H, Nilsson M et al (2018) Towards systemic and contextual priority setting for implementing the 2030 Agenda. Sustain Sci 13:531–548
Fuso Nerini F et al (2018) Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat Energy 3(1):10–15
Coenen J, Glass LM, Sanderink L (2022) Two degrees and the SDGs: a network analysis of the interlinkages between transnational climate actions and the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain Sci 17:1489–1510
Bennich T, Persson Å, Beaussart R, Allen C, Malekpour S (2023) Recurring patterns of SDG interlinkages and how they can advance the 2030 Agenda. One Earth 6(11):1465–1476
Gjorgievski VZ, Mihajloska E, Abazi A, Markovska N (2021) Sustainable development goals-climate action nexus: Quantification of synergies and trade-offs. Clean Technol Environ Policy 24:303–313
Nguyen Q, Janetscheck H, Iacobuta G, Dzebo A (2018) Pathways for policy coherence in implementation of NDC and SDGs in Viet Nam and the role of civil society. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Hanoi, Vietnam
Janetschek H, Brandi C, Dzebo A, Hackmann B (2020) The 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement: voluntary contributions towards thematic policy coherence. Clim Policy 20(4):430–442
Dickin S, Dzebo A (2018) Missing in climate action: concrete health activities in nationally determined contributions. The Lancet, Volume 2, Issue 4, E144
Dal Maso M, Olsen KH, Dong Y, Pedersen MB, Hauschild MZ (2020) Sustainable development impacts of nationally determined contributions: assessing the case of mini-grids in Kenya. Clim Policy 20(7):815–831
Wernersson L, Román S, Fuso Nerini F, Mutyaba R, Stratton-Short S, Adshead D (2024) Mainstreaming systematic climate action in energy infrastructure to support the sustainable development goals. npj Clim Action 3:28
TWI2050. Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Report prepared by The World in 2050 initiative. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria (2018)
Thacker S, Adshead D, Fay M, Hallegatte S, Harvey M, Meller H, O'Regan N, Rozenberg J, Watkins G, Hall JW (2019) Infrastructure for sustainable development. Nat Sustain 2(4):324–331
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2018) Transforming Food and Agriculture to Achieve the SDGs. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
International Resource Panel (IRP) (2019) Land Restoration for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: An International Resource Panel Think Piece. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya
Gielen D et al (2019) The role of renewable energy in the global energy transformation. Energy Strategy Reviews 24:38–50
Rogelj J et al (2015) Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5°C. Nat Clim Change 5:519–527
Pietzcker RC, Longden T, Chen W, Fu S, Kriegler E, Kyle P, Luderer G (2014) Long-term transport energy demand and climate policy: Alternative visions on Transport Decarbonization in Energy-Economy Models. Energy 64:95–108
Gota S, Huizenga C, Peet K, Medimorec N, Bakker (2019) Decarbonising transport to achieve Paris Agreement targets. Energ Effi 12:363–386
Maria C, Góis J, Leitão A (2020) Challenges and perspectives of greenhouse gases emissions from municipal solid waste management in Angola. Energy Rep 6(1):364–369
Liu Y, Xing P, Liu J (2017) Environmental performance evaluation of different municipal solid waste management scenarios in China. Resour Conserv Recycling 125:98–106
Rogelj J et al (2018) Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5°C. Nat Clim Change 8:325–332
Richards MB, Wollenberg E, van Vuuren D (2018) National contributions to climate change mitigation from agriculture: allocating a global target. Clim Policy 18(10):1271–1285
Fellmann T et al (2018) Major challenges of integrating agriculture into climate change mitigation policy frameworks. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 23:451–468
Doelman JC, Stehfest E, Tabeau A, van Meijl H (2019) Making the Paris agreement climate targets consistent with food security objectives. Global Food Secur 23:93–103
Adshead D, Thacker S, Fuldauer LI, Hall JW (2019) Delivering on the sustainable development goals through long-term infrastructure planning. Glob Environ Change 59:101975
Deng H-M, Liang Q-M, Liu L-J, Anadon LD (2018) Co-benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation: a review and classification by type, mitigation sector, and geography. Environ Res Lett 12(12)
IEA. Global Energy Review (2020) The impacts of the Covid-19 crisis on global energy demand and CO2 emissions (2020)
Khavari B, Ramirez C, Jeuland M et al (2023) A geospatial approach to understanding clean cooking challenges in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat Sustain 6:447–457
Lebelo K, Mochane MJ (2021) Chapter 8 - The environmental impact of municipal solid waste and the application of biosurfactants in the bioremediation of polluted environments. Green Sustainable Process for Chemical and Environmental Engineering and Science, pp 129–161
Grammatikopoulou I, Vačkářová D (2021) The value of forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis at the European scale and application to national ecosystem accounting. Ecosyst Serv 48:101262
Peterson L, van Asselt H, Hermwille L et al (2023) What determines climate ambition? Analysing NDC enhancement with a mixed-method design. npj Clim Action 2:21
Campagnolo L, Davide M (2019) Can the Paris deal boost SDGs achievement? An assessment of climate mitigation co-benefits or side-effects on poverty and inequality. World Dev 122:96–109
Abou-Zeid M, Fujii S (2015) Travel satisfaction effects of changes in public transport usage. Transportation 43:301–314
Rahman MM, Alam K, Velayutham E (2021) Is industrial pollution detrimental to public health? Evidence from the world’s most industrialised countries. BMC Public Health 21:1175
Chukalla AD, Krol MS, Hoekstra AY (2015) Green and blue water footprint reduction in irrigated agriculture: effect of irrigation techniques, irrigation strategies and mulching, Hydrol. Earth Syst Sci 19:4877–4891
Adshead D, Akay H, Duwig C et al (2023) A mission-driven approach for converting research into climate action. npj Clim Action 2:13
Sánchez-Roncero A et al (2023) The Sustainable Development Goals and Aerospace Engineering: A critical note through Artificial Intelligence. Results Eng 17:100940
Röser F, Widerberg O, Höhne N, Day T (2020) Ambition in the making: analysing the preparation and implementation process of the Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement. Clim Policy 20(4):415–429
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) (2020) Data & Statistics. Available online: https://www.irena.org/Statistics
Pehl M et al (2017) Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling. Nat Energy 2:939–945
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2019) Household Size & Composition. Available online: https://population.un.org/Household/#/countries/
Wilson DL, Talancon DR, Winslow RL, Linares X, Gadgil AJ (2016) Avoided emissions of a fuel-efficient biomass cookstove dwarf embodied emissions. Development Engineering 1: 45–52 (2016)
World Bank (2023) World Development Indicators. Available online: https://databank.worldbank.org/home.aspx
Schlömer S, Annex III et al (2014) Technology-specific cost and performance parameters. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer. O. et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
Brown S (1996) Tropical forests and the global carbon cycle: estimating state and change in biomass density. In: Apps M, Price D (eds) The role of forest ecosystems and forest management in the global carbon cycle. NATO Series. Springer, NY, pp 135–144

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementaryinformation.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Harmonising climate mitigation and sustainable development outcomes

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Integrating the mitigation and development agendas

Aligning mitigation actions with sustainable development gaps

Discussion

Conclusion

Methods

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1