Search

The Sixth Assessment Report of Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has highlighted the urgency of accelerated climate actions harnessing synergies and minimizing trade-offs with various SDG. This calls for a clear understanding of linkages between climate goals and other SDGs at national level for formulating synergistic policies and strategies and developing different sectoral programs and coherent cross-sectoral policies. This is even more important for least developed countries such as Nepal where these linkages are less understood and development challenges are multifaceted. In this context, this paper aims to evaluate potential synergies and trade-offs among selected SDGs and their associated targets in Nepal in a linear pairwise comparison. Synergies and trade-offs related to climate action (SDG 13), access to energy (SDG 7), sustainable consumption and production (SDG 12), and life on land (SDG 15) have been evaluated using historical data for the period from 1990 to 2018 employing a mixed methods approach. Network analysis to map the conceptual linkages between the SDGs and their targets was combined with the advance sustainability analysis (ASA) to quantitatively evaluate the synergy and trade-offs between SDGs. The results illustrate the presences of a continual trade-off between emission reductions targets of SDG 13 with per capita energy consumption and share of renewable energy of SDG 7, land use for agricultural production target of SDG 12, and forest area target of SDG 15. This indicates that climate action is strongly interlinked with GHG emissions from economic activities and energy consumption. The results of the study represent a valuable input for the policy makers, supporting coherent and sustainable development planning as Nepal plans to graduate to a middle-income country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change will require societal-scale infrastructural changes. Balancing priorities for water, energy, and climate will demand that approaches to water and energy management deviate from historical practice. Infrastructure designed to mitigate environmental harm, particularly related to climate change, is likely to become increasingly prevalent. Understanding the implications of such infrastructure for environmental quality is thus of interest. Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) is a common sustainability assessment tool that aims to quantify the total, multicriteria environmental impact caused by a functional unit. Notably, however, LCA quantifies impacts in the form of environmental "costs" of delivering the functional unit. In the case of mitigation infrastructures, LCA results can be confusing because they are generally reported as the harmful impacts of performing mitigation rather than as net impacts that incorporate benefits of successful mitigation. This paper argues for defining mitigation LCA as a subtype of LCA to facilitate better understanding of results and consistency across studies. Our recommendations are informed by existing LCA literature on mitigation infrastructure, focused particularly on stormwater and carbon management. We specifically recommend that analysts: (1) use a performance-based functional unit; (2) be attentive to burden shifting; and (3) assess and define uncertainty, especially related to mitigation performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]