Legitimation Strategies For Coal Exits In Germany And Canada
Ending our dependence on coal is essential for effective climate protection. Nevertheless, efforts to phase out coal trigger anxiety and resistance, particularly in mining regions. The governments of both Canada and Germany have involved various stakeholders to develop recommendations aimed at delivering just transitions and guiding structural change. In a new study, researchers at the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) compare the stakeholder commissions convened by the two countries, drawing on expert interviews with their members, and examine how governments use commissions to legitimize their transition policies.
In the study, the researchers identify similarities and
differences in the broader contexts of the respective transitions. Coal-fired
power generation plays a far more significant role in Germany than in Canada,
for example. Nevertheless, there are many similarities; in both Canada and
Germany, the coal sector is largely concentrated in rural, economically
disadvantaged regions. As a result, concerns about job losses have hampered
efforts to phase out coal-fired energy generation sooner rather than later. The
federal systems of the two countries are not always conducive to a rapid energy
transition: the Canadian provinces and Germany’s Länder can put the brakes on
national ambitions.
Under these circumstances, coming up with a roadmap for the
coal phase-out was no easy task. “The national governments of Canada and
Germany attempted to legitimize their respective decisions to phase out coal
through the strategic involvement of key stakeholders and potential veto
players. This was an attempt to strike a balance between different interests,”
says lead author Konrad Gürtler. The Canadian government set up a task force
with a rather limited mandate that focused on achieving a local just transition
for workers and communities. Germany’s Coal Commission, on the other hand, had
to navigate complex expectations around the timing and pathway for the coal
phase-out, its impact on the energy transition, and structural change in the affected
regions.
In both cases, the governments pursued their legitimation
strategies in a two-stage process, explains Gürtler: “Governments involved
stakeholders, who in turn had to respond to the expectations of various
societal groups. In the process, negotiations engaged with very different ideas
of justice: Climate justice, fair transitions, energy justice.” The Canadian
task force had a strong focus on affected regions and on identifying and
representing the needs of communities; in the case of the German Coal
Commission, a wide range of stakeholders – from industry associations and trade
unions to scientists and environmental activists – brought their concerns to
the table.
In early 2019 the Canadian task force presented the
government with recommendations for a plan of action, which the government
intends to implement within the framework of its proposed “Just Transition
Act”. This legislation has not yet been passed, however. In Germany, the Coal
Commission negotiated a minimal compromise, which was only partially adopted by
the federal government. The implementation of this compromise has since been
questioned by former members of the Coal Commission and could be overtaken by
new developments, such as the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court on the
Climate Protection Act.
Comments
Post a Comment