Evaluation of stakeholder involvement in the compilation of Climate Action Plan 2050

Final Report

Berlin, 18.08.2017

Commissioned by:

Federal Ministry for Envi-

ronment, Nature Conser-

vation, Building and Nu-

clear Safety (BMUB)

Contact persons at

Prognos AG:

Axel Bohn

Susanne Heinzelmann

Staff:

Andreas Denninghoff

Lukas Haberland

Katharina Krause

Julian Lenz

Ante Pivac

Frederik Simmat

Kristina Stegner

This study has been conducted on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature

Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB).

I

Contents

0 Management Summary 1

1 Evaluation assignment and focus 5

1.1 The participatory process as a factor contributing to the Climate Action Plan

2050 6

1.2 Mission and Questions of the Evaluation 11

1.3 The objectives system 13

2 Evaluation procedure and methodology 18

3 Survey findings 22

3.1 Recruitment and composition of the participants 22

3.2 Opportunities for participation by the different groups 28

3.3 Aims and expectations of participants 32

3.4 Transparency 38

3.5 Concept and methodology 44

3.6 Post-submission adjustments to proposals package; political process leading

up to the approval of the Climate Action Plan 51

3.7 Collaboration between stakeholder groups involved 55

3.8 Management and execution of process 60

4 Conclusions: analysis of governance 65

4.1 Clarity 66

4.2 Legitimacy 68

4.3 Transparency 70

4.4 Accountability 71

4.5 Conclusion 72

5 Recommendations 75

5.1 Specify the breadth and composition of participation on the basis of concrete

result expectations from participation 75

5.2 Make the role and significance of the participation transparent and

communicate it clearly 79

5.3 Clarify the role of process managers and enshrine at the planning stage a

commitment from other departments to take part 81

5.4 Create a clear regulatory framework for project implementation 83

5.5 Improve the matching of the schedule and substantive profile of assignments

of the participation 84

5.6 Allow more time and scope for discussions 85

II

5.7 Ensure that feedback is given regarding the reception and adjustment of

process results 87

5.8 Vision 2050: Keep participants involved in the process and in the picture 88

6 Appendix 91

6.1 List of references 91

6.2 List of interviewees 112

6.3 Timetable of symposium 116

1

0 Management Summary

Background and objectives of evaluation

In the coalition agreement for the 18th legislative period the govern-

ing parties agreed that a national Climate Action Plan 2050 was to

include “concrete measures formulated in the course of broad dia-

logue”1 The dialogue process began in June 2015 and ended offi-

cially in a closing event held in February 2017.

The process took the form of sector-specific work groups and fora

and a central committee that oversaw the dialogue and whose role

was also to facilitate exchanges between the various stakeholders.

In an initial phase ending in March 2016, representatives from re-

gional governments, municipalities, business and civil-society

groups and the citizenry drew up measures aimed at protecting the

climate. The resulting Action Catalogue was presented to the Envi-

ronment Minister, Dr. Barbara Hendricks, on 19.3.2016. On

6.9.2016 the Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conserva-

tion, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) began consulting the

various departments on the draft of the Climate Action Plan 2050.

The Cabinet approved the Plan on 14.11.2016.

The drawing up of the Climate Action Plan 2050 and its regular up-

dating are intended as a ‘learning process’. The idea is to create a

“process of social dialogue” that will run parallel to the Plan as it

steadily evolves. With regard to consultative exchanges both in

this instance and in future projects, the BMUB commissioned

Prognos AG to “evaluate stakeholder involvement in the compila-

tion of the Climate Action Plan 2050”. In particular the study is in-

tended to reveal which aspects of the dialogue process have fos-

tered constructive involvement on the part of stakeholders and citi-

zens and which aspects have had a negative influence on the le-

gitimacy, transparency and accountability of the dialogue process.

Evaluation was wide-ranging and based on multiple sources of

empirical data. A study was first made of the relevant documenta-

tion. Based on the findings, 66 detailed interviews were then con-

ducted with a total of 70 participants in, implementers of and per-

sons responsible for the dialogue process. This analysis phase

ended with a symposium with the interviewees in which all the find-

ings available thus far were presented and the subsequent infer-

ences discussed.

Conclusions after evaluation of involvement

1 Deutschlands Zukunft gestalten. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD, 18. Legislaturperiode, December 2013, p. 50, https://www.cdu.de/sites/default/files/media/dokumente/koalitionsvertrag.pdf (last accessed: 27.7.2017)

2

The central aim of the dialogue process – to obtain broad ac-

ceptance for climate protection measures by involving a range of

social groups in discussions – was achieved, at least in part. It can

be concluded that the dialogue process represents a new and suit-

able approach to political discussion and decision-making, which,

however, features various optimisation potentials with regard to

embedding and implementation.

Business leaders were conspicuous in their criticism of the pro-

cess, questioning the methods used to select the various partici-

pants, in particular ordinary citizens, who were considered both un-

representative and without a mandate to represent a particular

group. As long as structural criticisms of the very idea of citizenry

involvement persist, it is hard to see how one or other detail of a

particular participatory process might be improved. And while there

is scope for improvement regarding the representativity issue, ad-

vances here may have to be weighed against the considerable re-

sources required to achieve them. Criticism of the roles of individ-

ual groups and the weighting given to them continued and there

are a number of ways in which future consultations might be better

organised, for example by the creation of alternative types of as-

sessment bodies whose functions are clear and transparent.

The most glaring deficit stems from the fact that it was not clear

how significant the role of the dialogue process was expected to

play in the final decision of the government and no details were

forthcoming of what went on in the final phase of consultations be-

tween the presentation of dialogue results and the approval of the

finalised Plan. This led to inflated expectations regarding the im-

portance of the dialogue results. This and the lack of communica-

tion regarding departmental modifications to the action proposals

led many participants to feel that their input was not being taken

seriously. Hence a lack of clarity over the significance of the dia-

logue process and limited accountability due to absent feedback

on how the dialogue results were feeding into the Plan were the

main factors limiting acceptance of both the process as a whole

and its findings, i.e. the climate-action strategy to be followed.

These are the areas, then, where the main corrections need to be

made prior to the holding of future participatory processes of this

size.

3

Recommendations for the holding of future participatory processes

Although extensive participation was the declared aim of the dia-

logue process and one of its greatest attributes, the process by

which participants were selected could be rendered more system-

atic and transparent. This in turn presupposes a certain amount of

planning regarding the societal composition of those participatory

groups. At the level of individual groups of participants, it seems

advisable that the German federal states (Länder) be involved at

an early stage - if appropriate, as early as the conceptual phase -,

that the central associations and umbrella organisations (munici-

palities and business/industry respectively) be involved on a more

consistent basis, and that the subjects of discussion be systemati-

cally matched to the different areas within the landscape of associ-

ations and lobbyists.

It should be noted that, due to their large proportion of unpaid staff,

smaller associations often have problems finding the means to

fund their involvement in the process. This especially applies to

“half-organised” groups such as grass-roots initiatives. The tar-

geted use of online formats that run parallel to other procedures

can be one way to achieve a low threshold for participation in pro-

cesses like these, an approach that has to be closely monitored

and actively supported.

As the findings attest, one key weakness of the participation pro-

cess was the many unclear expectations regarding the significance

to be given to the dialogue process. For this reason, it is to be rec-

ommended that for future processes there be clear management

of expectations from the very beginning and a clear definition of

roles, not only for the process as a whole but also in each individ-

ual approach taken. This will allow all actors to come to an in-

formed decision regarding the extent of their own involvement.

Allied to this, the steering of the dialogue process should be made

transparent and decisions on the incorporation of other depart-

ments should be binding. This information can then be passed on

to participants by the facilitators and will increase the transparency

of the political framework within which the dialogue is taking place.

With regard to the clarity and transparency of process implementa-

tion, the importance of a clear regulatory framework should be un-

derlined. Such a framework should be agreed on in consultation

with all participants before the start of discussions and should con-

tain the rules of engagement and specific ways of proceeding if

changes are made.

Once the list of tasks has been fleshed out, work can start on im-

proving the allotted time frame for the dialogue process. Above all

if the aim is to arrive at consensual proposals, then sufficient time

4

must be allowed for negotiations to be conducted. Rigid in struc-

ture and insufficiently spaced, the dialogue formats had to serve as

the frameworks for discussing a huge range of topics. One way of

solving this dilemma would be to reduce the number of sessions

but make them longer in duration. There should still be scope for

convening smaller, ad hoc, work groups.

In the interest of a more balanced discussion there should also be

less focus on allocating speaking slots – as was the case during

the hearings of the associations – and participants should be in-

volved more in the selection and prioritisation of individual themes.

The key complaint of all participants concerned the lack of detailed

feedback regarding the influence had by the findings on the pass-

ing of the resolution by the federal government. There is a need for

root-and-branch improvement here.

In the light of insights gained from the process, certain recommen-

dations can be made with a view to persuading the social groups

to enter further discussions on how the “Vision 2050” climate-pro-

tection goals might be achieved. As the findings of this evaluation

show, procedural opacity and the lack of a binding feedback cul-

ture lead to frustration. To counter this, the various actors have to

be convinced that participation is worth their while, which means

that, with respect to an upcoming dialogue process, the goals and

scope for the exertion of influence have to be made clearer than

they have been up to now. To this end it might help if the govern-

ment itself promote the importance of the participation process.

The dialogue process contributing to the drafting of the Climate Ac-

tion Plan 2050 was the first of process of this breadth to provide

the initiators, implementers and participants with new and valuable

insights. Because of this, the interviewees wanted their criticisms

to be taken as constructive suggestions to improve the process as

it moves forward. The extent to which the suggestions are used

constructively will determine whether (fresh) trust can be built up.

Trust is indispensable if people are to participate in processes of

their own free will. It can only be achieved through intensive and

continuous exchanges between the organisers and target groups,

which is why it is advisable to use permanent formats to encour-

age participation in the updating of the Climate Action Plan.

Alongside an external perspective, which can use these sugges-

tions and give them systemic form as key milestones in the evolu-

tionary process, greater use can be made of internal feedback

loops as a way of promoting feedback with participants.

5

1 Evaluation assignment and focus

Background

In the coalition agreement for the 18th legislative period the govern-

ing parties CDU, CSU and SPD agreed to reduce greenhouse

emissions by 80-85% by the year 2050 compared to 1990 levels.

To this end, a clause in the coalition agreement committed the par-

ties to drawing up a national Climate Action Plan 2050, which is to

include “concrete measures formulated in the course of broad dia-

logue”.2

Environment Minister Dr. Barbara Hendricks has made it clear on

a number of occasions that she considers climate protection to be

a collective responsibility and, as such, a task that can only be

successfully tackled by society as a whole: “To succeed, we need

to have society and the business community working together.”3

The Cabinet resolution on the Climate Action Plan 20204, which

was passed a year after the coalition agreement, gave solid form

to the framework conditions governing planned public involvement

in the compilation of the Climate Action Plan: the process envis-

aged the participation of representatives from regional govern-

ments, municipalities, the business community, civil society and

the citizenry.

From Paris to Marrakesh

The participatory activities were scheduled to run from June 2015

to March 2016, a relatively short period of time. There were two

reasons for this. Firstly, it would ensure that the results of the UN

Climate Change Conference, held at the end of 2015 in Paris,

would feed into the Climate Action Plan and the participatory pro-

cess informing it, as agreed on by the governing parties. Secondly,

the aim was to finalise the Climate Action Plan in time for the Cli-

mate Conference in Marrakesh (November 2016) and the end of

the legislative period (September 2017).

The Paris Agreement set out an ambitious goal – to limit the rise in

average global temperature to well below 2° Celsius and prefera-

bly 1.5°C. As had been anticipated, the content of the Conference

and the culminating “Paris Agreement” impacted on the participa-

tory process implemented by the federal government in its drawing

up of the Climate Action Plan. Approved in November 2016, the

2 Deutschlands Zukunft gestalten. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD, 18. Legislaturperiode, December 2013, p. 50, https://www.cdu.de/sites/default/files/media/dokumente/koalitionsvertrag.pdf (last accessed: 27.7.2017)

3 BMUB (2015 d): Hendricks startet Dialog zum Klimaschutzplan 2050. Pressemitteilung Nr. 152/15, 25.06.2015,

http://www.bmub.bund.de/pressemitteilung/hendricks-startet-dialog-zum-klimaschutzplan-2050/ (last accessed

24.8.2017). 4 BMUB (2014 c): Aktionsprogramm Klimaschutz 2020. Kabinettsbeschluss vom 3. Dezember 2014, p. 77.

6

Climate Action Plan 2050 is a major step on the way to implement-

ing the Paris Agreement, which was ratified by Germany (among

other states) and the European Union (EU) and took effect on 5th

October 2016.

The aim is to revisit, overhaul and update the Plan every five

years.

1.1 The participatory process as a factor con-

tributing to the Climate Action Plan 2050

Participation: a phase-by-phase process

Participation in the drawing up of the Climate Action Plan involved

both stakeholders and the citizenry.

The involvement of stakeholders - i.e. the incorporation of repre-

sentatives of the Länder, municipalities, business groups and civil-

society organisations into the process – was effected by the Institut

für Organisationskommunikation GmbH (IFOK), a consultancy

firm, with assistance from the Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt,

Energie, the Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg

(IFEU) and compuccino GmbH, a media agency.

The participation of the citizens was organised by IKU GmbH, as-

sisted by ontopica GmbH, an agency specialising in online partici-

pation.

The process: set-up and phases

The process of participating in the drawing up of the Climate Ac-

tion Plan 2050 began in June 2015 with a central opening event

and came to an official close with the congress held in February

2017.

Invitations to the opening conference were sent to circa 550 stake-

holders, who were also asked to notify any other people who had a

vested interest in the event. Participants were initially limited to

one per organisation, but on the second day of the conference and

in the subsequent phases of dialogue the rule was relaxed with re-

spect to associations, enabling any organisation in the associa-

tions forum to have a representative in each workshop. When is-

sues were put to the vote and where recommendations were

sought for overarching measures, each association had only one

vote.

As part of the practical participatory activities between June 2015

and March 2016, members of the citizenry and representatives of

7

the Länder, municipalities, business groups and civil-society or-

ganisations, working in a range of different dialogue formats, were

all involved in proposing climate-protection measures.

In addition to target group-specific fora and work groups devoted

to specific areas of activity, a so-called “panel of delegates” was

deployed as a central group-wide format. The 25-person “panel of

delegates”5 made up of representatives from all groups involved in

the process should monitor the control of the overall process and

support the exchange between the different groups of actors. This

panel convened four times so far.

At the end of the participatory process there were approx. 800

people from circa 500 institutions on the BMUB mailing list.

Figure 1: Stages in the process of participation in the drawing up of the Climate Action Plan 2050

Source: Prognos AG

A discussion paper for the event marking the opening of the partic-

ipatory and dialogue process was published by the BMUB on

9.6.2015.6

25./26.06.2015: Opening event

5 13 representatives from the Länder, municipalities and the associations forum, ten representatives from the day of dialogue with the citizenry and two representatives from the 2nd online dialogue for the citizenry.

6 BMUB (2015b): Klimaschutzplan 2050 Impulspapier des BMUB für den Auftakt des Beteiligungs- und Dialogprozesses vom 09.06.2015.

8

Approx. 200 representatives of the Länder, municipalities and as-

sociations took part in the central opening event alongside Envi-

ronment Minister Dr. Barbara Hendricks and state secretary

Jochen Flasbarth. With the aim of drawing up climate protection

measures, participants exchanged ideas in the following work

groups devoted to five key areas of activity and discussed possible

paths for implementation:

▪ Energy sector

▪ Transport

▪ Buildings

▪ Business & industry / trade / services

▪ Agriculture and land use.

14.09.-12.10.2015: 1st dialogue phase with Länder, municipalities

and associations

The first fora relating to Länder, municipalities and associations

were held from September to October 2015. Focusing on the five

areas of activity identified during the opening conference, repre-

sentatives drew up preliminary proposals for measures conducive

to the achievement of the climate protection objectives. Delegates

from the respective groups were also elected in the individual fora.

28.10.2015: 1st session of panel of delegates

The elected representatives of the Länder / local authority / associ-

ations forum took part in the first session of the delegates’ commit-

tee on 28th October 2015. The delegates looked at the action pro-

posals drawn up in the Länder / local authority / associations fo-

rum. As the participatory process for individual citizens was not

due to start until the following month, delegates from the citizenry

group did not join the process until the 2nd session of the panel of

delegates.

14.11.2015: Day of dialogue with citizenry

Citizen participation began with the “Day of dialogue with the citi-

zenry”: on 14th November 2015 472 ordinary citizens exchanged

ideas at simultaneous events organised in Essen, Frankfurt, Ham-

burg, Leipzig and Nuremberg, coming up with 77 proposals to help

in climate protection. From this citizenry group ten delegates were

also appointed – one male and one female for each location. Since

up to two thirds of participants, depending on location, had ex-

pressed a readiness to sit on the panel of delegates, the delegates

were drawn by lot from this group of people.

9

The invitees to the day of dialogue had been selected at random

from telephone directories local to each venue, with telephone

calls made to approx. 76,000 people. Of the 2,000 persons who

signalled an interest, 555 turned up on the day.

24.11.-21.12.2015: First online dialogue for citizenry

These registered users were then able to log in online and com-

ment on the measures drawn up during the day of dialogue. Indi-

viduals who had been present on the first day were also able to

vote on the proposals (“agree”, “disagree”, “abstain”).

As part of the online participation, two additional delegates from

the citizenry group were voted in.

30.11.-03.12.2015: Work groups devoted to specific areas of activ-

ity

In late November / early December 2015 representatives from the

Länder, municipalities and associations split into five specific work

groups to discuss and further qualify the proposals collected so far.

During the project the five work groups came to be used as an ad-

ditional dialogue format, since the many proposals had created a

need for more discussion. Afterwards the key coordinators collated

the proposals drawn up by the stakeholders and members of the

citizenry.

16.01.2016: Report by citizenry

On 16th January 2016, the twelve delegates from the citizenry

group met to prepare for their participation in the 2nd session of the

delegates’ committee and to compile the “Report by members of

the citizenry”7. The report is a summary of the core messages aris-

ing from public dialogue surrounding the compilation of the Climate

Action Plan 2050.

11/2015-01/2016: Departmental information events

Seven departmental information events were held between No-

vember 2015 and January 2016 as an adjunct to the participatory

process. Ministry representatives were able to see what had been

covered in the dialogue and discuss the proposals made so far.

They were asked to consider whether action in line with the pro-

posals had already been taken or was already planned.

23.01.2016: 2nd session of delegates’ committee

7 BMUB (n.d. a): Bürgerreport. Bürgerdialog zum Klimaschutzplan 2050. http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Da-ten_BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/buergerreport_klimaschutzplan_bf.pdf (last accessed: 27.7.2017).

10

On 23rd January 2016 delegates from the forum covering Länder,

municipalities and associations convened again, this time along-

side delegates from the citizenry group. The 2nd session of the del-

egates’ committee was concerned with discussing and collating

action proposals generated by the two groups.

15.02.-25.02.2016: 2nd dialogue phase with Länder, municipalities

and associations

In the 2nd dialogue phase in February 2016 fora were held involv-

ing the Länder, municipalities and associations respectively. Par-

ticipants commented on proposals affecting all areas of activity,

added short descriptions to the sector-specific proposals and of-

fered recommendations on whether the proposals should form part

of the Climate Action Plan 2050. Associations could decide

whether their name was to be linked to a particular proposal.

02.2016: 2nd online dialogue for citizenry

In the second online dialogue, the 472 participants from the 1st

online dialogue (in November 2015) were asked to vote on all pro-

posals with “yes”, “no” or “don’t know”. A total of 150 citizens took

part.

18./19.03.2016: 3rd session of panel of delegates; presentation of

action catalogue to Environment Minister Dr. Barbara Hendricks

At this third session, held on 18th and 19th March 2016, the dele-

gates studied and consolidated the recommendations made by the

four groups of representatives (Länder, municipalities, associations

and citizenry) with respect to the 97 individual action proposals

contained in the “Action Catalogue 3.0”. The votes and the pro-

posals themselves went into the finalised Action Catalogue 3.1.

The delegates presented the catalogue to the Environment Minis-

ter, Dr. Barbara Hendricks, on 19th March 2016.

The BMUB considered this catalogue in drawing up a 62-page

draft for the Climate Action Plan 2050. This brought to an end the

process of direct participation in the compilation of the Climate Ac-

tion Plan. There followed a period in which the Plan was cleared

with the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) and pe-

rused in the Federal Chancellery. On 6.9.2016 official consulta-

tions began with the individual departments. Preliminary drafts of

the Plan had already been made public by a number of media or-

ganisations, which had access to the documents.

On the same day, the BMUB published the draft on which depart-

mental consultations were to be based and invited the Länder and

associations to express their opinions in the course of September

and submit their positions in writing by the end of the month.

11

For the hearings, associations could apply for a place on six differ-

ently themed panels, each composed of four participants from one

or other association and a BMUB representative. Sixteen of the 24

places were filled by the BMUB and the remaining eight were

drawn by lot and allocated equally between business associations

and civil-society groups. Where assent had been given, the BMUB

published the written submissions online.

On 14.11.2016 the Cabinet approved the Climate Action Plan 2050

by circulation procedure.

27.01.2017: 4th session of delegates’ committee

At the 4th session of the panel of delegates, which state secretary

Flasbarth attended, delegates were tasked with reviewing the pro-

cess and the panel’s work and discussing further steps to be

taken.

16.02.2017: Closing conference

The process of participating in the drawing up of the Climate Ac-

tion Plan 2050 was officially wound up in February 2017. Environ-

ment Minister Dr. Barbara Hendricks thanked all participants for

their constructive input.

1.2 Mission and Questions of the Evaluation

The Climate Action Plan 2050 is envisaged as a ‘learning process’

The intention is to update it on a regular basis. The same involve-

ment of social groups is to be applied to the design, testing and, if

necessary, modification of the individual measures.

With this in mind and in view of the involvement of the citizenry in

other projects, the BMUB commissioned Prognos AG to evaluate

the completed participatory process. In particular the study is in-

tended to reveal which aspects of the dialogue process fostered

constructive involvement on the part of stakeholders and citizens

and which aspects have been drawing criticism.

The central issues relate to

▪ the clarity of the dialogue process for the participants,

▪ the way the stakeholders were selected and, relatedly, peo-

ple’s opinions regarding the legitimacy of the process,

▪ the transparency of the process as a whole,

12

▪ feedback provided on the results of dialogue

▪ factors affecting success and scope for developing the involve-

ment of different groups of people and the design of the partici-

patory process.

A broad-based analysis of procedural steps (see Chapter 2) will

serve as a basis for evaluating the completed process and drawing

up recommendations for action and tips for ongoing participation in

the updating and evolution of the Climate Action Plan and the con-

tinuation of other participatory processes in general.

13

1.3 The objectives system

As a first step in the evaluation, the objectives system informing

the participatory process was reconstructed based on the strat-

egy/process documents that had been provided (coalition agree-

ment8, Cabinet resolution on the “Climate Action Plan 2020”9, the

BMUB’s “Climate Action Plan 2050” discussion paper10, the

BMUB’s web page on “Conducting Participatory Processes”11, the

“Climate Action Plan 2050” web page12 and the specifications for

the participatory process13). That is to say: a summarised illustra-

tion of the objectives system was produced setting out the antici-

pated effects, the relationship between different objectives or par-

tial objectives and whether any parts of the system are in conflict.

The depiction divides the named goals in a systematic goal-hierar-

chy with higher- and lower-tier goals:

Figure 2: Levels of objectives

Source: Prognos 2017

8 Koalitionsvertrag „Deutschlands Zukunft gemeinsam gestalten“ zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD für die 18. Legislaturpe-riode.

9 BMUB (publ.) (2014 b): Kabinettsbeschluss zum „Aktionsprogramm Klimaschutz 2020“ vom 03.12.2014. 10 BMUB (2015 b): Klimaschutzplan 2050 – Impulspapier des BMUB für den Auftakt des Beteiligungs- und Dialogprozes-

ses vom 10.06.2015. 11 BMUB n.d. b): Durchführung von Beteiligungsprozessen, http://www.bmub.bund.de/service/buergerbeteiligung/durch-

fuehrung-von-beteiligungsprozessen/ (last accessed: 16.08.2017). 12 BMUB (n.d. c): „Klimaschutzplan 2050“, viewable at http://www.klimaschutzplan2050.de/dialogprozess/ (last ac-

cessed: 27.03.2017). No longer online; further information from http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/klima-ener-gie/klimaschutz/nationale-klimapolitik/klimaschutzplan-2050/

13 BMUB (2014 a): Leistungsbeschreibung „Organisation, Durchführung und Nachbereitung des Beteiligungsprozesses für Länder, Kommunen und Verbände bei der Erstellung eines Klimaschutzplanes der Bundesregierung“ vom 25.10.2014.

14

Political objectives

As stated previously, participation in the planning of action on cli-mate protection is based on the idea that climate policy can only be successful if implemented at all levels of society. Hence, in the opinion of the federal government, action planning requires the broadest possible acceptance on the part of a wide range of social groups, which are the focus of attention of this ambitious participa-tory process. Moreover, this kind of involvement is intended to pro-mote the participation of ordinary citizens and a variety of interest groups in environmental decision-making and thereby raise the level of participation in the democratic process and strengthen civil society.

Level of objec-tive(s)

Objective(s)

Political objectives of participatory process

Obtain broad acceptance for climate action and the energy transition:

“Success in climate protection is very much dependent on how much acceptance there is for action and whether – and if so, how many - people are prepared to do their part.”

Living democracy and civic participation:

▪ “Public participation in the formation of environmental pol-icy is bolstered - without slowing the pace of implementa-tion.”

▪ “Promoting and deploying social innovation creates the space in which an active and effective civil society can flourish (Empowerment).”

Sources: BMUB (2014 b): Kabinettsbeschluss, pp. 73 & 77, Koalitionsvertrag, p. 106 and BMUB (2015 b): Impulspapier, p. 2

Operational objectives

Operational objectives specify the political objectives in concrete

form. First, they identify the actors involved in the process. Mem-

bers of the citizenry as well as Länder, municipalities and associa-

tions have to be integrated into the process of drawing up the Cli-

mate Action Plan. The formulation of goals also points to the in-

volvement of all governmental departments and the need to keep

the parliamentary groups informed. In addition to this, the relevant

strategy documents offer more details on the stages of the deci-

sion-making process where the different actors are to be involved.

15

The idea is to have the various actors involved at all stages of the

process. At the policy-formulation stage the actors should be help-

ing to draw up the Climate Action Plan by sharing their knowledge

and experience. It is also hoped that the co-authoring work at this

stage will lead to later broad-based societal involvement at the im-

plementation stage. And finally, at the evaluation phase, it is antici-

pated that the various societal actors will help investigate the ex-

tent to which the measures have been properly implemented.

The operational objectives set out the criteria governing the partici-

patory process, which are characterised especially by transpar-

ency and oriented towards dialogue. In addition to these criteria

regulating the design of the process, the criteria identified by the

BMUB as measuring the success of the participatory process con-

tain further relevant aspects that should be considered when or-

ganising the participation of groups in any given process. Even

though these criteria are mentioned especially in connection with

public participation processes, they are also important for the suc-

cessful implementation of participatory processes in general. A

participatory process of this kind should also be open to any re-

sults that come in, be launched as early as possible and provide all

participants with the means to co-determine the result. The inten-

tion is to ensure diversity in the dialogue process by involving the

highest number of participants possible and considering the full

spectrum of opinions. After all, a fully-fledged culture of feedback

is one of the factors expected to contribute to the success of the

participatory process.

16

Level of objec-tive(s)

Objective(s)

Operational objec-tives of participa-tory process

▪ Involvement of all affected target groups in a wide-ranging dialogue process:

Participation should involve not only Länder, municipal-ities and associations but also members of the citi-zenry.

All government departments should be involved on an ongoing basis.

Parliamentary groups should be kept informed of devel-opments on a regular basis.

▪ Actors to have co-authoring role in all phases of the Cli-mate Action Plan:

..at the development stage, to ensure that the knowledge and experience of actors is reflected in the Plan,

..at the implementation stage, as the dialogue process is meant to encourage people and organisations to en-act the measures set out in the Plan

..and when implementation of the Plan is being checked and verified.

▪ Design of participatory process as a whole by means of

transparency

focus on dialogue

▪ Other factors to be considered when structuring the way the citizenry is involved in the compilation of the Plan:

No foregone conclusions

Involvement to begin as soon as possible

Adequate scope for co-determination

Diversity of opinion

Diversity of interviewees

Broad-based survey

Feedback culture

Sources: BMUB (2014 b): Kabinettsbeschluss, p 77, Koalitionsvertrag, p. 37, BMUB (2015 b): Impulspapier, p. 2 & 11 and BMUB (n.d. b): Durchführung von Beteiligungsprozessen.

Taskings

The taskings are a list of the precise assignments conducive to the

achievement of the operational objectives of the participatory pro-

cess. Five areas of action were initially identified: the energy sec-

tor; buildings; transport; agriculture & land use; and business & in-

dustry / trade / services. The specifications set out the dialogue

formats in which the individual actors are to be involved. Two dia-

logue events each for representatives of the Länder, municipalities

and associations respectively are to be organised and held. Five

regional events are earmarked for the sounding out of members of

the citizenry, who can then also take part in two online dialogues.

17

The establishment of a delegates’ committee featuring representa-

tives from the Länder-municipalities-associations dialogue and rep-

resentatives from the dialogue with the citizenry was aimed at link-

ing the two dialogue processes. The panel was then to come up

with a package of recommendations for the BMUB based on pro-

posals arising from the two dialogue processes. In a total of seven

information events arranged by the respective departments, repre-

sentatives of the various ministries were also to be kept informed

of how dialogue is progressing in the individual sectors.

Level of objec-tive(s)

Objective(s)

Task of participa-tory process Drawing up of concrete proposals covering five areas of activ-

ity (the energy sector; buildings; business & industry / trade / services; transport; and agriculture & land use)

Planning, organisation and execution of different event formats aimed at the drawing up of proposals as part of the participa-tory process: ▪ Two dialogue events involving representatives from Län-

der, municipalities and associations ▪ Five regional events and two online dialogues for the in-

volvement of ordinary citizens (approx. 500 participants) ▪ Establishment of a delegates’ committee with representa-

tives from both participatory processes (dialogue with Län-der, municipalities and associations and dialogue with citi-zenry) with the aim of compiling a catalogue of recommen-dations for the BMUB.

▪ Seven departmental information events.

Sources: BMUB (n.d. c): Klimaschutzplan 2050, BMUB (2015 b): Impulspapier, p. 11, BMUB (2014 a): Leistungsbeschreibung „Organisation, Durchführung und Nachbereitung des Beteiligungsprozesses für Länder, Kommunen und Verbände bei der Erstellung eines Klimaschutzplanes der Bundesregierung“, p. 9-10.

18

2 Evaluation procedure and methodology

Evaluation of stakeholder involvement in the drawing up of the Cli-

mate Action Plan 2050 was wide-ranging and based on multiple

sources of empirical data. Interviews, group discussions and anal-

yses of documentation were the main methods of evaluation.

Evaluation proceeded as follows:

Figure 3: Steps in evaluation process

Source: Prognos AG 2017

Analysis phase

Analysis of objectives, actors and process based on available doc-

umentation

To provide a framework for assessing the process and the extent

to which objectives have been achieved, an analysis was first

made of the objectives themselves. To this end the goals of the di-

alogue process and other factors determining its organisation were

studied using available documentation leading to the outlining of

the objectives system for the participatory process (see also 1.3).

There followed an assessment of the available documentation and

any studies that had already been made as part of the dialogue

process. The focus here was on the actors involved, their positions

and what they expected from their involvement, and any indica-

tions of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This was also the time to

identify triumphs and setbacks.

The material analysed ran to over 260 individual documents and

recordings. They included the circa 700 pages relating to the pro-

cess of stakeholder involvement, videos of association hearings,

lists of invitees and participants, positions expressed by stakehold-

ers and existing evaluations of the process (e.g. the report on the

19

participatory process by Professor Rucht commissioned by Green-

peace and the evaluation of citizenry involvement by the Bertels-

mann Stiftung)14.

A structuring tool was used to classify process-related statements

(e.g. on timetabling/scheduling, structure and set-up of process,

transparency and clarity, scope for input of ideas/opinions, feed-

back, etc) and evaluate them. The results are set out in Chapter 3.

Analysis of actors and process based on qualitative interviews

Building on the findings of the documentation analysis, staff con-

ducted an extensive programme of interviews consisting of 66 in-

depth, structured interviews with 70 participants in the dialogue

process, staff of companies/institutions responsible for the process

and representatives of the client (24 representatives of business

associations, 18 representatives of civil-society organisations,16

political representatives, Länder and municipalities, four delegates

from the citizenry group, six persons with responsibility for the pro-

ject and its implementation and two expert evaluators). A list of in-

terviewees can be found in Section 6.2 of the Appendix.

The selection of interviewees was closely linked to the way that in-

volvement was structured. On the one hand, there was a need to

give appropriate consideration to all relevant stakeholder groups in

order to do justice to the diversity of positions and viewpoints. On

the other hand, regarding the assessments already collected from

the documents, it was important that the selection reflect all

shades of opinion. Also, to make an assessment possible in the

first place, interviewees’ involvement in individual participatory for-

mats had to be taken into account. This meant that, as well as ac-

tors who were deeply involved in the process (e.g. delegates), se-

lected interviewees also included persons who had taken part in

only a few events and some who, despite being a member of some

target group, had never taken part.

Based on the major issues being evaluated and the findings al-

ready derived from the analysis of documents, an interviewing

guideline was put together which sometimes addressed particular

groups and sometimes asked questions of people participating at

certain stages in the process. To ensure that the conversations

were open, the guideline was designed to allow interviewees to en-

large on their responses, extend the scope of their statements and

to implement new aspects to the themes.

Conversations focused on eliciting more in-depth assessments of

implementation, impact and contexts of the participatory process

14 A list of references can be found in Section 6.1 of the Appendix.

20

and indications of what had fostered or inhibited the success of the

project.

Depending on the diversity of interviewees and number of state-

ments provided on the process, conversations lasted between 30

and 90 minutes. They were recorded by Prognos and evaluated by

theme. The results form a key part of the findings set out in Chap-

ter 3.

Symposium

The end of the analysis phase was marked by a symposium in-

volving the interviewed stakeholders and other participants, whose

aim was to present, explain and compare the evaluation findings

gathered thus far. There was also a discussion podium whose

guests included state secretary Jochen Flasbarth. Afterwards,

work groups were created to collect practical suggestions for the

upcoming design of the participatory process in the run-up to the

updating of the Climate Action Plan and other participatory pro-

jects.

Invitations to the symposium were sent to all previous interviewees

and 43 people were present on the day. Of the stakeholders, ten

represented business associations, six civil-society organisations,

three were delegates from the citizenry group and two represented

policy makers, the Länder and municipalities. Also present were

five officials involved in the practical implementation of the pro-

cess. The BMUB had seven representatives. Not counting the

evaluators who were conducting and facilitating the symposium,

participants included a researcher from the University of Oslo stud-

ying participatory processes and a representative of an institute

that had been involved in a previous evaluation.

The symposium’s findings were documented by Prognos and col-

lated with the findings of the documentation analysis and inter-

views. They likewise form part of the summary of results set out in

Chapter 3.

Evaluation phase

Consolidation and conclusions. Evaluating aspects of governance

in overall process

In the wake of the symposium, the findings from the documents

and interviews were collated with the findings from discussions

conducted during the symposium. In the light of the key issues of

evaluation and associated issues of governance, evaluation of the

process continued on this basis. Evaluation was further broken

down into “Clarity”, “Legitimacy”, “Transparency” and “Accountabil-

ity”. Conclusions on governance are set out in Chapter 4.

21

Recommended action

Based on the conclusions and on the proposals of the actors re-

garding future participatory processes, the symposium closed with

a submission of recommendations regarding the coming involve-

ment in the process of verifying and updating the Climate Action

Plan 2050 and the future design of successful participatory pro-

cesses in general. These are set out in Chapter 5.

22

3 Survey findings

The following chapters, which examine the participatory groups

theme by theme, give an overview of the findings of the survey

within the context of the evaluation. They account the collated find-

ings from the analysis of documents, interviews conducted with

stakeholders, citizens and persons in charge of the process, and

the discussion results of the symposium.15

3.1 Recruitment and composition of the

participants

For a majority of the involved actors from civil society, Länder, mu-

nicipalities and politics, as well as citizens, the direct involvement

of a broad cross-section of most diverse interest groups rep-

resents a fundamental strength of the participatory process. This

positive assessment also extended to the direct involvement of

citizens. This, however, was viewed critically by the majority of

business representatives. In this context the question of repre-

sentativity was especially problematised and with it the legitimacy

of the selection of the citizen representatives. Almost all partici-

pants involved in the evaluation stated that the members of the citi-

zenry were indeed not representative of the German population as

a whole. This applied especially to the delegates from the citizenry,

who tended to be above-average in terms of key characteristics

such as age and level of education. While the majority of the repre-

sentatives of business associations principally questioned the pub-

lic participation approach citing, among other, this lack of repre-

sentativity, most interviewees from the other groups considered

this a necessary compromise for a fundamentally meaningful pro-

cedure.

Across all groups it was criticised, that key political decision

makers, the Parliament and other departments of the federal gov-

ernment were not or were not early on and committedly involved.

This issue was raised in the statements from different groups and

discussed in the interviews, such as in the plenaries and work-

shops at the symposium. While the business representatives often

used this to draw attention to what they regarded as the funda-

mental problem of process legitimacy, the other groups substanti-

ated their criticism first of all on the basis that if policy-makers had

been involved earlier, their later exertion of influence over the final

government decision could have been avoided.

The majority of actors interviewed as part of the evaluation, con-

cerning the participation in the process, were approached and in-

vited directly by the BMUB or an implementing official. However,

15 For more information on methodology and procedures, see Chapter 2.

23

especially some business representatives also reported that they

had, following indirect Information, made an own effort to partici-

pate. Overall most participants were not clear on which criteria

and according to what process the participants had been se-

lected. This lack of clarity primarily concerns the selection of indi-

vidual associations and the selection of the citizen delegates. This

lack of transparency was especially criticised by the business rep-

resentatives.

Business

Analogous to the overall assessment of the process, the most

critical assessments both in respect of the approach and the

composition of participants came from business representa-

tives. These aspects were also among the features of the partici-

patory process most often described by this group as weak.

This was already shown in the analysis of the statements and

other documents. A total of nine business associations made re-

marks at difference phases of the process with regards to the se-

lection of the participants. Two associations made rather neutral

references to the principal significance of the involvement of indus-

try. Criticism centred among other on the view that “business asso-

ciations were insufficiently engaged and involved”. In interviews

business representatives also pointed to inadequate involvement

of individual associations with specific fields of responsibility – a

point that was also discussed in a symposium workshop. At the

same time it was especially pointed out that in the thematic

workgroups of the associations’ forum several relevant sectors

were not appropriately represented.

Both in the interviews and in one of the symposium workshops this

problem was among other attributed to having given insufficient at-

tention to include more specific groups when associations were

first being approached and invited to take part. Coupled to this

was the business representatives’ overarching criticism that it was

hardly comprehensible which associations had been invited for

what reason to take part and why others had not.

A further central point of criticism from the business representa-

tives was the participation of citizens in the collection of proposals

of measures for the Climate Action Plan. This criticism refers on

the one hand to the fundamental idea of involving individual

citizens outside of the classical forms of organised interest repre-

sentation such as associations and non-governmental organisa-

tions. In so doing doubt is expressed that the participating citizens

are legitimate representatives of the overall citizenry of the

Federal Republic of Germany. Unlike membership-based associ-

ations and societies, they are not in a position – and neither are

they bound – to clear their positions with the group they claim to

represent.

24

Individual business representatives did not share this basic criti-

cism concerning the composition of participants. Their problem

was rather more in detail regarding the concrete choice of the citi-

zens, that is the intransparent process for determining the citizen

delegates and the weight of citizens in the overall process (espe-

cially in the delegates’ committee). A more in-depth assessment of

the delegates’ committee is elaborated in the section on the oppor-

tunities for participating.

In the statements, especially the way the delegates from the citi-

zenry were selected was systematically criticised. In one sympo-

sium workshop the business representatives pointed out that the

selection had not taken account of which sections of the population

were actually affected by certain proposed measures.

Finally, the business representatives criticised what they saw as a

failure to get the democratically elected people’s representatives

(Parliament) involved in the process. Some associations referred

in their submissions to the need to involve the Bundestag. Similar

arguments were also brought forward in the context of the inter-

views and symposium workshops.

All in all, the bulk of the business representatives came to the

conclusion that the participatory process had failed to capture ap-

propriately a broad coverage of the different interest groups, espe-

cially from the area of the different business sectors. This failure to

encompass all the relevant actors led to call into question the legit-

imacy of the process and its findings as a whole. For example, a

“very selective and inadequate stakeholder involvement” was criti-

cized and it called into question whether the preparation of the Cli-

mate Action Plan 2050 occurred in a “democratically legitimised

process”. In the personal interviews the business representatives

argued in the similar manner.

Civil society

The selection of participants in the dialog process is only sporadi-

cally mentioned by the civil-society associations in the available

documentation. Only two associations highlight in their statements

the inclusion of associations and the civil society as an exem-

plary approach. In the interviews, the actors on the whole ex-

pressed contentedness with the composition of the participants.

A part of the interviewees positively rated the broad selection of

civil-society associations because it essentially allowed represent-

ing the large relevant interest groups. According to evaluations

from individual actors this did not always apply to the composition

of business associations, which partly represented very specific

individual interests. As one representative for a civil-society asso-

ciation argued, the pan-societal interests would suffer from such a

composition.

25

Moreover, individual interviewees also point out that certain actors

such as energy companies and the housing sector had not

been sufficiently represented. In addition, the composition as a

whole had been leaned towards economic and environmental in-

terests, and in relation social and consumer-protection was

somewhat underrepresented. One association representative

criticised that clearly far too few associations and actors had been

involved to create a broad political “ownership” for the Climate Ac-

tion Plan. This was more of an isolated opinion, however. In the

main, civil-society actors, too, saw the biggest challenge foremost

in bringing the broad spectrum of actors together in a system-

atic process.

According to the report by Professor Rucht (commissioned by

Greenpeace), a number of civil-society associations evaluated the

involvement of trade unions, respective their active participation,

as important actors, especially at the beginning of the process, as

too small, although the interviewees and workshop participants

did not elaborate on this point further. Individual interviewees

shared the observation that some associations were not clear from

the outset on the significance of the process. In general, the actors

thought that the BMUB had approached a broad cross-section

of groups. Furthermore, in the assessment of the actors, any as-

sociation interested in being involved had been able to take part,

meaning that participation was to a large extent dependent on the

commitment and interest of the associations.

The report by Professor Rucht (commissioned by Greenpeace)

also mentions “half-organised” groups (e.g. citizens’ initiatives)

as an additional target group for the inclusion in a participatory pro-

cess. These groups were rarely mentioned by the actors in the

consultation (interviews and symposium). Upon prompting there

was across the board basically no reservations towards the inclu-

sion of this target group. One interviewee, however, pointed out

that it would be a challenge to incorporate them systematically into

the process. In this context one representative pointed out that in

his/her view an involvement should occur in the context of the as-

sociations’ forum and the citizens’ initiatives and other half-organ-

ised groups should not be seen as supplementary to citizen partici-

pation.

Politics / Länder / municipalities

In the few written statements submitted by actors from the politics/

Länder / municipalities section there is no mention with regards to

approaching and composition of the participants. The majority of

the interviewees from this group were overall content with the se-

lection of the difference in participants. They described the compo-

sition as “colourful” and were also partially positively “sur-

prised”. This verdict applied in particular to the invitations ex-

tended to what many representatives, especially at municipal level,

26

referred to as “micro associations”. However, this heterogeneity

was occasionally prone to sporadic criticism, as such that a com-

mon base for discussion with the different actors could only be

achieved with difficulty.

In detail the evaluation of the composition by the representa-

tives from politics, Länder, and municipalities reveals a heteroge-

neous picture. Länder government representative criticized the

composition as too ministerial, while some municipal representa-

tives rather saw an imbalance favouring associations.

One interviewee criticised the fact that the involvement of towns

and municipalities occurred via the direct involvement of the politi-

cal leadership. This does not represent, however, all towns and

municipalities. Against this backdrop it would appear necessary to

have a consistent involvement of all municipal umbrella asso-

ciations.

Local representatives highlighted the direct involvement of ordi-

nary citizens as beneficial to the process as a whole. Overall, the

representatives of this group emphasized the advantage of a

broad participation and evaluated the composition, in view of what

was practicable and feasible, as largely successful. Despite criti-

cism of certain details relating to the way prospective participants

had been approached and selected, no one from this group ques-

tioned the principal approach of a participatory process.

Citizenry

The evaluation by the Bertelsmann Stiftung already contained the

finding that the individual citizens themselves were almost unani-

mous in favour of the inclusion of citizens and receiving an equal

standing to the also included associations, Länder and municipali-

ties. One citizen delegate pointed out in the interviews that citizens

could develop without practical constraints, like political elections

or economic necessity, free ideas. This point was also made dur-

ing the symposium.

On the whole, the via interviews included citizen delegates evalu-

ated the participatory process as appropriate. However, some did

share the assessment, that the group of participating citizens were

a rather selective sample from the population. Mention was made

in this regard to the relatively high average age of participants in

this group and a certain degree of self-selection in relation to a

principal interest in the subject climate protection.

As the Bertelsmann Stiftung further showed, regarding the random

selection of individuals to sit on the delegates’ committee caused

concern amongst the citizens, since the process did take into ac-

count a person’s expert knowledge on climate protection. Moreo-

ver, the majority of the citizens, who in the context of the event

27

were interviewed, entrusted the randomly selected delegates to

produce good results.

Interim conclusion

The composition of the participants was one of the aspects, which

pinpointed a principal line of criticism for the entire process.

This was particularly true for the criticism levied by business repre-

sentatives, who were very sceptical towards the basic idea of a di-

rect and equally weighted participation of citizens. With reference

to a missing democratic or ulterior legitimacy as well as poor repre-

sentativeness of selected groups, the composition for them conse-

quently called the entire process into question.

Apart from this fundamental criticism, most actors are very open

to the idea of the broad-based inclusion of all types of socie-

tal groups. Overall the assessment is shared that the selection of

citizens is not a cross-section of the population. Most actors see in

this regard a need of improvement, but are aware, that such a re-

quirement is hardly realisable in reality. Hence, the benefits stem-

ming from involving the citizenry is therefore not called into ques-

tion.

It is also worth considering that direct discussions with citizens rep-

resent a new format in the process of political opinion-making

and interest representation. As such, association representa-

tives also have no – comparable to the parliamentary legislative

process – established position. Accordingly, especially questions

on what role and significance of the processes as well as the indi-

vidual participants for a target-oriented work are relevant and

needed to be clarified when further pursuing the goal of a common

broad participation.

Aside from the issue of citizen participation, the actors were largely

content with the composition of the participants. From the point of

view of the actors there is no unitary picture as to whether too

many or too few groups were involved. It might be added that,

given the many different aspects covered in the Climate Action

Plan 2050, there can be no one-size-fits-all solution that pleases

all actors. Most participants were aware that a process of this kind

necessitated a difficult compromise between involving all rele-

vant groups and the possibility of drawing together the spec-

trum of actors in a participatory process. That said, all groups

agreed that an early involvement of the Parliament and further de-

partments should be aspired.

28

3.2 Opportunities for participation by the

different groups

Besides the composition of participants, the concrete opportunities

for taking part in the various formats and thereby the preparation of

the Climate Action Plan 2050 as a whole were controversially de-

bated. A central point of criticism concerned especially a lack of in-

volvement or at least information on the processing of the results

after the handing over of the catalogue of measures up until the

governmental decision. This point is addressed in detail in Section

3.6. The following elaboration refers correspondingly to the prior

activities and formats of the processes.

The concrete participation possibilities of the individual groups

were especially discussed along two aspects: the composition and

significance of the delegates’ committee and the composition and

voting procedure in the working groups.

The composition of the delegates’ committee was criticized espe-

cially by the business representatives. The representatives of the

business community evaluated their participation possibilities with

a view to both aspects in a much more critical way than the repre-

sentatives of the other groups.

Two methods were employed in determining who would sit on

the delegates’ committee. After first establishing who was open

to the idea of being a delegate, lots were drawn to select the dele-

gates from the citizenry. Depending on the location, the available

delegates made up as much as two thirds of the participants. In

the case of the Länder, municipalities and associations, the dele-

gates were drawn from among the participants in the relevant fora.

With the municipalities and Länder the procedure was according to

the participants unproblematic. The Länder opted not to take up

their third seat on the panel, which the BMUB then allocated in the

associations forum to the business associations, which made up a

clear majority of participants in the associations forum and thus

had four delegates to vote. Following protests from the civil-society

associations, another (25th) seat was created, which was taken up

by the Federation of German Trade Unions (DGB) in accordance

with the results of a vote.

The composition of the delegates’ committee was especially criti-

cised by the business representatives and one Länder delegate

with regards to the quantitatively highly represented citizenry. The

other actors in the process considered this approach reasonable.

The one-person/one-vote organisation of the delegates’ commit-

tee was likewise the subject of lively debate. Some interviewees,

however, pointed to a lack of detailed knowledge regarding the

29

role and function of the committee, criticising the resulting lack

of information and transparency.

Civil-society groups and business associations both found fault

with the composition of the work groups within the associations fo-

rum, deeming their scope for participation to be limited. Large as-

sociations in particular found the limitation on participation of the

one person per event to be an unnecessary restriction.

The content alignment, especially in the working groups, was a

challenge to the participation of the actors. As the minutes of the

second associations forum reveal, many participants in the work

groups had problems to cast a vote for every measure. According

to the minutes this was especially due to some measures seeming

to be overloaded with content. This meant that participants were

unable to give recommendations on every mentioned measure’s

sub-points. In context of the interviews and symposium some rep-

resentatives, particularly the business representatives, pointed

however towards the problem of a tight time frame (see also Sec-

tion 3.5).

The hearings of the associations in this context was also criti-

cised. The main problem here was identified as the restrictions im-

posed on (active) participation, in particular the policy of (some-

times) drawing lots to determine who would speak. The authors of

two submitted statements also found it unfortunate that a hearing

had to be squeezed in at the end of a session, although in the in-

terviews and symposium discussions this point was hardly touched

upon.

Business

In their statements, many business associations criticised the fact

that they could only integrate their ideas and demands in a limited

way into the consultation process for the Climate Action Plan 2050.

One association pointed to very limited possibilities of influencing

the measure and their content being developed. Several business

associations consider the dialogue process as one reason why –

despite requests to this effect from business groups - certain rele-

vant issues had not been adequately discussed and accord-

ingly no joint solution proposal developed. Some business in-

terviewees also remarked that the dialogue process focused on

certain subjects to the exclusion of questions relating, for example,

to a comprehensive estimate of economic consequences.

A significant number of people criticised the practice of drawing

lots to assign speaking slots at the associations hearing. They

branded the procedure as “unacceptable, because it doesn’t guar-

antee the necessary broad-based participation” and “no real dia-

logue can take place”. Another issue raised in the interviews and

30

discussions during the symposium was the claim that in the indi-

vidual formats the associations had not had the representation

that befitted their importance (especially considering the size of

their memberships and the extent to which they were affected by

the issues). Business representatives also took exception to the

one-person/one-vote system being used, regardless of the size of

the group being represented.

In the opinion of the business representatives, there was the fre-

quent problem that in the work groups of the associations forum a

small number of people representing large organisations

found themselves discussing issues with a large number of

people representing small civil-society organisations. The ac-

tors attributed this partly to the fact that individual/smaller business

associations coordinated matters with their umbrella organisations

while, in the case of civil-society associations, multiple small asso-

ciations enjoyed direct representation, even in the individual for-

mats.

This composition was particularly criticized given that the recom-

mendations had been voted on by majority rule in the work

groups. In the work groups where the representatives of business

and industry were rather under-represented, and accordingly to

have been severely restricted in their ability to adequately integrate

their points. This condition according to the business representa-

tives extended also to the delegates’ committee. Harsh criticism

was expressed particularly by one business association about the

overall approach of the delegates’ committee, which pointed to the

intransparent selection of the citizen delegates and its heavy

weighting in comparison to the other groups.

The report by Professor Rucht (commissioned by Greenpeace) re-

fers to the problem that business associations had with the sheer

numbers of ordinary citizens on the panel compared to business

representatives. This criticism is best illustrated by the way the del-

egates were apportioned: the number of seats granted to the busi-

ness community was seen not to have reflected the economic im-

portance at the societal level. One interviewee elaborated that

many important business representatives were not in the decision

committee, because of a lack of votes in the association forum.

This in turn meant that the composition of the delegates’ commit-

tee was not properly representative of all the relevant groups. The

result was that the business representatives – even after Profes-

sor Rucht’s report, showed no acceptance for the delegates pro-

cess.

Only one business representative pointed out the fact that prior to

the selection of delegates it had been possible to go fishing for

votes and build majorities that way. The same person considered

the weighting of votes in favour of delegates from the citizenry as

appropriate.

31

Civil society

The mood among civil-society actors with regard to the various

participation opportunities was more mixed. Some representatives

of this group, too, were critical of the imbalance in the composition

of work groups. That said, they believed that the various groups

had had sufficient opportunity to take part.

The delegates system, also, received a more positive evaluation.

The majority of interviewees consider the procedure as necessary

and comprehensible, since the processes of such a large-scale

process had to be drawn together in one place. Unlike the busi-

ness representatives, some civil-society representatives found not

the composition or the insufficient representativeness criticisable

but rather the lack of transparency concerning the role of the

committee.

As can be seen from the evaluation of the statements submitted,

the civil-society associations welcomed the allocation of the new

fourth seat to the DGB. The representatives of the civil-society as-

sociations rated the composition of the panel overall as bal-

anced.

Political establishment / Länder / municipalities

Many of the interviewees from the politics / Länder municipalities

group rated the opportunity to integrate themselves into the pro-

cess as good. Despite their generally positive evaluation some

voices criticized the too short discussion times or the restrictions to

participation to only one work group One person would have liked

more space for input from experts.

The delegates’ committee attracted a wider spread of scores. Alt-

hough one interviewee was impressed by the opportunities availa-

ble to integrate ideas, a municipality representative pointed out

that his/her expert knowledge had gone unnoticed. With respect

to composition, one person criticized a disproportionately bal-

ance in favour of the citizenry.

Citizenry

According to the findings of the Bertelsmann evaluation, the citi-

zenry group judged their opportunities for participation in the

process overall as adequate. Positive scores were received for the

online surveys, which yielded new ideas for measures. The major-

ity in this evaluation included citizens indicated that they could inte-

grate their ideas rather or even very well. Over half also thought

that minority opinions had been given rather or even very well con-

sideration. Only a minority considered it difficult ”to have them-

selves heard”. The majority of citizen delegates saw also no diffi-

culty in finding a common position with other delegates.

32

These generally positive evaluations are also reflected in the inter-

views with the citizen delegates involved. One person commented

that the participation of citizens could have been supported

through a better preparation of citizen delegates.

However, one voice pointed out, supporting the argumentation of

the business representatives, that large associations should have

had been allowed more participants. This would have allowed a

wider representation of opinions within these large organisa-

tions in the discussions. In this context, ordinary citizens ques-

tioned the extent to which associations could really integrate the

full spectrum of opinions held by their members. Some representa-

tives in the discussion were often considered to be little progres-

sive.

Interim conclusion

The picture with regard to the opportunities for participation was

similar to that presented for the composition of participants (see

Section 3.1). Business representatives considered the oppor-

tunities as strictly limited, especially in comparison with the

significance of the citizen delegates. They criticised, among

other things, the equal treatment given to all actors regardless of

their societal significance and the share of the population that they

spoke for. Taken together with the above-mentioned reservations

concerning selection and representativity of the citizenry, this is

one of the key criticism and one which questions the legitimacy

of the entire process.

As has already been outlined in the section above, when as-

sessing these arguments, it is to be noted that the business asso-

ciations have an established position in classical processes and

formats of interest representation. In comparison to usual pro-

cesses of consultation they now stood with other actors, who

through the process had new opportunities to integrate them-

selves. This might also explain why the other actors had more pos-

itive evaluations of their participatory opportunities.

One common criticism of the association representatives con-

cerned the limitation of participants to one person per associa-

tion and event. The general opinion was that this prevented some

people from taking part in a number of working groups and led to

some working groups being attended only by persons representing

very narrow interests.

3.3 Aims and expectations of participants

The participants’ perception of the aims of the dialogue process

and their resulting expectations are deciding parameters for the

actors’ overall assessment of the participatory process. The sub-

stantive goals were to a large extent defined by the structure of

33

the Paris Climate Agreement and were clear and comprehensi-

ble to most of the actors. This applied less to the procedure. Here

actors’ assessments diverted. For instance, business representa-

tives criticized that the precise form had been initially left open,

which meant, especially at the beginning of the process, that clarity

on the significance and function of the own participation had been

missing. The function and significance only became clear in the

course of the process, and yet many of the dialogue’s aims and

procedures were modified during its course. The other actor

groups also commented that initial explanations concerning the

aims and sequence of the process were too complicated (see Sec-

tion 3.4 in particular). Representatives of all groups reported that

the Ministry had communicated very ambitious goals regarding

the relevance of the catalogue of measures to be developed for

the ongoing political process. This led many participants to the un-

derstanding that the results of the participatory process would di-

rectly and largely unaltered feed into the Climate Action Plan 2050.

There is a direct causal link between this understanding of the

goals and the expectations nurtured by the participants. As with

their perceptions of the goals, the various groups had very hetero-

geneous expectations of the participatory process in general

and on their opportunities to influence the design in particular. The

majority of business representatives reported that they had en-

tered the process without great expectations. In contrast, the citi-

zens especially and the civil-society representatives had, based on

the aim of a “broad dialogue process”, quite high expectations re-

garding both the process itself and their effect on the outcome, as

well as the measures to be developed.

The most critical factor was the assessment on how “binding” the

developed catalogue of measures for the later government de-

cision are. There seemed to be clarity amongst business repre-

sentatives that these proposals in the political decision making pro-

cess would once more undergo significant changes. Among the

civil-society associations there were differences of perception re-

garding the process development. While some representatives ini-

tially assumed that the proposal of the catalogue of measures

would be adopted more or less the same in its content by the gov-

ernment in its formulation of the Climate Action Plan, others ex-

pected that there would be opposition and that interest groups

would exert influence at a later stage of the process. The citizens,

too, assumed largely a high commitment to the catalogue of

measures developed in the process.

In the main, the (different) expectations regarding the participa-

tory process – high on the part of civil-society groups regarding in-

novative and broad-based participation, low on the part of the busi-

ness community regarding the usefulness of the process – were

for many participants fulfilled and respectively confirmed. Espe-

cially from the civil society associations and citizens there was the

34

assessment, that the participatory process in terms of breadth and

depth even exceeded initial expectations. Disappointment was

caused, above all, by the final treatment of the results (see Section

3.6).

Business

The business representatives were largely clear about the aims

of the project: to come up with proposals for the Climate Action

Plan 2050. In the main, they assessed this assignment as com-

prehensible. One area of criticism centred on the claim that the

only aim of any weight had been that of climate protection and it

had not been placed in any relation to aims that affect society as a

whole, such as economic viability and the safeguarding of energy

supplies. Another criticism focussed on the assignment to develop

measures: the representatives considered the raft of measures

very abstract and diffuse as a stepping stone on the way to devel-

oping the Climate Action Plan. On another tack, the assertion was

made that discussions had concentrated too much on climate pro-

tection objectives in the various sectors, whereas it would have

been better to ask what might be done by industry and other part-

ners to achieve these objectives.

As alluded to previously, assessments regarding the aims of the

process itself were much more heterogeneous. Some inter-

viewees maintained that the aims had been spelt out clearly; oth-

ers felt they themselves had been badly informed about the think-

ing behind the involvement of the different groups and their own

role in the proceedings. This often went hand-in-hand with the criti-

cism that the real significance of the participatory process had only

become clear during the course of the process.

The prevailing expectation of the business representatives was

that they would be able to present their associations’ position dur-

ing the discussions and deliberations leading up to decision-mak-

ing. Mention was also made on a number of occasions of the ra-

tionalisation and objectification through specific professional

expertise. Contrary to the expectations of other actors, very few

business representatives had positive expectations of the process;

most took a neutral or had a negative expectation of the process.

The reasons for this were manifold. Some actors pointed to the

fundamental criticism of the idea of a broad-based participatory

processes as an alternative to established parliamentary decision-

making processes. It was also suggested that, in view of the com-

position of participants, there had been concerns from the outset

that no balanced, objective and fact-based discussion could take

place.

The business representatives did hardly see their expecta-

tions of an objective discussion and the opportunity of voicing their

arguments fulfilled. According to one illustrative statement from a

35

representative one “had been expecting a wide-ranging and diffi-

cult process” and this had been confirmed “in the course of the

process”. In view of the plethora of themes and vested interests, it

had not been feasible for participants to address the individual is-

sues in detail. Some actors claimed that the process “had had an

ecological bias on the basis of interests” and economic arguments

had hardly been registered. As a result, the critical voices among

the business representatives saw their negative expectation re-

garding the course of the process confirmed.

The majority of business representatives were doubtful from the

start that the results of the participatory process would feed com-

pletely into the political government decision. The disappointment

of the civil-society associations and the citizenry in this regard was

also to be expected. With the process, too high expectations had

been created, which in the later course of the process could not

be met. Various business representatives also were disappointed

about the lack of feedback from the Ministry on the various pro-

posed measures that had been put forward.

36

Civil society

The representatives of civil-society associations generally felt

that they had been well informed about the aims of the partici-

patory process. Only isolated interviewees found fault with the

way the aims had been communicated, describing them as too

sketchy or imprecise. In comparison, most of the civil-society ac-

tors had high expectations of their participation possibilities, the

overall process and its results. During the process their expecta-

tions were mostly met. The desired broad-based participation and

discussions mostly had occurred. In the end the disappointment for

the civil-society representatives lay primarily in the result of the de-

partmental consultations. Although their voice had been “heard”,

they were dissatisfied with the ultimate result.

This was the background to complaints by a number of interview-

ees that the Ministry had encouraged unrealistic expectations re-

garding the significance of the participatory process. Some actors

criticized that their positions and the issues hardly had been taken

on. Even though their issues had dealt with broader social themes

which indirectly were relevant to climate protection. However, most

of the actors were understanding of the drawbacks they had identi-

fied, as this was a new form of participation, which required a cer-

tain implementation time and variance.

Political establishment / Länder / municipalities

There was unitary opinion among policy makers, Länder and mu-

nicipalities regarding the goals and expectations. Although most

representatives felt sufficiently informed as to the aims of the par-

ticipatory process, a smaller group reported lack of clarity with re-

gards to the procedural goals. They added that some of the misun-

derstandings were cleared up following requests for explanation

during the course of the process, but in a few cases the aims of

the process remained opaque to the participants. Some represent-

atives, for instance, described a long-held belief that a preliminary

strategic paper was to be drawn up, after which there would still be

a chance to add comments and submit positions.

Most representatives stated, however, that their expectations had

been based on their knowledge of the basic political objectives set

out in the coalition agreement and on similar participatory pro-

cesses at Länder level (e.g. North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-

Palatinate).

The overall expectations of this group of actors were prag-

matic. Most representatives were keen to find the information they

needed and get down to business swapping ideas and networking

with other actors in their group. The impression gained by the in-

terviewees was predominantly positive. And for some participants,

37

the opportunity to bring their own ideas and positions to bear was

less relevant.

Especially some local representatives also expected to be gather-

ing ideas for a new modus of political decision-making, leading

to “a breaking up old structures”. In the expectation of the inter-

viewees, this had at least in parts been fulfilled. The dialogue pro-

cess had provided “important impetus”, had showed a “democratic

advance” and had broken up “working structures of interest repre-

sentation”, are some comments from the interviews. On the other

hand, the sprawling nature of the process and spectrum of actors

along with the rushed pace were cited as negative factors that

dampened the full effect of the participatory process.

Citizenry

The ordinary citizens considered themselves to be well informed

regarding the objectives of the participatory process. An extensive

briefing had already been provided on the day of dialogue with the

citizenry.

The representatives of the citizenry continued to be satisfied with

the opportunities available to them as participants. In one survey

conducted by the Bertelsmann Stiftung most citizenry delegates

stated that their expectations regarding the participatory pro-

cess had been amply or entirely fulfilled, a positive rating that

was also reflected in the interviews.

A distinction must be made, however, between this positive as-

sessment of the actual participatory process and the question con-

cerning the extent to which the actors’ substantive expectations of

the participatory process and the remoulding and feedback by poli-

ticians had been fulfilled. As set out earlier, ordinary citizens and

civil-society representatives in particular were under the impres-

sion that their proposals would find their way, more or less un-

altered, into the Climate Action Plan 2050. And the ordinary citi-

zens had not necessarily come into the process expecting this. As

one representative put it: they had started off curious and without

preconceptions, and only as time went on had certain expectations

begun to form.

This explains why, over the full span of the process, the citizenry

felt that their expectations had only partially been fulfilled. For

many, however, the modification of the catalogue of measures dur-

ing departmental consultations produced a very dissatisfactory end

result. Criticism here centred on the lack of transparency and justi-

fication for the changes (see Section 3.6).

Interim conclusion

38

The majority of actors had a clear understanding of the substantive

and procedural aims and evaluated them to be reasonable. Nega-

tive statements came largely from actors who were also critical to-

wards the other aspects of the process as a whole.

More relevant – it would seem – with respect to key factors that

could promote the evolution of participatory processes in the future

are the expectations and the extent to which they are fulfilled. The

actors nurtured a wide variety of expectations. In matters of scope

for involvement and relevance of results, expectations tended to

be highest among ordinary citizens and civil-society representa-

tives. While the criticism levelled by business representatives

was largely a response to the dashing of their expectations that

their expert report and positions would be heeded, the other

actors were disappointed especially in view of the final pro-

cessing of the outcome. The business representatives, however,

considered this to have been predictable and evaluated the sub-

stantive changes from a content perspective rather positively.

The results as a whole demonstrate that right from the outset, or at

some point in the participatory process, expectations were

created that exceeded the actual significance of the process.

Many participants were not fully aware that the participatory pro-

cess formed one of the bases for departmental consultations.

From this perspective the lack of proper feedback on and substan-

tive integration of the catalogue of measures developed was one

reason why actors of all groups felt in their expectations dis-

appointed.

3.4 Transparency

With a large majority all participating groups criticized at least partly

the transparency of the process. The issue of transparency was a

major topic in both the interviews and the group discussions at the

symposium. Especially from the point of the departmental consul-

tation the process was described as intransparent. Criticism was

two-pronged. Firstly, it took issue with the lack of detailed feed-

back relating to the political processing of the results of the partici-

patory project. Secondly, many actors reported that it had not been

made sufficiently clear at the beginning that the catalogue of pro-

posed measures would be subject to alteration during the govern-

mental decision-making phase. Representatives of civil-society as-

sociations especially were disappointed that the process, which

was widely viewed as important and meaningful, was conse-

quently made vulnerable.

39

Nonetheless, some feedback was positive. In all groups there

were a few representatives who praised the process as fundamen-

tally transparent, highlighting the clearly defined steps in the pro-

cess and good briefings on the structure of the individual dialogue

formats. On the other hand, members of civil-society groups and

business associations partially described the process as too com-

plicated and hard to comprehend.

Business associations in particular, but also some civil-society

groups, criticised what they saw as an intransparent flow of sub-

stantive information regarding the participatory process. Many in-

terviewees criticized that it had not been clear why certain measures

had been included in the catalogue and who had been behind which

proposals. Some business representatives criticized the poor doc-

umentation of the process. This applied especially to “votes

against” and criticism voiced during discussions, which were not

sufficiently caught and appreciated in the minutes and documenta-

tion.

While representatives from the business community and civil society

groups had both positive and negative things to say on the issue

of transparency or lack of it, members of the citizenry and represent-

atives from the political establishment, Länder and municipalities

were mostly positive. That said, the citizens thought the website

could be improved, which was described as overloaded and difficult

to navigate. Politicians, Länder officials, municipalities and environ-

mental associations also saw improvement potential in the overly

extensive preparatory documents.

Business

The majority of business representatives critically evaluated the

transparency of the process. In line with the general feeling in

other groups, many interviewees and symposium participants criti-

cized the transparency especially from the point of the depart-

mental consultation. Aside from transparency per se, there was

criticism of the lack of detailed feedback regarding why some

measures made it into the Climate Action Plan 2050 and some did

not. One person went so far as to label the participatory process a

“mock process”, saying that it had never really been about getting

“input”.

The transparency of the participatory process prior to depart-

mental consultation also was subject to criticism. Interviewees

were particularly dissatisfied with the lack of clarity over the origin of

specific proposals and who had put forward what. This point was

made in two written statements and numerous interviews. One as-

sociation representative described not being able to comprehend

what had actually been made of the participants’ “input”. When the

40

results produced by working groups were documented, it was very

hard to know who was behind the content and the write-up and what

use it would be put to. The dialogue process seemed more reminis-

cent of “occupational therapy for associations”.

One voice among the interviewed business representatives found

the submitting and selection of the set of measures, at least in the

large workshops as transparent. The representative did not know,

however, why some measures were selected for inclusion and oth-

ers were not. Another individual also mentioned that no one had

known whether and where written statements had fed into the pro-

cess.

Many representatives of the business associations expressed criti-

cism with regard to the minutes of individual events of the process.

From their perspective, it was not presented with sufficient transpar-

ency as to who had voted for or against particular measures. In this

respect, some interviewees were in favour of “minority votes”, i.e.

recording the names of votes against - where requested - in all

conducted formats and events. One association representative

thought the consents and rejections in the final report were ade-

quately documented.

The practice of publishing minutes unapproved was deemed prob-

lematic among the business community. Annotations or addenda

were only possible via a comment function on the website, although

here, too, it was unclear whether the comments had been incorpo-

rated and assimilated into the process. One person found the inter-

vals between sessions and minuting much too long for people to

remember what had actually been discussed.

Unlike the broad criticism among business representatives on the

issue of poor transparency, opinions were divided regarding the de-

sign of the project and its implementation. Some interviewees

stressed that the dialogue process had been well structured and

communicated. Others thought it was too complicated and layered,

with too much uncertainty over how things functioned and what

could or could not be influenced. For example, some had not known

that statements could be submitted after the opening event. Some

business representatives considered that the lack of transparency

was largely due to the constant changing of rules and conditions

as the project progressed (e.g. regarding the vote and tasks of the

delegates’ committee).

Two associations mentioned in their written submissions the course

of the process itself. One stated that transparency had suffered as

time went on; the other praised the response to criticism and the

increasing transparency as the project progressed.

41

With respect to the transparency of specific dialogue formats, inter-

views focused especially on the delegates’ committee. Some in-

terviewees were not sure what went on there and what the job of

the delegates was. Various representatives also thought that the

process of voting in the delegates was somewhat chaotic and with-

out clear rules.

Some business representatives found the first (separate) phase of

citizenry participation intransparent. The subject was raised in one

written statement but not addressed in detail at that stage. Inter-

views revealed that not all representatives understood the process

by which the research official drew together the catalogue of

measures. One business representative, for example, criticised that

proposals emanating from the large citizen fora had not been

adopted in transparent fashion but rather preselected by the BMUB.

Another person made the point that for a process of this kind to be

deemed transparent it also had to publish the costs of the project.

Civil society

Among civil-society representatives there was a spread of opin-

ions relating to the transparency of the participatory process – at

least until the proposals were referred to the departments for the

consultative phase. In the course of the statement submissions and

the hearings three civil society groups had good things to say about

transparency levels and rejected claims that the procedural rules

had not been clear.

In the interviews, too, several associations praised the transparent

way the structure of the process had been communicated, espe-

cially the “comprehension loops” in which people were explained

what point they had reached in the process. One interviewee found

the explanatory videos on the website helpful in this regard. This

generally positive assessment was qualified, however, by the ob-

servation that a full understanding of the process had required

much effort on the part of those involved.

Many civil-society representatives felt that the process design had

not been communicated, at least partly, transparently. Criticism

centred on the constant changing of rules, goals and context condi-

tions. The concept of delegates, too, was hard to fathom for many

and hence considered intransparent. The report by Professor Rucht

(commissioned by Greenpeace) likewise refers to representatives

from environmental associations who described that at some points

in the process they had not known what was coming next or what

was meant to be done. At the same time, the report also pointed to

the repeated attempts by the organisers to elucidate the steps of the

process, roles and responsibilities.

42

Several civil-society groups were at least partially positive in the

interviews when rating the substantive flow of information. This was

limited, however, by their criticism of the mass of documents handed

out and the short time that the participants had to sift through them.

One representative criticised the fact that high levels of transpar-

ency went hand-in-hand with a large amount of work sifting

through the information provided. Similar criticisms were voiced by

some interviewees in respect of the website: they found it very de-

tailed and comprehensive but criticised the lack of overview and par-

tially overly complex content. Two interviewees doubted that out-

siders to the process could make any sense of it.

How the various work groups had come to their conclusions and

how one measure or other had “found its way into the catalogue

of measures” was also unclear by interviewees among the repre-

sentatives of the civil society. One was especially critical in this re-

gard of the poorly comprehensible decision-making process in the

delegates’ committee. These sessions, too, could be viewed on

the website, although it would have taken too much time to analyse

this information in detail.

One representative criticised the way panel results were docu-

mented. Echoing the point made by a number of business repre-

sentatives, s/he took issue with the failure to have minutes approved

before they were written up. Civil-society representatives welcomed

the suggestion from business groups to introduce a minority vote

system to improve the traceability of the voting results.

Independent of what people thought of the participatory process

prior to the submission of the catalogue of measures for depart-

mental consultations, almost all civil-society groups criticised the

lack of detailed feedback concerning further development of the cat-

alogue of measures for the Climate Action Plan 2050. One person

insisted that this had “discredited the entire process”.

Political establishment / Länder / municipalities

The majority of those representing the political establishment, Län-

der and municipalities gave the process good marks for transpar-

ency. In one of the few written statements submitted there was ex-

plicit praise for the transparent incorporation of all actors and

the extensive documentation of results. This positive appraisal

of the transparency, especially regarding the structure of the pro-

cess, was also reflected in the evaluation of the interviews. How-

ever, the good evaluations were limited regarding some points due

to criticism of too much information material, or occasionally,

poorly defined goals.

43

Two people held up the internet presence as a model of transpar-

ency while at the same time expressing doubts that outsiders would

have been able to follow what was going on.

Two representatives of the political establishment, Länder and mu-

nicipalities expressed exclusively criticisms towards the point of

transparency. One branded the entire process “nebulous”, espe-

cially with respect to the spelling out of goals and the results ex-

pectations. The other mainly criticised the lack of clarity in the pro-

cedures determining which measures were to be included in the pro-

posed catalogue of measures.

Members of this broad group also expressed dissatisfaction with the

lack of feedback following departmental consultations, although this

was not as dominant an issue as it had been for the other groups of

actors. Only two interviewees were emphatic in their criticism.

Citizenry

The survey of delegates from the citizenry, conducted by the Ber-

telsmann Stiftung, revealed that most interviewees were reasonably

or completely clear on where the boundaries of the participatory pro-

cess were drawn. The report by Professor Rucht (commissioned by

Greenpeace), on the other hand, concludes that the citizens had not

always been aware of what stage they had reached in the process.

In the interviews, the delegates from the citizenry rated the pro-

cess as principally transparent, emphasizing the clearly defined

procedural rules and well communicated sequence. That said,

there were also criticism. As well as the internet presence, which

was considered too complicated and therefore intransparent, the

lack of feedback from the beginning of the departmental consulta-

tion was partially sharply criticised. “On the final mile,” as one per-

son put it, “the work of hundreds of people was swept aside under

a blanket of obfuscation”.

Interim conclusion

Criticism relating to the level of transparency in the process centred

on the reworking of the proposed measures once they were out of

the hands of the participants (see especially Section 3.6). Actors

across all groups were intensely disappointed at the intransparent

transportation of the developed catalogue of measures into the Cli-

mate Action Plan. In particular, there was no feedback relating to

why some measures had been abridged. For many interviewees,

the entire participatory process had been pursued ad absurdum.

Despite the clear criticism concerning poor levels of transpar-

ency, especially post submission of the catalogue for departmental

44

consideration, it is clear that many participants felt that the struc-

ture of the participatory process was appropriate and under-

standable. Two aspects in particular were praised. Firstly, the re-

peated elucidation of the design and individual steps of the process

was welcomed. Secondly, many people found it helpful to have a lot

of information made available via email circulars and the website.

It has to be said here, however, that both the material emailed and

the website itself were often described as too voluminous, un-

wieldy and complex.

The substantive, content-based dimension of the participatory pro-

cess was described several times as intransparent, in some cases

severely so. Many criticized that they had been denied insight into

which measures had been adopted and why and who had been be-

hind which input. Linked to this were the questions raised about the

minuting of discussions and resolutions. Critics pointed to poor re-

porting of the course and trajectory of discussions and sketchy ex-

posure given to objecting votes. Furthermore, the results of mo-

tions put to the vote had, in the opinion of some, not been com-

prehensively documented. Some participants, particularly business-

community representatives, thought that, for the participatory pro-

cess to have been at all useful, the names of people voting for or

against a particular proposal should have been published.

3.5 Concept and methodology

This section studies methods, formats and timetabling in rela-

tion to the basic conceptualisation and methodological design

of the dialogue process.

The interviews, written statements and symposium all revealed an

overall positive assessment of the sequence and methodolog-

ical design of the process. The professional organisation and de-

sign attracted particular praise. Positive feedback on the participa-

tory process came especially from representatives of the political

establishment, Länder and municipalities and (unreservedly) from

the ordinary citizens involved. Partially positive evaluations were

also forthcoming from civil-society groups and a few business-

community representatives concerning the design.

This broadly positive assessment of certain aspects of the process

was slightly marred, however, by criticisms. There was across-the-

board criticism of the rushed timetable of both the process in gen-

eral and individual events in particular. The short time conflicted

with the broad thematic scope of the work groups. In their written

statements, in the interviews and in the symposium, participants all

expressed a desire for more time in which to prepare for the

45

events and more opportunity to discuss issues during a given

event or dialogue format.

Assessments divided over the concept and course of the pro-

cess. While business representatives principally criticised the de-

sign of the process and, as a corollary, move to be included as co-

designers of future dialogue processes, some civil-society repre-

sentatives drew other conclusions, finding fault with “technical,

superficial errors” in a process that was otherwise well-mean-

ing and important. For them, the problems were more with incon-

sistencies in the design of the process, especially considering that

these imperfections had given the opponents of broad-based par-

ticipation something to criticize. Harking back to the issue of the

participatory opportunities available to the various representatives

(see Section 3.2), business-community representatives and, to a

certain extent, civil-society groups both criticised the fact that par-

ticipation had been restricted to one person per organisation

and event, which meant that not all subjects had received ade-

quate treatment.

Business

Most business representatives criticised the structure of the

dialogue process on the grounds of poor preparation, badly com-

municated goals and constant changing of rules. The majority of

representatives also found fault with the time pressure that people

were under and the restriction to one participant per organisation

and event.

A smaller part of the voices from the interviewees and statements

rated the structure and sequence of the process as good and in

keeping with the aim of achieving broad participation. Suggestions

were made for improvements and centred on getting business as-

sociations involved in the process at the conceptual stage and re-

moving the restriction on numbers of participants at events.

Sticking out among the critical assessments was a statement

that went out of its way to praise the dialogue project, describing

the open participatory process as excellently organised and carried

out. The decision to have scientists backing the process was

praised as exemplary of how to involve as many stakeholders as

possible in this kind of participatory process.

With respect to improvement suggestions, business representa-

tives suggested having the association fora focus on overarching,

cross-sectoral themes, holding day-long workgroups focused on

action specific themes and involving the relevant ministries in the

process.

Most business representatives found the timetable as too tight.

Deadlines were too tight and sessions too short. Some of those

46

who expressed an opinion assumed that this was intentional, a

strategy designed to “quash unwelcome suggestions” and “hurry

the process along”. Some of the business representatives,

however, considered the timetable reasonable but would have

preferred longer sessions or less rigorous sequencing of agenda

topics.

In their written statements and at the hearings, a number of busi-

ness associations, too, thought that the process could have been

less rushed. The time frame was not appropriate for the im-

portance and significance of the questions and it did not allow

any room for any extensive impact assessments. There are also

references in the minutes of meetings that insufficient time was al-

lotted for discussions on the panel of delegates; one business rep-

resentative observed that there was a lot of scope for improving

the nature, structure and substance of involvement. In a proposal

aimed at ensuring better coverage of the spread of opinions, an-

other person advised the organisers of future dialogue projects to

rethink their decision to assign speaking slots at random or by

the drawing of lots, as had happened in the association hearing.

In the interviews especially there was criticism of the closing

event, which, in the opinion some, had not managed to present a

balanced picture of the various positions held.

Small-scale discussion formats scored very well, although here

too the rushed timetable was deemed unfortunate. The use of Met-

aplan – and in particular its scoring system - was not always popu-

lar. On this point, some found it regrettable that it had not been

possible in all discussion formats to attribute transcribed sugges-

tions to the relevant speaker or author. This problem was mostly

highlighted in the context of poor transparency (see Section 3.4).

Civil society

Representatives of civil-society groups were critical of the failure

to take sufficient account of, and respond to, the changing po-

litical context as the dialogue project progressed. As an example,

rules and aims were altered in mid process, particularly in view of

the Climate Conference in Paris. Dissatisfaction was also partially

expressed with the rule restricting participation per organisation.

One civil-society representative was also disappointed that no for-

mat existed for the inclusion of business/industrial innovators.

There was an overall sense that the process was “unusual” and ra-

ther (too) complex in structure. In the face of these reservations,

some interviewees were positive in their appraisals, highlighting

the overriding aims of the process (broad-based participation, in-

volvement of many different groups). With regard to the underlying

47

concept, civil-society representatives also positively remarked fac-

tors such as the networking opportunities for the various sectors

and the involvement of the scientific community.

However, some civil-society representatives also argued that a

number of “technical, superficial errors” (e.g. inadequate prepara-

tion of participants, alteration of procedural rules) laid the organis-

ers open to criticism, especially from “fundamental critics”, who

critically confronted the idea of wide participation in principle. It

was these defects more than the conceptual shortcomings that

made the process vulnerable to attack. The report by Professor

Rucht (commissioned by Greenpeace) likewise mentions that civil-

society groups such as environmental organisations supported the

process in its basic form but (privately) criticised individual details.

This matches with the described insights from the document anal-

yses and the interviews.

A range of aspects were touched on. One association held that

people were unclear about the process by which measure pro-

posals were to be arrived at. In several interviewees negatively re-

marked the voting procedure at the end (see Section 3.6 in particu-

lar). Others regretted that people who would have liked to attend

several work groups could not if the working groups were being

held in parallel. That said, the author of one written statement

could not understand the criticism partially levelled at the proce-

dures and methods used in the dialogue fora.

In respect of the timetable tempo, a slim majority of civil-society

representatives opined that the deadlines in particular were too

tight and the sessions too short. Some were generally accepting of

the speed of proceedings but still would have liked a little more

time. There was some sympathy for the perceived imperative of

producing results in time for the climate conference in Marrakesh.

Reservations linked to the hastiness of the project deplored the

lack of time for responding to action proposals, digesting the mass

of information material and discussing the final results/findings.

One suggestion aimed at correcting this state of affairs envisaged

streamlining the whole process for the individual target groups by

moving the involvement of the citizenry forward or factoring in time

to familiarise members of the citizenry with the subject under dis-

cussion. If the process was split, citizenry conclusions could form

the basis of a subsequent specialised dialogue process.

The severe timetable was mentioned in several written statements

of civil-society associations, with five associations collaborating in

a joint statement to criticize the four week deadline to submit their

statements to the BMUB’s draft. Considering the societal and stra-

tegic extent, four weeks were deemed inadequate.

48

A range of opinions emerged concerning the various discussion

formats used in the associations forum, which some people criti-

cised, saying that they had caused friction. There had also been

an imbalance in favour of the large associations, which had

been in a better position to articulate their positions. On top of this,

in-depth discussions had been inhibited by the time framework to

which the forum was subject, the rigid agenda and less-than-ideal

seating.

Political establishment / Länder / municipalities

Representatives of the political establishment, Länder, municipali-

ties were ambivalent in their assessment of the structure of

the dialogue process. One clear majority judged it positively

while another clear majority criticized the timeframe of the

process as too short. Especially civil-service associations with

the necessity of internal and cross-departmental consultations re-

garded the deadlines as too short. Not only that: the brevity of

events meant that not enough time was available for substantive

discussion and the striking of compromises. One part of the inter-

viewees was either content with the time scale or considered it ap-

propriate to the circumstances.

A total of three Länder submitted written statements that ad-

dressed the issue of time. They criticised the fact that in the time

available for drafting statements they had had no time to involve

the associations and come to a cross-departmental consulta-

tion. The substantive discussion on proposed measures had been

given too little space. The documentation generated by the first

Länder forum contains the observation that documents for the par-

ticipants were very late in arriving and the deadline pressure

meant that no concerted opinion from the Länder had been availa-

ble.

Hardly any opinions were expressed on individual formats. Without

singling out specific formats, representatives took issue with super-

ficial discussions, prescribed directions of debate and initial lack of

clarity regarding the process. Assessments were divided over the

small-scale discussion groups: some representatives thought they

were very important for the participatory process; others felt they

were just a “battleground of vested interests” and merely an occa-

sion for a “presenting of positions”.

One suggestion was made regarding the future design of participa-

tory processes: that the possibility of holding parallel dialogue

processes for the various stakeholders be considered.

Citizenry

Ordinary citizens, questioned on their attitude towards structure

and organisation of the process, rated them very positively.

49

Their only reservation was that, as the dialogue process moved

forward and new developments became known, the package of

measures could not be modified to reflect this. It was also sug-

gested that delegates from the citizenry should be invited to attend

the other fora as ambassadors. They could then act as mediators,

defusing conflicts and facilitating understanding. Members of the

citizenry, too, were enthusiastic about small-scale formats such as

workshops and round-table discussions.

No consensus was forthcoming regarding the time framework.

One individual described the process as too “compressed” while

another would prefer to see a shorter process in future and sug-

gests reducing the number of events but making them longer. One

citizen did not have a problem with the tempo of the schedule, but

one delegate from the citizenry, when interviewed as part of the

BMUB survey, pointed to the hurried pace and suggested debating

the various issues in smaller workshops. Allied to this was the de-

sire for more support to be provided to the participants so that all

parties were on a par when it came to discussions.

Analysis of the survey of delegates from the citizenry conducted by

the Bertelsmann Stiftung shows that a slim majority of citizens felt

that the length of the process was pitched just right. The amount

of work that went into the process was deemed reasonable

and in proportion to the results yielded. The survey also found

that the panel-of-delegates format was also deemed a success.

A significant majority of participants interviewed as part of the citi-

zenry dialogues (419 people in all) rated the participatory process

positively. The report by Professor Rucht (commissioned by

Greenpeace) likewise ascertained that both the participants during

the day of dialogue with the citizenry and the delegates from the

citizenry had been very content with the whole process, with the

aforementioned day of dialogue being the format that was espe-

cially praised. In the follow-up survey (as part of the Bertelsmann

study) the various online phases of the process received positive

ratings from half the citizens interviewed (a total of 175 individu-

als).

Interim conclusion

In their assessment of the timetabling, there was broad agree-

ment among the representatives of business associations, civil-so-

ciety groups and the political establishment, Länder and municipal-

ities. Majorities in all three groups of participants found the

process was planned too tight. Dissatisfaction here centred on

the tight deadlines available to prepare for events, submit written

statements and discuss topics in depth. This had also meant that

few compromises could be struck during the individual debates. A

minority of actors thought the timetable was reasonable and the

50

events not too rushed. Citizens interviewed were showed no uni-

tary opinion on the time frame.

The individual discussion formats provided little differentiated

assessments. In this context no systematic differences among the

participating groups could be identified. In general, the selected

formats were regarded as appropriate and goal oriented. Actors

were most critical of the closing event, which failed to present a

balanced account, or even a summary, of the conclusions reached

and opinions expressed.

Across-the-board the small-scale group discussions were as-

sessed very positive. However, the brevity of the sessions was at

odds with the mass of issues to be discussed, making it almost im-

possible to address the subjects in any depth. Furthermore, many

of the discussions had been especially confrontational without con-

vergence or consensus finding.

In the appraisal of individual discussion methods, business associ-

ations especially took issue with the tendency to collate the results

of group discussions without recording who had made the respec-

tive proposals. The mere act of drawing together the threads of

discussions (e.g. on the subject of Metaplan) and in particular pri-

oritising (scoring) them without naming the authors/sources was

not what most people would call transparent. That said, the other

groups considered the procedure for structuring and visualising

discussions to have been, in the main, reasonable and not a mat-

ter for concern.

The idea of having delegates was called into question, above all

by the business associations but also by representatives from civil-

society groups and the political establishment, Länder and munici-

palities. The reason given was that the committee’s function had

remained unclear to participants throughout the entire dialogue

process. The selection of delegates especially had been chaotic,

with most participants at a loss to know what procedure had been

used to determine who would sit on the panel. There was also criti-

cism that the various interests and viewpoints were not equitably

represented on the panel. On this point, the business representa-

tives were particularly critically with regards to the role and number

of delegates from the citizenry in the committee.

Representatives of all groups remarked that the closing event

had not delivered a fair account of the conclusions drawn and

opinions voiced during the process and consequently had not pro-

vided an adequate, structured summary of the results.

51

3.6 Post-submission adjustments to proposals

package; political process leading up to

approval of the Climate Action Plan

Almost all interviewees were dissatisfied with the process of al-

tering the results and the political decision making - inde-

pendent of the results evaluation. Also participants who wel-

comed the Cabinet decision and welcomed the altered results of

the process were disappointed with the process of the political de-

cision making.

The criticism, espoused by all groups, focused on the lack of trans-

parency regarding adjustments made to the results, poor feedback

and the modification or deletion of developed proposed measures.

Individuals with more experience of political processes showed

less or no surprise at these developments.

Almost all interviewees would have preferred to see more feed-

back during the phase of Cabinet consultations, which began after

the catalogue of measures had been finalised. Most stated that

their only source of information on developments at this stage had

been the media. The news coverage of mediation efforts, real-time

developments and the positions of the individual ministries was of-

ten detailed and comprehensive. This was a regrettable state of

affairs in the eyes of the interviewees. A number of representatives

commented that it would have helped, and even sufficed, if infor-

mal communiqués from the BMUB had been passed on to them

with a note referring them to such and such a statement or pub-

lished article.

Most interviewees were disappointed about essential changes and

deletions that had been made to the proposed catalogue of

measures. However, whereas one portion of participants claimed

they were unaware up to that point that the government could al-

ter, and had altered, the content of the package, other interview-

ees – especially people with experience of the political process –

said they were hardly, or not at all, surprised.

The majority of civil-society representatives and members of the

citizenry were disappointed that the BMUB had not provided de-

tailed feedback (written justifications for their modification or re-

jection of certain action proposals) that had been promised. Criti-

cism to this effect were voiced and widely discussed in the inter-

views and in the symposium workshop.

Even though some people, interviewed on this matter, felt that the

verbal feedback provided at the closing event in February 2017 fell

short of the mark, they were pleased that it had happened at all.

The Environment Minister set out the developments in the process

52

clearly and thoroughly. Also the communication of the results alter-

ations many participants could subsequently be better compre-

hended.

Business

Given the wide spectrum of sectors and operations covered by the

business associations involved (e.g. coal, renewable energies)

there were wildly differing reactions to the (substance of) the pack-

age that ultimately formed part of the Climate Action Plan. That

said, the vast majority of business representatives subscribed to

the sharp criticism of the way adjustments were made to the pro-

posals generated in the course of the participatory process.

A number of interviewees in particular pointed out that the aims

and limitations of the process had not been clearly spelt out

at the start of the project. Information on the separate steps in the

adjustment phase and the number of actors that were going to be

brought in after the participants had completed their work (Cabinet,

departments, political parties, etc.) should have been provided in a

more transparent, more understandable way. An opportunity to

make plain the advisory nature of the participatory process had

been missed. In the view of most business representatives, a

statement of this kind could have prevented unrealistic expecta-

tions, or at least minimised, discontent later on.

At the same time, many interviewees described the political deci-

sion making as very important. In the light of criticism relating to

the legitimacy and role of a broad spectrum of directly involved

participants (see sections 3.1 and 3.2 in particular), these were at

the core of the work culminating in the Climate Action Plan and

could also not be circumvented with new forms of participation.

Business representatives were no different to other groups of ac-

tors in pointing out the shortcomings of the feedback process.

More than anything else, in their opinion, would have been precise

information on why certain proposals had been rejected or altered.

One representative was exercised by the appearance in summer

2016 of a number of unofficial versions of the Climate Action Plan

in the press, which had triggered a public debate without any offi-

cial position being presented.

Accordingly, most interviewees expressed the expectation for fu-

ture processes that a feedback should occur not only through sub-

stantive communication but also an evaluation of the results, as

well as contain a description of the (further) course of the process.

Several interviewees were also in favour of a system of continuous

feedback following the direct participation.

Civil society

53

Civil-society groups cited the adjustments made to the pro-

posals as a central problem in the process. Their representatives

expressed annoyance that the fruits of the work that had gone into

producing the catalogue of measures had not entered the version

approved by the government. Too many measures had been de-

leted and this had created feelings of resignation and partially

great frustration. This revealed itself in the interviews, with some

participants outraged that the process had been nothing more than

an undemocratic piece of theatre, especially in the light of influ-

ence exerted by some interest groups, and subsequently the dia-

logue process had been “damaged”. Other representatives regret-

ted that the participatory process had not supplanted the Cabinet

consultations.

Another point made was that clearer communication would have

been helpful. Many participants’ expectations had been too high,

leading to disappointment. For others, on the other hand, the end

result was “worse than they’d hoped but better than they’d ex-

pected”.

A number of interviewees defended the conduct of the BMUB,

saying that the ministry had done everything it could to uphold

the action catalogue and had doubtless been taken by surprise at

the tenacity of resistance to it.

All interviewees would have liked to see a more robust feed-

back process; a brief outline of reasons for changing one or

other proposal – one paragraph per measure, for instance – would

have been enough. The generalised statement made at the clos-

ing event got a mixed reception: for some it was a very good com-

muniqué; for others it did not go far enough. A minority of civil-soci-

ety representatives sympathetic to the argument that written feed-

back would not have been feasible.

Political establishment / Länder / municipalities

Actors representing the political establishment, Länder and munici-

palities were likewise dissatisfied with the way the results were

processed. All representatives who were interviewed described

the feedback relating to the adjustments as inadequate and dis-

appointing, especially from summer 2016 onwards. There had

been a lack of feedback above all with respect to adjustments

made by central government officials. Departmental consulta-

tions were seen as having been intransparent, unstructured

and not comprehensible. Almost all representatives interviewed

desired a subsequent stronger inclusion.

There was particular criticism that the BMUB had reneged on its

promise at the start of the process to account for changes made

and a respective state secretary decision to this effect. The

BMUB’s conduct here had caused widespread disappointment.

54

The majority of interviewees were also surprised and disap-

pointed by the extent of adjustments that had been made in

the further processing of the results. Particularly sharp words were

reserved for the “corrective interventions” to the catalogue of

measures of interest representatives. One representative de-

scribed the ongoing process as “a distortion of results”, which in

turn indicated a lacking appreciation for the participatory process

and the people involved in it. The process had become a “moch

process”.

Representatives more versed in the ways of the political world pro-

fessed to being less surprised. A typical observation was that this

was standard practice and hard to avoid. Any other procedure

would sidestep the other departments.

That said, the work of the BMUB in the matter of post-submission

adjustment of proposals also had its supporters. Several repre-

sentatives spoke of the Ministry’s honest and energetic cam-

paign on behalf of the catalogue of measures, a campaign that

was unable to generate majority resolutions in different aspects.

Citizenry

Assessments of the adjustment/editing process and feedback

concerning it were more disparate among the citizenry. Although

all representatives were dissatisfied with the modification of the

action catalogue per se, they evaluated the final result more

positively. Most of the citizens interviewed thought the aims very

ambitious and they had principally come to recognise some of the

ideas and goals. Criticism focused on the fact that the alterations

and deletions showed a lack of recognition of the performance and

work of the participants. In the light of the ongoing adjustment pro-

cess, some interviewees also had a problem with the significance

of the work of interest association outside or following the partici-

pation. This had undermined the credibility of the whole pro-

cess.

The interviewees were also disappointed by the lack of feed-

back regarding the in the context of the participation developed

measures. They had found the personal explanations and elabo-

rations given during the closing event in February 2017 as help-

ful, open and honest. The development and content could follow-

ing be better placed.

55

Interim conclusion

The processing of the results of the participatory process was

at the core of criticism. This applied across the board; no group

was content with what went on, not even those who welcomed the

substance of the alterations. It was the way that the proposals had

been altered that had damaged the participatory process as a

whole.

Several interviewees - first and foremost from the ranks of the citi-

zenry and civil society – took it as a sign that their efforts and

achievements were not as acknowledged or appreciated as they

should have been.

The lacking feedback from summer 2016 onwards was especially

a problem. All groups were disappointed and some representa-

tives partially irritated that the promised feedback on the cata-

logue of measures did not occur.

Regarding the organisation and execution of future participatory

processes, significant changes needed to be made in the way

the results are processed and feedback provided. There were re-

peated suggestions that future projects should be clearer and

more open in concept and communication and more clearly em-

bedded in the whole process.

3.7 Collaboration between stakeholder groups

involved

Representatives of business associations especially returned a

negative assessment on the relations between the various stake-

holder groups during the participatory process. Criticism from busi-

ness representatives related predominantly to the perceived fixa-

tion of civil-society groups and citizenry delegates on fundamental,

“world-views” and less theme-based positions: long-healed

wounds sustained by ecologists and economists in their ideological

warring had been reopened, in the opinion of these representa-

tives, and the ensuing debates had been often emotional. This had

been an obstacle to objective discussion and an impediment to

compromise.

The business representatives found it hard to work with the citi-

zenry, largely due to the different precondition and levels of spe-

cialised knowledge. Unlike in their talks with association represent-

atives on equal footing, most business representatives found it al-

most impossible with citizens, since the latter were rarely in pos-

session of the necessary expertise.

56

On the other hand, most representatives from civil-society groups,

the citizenry, the political establishment, Länder and municipalities

found exchanges between themselves and other groups to be

positive and conducted on an equal footing. The active facilita-

tion of these conversations and discussions by the organisers was

praised in this context (see also Section 3.8).

In turn, several representatives from civil-society groups, the citi-

zenry, the political establishment, Länder and municipalities con-

sidered the behaviour of the business associations as destruc-

tive. They cited in particular the domineering stance of the busi-

ness representatives, which some interviewees from the political

establishment, Länder officials and municipalities attributed to their

roles as representatives of a particular association with clear

guidelines. The observation was also made that this domineering

attitude had a negative impact on the atmosphere of debate. Con-

versely, parallel to the business community’s criticism of civil-soci-

ety groups and their entrenched positions, interviewees from civil-

society groups, the political establishment, Länder and municipali-

ties took issue with the blocking approach of business associa-

tions, who were deemed to have adopted a stalling, impeding role.

This goes hand-in-hand with the claim that business groups had

attempted to torpedo the dialogue process by subjecting it to con-

stant criticism.

Individual interviewees among civil-society representatives and

politicians, Länder officials and municipalities likewise considered

the different levels of specialised knowledge in the various discus-

sion to be problematic. Yet their reservations were aimed not just

at the citizenry but also at other groups of actors with niche areas

of expertise.

The members of the citizenry themselves were not above acknowl-

edging a certain disparity in opportunities to familiarise themselves

with certain subjects, but they did not think of this as a major im-

pediment to productive discussions. At the same time, some inter-

viewees expressed some sympathy for the business representa-

tives, whom they had perceived as “under enormous pressure”.

Business

Representatives of business associations barely elaborated in their

written statements on the cooperation between the various groups

of actors. One association on the subject mentioned some very

controversial debates during the participatory process. Another

business association suggested investing more resources when

drawing together the results and findings of the various groups of

participants (Länder, citizenry, associations, municipalities).

An analysis of the interviews revealed two main subjects of criti-

cism for business associations. Firstly, they maintained that it was

57

nearly impossible to work with civil-society groups. Secondly, in-

stead of genuine collaboration the parties in the various meetings

had mainly exchanged positions.

Most business representatives interviewed stated that civil-society

group members had responded very emotionally to suggestions by

business associations and thus it had not been possible to hold

objective discussions. This emotionality was described as ex-

tremely unpleasant. On top of this, business associations detected

little or no willingness on the part of civil-society groups to

achieve agreement or to compromise on their own stand-

points.

Representatives also made the point that issues reflecting specific

civil-society interests had been accepted without comment or

question by the project organisers and other actors, whereas ideas

emanating from the business community had been met with more

scepticism. In the report by Professor Rucht (commissioned by

Greenpeace) the neutral-sounding observation was made, that

Länder, municipalities and particularly the citizen delegates tended

to support positions of environmental associations on a matter of

principle.

Business community representatives had a variety of views on in-

dividual formats used in the dialogue process. One interviewee de-

scribed the discussion in the Buildings forum as vehement and

contentious but also useful and productive due to the objective na-

ture of the debate and its lack of polemic. Two interviewees com-

mented on the associations forum but came to different conclu-

sions: one said the work of the forum was tackled on a high level

and equal footing, despite lacking scientific basis; the other painted

the proceedings as difficult and “post-factual”.

People had the overall impression that the differences between

the standpoints of business associations and civil-society

groups, which many participants had believed to be erased, actu-

ally became entrenched. One particular working group discussion

at the symposium was several times cited as evidence of this.

Civil society

Also the civil-society organisations gave very little indication in

their written statements on what they thought of the interaction be-

tween the various groups of actors. One civil-society group re-

ferred in writing only to many actors’ openness to the idea of dia-

logue – on the part of both the business sector and the unions.

On the subject of how the various associations got on working to-

gether, civil-society groups mostly agreed that interactions

between organisations were generally good. Differences in

character and style - assertive versus reserved, for instance –

58

were not a problem; they were seen as part and parcel of dialogue

processes. Types of comportment were also determined by peo-

ple’s personality and professional background and by the negotiat-

ing leeway enjoyed by the association being represented.

This notwithstanding, most of the interviews were of the opinion

that the business associations’ recurring criticism of the process

was counterproductive. Most civil-society groups thought that the

business representatives had taken an impeding stance that de-

liberately blocked progress. The civil society view of the business

representatives was in turn also critical taking issue with their pre-

conceived opinions and lack of willingness to compromise. A num-

ber of times and in the context of various fora and areas of opera-

tion the “role of inhibitor” was used with reference to the busi-

ness associations. One interviewee maintained that this stance

could be blamed for the emergence of a “pact of solidarity” be-

tween the other groups of actors. The analysed report by Profes-

sor Rucht (commissioned by Greenpeace) also comes to a similar

conclusion.

Political establishment / Länder / municipalities

Written statements by representatives of the political establish-

ment, Länder and municipalities were equally short on detailed

assessments of the cooperation. Only one statement referred to

the fact that, in the catalogue of measures and the documentation

of the results of the participatory process, guiding measures pro-

posed not only by the citizenry but also by Länder and municipali-

ties were frequently resisted by the business community. Business

associations had rejected any measures that entailed compulsory

and primarily favoured measures that were either voluntary or mar-

ket-based.

Evaluation of interviews conducted with representatives from

the political establishment, Länder and municipalities made

concrete especially the collaboration with business groups.

As was the case with civil-society representatives, the interviewees

here said that, when interacting with business representatives,

they found them to be very self-confident and dominant. Although

this was not considered a negative thing per se, it was problematic

in the terms of the collaboration with the citizenry. Some interview-

ees also labelled the behaviour and style of business representa-

tives’ as destructive.

However, as far as the other actors went, the representatives from

the political establishment, Länder and municipalities rated cooper-

ation between groups as generally fair and positive.

Citizenry

59

The survey by the Bertelsmann Stiftung of people attending the

citizen conferences found that the events had been marked by a

high level of mutual respect, with discussion conducted in ob-

jective fashion. In most cases, participants engaged with counter-

arguments and were moderately or very willing to compromise.

In respect of these individuals’ interactions with other groups

during the rest of the dialogue process, there was consensus

that things had gone well. At the same time, people described the

comportment of business associations as extremely dominant.

There was widespread frustration on the part of the citizenry that

business representatives had been unwilling or unable to build

consensus or acknowledge the validity of other positions. One in-

terviewee spoke of the power relation between citizenry delegates

and business associations being asymmetrical. The way the sys-

tem was structured, delegates from the citizenry could have out-

voted the business associations, who doubtless would have felt

cornered. This was thought to have accounted for the heated emo-

tions (including one particular outburst) during the discussions.

Interim conclusion

The various groups of actors were split on the issue of how the

actors had got on interacting with each other. The business associ-

ations were put out that the other actors brought ideology to bear

in the discussions and showed hardly any will to compromise, the

other actors said the same of the business representatives.

Business associations criticised many actors for what they saw as

their preconceived stances and said that true discussion had not

taken place because the other actors had not really said what they

thought. A culture of actual debate had been missing as a result.

Interactions were seen as emotional, personal and altogether un-

pleasant experiences.

In the opinion of civil-society groups, members of the citizenry and

representatives from the political establishment, Länder and mu-

nicipalities, however, discussions were deemed to have been con-

ducted “on an equal footing”. Business associations had blocked

movement on issues and not been persuaded to reassess the rela-

tive importance of one or other issue.

Independent of the group being questioned, it was generally seen

as a problem that the citizenry had not been adequately prepared

and had thus been unable to take an active and productive part in

a goal oriented discussion with theme related association repre-

sentatives.

60

3.8 Management and execution of process

There was overall and overarching agreement among actors that

the tasking of external service providers with facilitating and

conducting the participatory process had been sensible. The vast

majority of interviewees also rated the external management and

moderation of the dialogue process as professional and goal-ori-

ented. The relevant officials had gone about their activities in an

objective manner and ensured that procedures were neutral. There

were isolated instances of business and civil-society representa-

tives criticising the way the project was managed and facilitated.

They felt slightly left out at times and had the distinct impression

that facilitators had engaged much more closely with certain partic-

ipants.

With regard to the execution of the process, most interviewees

were agreed that it had been positive. All in all, concept and struc-

ture had proven coherent. In the estimation of some interviewees,

however, there was scope for improvement where the preparation

of future dialogue projects was concerned. For instance, the “rules

of the game” could be made more stringent.

In summary, the chosen process met with the approval of the

great majority of interviewees. This verdict also applied to the re-

straint exercised by the BMUB in not interfering with the man-

agement and execution of the project. In the view of the partici-

pants the desired free discussions had taken place. A minority of

interviewees would have preferred to have seen a stronger in-

volvement on the part of the Ministry. This preference was also

linked to the desire that the discussion framework should had a

larger focus. Other actors would have expected a stronger partici-

pation in terms of contents.

Business

In spite of the fact that a study of all the groups of actors involved

in the participatory process reveals the business community to

have been the most critical in its appraisal of the way in which

the project was managed and executed, business-sector inter-

viewees joined the others in praising the role and attitude of the

BMUB and external officials with respect to the conduct of the pro-

cess. The presence of the BMUB in the various dialogue formats,

in particular on the panel of delegates, was welcomed on principle,

as this had allowed participants to ask questions. In the experience

of most interviewees, the Ministry had been a reserved, relatively

“neutral” observer, a role generally deemed appropriate since it

fostered an open debate.

Some equated this reservation on the part of the Ministry as a

sign of weak management. The point was made that a stronger

61

stance could have curtailed some of the more long-winded discus-

sions. The meagre involvement of the Ministry had, in some in-

stances, weakened the processes and had not been goal ori-

ented. One interviewee stressed that the associations could have

focused in their statements more closely on measures that were

actually relevant to the Climate Action Plan 2050 if the BMUB had

sorted the proposals in order of importance at an early stage.

In the eyes of a few business representatives, the Ministry had in-

deed from the outset its own agenda and substantive ideas re-

garding a desired outcome leading to the exclusion of certain is-

sues from the debating process. One business representative also

criticised the prior pre-determination (regarding work groups, sub-

ject areas, etc) as intransparent influencing by the ministry ahead

of the process.

There was also dissatisfaction regarding the framework laid down

by the Ministry. As described in Section 3.4, a number of business

representatives criticised the fact that both the aims of the partici-

patory process and the “rules of the game” by which it was to be

conducted had not been clearly defined and communicated at

the outset. As a result, the actors watched as modifications were

made to aims and procedures – a state of affairs that was consid-

ered indiscriminate influence on the part of the Ministry. Many rep-

resentatives, especially those of the umbrella organisations, would

have liked to have clearer ground rules –voiced in the conversa-

tions as well as at the symposium. The feeling was that a frame-

work of that kind would have made the management and conduct

of the process more effective, more constructive and more binding.

On the other hand, some business representatives reported that,

in an effort to make the voting behaviour more transparent, they

had taken deliberate steps aimed at changing certain aspects in

the implementation of the process, for example, the allocation of

scoring to various actors.

The largely positive verdict regarding facilitation of the project

by outsiders was shared by business representatives. Faced with

the task of controlling a wide spread of participants and positions

and presiding over debates that were often extremely emotional,

the moderators had played a major role in the objectification of the

discussion process. A number of critics stated that positions that

were aligned with business and economic interests tended to

attract dismissive responses. This response had also been ob-

served amongst some of the external officials, with facilitators not

intervening sufficiently, for instance, even when personal attacks

were being made on business representatives.

One criticism on the part of business representatives concerned

the minuting of discussions (see Section 3.4). The minutes had

often failed to present the plurality of opinion, calls for alterations to

62

be made had not received due attention and there had been insuf-

ficient feedback prior to their adoption/publication.

Civil society

Civil-society groups were notable for their appreciation that top-

level representatives of the BMUB in the form of the state secre-

tary and minister had closely accompanied the proceedings.

The “ownership” was an important indicator of the significance of

the process. At the same time there was disappointment that the

Ministry was portrayed to outside observers as having allowed oth-

ers to “determine the course of proceedings”. Instead of announc-

ing results itself in a forthright manner, it had released snippets of

information from largely critical actors to the press, which had not

helped the image of the process.

Civil-society representatives concurred in their observation that the

BMUB had been very much a silent observer on the fringe of

the actual proceedings. In a reflection of the response of other

groups of actors, this was welcomed by some representatives and

rejected by others.

A number of representatives would have preferred to see clearer

communication of the aims of the process from the BMUB right

at the outset. The unclear circumstances had created much

room for interpretation, which had done the process as a whole

a disservice. It was also pointed out that participants could have

been more consistent in standing up to the representatives of

business associations. The additional seat on the panel of dele-

gates, which the business contingent had at first laid claim to, was

cited as an example. However, the interviewees who made the

point were also aware that this might have triggered a “hardening

of fronts”, as the BMUB, in the view of the business associations,

tended to take the side of the environmental associations anyway.

The decision to outsource the difficult task of facilitating the pro-

cess to a neutral party was uniformly welcomed. Reviewing the

performance of the moderators, the representatives of civil-soci-

ety groups likewise aligned themselves with the generally posi-

tive reception. The consensus was that the officials had defused

delicate incidents and often vehement attacks and always man-

aged to steer proceedings back to the core issues.

One participant would like to have seen a narrower substantive fo-

cus in discussions. The process had addressed every single the-

ory, regardless of how unrealistic or utopic they were. It would

have been better if realistic approaches had been discussed and

adopted on the basis of consensus. Instead, discussions had

amounted to a weary flogging of obsessive issues. Criticism here

also took issue with the tendency of the debate to fall back on old,

63

entrenched battle lines that had contributed little to the question of

how to achieve climate-protection goals.

Political establishment / Länder / municipalities

The actors representing the political establishment, states and mu-

nicipalities were of the view that the monitoring and moderation

by external service providers had been proven. The Federal

Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and

Nuclear Safety would not have been able to implement such a pro-

cess alone, especially as it had neither the competency nor the ca-

pacity for the implementation of such a process. The actors inter-

viewed were also unanimously satisfied with the control by the ex-

ternal service provider. They found the implementation to be pro-

fessional and stringent.

Opinions diverged slightly on the issue of the BMUB’s role. In the

interviews, politicians, state officials and local-authority figures

concurred with other participants in describing Ministry represent-

atives as very reticent in discussions. While most found this

stance to be appropriate and conducive to a successful pro-

cess, some actors were disappointed and complained that the

BMUB had left the entire management to the external officials.

One interview was sorry to see no readiness on the part of the

Ministry to respond flexibly to the needs and wishes articu-

lated by some participants with respect to project implementation.

Instead, it had clung to the original modus operandi, which had irri-

tated some participants.

On matters of substance, too, certain interviewees suspected that

the Ministry could have involved itself more in the discussions.

That way, its knowledge and know-how would have come to

bear on the process much earlier and the position espoused by

the Ministry would have been easier to comprehend. As one inter-

viewee wryly commented, ministerial reserve had fostered the im-

pression among the members of a work group that its representa-

tives had not disposed of the specialist skills necessary to reply to

queries relating to the usefulness of individual measures.

Citizenry

The interviewees among the citizenry rated the management of the

participatory process as good to excellent. The service providers

had acted professionally and solutions-oriented.

The citizenry were split in their opinions regarding the involve-

ment of the BMUB. One group of interviewees welcomed the re-

served approach of Ministry representatives, while others would

have preferred to see a more hands-on style, especially with re-

spect to stronger support for the role and suggestions of the citi-

zenry.

64

One member of the citizenry elaborated that a clearer ministerial

position on the proposed measures would have been helpful.

S/he had not been able to judge the extent to which the proposed

action was feasible, nor assess the chances of success – i.e.

whether the measures would garner the necessary support at the

various stages of the political process. The wish was also ex-

pressed that the measures would be judged, for example, using

criteria such as level of emissions or similar.

Interim conclusion

To sum up, many interviewees considered the management and

facilitation of the participatory process as an important factor to its

success, to the extent that the process could be described as hav-

ing succeeded. The outsourcing of project execution to neutral

officials was met with almost unanimous approval. The achieve-

ments of the officials in managing and facilitating the process/dis-

cussions also received positive ratings in the main. Only a few ac-

tors thought the facilitators had somehow been biased, and this

minority opinion was predictably that of actors who had been very

critical towards the idea, design and execution of the participatory

process.

Accordingly, the difficulties in the participation process for the cli-

mate protection plan 2050 were less attributed to the process con-

trol and implementation, but rather to the complexity of the topic,

the composition of the participants as well as the framework condi-

tions.

Verdicts on the role of the BMUB, especially regarding manage-

ment of the process as a whole, were much more at variance.

There was general agreement that the Ministry very much took a

back seat in proceedings. Undue intervention - and then primarily

in the areas of process implementation and the rules of engage-

ment – was reported by only a few actors, and they had only criti-

cal positions to all other aspects of the process. With respect to the

goals of the process, the observer role of the BMUB was con-

sidered by most actors to be appropriate. Those wishing for

more involvement from the BMUB tended to be the same people

whose agenda was congruent with the aims of the Ministry with re-

gard to content.

65

4 Conclusions: analysis of governance

For a number of years, the modus of policy-making and decision-

finding has changed, moving away from classical management hi-

erarchies and towards more cooperative, network-based forms of

steering that include civil-society actors.16

Especially when state decisions have a noticeable impact on the

environment or way of life of the population or are to be supported

by a broad social consensus, the participatory involvement of the

public and civil society increasingly has shifted into the political fo-

cus. From the neighbourhood to the federal level, new possibilities

for participation are tested and implemented for the various social

groups. On the one hand, this is in response to demands for the

involvement and participation of different civil society actors. On

the other hand, state decision-makers hope for better solutions

and a higher acceptance of the results achieved, as well as a more

effective implementation of political programmes.

The political aims of the participatory process (see Section 1.3) are

a reflection of the aspects “Involvement of the citizenry in decision-

making relating to environmental policy”, “The development of an

active and effective civil society (Empowerment)”17 and also the

goal of achieving broad acceptance.

In the light of the aforegoing, this chapter presents an overall as-

sessment of the governance structures chosen for the drawing up

of the Climate Action Plan 2050. The assessment looks at the way

civil-society actors were incorporated into the decision-making and

policy-formation process and rates the quality of the process in

particular. The following sections relate to the goal system of the

participatory process set out in chapter 1.3 and elaborate on the

extent to which the process achieved inclusion, involvement, trans-

parency, dialogue-orientation or feedback-culture.

The analysis of governance addresses the following guiding ques-

tions:

▪ How clear were the participants on the design of the dialogue

process? Where they were not clear, why was this so (“Clar-

ity”)?

▪ Was the selection of stakeholders involved in the process

considered legitimate? If not, why not (“Legitimacy”)?

16 Cooperative, network-based forms of steering have been the subject of discussion for years and are covered under the umbrella term “Governance” (see Benz 2004; Bröchler/Blumenthal 2006; Mayntz 2006 and others)

17 Deutschlands Zukunft gestalten. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD für die 18. Legislaturperiode vom 3. Dezember 2014, BMUB (publ.) (2014 b): Kabinettsbeschluss zum „Aktionsprogramm Klimaschutz 2020“ vom 03.12.2014.

66

▪ How transparent was the process as a whole considered to

be? Which parts were thought to be intransparent (“Transpar-

ency”)?

▪ Did the position of the federal government alter perceptions

of the dialogue process? If yes, to what extent (“Accounta-

bility”)?

4.1 Clarity

The aims set out in the ‘goal system’ regarding the planning, or-

ganisation and execution of the various formats to be used in the

participatory process (see Section 1.3) were achieved for the most

part.

The organisers succeeded in communicating the designated

course of events and structure of the process well to the majority

of participants. Most of those involved found the design of the par-

ticipatory process comprehensible and appropriate to the process

as a whole. In particular those who were more closely involved in

the process, stressed that the organisers elucidated the funda-

ments of the process and the procedural steps on an ongoing ba-

sis throughout the duration of the project. This is in line with the

observation that complaints on the lack of clarity regarding proce-

dural steps were more often heard from people who took part in

only a few of the events. It is also worth mentioning that within indi-

vidual stakeholder groups different representatives could be seen

participating at different junctures of the process, which made the

communication of the timetable and goals more difficult.

It was primarily business representatives who were critical of the

overall design of the participatory process. Dissatisfaction often ex-

pressed itself as fundamental criticism of the idea and form of (citi-

zenry) participation – and of the importance given to their views.

More specific criticism – especially with reference to a lack of clar-

ity - centred on the delegates’ committee format, beyond the busi-

ness-community. Many participants were confused about the role

and decision-making powers of the body within the overall context

of the participatory process. This irritation was accentuated

through the term “delegates’ committee”, as the concept of “dele-

gate” was often associated with far-reaching powers and, by ex-

tension, legitimacy. This led to considerable dissatisfaction, above

all amongst participants who were not members of the delegates’

committee.

There was also lack of clarity regarding the superordinate goals of

the process. The substantive development of measures was to the

67

largest extent comprehended by the actors. For the superordinate

goals of the process this applied to a lesser extent. Many partici-

pants did not realise that the preparation of the Climate Action

Plan 2050 was compounded by the dialogue process on the one

hand, and the final development of the catalogue of measures

through the federal government on the other hand. Coupled to the

very high expectations of the weight that would be given to the par-

ticipatory process, the “unexpected influence” wielded by the gov-

ernment departments and the associated alterations made in the

course of consultations resulted in great disappointment.

In summary, where the criterion of clarity is concerned, it can gen-

erally be concluded that the dialogue process in its basic structure

met this requirement. In particular for participants who were in-

tensely involved in the process on an ongoing basis, it can be said

that the process was designed in a way that was comprehensible.

The delegates’ committee format, however, was a cause for confu-

sion among the participants, often caused by the term for the body

itself, which was associated with the format and function of “dele-

gates”.

The biggest area for improvement, however, concerns the need to

make the role of the dialogue process in the whole political deci-

sion-making clear very early on. This clarification of the role of the

process goes hand-in-hand with the clarification of the function and

role of the individual participants. Many participants – especially

those bringing a high level of “ecological” motivation to the process

– were not (fully) aware of these roles and this led to disappointed

expectations. This in turn had a negative effect on the acceptance

of the process and the results. The broad-based acceptance was

however the declared, superordinate aim of the dialogue process.

68

4.2 Legitimacy

The issue of the legitimacy of the dialogue process, with respect to

the stakeholders involved, has two aspects. On the hand the ques-

tion of legitimacy relates to which actors were principally included.

And on the other hand, the significance or weight of individual ac-

tor groups in the process. Following these two aspects a com-

pounded assessment is provided.

The selection of participants was one of the major causes of fric-

tion in the assessment of the dialogue process. It was above all

the representatives of business associations with established roles

and channels of influence in the parliamentary legislative process

who considered the selection and weighting of the implemented

broad participation as problematic. Legitimacy was especially dis-

counted from the process in view of the included citizens. This was

justified on the grounds of a lacking representability by the selec-

tion of the citizens for the federal republic as a whole and on the

other hand with the lacking feedback obligation or opportunity of

these citizen representatives to that group they should be repre-

senting.

The selection of the other stakeholders (representatives of busi-

ness associations, civil-society groups, the political establishment,

Länder and municipalities) was generally assessed as “legitimate”,

although the business community questioned the absence of

smaller, more niche associations in the composition and in particu-

lar in discussions taking place in working groups with more spe-

cialised areas of competency.

Beyond the actor groups the participants considered problems of

legitimacy in that the central political decision makers, and the rep-

resentatives of parliament and further federal departments, were

not or only very late included in the process.

The practical participatory opportunities for those included in the

dialogue process were formally the same for all actors. Each per-

son had one vote and each Land, municipality and association

could send one representative for this purpose. In the delegates’

committee, the citizenry made up 12 of the 25 seats. The remain-

ing 13 seats were spread among the other groups of stakeholders

(business associations, civil-society groups, Länder and municipal-

ities).

Allied to the above-mentioned fundamental reservations regarding

the involvement of the citizenry, the disproportionate importance

given to their views was another factor cited by their critics as a

“design fault” with implications for the lack of representativity and,

69

by extension, lack of legitimacy. This was frequently linked to criti-

cism of the equal treatment of all participants – regardless of the

size of the social group represented by a given actor or actors.

In summary, concerning the legitimacy criterion it can be noted,

that the overarching goal of a broad-based involvement of diverse

civil-society interest groups for the purposes of the dialogue pro-

cess can be said to have been achieved. As long as the involve-

ment of the citizenry is considered to be illegitimate on principle,

there are hardly any opportunities to connect with these for exam-

ple through changes in the selection modus or the process design

to enhance acceptance. New approaches first have to find funda-

mental acceptance, especially among groups that are already well

embedded in existing decision-making processes, and be rein-

forced by positive experiences. If these groups are to be recruited

for constructive involvement in future participatory processes, suc-

cess would seem to hinge on resolving the issue of the role and

significance of both the process as a whole and the individual par-

ticipants in particular.

In the light of this criticism regarding the poor representativity of

the citizens involved, there is certainly room for improvement. That

said, a great many resources have already been invested in order

to meet the requirement of a wide and diverse participation at least

in the approach. Furthermore, it was communicated that repre-

sentativity was neither sought nor achieved for any of the target

groups, quite apart from the fact that no group equipped with lim-

ited resources and made up of voluntary participants can ever real-

istically claim to be “100% representative”. However, this would not

seem to be a prerequisite for progress on the general subject of

legitimacy.

Evidence suggests that the process used to select institutional rep-

resentatives of civil-society groups, the political establishment,

Länder and municipalities can be considered largely legitimate.

Selections might have been extended to include more specialised

associations and hence incorporate their expertise and under-

standing of issues into the dialogue process. It has to be said,

however, that, in the light of the mass of areas to be covered, set-

tling on a line-up of participants is only ever about striking a bal-

ance between involving all relevant stakeholders and holding man-

ageable discussions. If selection methods in particular and the pro-

cess in general are to enjoy higher levels of acceptance, a higher

value should be placed on making the procedure more systematic,

structured and transparent. This would go some way to diffusing

the reservations of some critical actors, also regarding lack of legit-

imacy.

This also applies to the practical opportunities for participation

available to the individual actors and the composition of the individ-

70

ual bodies. It would be possible to make concessions to critical as-

sociations by allowing them more representatives if they have a le-

gitimate interest or can demonstrate that they are “affected” by a

particular issue. After all, structuring a body or panel (of “dele-

gates”) differently or giving them, a clearer role might go some way

to raising the level of acceptance among actors who considered

their own position to have been weakened due to their affiliation to

a particular group.

4.3 Transparency

Transparency has an important part to play in dialogue and partici-

patory processes. One major determining factor is not the plethora

of information and communication or the organisational efforts

made but rather the extent to which the steps in the process and

the drawing-up and subsequent adjusting of the proposals pack-

age are seen by the participants as transparent.

During the evaluation of the dialogue process leading up to the Cli-

mate Action Plan 2050, the process by which the proposals sub-

mitted as a package were altered and adjusted in a subsequent

phase of departmental consultations was criticised as intranspar-

ent. Many participants criticized that they could not understand

why a given measure was included in the Climate Action Plan in a

given form. Transparency was especially lacking at the point of

transition between the end of the dialogue process and the begin-

ning of political consultations in the federal government. A clear

discrepancy arose here between expectations and the manage-

ment of expectations and the actual implementation. This also ap-

plies to the final feedback on the results (see Section 4.4 for de-

tails).

As alluded to in the previous section, the lack of transparency in

the selection/inviting of stakeholders as part of the dialogue pro-

cess was criticised above all by business representatives. Set

against a backdrop of general reservations regarding the involve-

ment of randomly selected members of the citizenry, their criticism

focused on the lacking comprehensibility of the process by which

participants were selected. The composition of the associations fo-

rum was described in part as “arbitrary”. There is scope here for

transparency levels to be raised.

This notwithstanding, the bulk of the actors found the timetable

and structure of the process comprehensible, although one com-

plaint levelled especially by civil-society groups and representa-

tives from the Länder and municipalities concerning the extensive-

ness of preparatory documents and shortage of time to prepare

71

showed that no exact correlation can be made between transpar-

ency (including transparency of content and substance) and the

volume of information provided, as transparency is gauged in par-

ticular by the extent to which information can be assimilated. The

question of the cost-benefit ratio for both participants and organis-

ers is also relevant in this regard.

The analysis revealed some variety in the amount of transparency

expected and demanded when it came to documenting and minut-

ing meetings and conferences. Coming on top of the less-than-

clear role and significance of the participatory process and its re-

sults (see also Section 4.1), a lack of reportage relating to the di-

rection taken in discussions and the failure to record which way in-

dividuals had voted on a particular motion were issues that came

in for criticism, especially from the business community.

The points of criticisms addressed above were essentially of tech-

nical nature. In this respect, it is important for future processes to

provide the implementation with appropriate space and capacity,

and to clarify the role, importance and process implementation

early and continuously with the participants (cf. in particular chap-

ter 5).

Evidence suggests, therefore, that efforts were made in the execu-

tion of the process to ensure transparency and that these efforts

were largely successful. However, with regard to the processing

and feedback of results, the process neither measured up to the

organisers’ own demand nor met the expectations of the actors.

4.4 Accountability

Accountability (“Rechenschaftspflicht” in the German translation) is

at the core of many of discussions on “good governance” and de-

liberations on administrative reforms, including those triggered by

the increasing demands for civil-society groups to be involved in

decision-making. Put simply, the word refers to one’s willingness to

explain and take responsibility for the results and repercussions of

one’s own decisions. Where the dialogue process leading up to the

Climate Action Plan 2050 is concerned, this analysis looks at the

extent to which the federal government, in its communiqués relat-

ing to the catalogue of measures produced at the end of the dia-

logue process, fulfilled its accountability obligations and how this

was perceived by the various actors.

Here it should be noted that many were disappointed that the

BMUB – as the ministry in charge and a constituent part of the

government - reneged on its agreement to provide detailed feed-

back. Participants expected a thorough examination of the

measures in the sense of an assessment and justification of the

72

changes, deletions and additions of each of the suggestion. In re-

sult the transition from the jointly developed catalogue of measures

to the actual Climate Action Plan 2050 was regarded across all ac-

tors as highly intransparent. Especially the uncommented deletion

was partially interpreted as discrediting and disrespectful towards

the large commitment made by the various participants.

As detailed in Section 3.6, it was above all what happened in the

final step of the processing of the results that caused disappoint-

ment among many participants and a concomitant fall in ac-

ceptance levels regarding the process. This in turn meant that peo-

ple were less willing to stand behind the Climate Action Plan 2050

that was finalised and approved by the federal government. The

government’s statement on the issue was not enough to explain its

conduct to the other participants.

In this respect, the criterion of accountability can be evaluated as

fulfilled only to a very much limited extent. Even though the pro-

ject’s initiators never intended to replace traditional political deci-

sion-making at governmental level with a dialogue process, this

meant that it was all the more important to make sure that all par-

ticipants were clear about the role of the process and the value

that would be placed on it. In keeping with what it expected from

the participatory process itself, accountability would have involved

the federal government and the BMUB setting out in detail, and

providing comprehensive reasons for, the adjustments stemming

from the departmental consultations. This would go a long way to-

wards explaining, to the satisfaction of participants, the “political

use” made of the results of the dialogue process and achieving the

central objective of the participatory process – broad acceptance

of the end result.

4.5 Conclusion

One of the key goals of the dialogue process was to show living

democracy and elicit the input of the citizenry as a way of obtaining

acceptance across broad parts of society for the issue of climate

protection and the measures required to promote it. As seen in the

sections above, this goal was achieved in part. At least in the eyes

of most of the citizenry and those representing civil-society groups,

the political establishment and the civil service the dialogue pro-

cess represented a new and reasonably effective form of political

discussion and decision-making. As far as organisation and execu-

tion of the participatory process go, there is room for improvement

(especially with respect to clarity and transparency). Yet account

should also be taken of the fact that this was the first time that a

participatory project had been undertaken on this scale – both in

terms of themes covered and number of participants involved. It

73

seems unreasonable, therefore, to expect immediately a “perfect”

process design and realisation.

One major criticism, emphasised especially by business represent-

atives, concerned the question of the legitimacy of the actors in-

volved. Whereas legitimacy was hardly an issue in the composition

of the associations, the selection process applied to members of

the citizenry coupled with their influence in the process as a whole

was a problem for many participants. To the extent that the criti-

cism has to do with a fundamental questioning of the idea of citi-

zenry participation per se, there would seem to be little prospect of

changing this kind of participatory process for the better. At best,

political decision-makers can endeavour to keep channels of com-

munication open to the critics’ “camp” and be transparent in the

way they justify their use of these processes.

There was a broader spread of counter-arguments taking issue

with citizens’ lack of representativity and, by extension, questioning

the legitimacy of the selection process. All parties are agreed that

the citizens concerned did not fully represent a broad cross-section

of society. It remains open whether this could ever be a realistic

goal with reasonable expenditure of effort and without a “obligatory

participation” measures – which would almost certainly fail. Partic-

ularly when subjects such as global warming are being discussed,

the citizenry are keen to take part and show great interest in the

substantive detail of the issues at hand. Time considerations con-

tinue to be a major factor in the design of the process, and this can

result in the adoption of selection methods that are essentially im-

pervious to the provision of incentives and reimbursement of costs.

In short, participatory processes involving the citizenry will have to

resign themselves to this deficit in representativity. To question the

legitimacy as a whole against this background appears also not

appropriate. At the same time, respective possible “distortion”

need to be openly communicated and presented.

The significance given to specific groups of actors is a different

matter. There were complaints that the voices of the citizenry es-

pecially had more weight and large associations had not had a due

amount of say in decisions. As a corollary, the decisions resulting

from this imbalance lacked legitimacy. Steps can certainly be

taken here to address this criticism and channel it into the design

of future participatory processes, for instance by adopting alterna-

tive dialogue formats and line-ups with clear and transparent tasks.

The most serious shortcoming of the dialogue process, however,

was the lacking clarification of expectations regarding the part

played by the dialogue process in the government’s ultimate deci-

sion and the lack of detailed feedback on the changes made to the

proposed catalogue of measured in the last phase of the approval

process. Many participants, particularly members of the citizenry

and civil-society representatives, assumed that the catalogue of

74

measures drawn up in the course of the dialogue process was go-

ing to form the frame of the Climate Action Plan 2050 and not

merely an input for the consultation of the departments. It was also

announced that a detailed feedback to the proposed measures, at

least in terms of any changes or deletions, would be provided. In

the light of clear differences between the results of the dialogue

process and the finalised Climate Action Plan 2050, coupled with

an extremely superficial government statement concerning its ap-

proval of the finalised Plan, many actors felt that their commitment

had not been taken seriously. This disappointed expectation led

them to question both the approval of government’s Climate Action

Plan and the value of the process as a whole. It can therefore be

said that a lack of clarity regarding the role of the dialogue process

and the absence – or very low level – of accountability represent

the main impediments to achieving the strived for broad ac-

ceptance for the measures to protect the climate. Consequently,

here lies the central need of action for the implementation of fur-

ther participatory processes in such an extent.

75

5 Recommendations

On the basis of the presented results of chapter 3 and the effectu-

ation of the governance analysis (chapter 3) the following action

recommendation are formulated for the further development of par-

ticipation. In addition to referring to the insights from the implemen-

tation of past processes it builds upon the ideas and suggestions

on the development of the scope of the design from the inter-

viewed actors.

5.1 Specify the breadth and composition of

participation on the basis of concrete

result expectations from participation

Findings of analysis

The dialogue process achieved its goal of involving a broad range

of groups of actors. However, regarding the concrete composition

and the (goal oriented) collaboration in the context of the process

revealed diverse criticisms from the participants. Closely related is

the criticism on the composition especially regarding the question

on the role and weighting of actors respective the interests and

their ultimate influence on the process result. For the majority of

actors, these aspects are a central element to the acceptance and

subsequent success of the process.

To be questioned is for the individual working steps or respectively

the formats of participation the matching of actor groups (composi-

tion) and the allocated time frame for these steps.

Measures to be taken for the improvement of the participatory pro-

cess

If an actor has the impression that s/he and therefore the interests

that s/he represents are not being given due attention or are some-

how “at a disadvantage” relative to other actors and interests as a

result of the design and conduct of the process, then it is doubtful

that there will be acceptance for the project or any constructive or

consensus-oriented cooperation. Depending on the importance

placed on the desired result of the participation (e.g. gathering par-

ticipants’ ideas and standpoints, examining approaches that can

command a majority, developing concrete proposals, etc), the is-

sue of composition will be of central importance to the actor and

overshadow other aspects of the process. Achieving transparency

on the role and significance of the participation (see 5.2) and es-

tablishing a clear regulatory framework for the implementation of

the process (see Section 5.4), the clarification of the breadth and

composition of the participation is also connected.

76

This also applies with regard to the question of limiting the number

of participants among the principally included stakeholder groups

and organisations. Along with the substantive perspective, this as-

pect once again points to the challenge of enabling an appropriate

involvement of all relevant and specialised actors while still realis-

ing the dialogue process within a reasonable level of effort.

It is not easy, for instance, to hold a thorough founded technically

discussion among actors with very different (detail) knowledge on

the discussion subject, with simultaneously little (preparatory) time.

If the aim of the discussion is to come up with a technically

founded recommendation (and not to simply a collection of ideas),

then procedural conflicts between individual actors are to be ex-

pected.

Recommendations for the design of other processes

When determining who will be involved in the participatory pro-

cess, it is important to convey to people, in clear and transparent

fashion, what the process aims to achieve and what is expected

from the individual groups of actors over the course of the dialogue

process (see above). If participants and tasks are to be matched

as well as possible, attention must be paid in particular to the avail-

able (time) resources and other contextual conditions. By making

the composition in the context of the establishment of a regulatory

frame for the process realisation an issue (see 5.4) criticism of the

chosen composition and other reservations should be actively

worked on and decisions justified.

This does not mean, conversely, that the mere act of considering

these factors must necessarily foster general acceptance among

the actors and/or a successful and goal oriented process result.

Clarification of the composition of the process as a whole and of

individual steps in a particular assignment is a key success factor

for a by the participants jointly supported process. It is advisable,

therefore, to involve the desired target groups earlier on at the

planning/conceptualisation stage. If a comprehensive, analytical

approach is adopted, then a foundation laying analysis of stake-

holders is conceivable, which would in turn require an adequate

period of preparation and the resources to go with it.

On the basis of this kind of analysis of format, standards and aim

of the participation, for a successful incorporation of individual

groups of actors the following hints can be made:

77

Municipalities

With regard to the participation of municipalities, it is first advisable

to obtain the involvement of as many municipal umbrella organisa-

tions as possible. This should begin as far back as the conceptuali-

sation stage. The umbrella organisations can provide information

on how to approach municipalities and which forms of participation

and involvement opportunities are open to them. That way, proce-

dures can be agreed upon in the run-up to the project, ensuring

that participation is as diverse as possible. This notwithstanding, in

the case of municipalities it should be borne in mind that participa-

tion is largely dependent on the time and funding available to the

individual towns and local communities. Hence it should be as-

sumed that participation is likely to involve well-funded and staffed

municipalities which also focus on the subject of the participation.

It is also worth considering increasing the use of online formats to

keep the threshold of inclusion in the participatory process low.

Statements to this effect were also made by local-authority repre-

sentatives, among other actors.

Länder

The only way to secure the binding involvement of federal Länder

is to get the different departments involved at Land level. Without

consultations at departmental level, the individual departments can

hardly claim to represent an entire Land. Here, too, it would be

possible to involve the Länder very early on, at the conceptualisa-

tion stage, to ensure that they and the organisers have the same

ideas of what form and direction the process is to take. Actors’ ex-

perience of previous participation at Land level may also be of help

to the process. It is also worth keeping in mind that the time availa-

ble to them for participation in the process may be limited, as this

will have a bearing on their involvement in subsequent consultative

phases.

Citizenry

The task of involving the citizenry in a participatory process at na-

tional level poses numerous challenges. Quite apart from the

question of whether a group of citizens chosen at random can

claim political legitimacy, it will be almost impossible to come up

with a representative snapshot of society that takes account of cri-

teria such as gender, age and level of education. This is not least

due to the selective willingness of people, or the opportunities

available to them, to sustain their involvement in a process of this

kind. Taking part regularly in a large-scale, broad-based project of

this type requires an outlay in terms of time and money that is be-

yond the scope of most the citizenry. In future, strategies will have

to be developed – preferably in consultation with ordinary people

who have experience of this type of initiative – that aim to reduce

or eliminate this kind of barrier to participation.

78

It would also seem sensible to make more use of online formats,

although it should be noted that here, too, there are challenges to

be overcome and online participation is by no means “barrier-free”.

And before an online discussion, for instance, is rolled out, there

must be agreement on the use to which the results will be put.

Business representatives

With respect to the involvement of business representatives, one

of the key recommendations to be made concerns the improve-

ment of consultation relating to the coordination of central organi-

sations and individual associations. With a participatory process of

the size and scale of the Climate Action Plan 2050 the organisers

would do well to heed the advice of some business associations

and approach the top personnel directly, as a way of conveying the

significance of the process.

Civil society

In general, the procedures adopted in securing the participation of

civil-society groups in the process leading up to the finalisation of

the Climate Action Plan 2050 proved useful and effective, with a

diverse range of groups involved. Some of these, however, criti-

cised not having been approached directly, which suggests that

the mailing list should be reviewed.

It should also be noted in this regard, however, that many smaller

organisations lack the capacity – staffing-wise and due to time

constraints - to take a meaningful part in a large-scale dialogue

process. Future projects should be preceded by detailed consider-

ation – conceivably in joint consultations with civil-society repre-

sentatives – of how this unbalance might be prevented.

This applies especially to “half-organised groups” such as grass-

roots initiatives. In cases such as these, systematic incorporation

into the process is likely to be difficult. The evidence for this comes

not only from statements by the participants themselves but also

from interviews with people who belong to this target group but did

not take part in the process. The resources issue is a major obsta-

cle to participation, in particular for assorted societies or groupings

that are run on a voluntary basis or as a sideline to another official

capacity. Depending on the objectives of a given process and the

importance given to a particular group in this regard, it may be

worth considering additional forms of low-threshold dialogue for-

mats (e.g. narrowly focused online consultations). While this type

of format may involve less work and effort on the part of partici-

pants, the task of putting together a professionally designed format

(e.g. including online assistance and direct feedback/response fea-

tures) poses serious challenges to organisers. Mention might also

be made at this point of the discussion kick-started during the eval-

uative process by a number of interviewees, who were in favour of

79

smaller associations and other bodies such as half-organised

groupings receiving financial support to enable them to take part.

However, as became clear in the interviews on this subject, organ-

isers considering the possibility of subsidising participation would

have to look not only at the cost-benefit ratio but also at whether

financial assistance would create dependency on the part of one or

another group.

Scientific community

The inclusion of the scientific community in a dialogue dealing with

the highly complex field of “climate protection” proved to be an es-

sential pillar of the participatory process. Scientific analyses were

not only seen as being an essential basis for objective discussion;

they were also useful for impact assessments and the checking of

facts. Future processes should follow this lead and not dispense

with the input and underlying authority of scientists. It is important,

however, to factor in sufficient time to allow science-based anal-

yses to be carried out. Scientists must be open-minded and in a

position to evaluate processes, assess impacts and shed light on

chains of cause and effect. There should also be greater use of so-

ciological research findings and opportunities for the scientific

community to enlarge discussions to encompass subjects that are

considered important by academics but which are often ignored or

neglected by the participants.

5.2 Make the role and significance of the

participation transparent and communicate

it clearly

Findings of analysis

A core finding of the analysis concerned the revelation that the ex-

pectations of the participants did not always match the objectives

being pursued by the responsible Ministry. Participating members

of the citizenry, especially, along with some civil-society represent-

atives, had high expectations of the significance of the participa-

tory process as a whole and the binding nature and relevance of

the proposals generated in the course of the project. On the other

hand, from the outset there was a lack of clarity regarding the influ-

ence of the process on the final results. This led some actors, es-

pecially representatives from the business community and civil-so-

ciety groups, to increase their involvement only after the official

start of the project and then to redouble the intensity of their partic-

ipation after the signing of the Paris Agreement.

80

In summary, this perceived lacking in concretisation of the goals of

the participatory process caused irritation among the groups, espe-

cially regarding their own role and function. This applied not merely

in relation to the process as a whole but also at the level of individ-

ual dialogue formats. The panel-of-delegates format came in for

special criticism, with many people finding fault with the nebulous

nature of its role and powers. The irritation could largely be at-

tributed to the name of the body itself. Many participants assumed

that the delegates’ committee had extensive decision-making pow-

ers, which had not been the exact intention of the organisers.

Finally, the point should be made that, although both the responsi-

ble Ministry and the officials tasked with facilitating and executing

the process had set out the objectives of the process and the roles

of the participants at the start, evidence suggests that the objec-

tives and roles had not been spelled out with sufficient clarity.

Moreover, in a project of this scale, with its diversity of participants

and multiplicity of formats, the challenge is to reach and notify all

actors even-handedly and in equal measure. This was particularly

hard to bring off when institutions sent different representatives at

different times or when participants joined the process at a later

stage.

Measures to be taken to improve the participatory process

Lack of clarity with regard to the aims of the process and hence

the role of participants in the participatory process can lead irrita-

tion and false expectations. If it then transpires that the aims have

been misunderstood or people are mistaken in their perception of

their roles, then participants are liable to think they have been

duped. The risk of disappointed expectations is highest when peo-

ple thought that the process had a greater influence on policy and

decisions than it actually did. This often leads participants to reject

the results of the project wholesale and be much less inclined to

take part in future dialogue processes.

Recommendations for the shaping of future processes

One factor that is important in motivating participants and keeping

them focused on a concerted goal is clarity regarding both the ob-

jective of the process and their own part in the process as a whole.

Organisers should make sure that participant expectations and the

goals of the responsible Ministry are largely congruent. The organ-

isers are advised to monitor and steer the expectations of the par-

ticipants from the beginning of the process onwards, for instance

by asking confirmatory questions on an ongoing basis and consid-

ering what the answers reveal about the participants’ perceptions.

There should be clear communication from the officials managing

the project as to what the participatory process is in a position to,

and should, achieve and what limitations there are on the influence

that can be exerted on policy-makers. Prospective actors could

81

then come to an informed decision on whether to take part in the

dialogue process – in this case, whether to play only an advisory

role in the drawing up of the Climate Action Plan.

In addition, a lack of clarity among the participants with regards to

their own role in the different formats should be removed. To

achieve this, organisers must clearly define the function not only of

the process as a whole but also of the individual formats. In view of

the high number of actors involved, the multiple formats used and

the coming and going of representatives of the various associa-

tions, it is advisable to set down these functions in writing.

Finally, it is worth reviewing the titles given to certain dialogue for-

mats. For instance, the appellation ‘delegates’ committee’ should

be replaced with a term that is not open to misinterpretation.

5.3 Clarify the role of process managers and

enshrine at the planning stage a commit-

ment from other departments to take part

Findings of analysis

The BMUB outsourced project management to professional ser-

vice providers. The demarcation of roles had thus been communi-

cated internally and externally and had been accepted by the par-

ticipants.

Nonetheless there was still irritation and uncertainty as to the role

of the BMUB. Depending on the format of a given event (see

Chapter 1.1), the role of the BMUB fluctuated in the minds of the

various actors from active participator representing BMUB inter-

ests to reactive observer. In the light of the inactivity of other de-

partments, many participants were increasingly of the impression

that the government was not providing important input for the dis-

cussion process by setting out a range of different ideas and inter-

ests. This absence of input was most conspicuous in the ‘last mile’

of departmental consultations.

Measures to be taken with regard to clarity of role

Roles must be clearly – and repeatedly - allocated between those

responsible for the process and those implementing the process.

This is particularly the case when there is a dovetailing and over-

lapping of dialogue and participatory formats involving fluctuating

groups of participants over an extended period of time. It is also

important that other involved departments make a binding commit-

ment.

82

Recommendations for the design of future processes

Roles and tasks must be defined in the run-up to the actual pro-

cess and formally enshrined/communicated by the facilitators

and/or project managers when the process is launched.

The departments involved should bring their expertise to bear on

the dialogue process and the specialised discussions. They should

do this in such a way that their interests and positions are clear to

all concerned. The early resolution of conflicting interests amongst

departments is crucial if actors are to enhance the value, increase

the success and raise levels of acceptance for a participatory pro-

cess – especially when a federal-government document is being

drafted.

Briefing events for departments were a good idea and should be

continued, but the attendance should be more obligatorily regu-

lated, as this would ensure that the flow of information was contin-

uous and began earlier. Another way of obtaining more binding

commitment is to secure personal and explicit backing for process

and participants not just from the Environment Minister but also

from the heads of other ministries.

Moreover, it might also be worth getting the staff of the technical

departments to increased take part (as observers along the

BMUB) and more committedly in the individual dialog formats or

establish an overarching steering group / management team that

accompanies the process on an ongoing basis.

83

5.4 Create a clear regulatory framework for

project implementation

Findings of analysis

As explained in the previous chapter, the fundamental structure of

the participatory process was clear and comprehensible. There

was a lack of clarity in particular regarding procedural details such

as voting procedures within work groups or the documentation of

individual positions in the course of discussions.

Although the external facilitators briefed actors on the rules of en-

gagement and the procedures in the various dialogue formats – in-

sofar as they had been drawn up -, a prescriptive set of rules did

not exist. This sometimes resulted in lengthy discussions on proce-

dural issues. As the project wore on, procedural practices and dia-

logue formats were modified, partly in response to said discus-

sions, partly due to external factors. Participants did not always un-

derstand why these modifications had been made, nor who was

behind them, and this led to accusations of “despotism” and criti-

cism of the process leading to the changes.

Furthermore, some actors were not completely clear on why they

were being asked to take part in one or other dialogue format.

Measures to be taken to improve the participatory process

If there is an incomplete rule book governing the various activities

that make up the dialogue project and a lack of clarity as to when

and how procedural practices can be altered, the impression may

arise that the process is being conducted in an arbitrary fashion

and can be manipulated. This in turn can lower levels of ac-

ceptance, on the part of participants and external officials, for the

process per se and for the results achieved.

Recommendations for the shaping of future processes

It is a precondition for constructive collaboration between hetero-

geneous groups of actors that a clear framework for discussions

and decision-making be established which all actors can agree on

in the run-up to the project.

This framework should include both the rules of engagement and

details on how one or more rules might be modified. This would

create an agreed basis for interactions and forestall criticism of

purely procedural matters. As with the functions and objectives, it

makes sense to formulate these rules in writing.

However, in view of the complexity of the process and the fact that,

with the introduction of new methods and approaches – in this

84

case a broad and diverse participatory process conducted at na-

tional level –, it will never be possible to foresee all eventualities, a

certain amount of leeway must be preserved for in case changes

are required. And a set of principles and ‘rules of thumb’ provides

a better framework for future similar participatory process than a

rigid and narrowly prescriptive rule book.

5.5 Improve the matching of the schedule and

substantive profile of assignments of the

participation

Findings of analysis

Dissatisfaction – across all groups in the participatory process - at

the pace of the timetable cropped up repeatedly in the surveys.

Many participants were particularly dissatisfied that they had too

little time in which to prepare for events and to submit their written

statements. There was also widespread criticism that insufficient

time was allowed in the various events for detailed discussion. In

respect of the recently conducted dialogue project, this criticism

must be seen in the light of the thematic and participatory breadth

of the process and the associated diversity of ideas and interests

represented.

Measures to be taken to improve the participatory process

“Good participation” and especially the joint work of different inter-

ests and actor groups on controversial topics requires time. Simul-

taneously there exist temporal (political) framing conditions (in the

implemented process especially the UN climate conference in

Paris and Marrakesh and the end of the German legislative pe-

riod), that next to cost questions limit a respective process. If the

time frame is inflexible, more consideration must be given to the

question of which themes can be discussed in what amount of time

and by whom.

Recommendations for the shaping of future processes

A process of this kind stands and falls on the interaction of the par-

ticipants, which is why it is important to ensure that the complexity

of material to be addressed and the time allotted for the task are

not at odds with each other (see Section 5.6 in particular). An im-

portant issue here concerns the aim(s) of the participatory process.

If, for instance, the actors are meant to be identifying areas for

compromise and working together to draw up a proposal that all

can stand behind, this will require a different time frame than a

meeting convened simply to gather ideas and proposals on a given

subject. Clear definition of goals should hint at the substantive

85

complexity of a particular task and help organisers to estimate the

time required to achieve the goal.

As a way of fostering interactions between the very different

groups, there is also scope for expanding the role of the scientific

community as providers of input and translator/mediator between

actors.

The evolution of the Climate Action Plan over time – seen wholly

as a task for the government – also requires that people think and

plan beyond the horizons of a single legislative period. More op-

portunities may open up if structuring is more far-reaching and

more geared to the long term.

5.6 Allow more time and scope for discussions

Findings of analysis

The structure of the dialogue process was complex and relatively

rigid. The spectrum of different formats encompassed association

hearings, work groups devoted to specific fields of activity and the

panel of delegates. Furthermore, the range of themes to discuss

was wide, both with regard to the complexity of the individual fields

of activity and concerning the plethora of measures discussed.

The meetings and sessions also tended to be brief and packed

into a tight schedule. Many participants felt that they rarely had

sufficient time to develop and discuss the (many) relevant themes

in the detail and depth that they deserved, to identify the various

options for compromise and to go about assessing in full and at

length the impact of individual measures.

Measures to be taken to improve the participatory process

It is usually very difficult to produce a timetable for a dialogue pro-

cess that must also comply with dates in the political calendar (UN

climate conferences, legislative period). On the one hand, the dia-

logue process has to be timed logically to fit into the existing struc-

ture of meta-events so that, for instance, the process can feed on

the results of conferences and yet also have an effect on decisions

being taken at national level. On the other hand, especially with a

subject so complex as global warming, it is important to factor in

enough time for discussions and be in a position to extend the du-

ration of individual formats if more debate is needed on a particular

subject.

Recommendations for the shaping of future processes

86

The glimmer of a solution to this dilemma lies in the methodical de-

sign of the process and its individual formats. Formats based on

small groups of participants (round tables, world cafés, workshops,

dialogue islands, etc) necessarily meet all the requirements of a

dialogue involving very different stakeholders representing a huge

range of often conflicting interests. This is also reflected in the

feedback received from the participants, many of whom described

the work-group discussions as more productive and more useful

than the “big events”. This suggests that more emphasis should be

placed in future on small-scale dialogue formats.

With regard to timetabling details, attempts should be made to re-

lax the schedule a little – while keeping within the constraints im-

posed by the political calendar. One way of achieving this may be

to organise fewer sessions per dialogue format but make each

session longer in duration and not overload it with material to get

through. The process should also be designed with more “gaps” in

it. These empty spaces at certain points in the timetable should en-

able organisers to respond with a measure of flexibility, inserting

additional meetings of the same format or scheduling sessions of a

quite different format (e.g. newly created work groups to address

issues that arise in the course of the project), depending on what is

needed.

As a rule, the timetable should be relaxed not only with regard to

the dialogue formats themselves but also to allow participants to

prepare beforehand and review their findings afterwards. This

loosening of the schedule would also give participants more time

to submit written statements and study action proposals. During

the symposium and on other occasions people said they would

prefer to receive preparatory documents earlier to give them more

time to familiarise themselves with subject matter.

Finally, increased use of digital formats might provide a solution to

the problem of designing a timetable that meets all criteria. Online

discussions are not restricted by time or geography and therefore

can last as long as the participants need them to last. That said,

the design and facilitation of this kind of process to professional

standards requires effort and know-how and may be almost as dif-

ficult and expensive to organise as face-to-face formats.

It is also advisable to dispense with the randomised allocation of

speaking slots (a practice used in the association hearings) and

with methods and formats that encourage an unproductive outlin-

ing of entrenched positions in a “slanging match”. It can also help

matters if participants are reminded more often of the rules of en-

gagement that they have signed up to (see Section 5.4). Moreover,

levels of acceptance for the way discussions unfold are bolstered if

actors have been involved in the selection and prioritisation of indi-

vidual themes and foci of discussion.

87

5.7 Ensure that feedback is given regarding

the reception and adjustment of process

results

Findings of analysis

Partly due to a lack of clarity with respect to the aims and limita-

tions of the dialogue process and also the affirmation that a de-

tailed statement would be forthcoming on any adjustments made

to the proposals package, the participants had very different ex-

pectations – in some cases inflated expectations – of what the pro-

cess could achieve.

These expectations were largely dashed. In the eyes of the partici-

pants, the process by which the action catalogue had been modi-

fied after the fact was opaque and there had been no real feed-

back relating to the changes made. The disappointment came to

the fore in the interviews. The whole process had been “discred-

ited” and the work of hundreds of people had been “swept aside in

the final straight”.

Measures to be taken regarding feedback on adjustments to re-

sults

If the participants are to work productively, they must receive early

coaching in what to expect from the process. By the time the pro-

cess begins, clear boundaries must have been drawn detailing the

objectives of the project and outlining how it and the stakeholders

involved in the process can and should contribute to the achieve-

ment of those objectives. And this coaching in expectations should

be an ongoing process due to the layered nature of dialogue for-

mats and the diversity of actors involved.

Recommendations for the shaping of future processes

Right at the beginning of the dialogue process, when the initial

ideas on design and implementation are forming and recruitment

of participants is in its infancy, the organisers should sort out what

they expect the project to achieve.

Participants can usefully be included in this planning process. One

example of this approach, which was also used during the sympo-

sium, is the “participation scoping” method, which is described in

the “Code Governing Intensification of Public Participation in Plan-

ning and Licensing Processes” issued by the State of Baden-Würt-

temberg. Before the process has even started, the help of the rele-

vant actors is enlisted to “scope” or ascertain the need for and de-

88

gree of participation and the exact form that it should take. A pro-

cess of dialogue helps to produce a road map for the dialogue pro-

cess. Participation scoping can permanently raise the actors’ ac-

ceptance of the chosen structure of the project and help frame re-

alistic expectations.

This stratagem can also help boost the average level of commit-

ment among ministerial departments, if the various parties in the

relevant echelons of the political establishment and the civil ser-

vice are agreed on how they might usefully contribute to the partic-

ipatory process.

However, there is still an urgent need for detailed feedback on

what adjustments are made to the submitted package on the insti-

gation of whom and why. In line with the desire for a feedback cul-

ture in participatory processes and the fundamental idea of ac-

countability, this communication from on high is central, above all

else, to the overarching objective of the process – to achieve

broad acceptance.

5.8 Vision 205018: Keep participants involved in

the process and in the picture

Findings of analysis

The broad-based participatory process, now at an end, was wel-

comed by many actors as a good and worthwhile exercise. So it

was that many of them were also very happy to have been given

the opportunity to take part. That said, most business representa-

tives were critical – especially regarding the ostensible superiority

of the process compared to conventional methods of consultation.

From the comments received on the process, it is clear that the

supporters of the project, too, referred nonetheless to a variety of

weaknesses in the process which had to be addressed and recti-

fied if they, the actors, were to continue taking part. Worthy of spe-

cial mention are the way the results of the process are modified

and commented on (see also Section 5.7), the information pro-

vided regarding the role and significance of the participatory pro-

cess (see also Section 5.2) and the way the project is executed,

including the early incorporation into the process of key political

decision-makers (see also Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6).

18 Vision 2050 forms part of the final Action Catalogue (Measure KSP-Ü-11). The proposal is 1) to initiate a process of dialogue and information-sharing involving all social groups and regarding transformation vectors aimed at achieving the climate-protection goals by 2050 and 2) to use this process to develop a wide-reaching information campaign for the citizenry.

89

Alongside the methodological and stylistic improvements, it is also

important for the jointly prosecuted process that trust and motiva-

tion be won (back) and expanded.

Measures to be taken to improve the participatory process

Insufficient transparency and the lack of a binding culture of feed-

back are the two main factors generating frustration in participatory

processes and leading participants to question the usefulness of

the work they are doing. If the representatives of the many differ-

ent social groups are to bring high levels of motivation to their par-

ticipation in the “Vision 2050” dialogue process, they must be con-

vinced – and retain their conviction – that it is worth taking part in

the process.

Recommendations for the shaping of future processes

It was clear from the many suggestions for improvements and con-

structive thoughts voiced during the evaluative process – also by a

variety of critics – that people are, in principle, interested in contin-

uing with their involvement (subject to procedural modifications be-

ing made). Actors already familiar with the project would have to

receive much clearer information on the objectives of, and opportu-

nities to influence, a future process (“What can and should partici-

pation in the project achieve – and what can it not achieve?”) and

convincing evidence that participatory processes are a two-way

street in terms of knowledge acquired. The now-completed dia-

logue process contributing to the drafting of the Climate Action

Plan was unprecedented in scale and breadth. Not only the partici-

pants have been on a learning curve; the BMUB, too, as the initiat-

ing force behind the process, has gathered new and valuable in-

sights such as the fundamental need to provide the promised feed-

back and be transparent about what adjustments to results have

been made and why. The commissioning of this study can also be

seen as evidence of an interest in developing and improving future

processes.

Along with an outside view of the key milestones reached in the

process, it is also important, within the process, to communicate

directly and repeatedly with the participants themselves and give

responses and reactions. This is in line with a suggestion, made

during the symposium, that iterative feedback loops should be set

up to allow project success to be monitored.

The wish was often expressed that future processes be “given

more influence”, so it could be beneficial for the government as a

whole to campaign for the participatory process to be accorded

more weight and importance. This would go hand-in-hand with the

binding involvement at an early stage of other departments and/or

relevant decision-makers.

90

Without trust, people will never take part in participatory processes

of their own free will, and trust can only be generated in the course

of the process, that is to say as a direct result of interactions be-

tween organisers and participants. The process of building confi-

dence and establishing an atmosphere of mutual trust takes time.

Which is why, for the promotion of confidence between all actors, it

is important to get people to continue with their involvement in the

evolution of the Climate Action Plan – not only on an individual ba-

sis but also by setting up permanent dialogue formats.

Another core element of Vision 2050 concerns a parallel infor-

mation campaign that allows citizens to visualise changes in their

lifestyle. It is important to ensure that the information materials

used in the campaign are vivid, eye-catching and understandable

and that they can be related to. At the symposium, some delegates

from the citizenry even made concrete suggestions in this regard,

which should be taken into account when designing the infor-

mation campaign. Ideas include fact checks relating to important

issues, descriptions of climate protection measures that are easier

for lay people to understand, and “climate-protection labels” (anal-

ogous to the classification system for electrical appliances) which

summarise, in frank fashion, the usefulness, cost and efficiency of

a given product or course of action.

This information campaign is another way of recruiting groups and

individuals to participate actively in future dialogue formats. Paral-

lel to this, the Climate Action Plan 2020 is being extended beyond

its envisaged end date. The 2020 stakeholders can also be ap-

proached as prospective participants or, in the light of their specific

networks, as multipliers.

Owing to the pioneering nature of Vision 2050, special attention

should also be paid to recruiting young people – as mentioned al-

ready in the description of action to be taken. This social group has

hardly been represented up to now. Based on previous participa-

tory processes, the most effective way of securing the participation

of this group has been to be proactive in carrying the project to

them. To this end, organisers should seek partnerships with edu-

cational bodies and set about developing, at an early stage, mate-

rials and dialogue formats suitable for use in schools and universi-

ties.

91

6 Appendix

6.1 List of references

AGFW – Der Energieeffizienzverband für Wärme, Kälte und KWK

e.V. (2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzprogramm 2050

(Hausentwurf des BMUB vom 06.09.2016) vom 30.09.2016.

Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club e.V. (ADAC) (2016):

ADAC-Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesre-

gierung vom 30.09.2016.

Allianz für Gebäude-Energie-Effizienz (geea) (2016): Stellung-

nahme der Allianz für Gebäude - Energie - Effizienz zum Entwurf

des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Allianz pro Schiene (2016): Stellungnahme zum vom Bundesminis-

terium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit vorge-

legten Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 mit Stand 06.09.2016

vom 30.09.2016.

Arbeitsgemeinschaft der deutschen Kachelofenwirtschaft u.a.

(2016): Verbände-Position zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 (BMUB-

Hausentwurf vom 06.09.2016) vom 30.09.2016.

Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Umweltbeauftragten der Gliedkirchen der

evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (2016): Stellungnahme zum

Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 der Bundesregierung im Rah-

men der Verbändeanhörung vom 14.09.2016.

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Rinderzüchter e.V. (ADR) u.a.

(2016 a): Gemeinsame Positionierung zum Entwurf des Klima-

schutzplans 2050 des Bundesumweltministeriums vom

25.07.2016.

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Rinderzüchter e.V. (ADR) u.a.

(2016 b): Gemeinsame Positionierung zum Entwurf des Klima-

schutzplans 2050 des Bundesumweltministeriums vom

29.09.2016.

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Waldbesitzerverbände e.V. (2016

a): Stellungnahme zum Hausentwurf des BMUB zum Klimaschutz-

plan 2050 der Bundesregierung an Bundesminister Peter Altmaier

vom 13.05.2016.

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Waldbesitzerverbände e.V. (2016

b): Stellungnahme der AGDW – Die Waldeigentümer zum BMUB-

Hausentwurf Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 29.09.2016.

92

Arbeitsgemeinschaft für sparsamen und umweltfreundlichen Ener-

gieverbrauch (ASUE), BHKW-Forum (2016): Stellungnahme zum

Klimaschutzplan des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Natur-

schutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB) vom 28.09.2016.

Bayerngas GmbH u.a. (2016): Klimaschutzplan 2050: Ein Plädoyer

für ambitionierten, wettbewerbsorientierten und bezahlbaren Kli-

maschutz vom 25.04.2016.

Bayerngas GmbH u.a. (2016): Kommentierung zum „Klimaschutz-

plan 2050, BMUB Entwurf 21. Juni 2016“ vom 24.08.2016.

Bayrisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz

(2016): Positionen Bayerns zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 (KSP2050)

des Bundesumweltministeriums (Entwurf Stand: 06.09.2016) vom

28.09.2016.

BDEW Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft e.V.

(2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050, BMUB-

Hausentwurf vom 06.09.2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Behörde für Umwelt und Energie der Freien und Hansestadt Ham-

burg (2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom

07.10.2016.

Benz, Arthur (2004): Einleitung: Governance - Modebegriff oder

nützliches sozialwissenschaftliches Konzept? In: Ders. (Hrsg.):

Governance – Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Eine Ein-

führung. Wiesbaden.

Bertelsmann Stiftung (2016 a): Präsentation zur Evaluation der

Bürgerbeteiligten und Verbände im Beteiligungsprozess

zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 28.03.2016.

Bertelsmann Stiftung (2016 b): Erste Ergebnisse der Evaluation

des Beteiligungsprozesses zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom

15.06.2016.

Bertelsmann Stiftung (Hrsg.) (2017): Die Bürgerbeteiligung zum

Klimaschutzplan 2050. Ergebnisse der Evaluation. Gütersloh.

BildungsCent e.V. (2016): Stellungnahme zum BMUB-

Hausentwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Bröchler, Stephan; von Blumenthal, Julia (2006): Von Government

zu Governance. Analysen zum Regieren im modernen Staat,

Hamburg.

Brot für die Welt (2016): Stellungnahme von Brot für die Welt zum

Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung vom 30.09.2016.

93

Bioland e.V. (2016): Stellungnahme des Bioland e.V. zum Entwurf

des Klimaschutz-planes 2050 (Hausentwurf des BMUB vom

6.9.2016) vom 28.09.2016.

Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE) (2016): Stellung-

nahme des Buildings Performance Institute Europe (BPIE) zum

Klimaschutzplan 2050, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von

Punkt 5.2. - Strategie klimafreundliches Bauen und Wohnen vom

30.09.2016.

Bund deutscher Baumschulen e.V. (BdB) (2016): Stellungnahme

zum Entwurf der klimaschutzpolitischen Grundsätze und Ziele der

Bundesregierung (Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 06. September

2016) vom 29.09.2016.

Bund Deutscher Forstleute (BDF): Stellungnahme zum Entwurf

des Klimaschutzplans 2050, Stand des BMUB vom 6.9.2016 vom

30.09.2016.

Bundesarchitektenkammer (BAK) (2016 a): Anmerkungen der

Bundesarchitekturkammer zu Klimaschutzpolitischen Grundsätzen

und Zielen der Bundesregierung, BMUB-Hausentwurf vom

06.09.2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Bundesarchitektenkammer (BAK) (2016 b): Stellungnahme der

Bundesarchitekturkammer (BAK) zum Klimaschutzplan des BMUB

vom 30.09.2016.

Bundesdeutscher Arbeitskreis für Umweltbewusstes Management

(B.A.U.M.), Wirtschaft pro Klima (2016): Statement zum BMUB-

Hausentwurf (6.9. 20 16) des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom

29.09.2016.

Bundesindustrieverband Technische Gebäudeausrüstung e. V.

(BTGA) u.a. (2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050,

BMUB-Hausentwurf vom 06.09.2016 vom 26.09.2016.

Bundesingenieurkammer (BIngK) (2016): Stellungnahme der Bun-

desingenieurkammer zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 (BMUB-

Hausentwurf vom 06.09.2016) vom 28.09.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2014 a): Leistungsbeschreibung „Organisation,

Durchführung und Nachbereitung des Beteiligungsprozesses für

Länder, Kommunen und Verbände bei der Erstellung eines Klima-

schutzplanes der Bundesregierung“ vom 25.10.2014.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (Hrsg.) (2014 b): Kabinettsbeschluss zum „Akti-

onsprogramm Klimaschutz 2020“ vom 03.12.2014.

94

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 a): Verteiler Verbände vom 07.01.2015.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 b): Klimaschutzplan 2050 – Impulspapier

des BMUB für den Auftakt des Beteiligungs- und Dialogprozesses

vom 09.06.2015.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 c): Dokumentation der Auftaktkonferenz

vom 25.06.2015.

BMUB (2015 d): Hendricks startet Dialog zum Klimaschutzplan

2050. Pressemitteilung Nr. 152/15 vom 25.06.2015,

http://www.bmub.bund.de/pressemitteilung/hendricks-startet-dia-

log-zum-klimaschutzplan-2050/ (letzter Abruf 24.8.2017).

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 e): Präsentation Erstes Bundesländerfo-

rum Dialogprozess zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregie-

rung vom 14.09.2015.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 f): Protokoll des ersten Kommunenforums

vom 12.10.2015.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 g): Arbeitspapier - Zusammenstellung aller

Maßnahmenvorschläge der Bundesländer, Kommunen und Ver-

bände für den Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 16.10.2015.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 h): Protokoll der ersten Sitzung des Dele-

giertengremiums vom 28.10.2015.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 i): Ergebnisprotokoll der Arbeitsgruppensit-

zung Handlungsfeld „Industrie & Gewerbe/Handel/Dienstleistun-

gen“ vom 30.11.2015.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 j): Ergebnisprotokoll der Arbeitsgruppensit-

zung Handlungsfeld „Landwirtschaft/Landnutzung“ vom

30.11.2015.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 k): Ergebnisprotokoll der Arbeitsgruppen-

sitzung Handlungsfeld „Energiewirtschaft“ vom 02.12.2015.

95

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 l): Ergebnisprotokoll der Arbeitsgruppensit-

zung Handlungsfeld „Gebäude“ vom 02.12.2015.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 m): Ergebnisprotokoll der Arbeitsgruppen-

sitzung Handlungsfeld „Verkehr“ vom 03.12.2015.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 n): Dokumentation Translating Ambition

into Action – The German Climate Action Plan 2050 – Side Event

im Rahmen der UNFCCC COP21 zum Dialogprozess zum Klima-

schutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung vom 09.12.2015.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2015 o): Übersicht der Delegierten vom

18.12.2015.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 a): Auswertung der ersten Befragung der

Delegierten zum Dialogprozess zum Klimaschutzplan 2050.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 b): Gesamtverteiler.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 c): Auswertung diverser Stellungnahmen

zur Kommission zur Vollendung der Energiewende vom

07.01.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 d): Protokoll der zweiten Sitzung des Dele-

giertengremiums vom 23.01.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 e): Präsentation Zweites Bundesländerfo-

rum Dialogprozess zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregie-

rung vom 15.02.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 f): Protokoll des zweiten Bundesländerfo-

rums vom 15.02.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 g): Präsentation Zweites Kommunenforum

Dialogprozess zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung

vom 17.02.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 h): Protokoll des zweiten Kommunenfo-

rums vom 17.02.2016.

96

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 i): Übersicht Stellungnahmen vom

19.02.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 j): Präsentation Zweites Verbändeforum

Dialogprozess zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung

vom 24.02.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 k): Programm Zweites Verbändeforum für

den Dialogprozess zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregie-

rung vom 24.02.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 l): Protokoll des zweiten Verbändeforums

vom 24.02.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 m): Maßnahmenkatalog Ergebnis des Dia-

logprozesses zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung aus

03.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 n): Protokoll der dritten Sitzung des Dele-

giertengremiums vom 18.03.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 o): Übersicht Stellungnahmen vom

07.04.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 p): Einladungsentwurf zur AG Wohnungs-

wirtschaft am 09.05.2016 vom 26.04.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 q): Auswertung der Stellungnahmen der

Länder vom 27.09.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 r): Teilnehmerliste Verbändeanhörung vom

27.09.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 s): Auswertung der Stellungnahmen von

Verbänden vom 28.09.2016.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (2016 t): Liste der Stellungnahmen von Verbän-

den vom 07.10.2016.

97

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (o.J. a): Bürgerreport. Bürgerdialog zum Klima-

schutzplan 2050, http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Da-

ten_BMU/Download_PDF/Klimaschutz/buergerreport_klimaschutz

plan_bf.pdf (letzter Abruf: 27.7.2017).

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (o.J. b): Durchführung von Beteiligungsprozes-

sen, http://www.bmub.bund.de/service/buergerbeteiligung/durch-

fuehrung-von-beteiligungsprozessen/ (letzter Zugriff: 16.08.2017).

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (o.J. c): Klimaschutzplan 2050,

http://www.bmub.bund.de/service/buergerbeteiligung/durchfueh-

rung-von-beteiligungsprozessen/ (letzter Zugriff: 27.03.2017).

Nicht mehr online abrufbar, weitere Informationen auf

http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/klima-energie/klimaschutz/natio-

nale-klimapolitik/klimaschutzplan-2050/.

Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) (o.J. d): Klimaschutzplan 2050 Dialogprozess,

http://www.klimaschutzplan2050.de/dialogprozess/ (letzter Zugriff:

27.03.2017). Nicht mehr online abrufbar, weitere Informationen auf

http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/klima-energie/klimaschutz/natio-

nale-klimapolitik/klimaschutzplan-2050/.

Bundesverband Baustoffe – Steine und Erden e.V. (BBS) (2016 a):

Positionspapier – Bewertung des Entwurfs des Klimaschutzplans

2050 vom 23.02.2016.

Bundesverband Baustoffe – Steine und Erden e.V. (BBS) (2016 b):

Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 (BMUB-Hausentwurf

vom 06.09.2016) vom 30.09.2016.

Bundesverband Baustoffe – Steine und Erden e.V. (BBS) u.a.

(2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom

18.03.2016.

Bundesverband BioEnergie e.V. (BBE) u.a. (2016): Stellungnahme

zum Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom 06.09.2016 vom

30.09.2016.

Bundesverband der deutschen Bioethanolwirtschaft e.V. (BDBe)

(2016): Presseinformation zum Klimaschutzplans 2050 des Bun-

desumweltministeriums vom 30.09.2016.

Bundesverband der deutschen Bioethanolwirtschaft e.V. (BDBe),

Verband der deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie e.V. (VDB) (2016):

Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 Klimaschutzpolitische

Grundsätze und Ziele der Bundesregierung, BMUB-Hausentwurf

vom 06.09.2016 vom 29.09.2016.

98

Bundesverband der Deutschen Heizungsindustrie (2016): Stel-

lungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 (Stand 6. September

2016), KSP 2050, im Kontext wirtschaftlicher, politischer und recht-

licher Realitäten vom 29.09.2016.

Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI) (2016): Stellung-

nahme Klimaschutzplan 2050 (BMUB-Hausentwurf vom

06.09.2016) vom 30.09.2016.

Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI), Deutscher Indust-

rie- und Handelskammertag (DIHK) (2016): Stellungnahme zum

Maßnahmenpaket 2.1 des KSP 2050 vom 23.03.2016.

Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI), Deutscher Indust-

rie- und Handelskammertag (DIHK) und Zentralverband des Deut-

schen Handwerks (ZDH) (2016): Stellungnahme zum Dialogpro-

zess vom 18.03.2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Bundesverband der Deutschen Luftverkehrswirtschaft (BDL)

(2016): Stellungnahme Klimaschutzplan 2050 Kommentierung der

Luftverkehrswirtschaft zum BMUB-Hausentwurf „Klimaschutzplan

2050“ im Rahmen der Verbändeanhörung.

Bundesverband Deutscher Omnibusunternehmer e.V. (bdo)

(2016): Stellungnahme zum Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050

der Bundesregierung in der Fassung vom 6. September 2016 vom

30.09.2016.

Bundesverband der Energie- und Klimaschutzagenturen e.V.

(eaD) (2016): Stellungnahme des Bundesverbandes der Energie-

und Klimaschutzagenturen Deutschlands (eaD) e. V. zum BMUB-

Hausentwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom 29.09.2016.

Bundesverband Erneuerbare Energien e.V. (BEE) (2016): BEE-

Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 (BMUB-Hausentwurf

vom 06.09.2016) vom 30.09.2016.

Bundesverband Freier Immobilien- und Wohnungsunternehmen

(BFW) (2016): Stellungnahme Entwurf des Klimaschutzplanes

2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Bundesverband für Umweltberatung bfub e.V. (2016): Stellung-

nahme des Bundesverbandes für Umweltberatung e.V. zum Klima-

schutzplan 2050 vom 29.09.2016.

Bundesverband Geothermie (2016): Stellungnahme zum Klima-

schutzplan 2050, Klimaschutzpolitische Grundsätze und Ziele der

Bundesregierung (BMUB-Hausentwurf vom 06.09.2016) vom 30.

09.2016.

99

Bundesverband Glasindustrie e.V. (2016): Stellungnahme Klima-

schutzplan 2050 vom 28.09.2016.

Bundesverband Großhandel, Außenhandel, Dienstleistungen e.V.

(BGA): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom

30.09.2016.

Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung (BGL)

e.V. (2016 a): Maßnahmenkatalog – Ergebnis des Dialogprozes-

ses zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung – Eine erste

kritische Stellungnahme vom 14.04.2016.

Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr Logistik und Entsorgung (BGL)

e.V. (2016 b): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 – Klima-

schutzpolitische Grundsätze und Ziele der Bundesregierung gem.

BMUB-Hausentwurf vom 06.09.2016 vom 27.09.2016.

Bundesverband Klimaschutz e.V. i.G. (BVKS) (2016): Positionspa-

pier 2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Bundesverband Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung e.V. (B.KWK) (2016): Stel-

lungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 (Stand: BMUB-

Hausentwurf vom 06.09.2016) vom 29.09.2016.

Bundesverband Neue Energiewirtschaft e.V. (bne) (2016): Stel-

lungnahme Klimaschutzplan 2050 bne-Position zu klimapolitischen

Grundsätzen und Zielen der Bundesregierung (BMUB-

Hausentwurf vom 6.9.2016) vom 30.09.2016.

Bundesverband Wärmepumpe (BWP) e. V. (2016): Stellungnahme

des Bundesverbands Wärmepumpe (BWP) e. V. zum Klima-

schutzplan 2050 vom 29.09.2016.

Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) e.V.

(2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom

30.09.2016.

BRM Bundesverband Regenerative Mobilität e.V. (BRM) (2016):

Stellungnahme des BRM zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom

29.09.2016.

Bundesvereinigung Bauwirtschaft (2016 a): Stellungnahme Ent-

wurf vom 21. Juni 2016 des Klimaschutzplans 2050 der Bundesre-

gierung vom 28.07.2016.

Bundesvereinigung Bauwirtschaft (2016 b): Stellungnahme Klima-

schutzplan 2050 Stand 16. September 2016 vom 28.09.2016.

Bund Ökologische Lebensmittelwirtschaft (BÖLW) (2016): Stel-

lungnahme des Bund Ökologische Lebensmittelwirtschaft zum

Entwurf des Klimaschutzplanes 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

100

CDP Worldwide (Europe) gGmbH (2016): CDP Stellungnahme

zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Dachverband Deutscher Immobilienverwalter e.V. (DDIV) (2016):

Stellungnahme zum Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 – Klima-

schutzpolitische Grundsätze und Ziele der Bundesregierung vom

29.09.2016.

Der Senator für Umwelt, Bau und Verkehr der Freien Hansestadt

Bremen (2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom

30.09.2016.

Deutsche Energie-Agentur (dena) (2016): Stellungnahme „Klima-

schutzplan 2050“ vom 30.09.2016.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung e. V. (DGE) (2016): Stellung-

nahme der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Ernährung (DGE) zum Kli-

maschutzplan 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen – DGNB e.V.

(2016): Stellungnahme der DGNB zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom

30.09.2016.

Deutsche-Landwirtschaft Gesellschaft e.V. (DLG) (2016): Stellung-

nahme der DLG zum Hausentwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 des

Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsi-

cherheit (BMUB) vom 12. September 2016 vom 29.09.2016.

Deutscher Bahnkunden-Verband e. V. (DBV) (2016): Klimaschutz-

plan 2050 – Stellungnahme vom 30.09.2016.

Deutscher Bauernverband (2016 a): Position zum Entwurf des Kli-

maschutzplans 2050 vom 02.08.2016.

Deutscher Bauernverband (2016 b): Stellungnahme des Deut-

schen Bauernverbandes zum Entwurf des Bundesumweltministeri-

ums BMUB für einen Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 6.9.2016 vom

30.09.2016.

Deutscher Braunkohlen-Industrie-Verein e.V. (DEBRIV) (2016):

DEBRIV-Stellungnahme zum BMUB-Hausentwurf des Klima-

schutzplans 2050 vom 06.09.2016 vom 19.06.2016.

Deutscher Energieholz- und Pellet-Verband e.V. (DEPV) (2016):

Stellungnahme des DEPV zum Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans

2050 in der Fassung vom 6. September 2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Deutscher Forstverein e.V. (DFV) (2016): Stellungnahme des

Deutschen Forstvereins e.V. zum Klimaschutzplan 20150 vom

26.09.2016.

101

Deutscher Forstwirtschaftsrat e.V. (DFWR) (2016 a): Klimaschutz-

plan 2050 – Klimaschutzpolitische Grundsätze und Ziele der Bun-

desregierung – Hier: Stellungnahme zum BMUB-Hausentwurf vom

06.09.2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Deutscher Forstwirtschaftsrat e.V. (DFWR) (2016 b): Stichwort

„Klimaschutzplan 2050“; Stellungnahme zum BMUB-Hausentwurf

vom 06.09.2016 vom 04.10.2016.

Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB) (2016): Stellungnahme des

Deutschen Gewerkschaftsbundes zum Entwurf eines Klimaschutz-

plans 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Deutscher Holzwirtschaftsrat e.V. (DHWR) (2016): Stellungnahme

des DHWR zum BMUB-Hausentwurf des Aktionsplans Klima-

schutz 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Deutscher Industrie- und Handelskammertag (DIHK) (2016):

DIHK-Stellungnahme zum BMUB-Hausentwurf „Klimaschutzplan

2050“ (Stand 06.09.2016) vom 30.09.2016.

Deutscher Mieterbund (DMB) (2016): Stellungnahme Deutscher

Mieterbund Klimaschutzplan 2050 Klimaschutzpolitische Grunds-

ätze und Ziele der Bundesregierung, BMUB-Hausentwurf vom

06.09.2016 vom 29.09.2016.

Deutscher Naturschutzring DNR (2016): Stellungnahme des Um-

weltdachverbands DNR zum Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050

vom 30.09.2016.

Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund (DOSB) (2016 a): Stellung-

nahme zum Verbändeforum 24./25. Februar 2016: „Klimaschutz-

plan 2050“ vom 29.02.2016.

Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund (DOSB) (2016 b): Stellung-

nahme des Deutschen Olympischen Sportbundes zum „BMUB

Hausentwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050“ vom 30.09.2016.

Deutscher Raiffeisenverband e.V. (DRV) (2016): Stellungnahme

des DRV zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 BMUB-Hausentwurf vom

06.09.2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Deutscher Speditions- und Logistikverband (DSLV) (2016): Stel-

lungnahme des DSLV zum Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans (KSP)

2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Deutscher Städte- und Gemeindebund (DStGB) (2016): Stellung-

nahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 22.09.2016.

102

Deutscher Tierschutzbund e.V. (2016): Stellungnahme zu: Entwurf

des Klimaschutzplanes 2050 der Bundesregierung vom

30.09.2016.

Deutscher Verband Flüssiggas e.V. (2016): Stellungnahme des

Deutschen Verbandes Flüssiggas e.V. zum Entwurf des Klima-

schutzplans 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Deutscher Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches e.V. (DVGW) (2016

a): Klimaschutzplan 2050 – Maßnahmenvorschläge im Ramen des

Beteiligungsprozesses der Verbände vom 19.02.2016.

Deutscher Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches e.V. (DVGW) (2016

b): Stellungnahme vom 30. September 2016 zum Klimaschutzplan

2050 (Hausentwurf des BMUB vom 6.9.2016) vom 30.09.2016.

Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum gGmbH (DBFZ) (2016):

Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzaktionsplan im Entwurf von

09/2016 | Ausschöpfung der Möglichkeiten der THG-Reduktion

durch emissionsarme, effiziente Bioenergiebereitstellung vom

30.09.2016.

Deutsches Verkehrsforum (DVF): Stellungnahme zum Entwurf des

Klimaschutzplans 2050 der Bundesregierung in der Fassung vom

6. September 2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (2016): Stellungnahme der Deutschen Um-

welthilfe zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 26.09.2016.

Deutsche Umwelthilfe u.a. (2016): Klimaschutzplan 2050 muss

Weichen für eine Verkehrswende stellen – Forderungen der Um-

weltverbände vom 03.06.2016.

Deutsche Unternehmensinitiative Energieeffizienz e.V. (DENEFF)

(2016): Stellungnahme der Deutschen Unternehmensinitiative

Energieeffizienz e.V. (DENEFF) zum BMUB-Hausentwurf vom

06.09.2016 für einen Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 29.09.2016.

Deutschlands Zukunft gestalten. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU,

CSU und SPD für die 18. Legislaturperiode vom 3. Dezember

2014, https://www.cdu.de/sites/default/files/media/dokumente/koa-

litionsvertrag.pdf (letzter Abruf: 27.7.2017)

Dünnebeil, Frank (2015): Präsentation zum ersten Kommunenfo-

rum „Handlungsfeld Verkehr“ vom 12.10.2015.

Fachverband Einblasdämmung (FVED) (2016): Position des Fach-

verbands Einblasdämmung (FVED) zum Klimaschutzplan 2050

vom 28.09.2016.

103

Fachverband Sanitär-Heizung-Klima Baden-Württemberg

(FVSHK) (2016): Stellungnahme Fachverband Sanitär-Heizung-

Klima Baden-Württemberg zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 des Bun-

desumweltministeriums, Stand 6. September 2016 vom

19.09.2016.

Fachverband Wärmedämm-Verbundsysteme e. V. (2016): Entwurf

Klimaschutzplan 2050 – Stellungnahme Fachverband WDVS vom

29.09.2016.

Fischedick, Manfred (2015): Impulsvortrag zum Workshop Hand-

lungsfeld „Energiewirtschaft“ vom 26.06.2015.

Fischedick, Manfred; Lambrecht, Udo (2015): Vortrag zur Auftakt-

konferenz für den Dialogprozess zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der

Bundesregierung – Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung –

Wissenschaftlicher Input vom 26.06.2015.

FMI Fachverband Mineralwolleindustrie e.V. (2016): Stellung-

nahme des FMI zum Entwurf des Klimaschutzplanes 2050 vom

19.09.2016.

Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft (FÖS) (2016): Stellung-

nahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 (BMUB Hausentwurf) vom

27.09.2016.

GdW Bundesverband deutscher Wohnungs- und Immobilienunter-

nehmen e.V. (2016): Stellungnahme Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom

30.09.2016.

Gebäude-Allianz (2016): Gemeinsam die energetische Sanierung

des Gebäudebestandes in Deutschland voranbringen – eine Stel-

lungnahme zum Hausentwurf des Klimaschutzplan 2050 – Punkt

5.2. „Strategie klimafreundliches Bauen und Wohnen“ vom

29.09.2016.

Gebäudeenergieberater Ingenieure Handwerker e.V. (GIH) (2016):

Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 29. September

2016.

Germanwatch (2016 a): Stellungnahme von Germanwatch zum

Bereich Landwirtschaft im Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 26.02.2016.

Germanwatch (2016 b): Stellungnahme zum Entwurf des Bundes-

umweltministeriums zu einem Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom

30.09.2016.

Greenpeace (2016): Tischvorlage zum 2. Verbändeforum des Kli-

maschutzaktionsplans 2050, 24./25.2.2016 vom 25.02.2016.

104

Greifswald Moor Centrum (2016): Stellungnahme des Greifswald

Moor Centrum zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 (BMUB-Hausentwurf

vom 06.09.2016).

Hauptverband der Deutschen Bauindustrie e.V. (2016): Stellung-

nahme Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Haus & Grund (2016): Stellungnahme zum Entwurf des Klima-

schutzplanes 2050 vom 6. September 2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) u.a. (2016): Offener Brief

Klimaschutzplan 2050 dient auch der gesundheitlichen Prävention

an Bundesminister Hermann Gröhe vom 02.06.2016.

Hesse, Tilman (2015): Präsentation Erstes Verbändeforum Hand-

lungsfeld „Gebäude“ vom 21.09.2015.

Hessisches Ministerium für Umwelt, Klimaschutz, Landwirtschaft

und Verbraucherschutz (2016): Stellungnahme zu Entwurf des Kli-

maschutzplans 2050 der Bundesregierung vom 27.09.2016.

IFOK (2015 a): Organisation, Durchführung und Nachbereitung

des Beteiligungsprozesses für Länder, Kommunen und Verbände

bei der Erstellung eines Klimaschutzplanes der Bundesregierung

2014/S 232-409191 – Zwischenbericht vom 23.03.15.

IFOK (2015 b): Organisation, Durchführung und Nachbereitung

des Beteiligungsprozesses für Länder, Kommunen und Verbände

bei der Erstellung eines Klimaschutzplanes der Bundesregierung

2014/S 232-409191 – Zwischenbericht vom 20.11.2015.

IFOK (2015 c): Präsentation zur Arbeitsgruppensitzung Hand-

lungsfeld „Industrie / GHD“ zum Dialogprozess für den Klima-

schutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung vom 30.11.2015.

IFOK (2015 d): Präsentation zur Arbeitsgruppensitzung Hand-

lungsfeld „Landwirtschaft / Landnutzung“ zum Dialogprozess für

den Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung vom 30.11.2015.

IFOK (2015 e): Präsentation zur Arbeitsgruppensitzung Hand-

lungsfeld „Energiewirtschaft“ zum Dialogprozess für den Klima-

schutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung vom 02.12.2015.

IFOK (2015 f): Präsentation zur Arbeitsgruppensitzung Handlungs-

feld „Gebäude“ zum Dialogprozess für den Klimaschutzplan 2050

der Bundesregierung vom 02.12.2015.

IFOK (2015 g): Präsentation zur Arbeitsgruppensitzung Hand-

lungsfeld „Verkehr“ zum Dialogprozess für den Klimaschutzplan

2050 der Bundesregierung vom 03.12.2015.

105

IFOK (2016 a): Beteiligungsprozess für Länder, Kommunen und

Verbände bei der Erstellung eines Klimaschutzplanes der Bundes-

regierung 2014/S 232-409191 – Erste Ableitungen aus dem zwei-

ten Zwischenbericht vom 23.03.2016.

IFOK (2016 b): Organisation, Durchführung und Nachbereitung

des Beteiligungsprozesses für Länder, Kommunen und Verbände

bei der Erstellung eines Klimaschutzplanes der Bundesregierung

2014/S 232-409191 – Erster Sachstandsbericht vom 01.07.2016.

IFOK (2016 c): Organisation, Durchführung und Nachbereitung

des Beteiligungsprozesses für Länder, Kommunen und Verbände

bei der Erstellung eines Klimaschutzplanes der Bundesregierung

2014/S 232-409191 – Zweiter Sachstandsbericht vom 24.11.2016.

Industriegewerkschaft Bergbau, Chemie, Energie (IG BCE) (2016):

Stellungnahme der Industriegewerkschaft Bergbau, Chemie, Ener-

gie zum Klimaschutzplan 2050, BMUB-Hausentwurf vom 6.9.2016.

Industrieverband Haus-, Heiz- und Küchentechnik e.V. (HKI)

(2016): Stellungnahme des Industrieverbandes Haus-, Heiz- und

Küchentechnik e.V. (HKI) zum Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050

vom 06.09.2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Informationszentrum für CO2 – Technologien e.V. (2016 a): Stel-

lungnahme zu KSP-E-06: Errichtung einer CO²-Infrastruktur vom

18.02.2016.

Informationszentrum für CO2 – Technologien e.V. (2016 b): Stand

März 2016: Stellungnahme zu KSP-E-06: Errichtung einer CO²-

Infrastruktur vom 03.05.2016.

Initiative Gutes Wohnen (2016): Bauen und Sanieren für Klima-

schutz und Lebensqualität – Klimaschutzplan 2050 muss seinem

ganzheitlichen Anspruch gerecht werden vom 28.09.2016.

Institut für Wärme und Oeltechnik e. V. (IWO) (2016): Stellung-

nahme des Instituts für Wärme und Oeltechnik e. V. (IWO) zum

Klimaschutzplan 2050 (Stand: BMUB-Hausentwurf vom

06.09.2016) vom 30.09.2016.

Interessengemeinschaft der Thermischen Abfallbehandlungsanla-

gen in Deutschland e.V. (ITAD): Stellungnahme ITAD zum Entwurf

vom 06.09.2016 vom 30.09.2016.

International Association for Sustainable Aviation e.V. (IASA)

(2016): Stellungnahme zum BMUB-Hausentwurf des Klimaschutz-

plans 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Katholische Landjugendbewegung e.V. (KLJB) (2016): Für einen

ambitionierten Klimaschutzplan vom 28.09.2016.

106

Kenmann, Tanja (2015): Impulsvortrag zum Workshop Handlungs-

feld „Gebäude“ - Robuste Strategien und Pfade zur Transformation

des Gebäudebereichs vom 26.06.2015.

Klima-Allianz Deutschland (2016 a): Klimaschutzplan 2050 der

deutschen Zivilgesellschaft, April 2016.

Klima-Allianz Deutschland (2016 b): Schriftliche Stellungnahme

zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Lambrecht, Udo (2015): Impulsvortrag zum Handlungsfeld „Ver-

kehr“ vom 26.06.2015.

Lechtenböhmer, Stefan; Vallentin, Daniel (2015): Impulsvortrag

zum Handlungsfeld „Industrie & Gewerbe/Handel/Dienstleistun-

gen“ vom 26.06.2015.

LIFE Bildung-Umwelt-Chancengleichheit e.V. (2016): Stellung-

nahme LIFE Bildung - Umwelt-Chancengleichheit e.V. zum Klima-

schutzplan 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Matthes, Dr. Felix Chr. (2015): Vortrag zur Auftaktkonferenz für

den Dialogprozess zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregie-

rung - Klimaschutzszenarien des BMUB: Wohin kann die Reise

gehen? vom 26.06.2015.

Mayntz, Renate (2006): Governance Theory als fortentwickelte

Steuerungstheorie? In: Schuppert, Gunnar Folke (Hrsg.): Gover-

nance-Forschung. Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungsli-

nien. 2. Auflage. Baden-Baden.

Mineralölwirtschaftsverband e.V. (MWV) (2016): Stellungnahme

zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Ministerium für Energie, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche

Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein (2016): Stellungnahme

zum Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Ministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Natur- und

Verbraucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (2016): Stel-

lungnahme zum BMUB-Hausentwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050

vom 06.09.2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Ministerium für Ländliche Entwicklung, Umwelt und Landwirtschaft

des Landes Brandenburg (2016): Stellungnahme Brandenburgs

zum aktuellen (3.) Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom

23.09.2016.

Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie, Ernährung und Forsten Rhein-

land-Pfalz (2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der

Bundesregierung vom 29.09.2016.

107

Ministerium für Umwelt, Klima und Energiewirtschaft des Landes

Baden-Württemberg (2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan

2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Ministerium für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Energie des Landes

Sachsen-Anhalt (2016): Stellungnahme zum Entwurf des Klima-

schutzplans 2050 der Bundesregierung, Stand 06.09.2016 vom

30.09.2016.

Mittelständische Energiewirtschaft Deutschland e.V. (MEW)

(2016): Stellungnahme des MEW Mittelständische Energiewirt-

schaft Deutschland e.V. und seiner Mitgliedsverbände zum Ent-

wurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 des Bundesministeriums für Um-

welt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB) vom

30.09.2016.

Naturland – Verband für Ökologischen Landbau e.V. (2016): Na-

turland Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom

30.09.2016.

Nordkirche Weltweit (2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan

2050 vom 29.09.2016.

Öko-Institut u.a. (2015): Präsentation zum ersten Kommunenforum

„Handlungsfeld Energiewirtschaft“ vom 12.10.2015.

Oxfam e.V. (2016): Stellungnahme zum Entwurf für den Klima-

schutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung vom 30.09.2016.

Pro Mobilität - Initiative für Verkehrsinfrastruktur e.V. (2016): Stel-

lungnahme zum Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom

30.09.2016.

Rucht, Dieter (2016): Der Beteiligungsprozess am Klimaschutzplan

2050 – Analyse und Bewertung, Hamburg.

Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft

(2016): Ressortübergreifend erarbeitete Fachstellungnahme zum

BMUB-Hausentwurf Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 6. September

2016 vom 29.09.2016.

Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen (SRU) (2016): Kommentar

des Sachverständigenrates für Umweltfragen zum Klimaschutz-

plan 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Scheffler, Margarethe (2015): Präsentation Erstes Verbändeforum

Handlungsfeld „Landwirtschaft/Landnutzung“ vom 21.09.2015.

Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim (2015): Keynote zur Auftaktkonferenz

Dialogprozess zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 – Herausforderung Kli-

mawandel vom 25.06.2015.

108

Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt des Landes

Berlin (2016): Stellungnahme zum BMUB-Hausentwurf des Klima-

schutzplans vom 06.09.2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Statoil (2016): Kommentierung: Klimaschutzplan 2050 – BMUB-

Hausentwurf vom 6. September 2016 vom 15.09.2016.

STEAG GmbH (2016): 1. Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan

2050 der Bundesregierung vom 17.03.2016.

Stiftung 2° - Deutsche Unternehmer für Klimaschutz (2016): Stel-

lungnahme der Stiftung 2° - Deutsche Unternehmer für Klima-

schutz zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 29.09.2016.

Thüringer Ministerium für Umwelt, Energie und Naturschutz

(2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom

30.09.2016.

Umweltgutachterausschuss (UGA) (2016): UGA-Stellungnahme zu

dem BMUB-Hausentwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom

30.09.2016.

UNITI Bundesverband mittelständischer Mineralölunternehmen e.

V. (2016): UNlTl-Stellungnahme Klimaschutzplan zum Klima-

schutzplan 2050 - Hausentwurf BMUB vom 06.09.2016 vom

30.09.2016.

Vallentin, Daniel; Zeiss, Christoph (2015): Vortrag zum ersten Bun-

desländerforum vom 14.09.2015.

VDI Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V. (2016): Kommentierungen

des VDI e.V. zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung /

Hausentwurf des BMUB vom 6.9.2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Vegetarierbund Deutschland e.V. (VEBU) (2016 a): Stellungnahme

zur KSP-L-08: Information zur Öffentlichen Beschaffung von Le-

bensmitteln – staatliche Vorbildfunktion vom 16.03.2016.

Vegetarierbund Deutschland e.V. (VEBU) (2016 b): VEBU-

Stellungnahme – Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 29.09.2016.

Verband der Chemischen Industrie e.V. (VCI) (2016 a): VCI-

Position zum BMUB-Entwurf für einen „Klimaschutzplan 2050“

vom 18.08.2016.

Verband der Chemischen Industrie e.V. (VCI) (2016 b): VCI-

Positionspapier: „Klimaschutzplan 2050“ (BMUB-Entwurf v.

6.9.2016) vom 06.09.2016.

Verband der Automobilindustrie (VDA) (2016): Stellungnahme zum

Entwurf für den Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 27.09.2016.

109

Verband Deutscher Maschinen- und Anlagenbau (VDMA) (2016):

VDMA Kommentierung Klimaschutzplan 2050 (KSP 2050) vom

30.09.2016.

Verband Deutscher Papierfabriken e.V. (vdp) (2016): Stellung-

nahme des Verbandes Deutscher Papierfabriken e.V. zum Entwurf

des Klimaschutzplanes 2050 - Klimaschutzpolitische Grundsätze

und Ziele der Bundesregierung, BMUB-Hausentwurf vom

06.09.2016 vom 23.09.2016.

Verband Deutscher Reeder (VDR) (2016): Klimaschutzplan 2050 -

Positionen des VDR zum Hausentwurf des Bundesumweltministe-

riums vom 06. September 2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen e. V. (VDV) (2016):

Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 29.09.2016.

Verband kommunaler Unternehmen (VKU) (2016 a): Anschreiben

und Positionspapier (Langfassung) Treibhausgasneutralität und

Dekarbonisierung der Energiewirtschaft vom 29.09.2016.

Verband kommunaler Unternehmen (VKU) (2016 b): Stellung-

nahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 29.09.2016.

Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (vzbv) (2016): Stellung-

nahme des Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverbands zum Entwurf

des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bauen und Re-

aktorsicherheit zum „KSP2050 – Klimaschutzpolitische Grundsätze

und Ziele der Bundesregierung“ vom 30.09.2016.

Verein Deutscher Zementwerke (VDZ) (2016): Stellungnahme –

Verbändeanhörung zum Entwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom

30.09.2016.

Verein für Umweltmanagement und Nachhaltigkeit in Finanzinstitu-

ten e.V. (VfU) (2016): Stellungnahme zum BMUB-Hausentwurf des

„Klimaschutzplan 2050“ im Rahmen der Verbändeanhörung (Stand

6. September 2016) vom 29.09.2016.

Vereinigung der Fernleitungsnetzbetreiber Gas e.V. (2016): Stel-

lungnahme zum BMUB-Hausentwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050

vom 06. September 2016 vom 30.09.2016.

Verkehrsclub Deutschland e.V. (VCD) (2016): Stellungnahme zum

BMUB-Hausentwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

VIK Verband der Industriellen Energie- und Kraftwirtschaft e.V.

(2016 a): Anmerkungen zu Dialogprozess und Maßnahmenvor-

schlägen vom 18.03.2016.

110

VIK Verband der Industriellen Energie- und Kraftwirtschaft e.V.

(2016 b): Stellungnahme zum BMUB-Hausentwurf vom 6.9.2016

Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung vom 30.09.2016.

Wiegmann, Kirsten (2015): Impulsvortrag zum Workshop Hand-

lungsfeld „Landwirtschaft/Landnutzung“ - Robuste Strategien und

Pfade zur Transformation in der Landwirtschaft & Landnutzung

vom 26.06.2015.

WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle. e.V. (2016 a): Klimaschutzplan

2050: Bewertung des Maßnahmensets vom 19.02.2016.

WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle. e.V. (2016 b): Kurzposition - Be-

wertung des Klimaschutzplan Entwurfs (Hausentwurf BMUB vom

06.09.2016) vom 30.09.2016.

Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl (2016): Positionen zum Klimaschutz-

plan 2050 der Bundesregierung vom 22.09.2016.

Wuppertal Institut; Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Hei-

delberg (IFEU) (2015): Präsentation zum ersten Kommunenforum

„Handlungsfeld Industrie/GHD“ vom 12.10.2015.

Wuppertal Institut; Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Hei-

delberg (IFEU) (2016): Diskussionsgrundlage für die zweite Dia-

logrunde des Beteiligungsprozesses zum Klimaschutzplan 2050

der Bundesregierung - Entwurf von Maßnahmenkurzbeschreibun-

gen nach der Diskussion in den handlungsfeldspezifischen Ar-

beitsgruppen – Maßnahmenset 2.0 vom 14.01.2016.

Wuppertal Institut u.a. (2016 a): Diskussionsgrundlage für die

zweite Dialogrunde des Beteiligungsprozesses zum Klimaschutz-

plan 2050 der Bundesregierung – Maßnahmenset 2.1 vom

01.01.2016.

Wuppertal Institut u.a. (2016 b): Ergebnis der zweiten Dialogrunde

im Beteiligungsprozess zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesre-

gierung (Zwischenstand vor den Empfehlungen des Delegierten-

gremiums) – Maßnahmenkatalog 3.0 (vormals Maßnahmenset

3.0) vom 11.03.2016.

WWF Deutschland (2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan

2050 vom 18.03.2016.

Zeiss, Christoph (2015): Vortrag zum ersten Kommunenforum vom

12.10.2015.

Zentraler Immobilien Ausschuss e.V. (ZIA) (2016): Kritikpunkte des

ZIA Zentraler Immobilien Ausschuss e.V. zur „Diskussionsgrund-

lage für die zweite Dialogrunde des Beteiligungsprozesses zum

111

Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung Maßnahmenset 2.1“

vom 01. Februar 2016 vom 23.02.2016.

Zentralverband der deutschen Seehafenbetriebe e. V. (ZDS)

(2016): Stellungnahme des ZDS zum Entwurf des Klimaschutz-

plans 2050 der Bundesregierung (Fassung vom 6. September

2016) vom 30.09.2016.

Zentralverband des Deutschen Baugewerbes (ZDB) (2016): Stel-

lungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 26.09.2016.

Zentralverband des Deutschen Handwerks (ZDH) (2016): Stellung-

nahme zum Hausentwurf des BMUB für einen Klimaschutzplan

2050 (Stand 06.09.2016) vom 28.09.2016.

Zentralverband Deutscher Schornsteinfeger e.V. (ZDS) (2016):

Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 vom 30.09.2016.

Zentralverband Elektrotechnik- und Elektronikindustrie (ZVEI)

(2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 (BMUB-

Entwurf, Stand 6. September 2016) vom 30.09.2016.

Zentralverband Gartenbau e.V. (ZVG) (2016 a): Stellungnahme

zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung vom 19.07.2016.

Zentralverband Gartenbau e.V. (ZVG) (2016 b): Brief an Staats-

sekretär Jochen Flasbarth zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundes-

regierung vom 22.07.2016.

Zentralverband Gartenbau e.V. (ZVG) (2016 c): Stellungnahme

zum Klimaschutzplan 2050 der Bundesregierung vom 28.09.2016.

Zentralverband Sanitär Heizung Klima (ZVSHK) (2016): Stellung-

nahme des Zentralverbands Sanitär Heizung Klima (ZVSHK) zum

BMUB-Hausentwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom 6. Septem-

ber 2016 vom 30.09.2016.

ZIA Zentraler Immobilien Ausschuss e.V. (2016): Stellungnahme

des ZIA Zentraler Immobilien Ausschuss e.V. zum BMUB-

Hausentwurf des Klimaschutzplans 2050 vom 06. September 2016

vom 30.09.2016.

ZIM KN-Netzwerk Regeneratives Methanol, bse Engineering

Leipzig GmbH (2016): Stellungnahme zum Klimaschutzplan 2050

(BMUB-Hausentwurf vom 06.09.2016) vom 30.09.2016.

112

6.2 List of interviewees

Business

▪ Volker Bartsch, Deutscher Verein des Gas- und Wasserfa-

ches e.V. (DVGW)

▪ Sarah Bäumchen, WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle e.V.

(WVM)

▪ Miriam Braun, Verband Deutscher Maschinen- und Anla-

genbau e.V. (VDMA)

▪ Gerolf Bücheler, Deutscher Bauernverband e.V. (DBV)

▪ Michel Durieux, Zentralverband des Deutschen Handwerks

e.V. (ZDH)

▪ Anne Feldhusen, Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie

e.V. (BDI)

▪ Dr. Sebastian Franke, Verband der Chemischen Industrie

e.V. (VCI)

▪ Thies Grothe, ZIA Zentraler Immobilien Ausschuss e.V.

▪ Lars Jope, VIK Verband der Industriellen Energie- und

Kraftwirtschaft e. V.

▪ Michael Koch, Bundesverband Wärmepumpe e. V. (BWP)

▪ Tatjana Kronenbürger, DSLV Deutscher Speditions- und

Logistikverband e.V.

▪ Bianca Lind, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Rinderzüchter

e.V. (ADR)

▪ Kai Roger Lobo, Gesamtverband Steinkohle e.V. (GVSt)

▪ Tara Nitz, Verband der Chemischen Industrie e.V. (VCI)

▪ Uta Maria Pfeiffer, Bundesverband der Deutschen Luftver-

kehrswirtschaft e.V. (BDL)

▪ Petra Richter, Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V.

(BDI)

▪ Dr. Armin Rockholz, Deutscher Industrie- und Handelskam-

mertag (DIHK)

▪ Dr. Björn Schreinermacher, AGFW - Der Energieeffizienz-

verband für Wärme, Kälte und KWK e.V.

▪ Matthias Schwaiger, WirtschaftsVereinigung Metalle e.V.

(WVM)

▪ Julian Schwark, Zentralverband Deutscher Schornsteinfe-

ger e.V. (ZDS)

▪ Dr. Guido Schwichtenberg, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher

Waldbesitzerverbände e.V. (AGDW)

113

▪ Kay Stelter, Deutscher Braunkohlen-Industrie-Verein e. V.

(DEBRIV)

▪ Harald Uphoff, Bundesverband Erneuerbare Energie e.V.

(BEE)

▪ One interviewee asked not to be identified.

Civil society

▪ Dr. Christiane Averbeck, Klima-Allianz Deutschland

▪ Holger Bartels, Industriegewerkschaft Bauen – Agrar – Um-

welt (IG BAU)

▪ Dr. Erika Bellmann, WWF Deutschland

▪ Paula Brandmeyer, Deutsche Umwelthilfe e.V. (DUH)

▪ Swantje Fiedler, Forum Ökologisch-Soziale Marktwirtschaft

e.V. (FÖS)

▪ Christina Ganter, Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund e.V.

(DOSB)

▪ Dr. Minu Hemmati, GenderCC-Women for Climate Justice

e.V.

▪ Johanna Kardel, Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

(vzbv)

▪ Jan Kowalzig, Oxfam Deutschland e.V.

▪ Tina Löffelsend, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz

Deutschland e.V. (BUND)

▪ Frederik Moch, Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (DGB)

▪ Peter Moser, IdE Institut dezentrale Energietechnologien

gemeinnützige GmbH

▪ Michael Müller-Görnert, Verkehrsclub Deutschland e.V.

(VCD)

▪ Tobias Pforte-von Randow, Germanwatch e.V.

▪ Ulrich Ropertz, Deutscher Mieterbund e.V. (DMB)

▪ Dr. Wolfgang Schürger, Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Umwelt-

beauftragten in der EKD (AGU)

▪ Karsten Smid, Greenpeace e. V.

▪ One interviewee asked not to be identified.

114

Political establishment / Länder / municipalities

▪ Tim Bagner, Deutscher Städtetag

▪ Daniela Bärtling, Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Um-

welt und Landwirtschaft

▪ Ullrich Buchta, Ministerium für Energie, Infrastruktur und

Landesentwicklung des Landes Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

▪ Eva Bulling-Schröter, MdB, Die Linke Bundestagsfraktion

▪ Dr. Rupert Ebner, Stadt Ingolstadt

▪ Martin Krings, Ministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Land-

wirtschaft, Natur- und Verbraucherschutz des Landes

Nordrhein-Westfalen

▪ Michael Meyer, Referent für Umweltpolitik, nationalen, eu-

ropäischen und internationalen Klimaschutz im Bundes-

tagsbüro von Frank Schwabe, MdB, SPD-

Bundestagsfraktion

▪ Thomas Pensel, Energieagentur Rheinland-Pfalz GmbH

▪ Norbert Portz, Deutscher Städte- und Gemeindebund

▪ Dr. Kay Ruge, Deutscher Landkreistag

▪ Teresa Schad, Referentin für Klimaschutz im Bundestags-

büro von Andreas Jung, MdB, CDU/CSU-

Bundestagsfraktion

▪ Dr. Dag Schulze, Klima-Bündnis e.V.

▪ Andreas Siebert, Gemeinde Niestetal

▪ Dr. Michael Weltzin, Referent für Klimapolitik, Bündnis90/

Die Grünen-Bundestagsfraktion

▪ Dr. Katrin Zimmermann, Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Klima-

schutz, Energie und Landesplanung Rheinland-Pfalz

▪ Beate Züchner, Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und

Umwelt des Landes Berlin

Citizenry

▪ Isabel Fernandez-Ariza, Bürgerdelegierte

▪ Andreas Hagebusch, Bürgerdelegierter

▪ Susanne Oberhauser-Hirschhof, Bürgerdelegierte

▪ Andrea Zaliani, Bürgerdelegierter

115

Project executives

▪ Lena Judick, IFOK GmbH

▪ Andreas Kleinsteuber, IKU_Die Dialoggestalter

▪ Andrea Meyer, Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Natur-

schutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUB), Referat KI I 1

▪ Julia Repenning, Öko-Institut e.V

▪ Martina Richwien, IFOK GmbH

▪ Christoph Zeiss, Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt,

Energie GmbH

Expert evaluators

▪ Dr. Christian Huesmann, Bertelsmann Stiftung

▪ Prof. Dr. Dieter Rucht

116

6.3 Timetable of symposium

Date: 21.06.2017

Location: Neue Mälzerei, Friedenstraße 91, 10249 Berlin

09:00 Doors open

09:30 Welcome address (BMUB)

09:35 Presentation of interim results

10:00 Statement by state secretary Flasbarth

10:15 Discussion with state secretary Flasbarth

11:00

Focus groups

1: Conceptualisation of participatory process

2: Execution of participatory process

3: Selection and deployment of participatory formats

4: Evaluation of results

12:00 Lunch

13:00 Focus groups (cont’d)

15:00 Coffee break

15:20 Presentation of results of focus groups

16:20 Summary and outlook

16:30 End of symposium