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
Top Related