Evaluation of Stakeholder Involvement in the Compilation of Climate Action Plan 2050

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

Final Report 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

Berlin, 18.08.2017

This study has been conducted on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB).

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

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

0 Management Summary

Background and objectives of evaluation

In the coalition agreement for the 18th legislative period the governing parties agreed that a national Climate Action Plan 2050 was to include “concrete measures formulated in the course of broad dialogue”1 The dialogue process began in June 2015 and ended officially 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 regional 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 updating 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 compilation of the Climate Action Plan 2050”. In particular the study is intended to reveal which aspects of the dialogue process have fostered constructive involvement on the part of stakeholders and citizens and which aspects have had a negative influence on the legitimacy, 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 documentation. Based on the findings, 66 detailed interviews were then conducted with a total of 70 participants in, implementers of and persons responsible for the dialogue process. This analysis phase ended with a symposium with the interviewees in which all the findings 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)

The central aim of the dialogue process – to obtain broad acceptance 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 suitable 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 process, questioning the methods used to select the various participants, 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 resources required to achieve them. Criticism of the roles of individual 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 assessment 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 between the presentation of dialogue results and the approval of the finalised Plan. This led to inflated expectations regarding the importance of the dialogue results. This and the lack of communication 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 dialogue 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.

Recommendations for the holding of future participatory processes

Although extensive participation was the declared aim of the dialogue process and one of its greatest attributes, the process by which participants were selected could be rendered more systematic 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 (municipalities and business/industry respectively) be involved on a more consistent basis, and that the subjects of discussion be systematically matched to the different areas within the landscape of associations 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 processes like these, an approach that has to be closely monitored and actively supported.

As the findings attest, one key weakness of the participation process was the many unclear expectations regarding the significance to be given to the dialogue process. For this reason, it is to be recommended 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 individual approach taken. This will allow all actors to come to an informed 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 departments 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 implementation, 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 contain 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 improving the allotted time frame for the dialogue process. Above all if the aim is to arrive at consensual proposals, then sufficient time

must be allowed for negotiations to be conducted. Rigid in structure 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 involved 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 recommendations can be made with a view to persuading the social groups to enter further discussions on how the “Vision 2050” climate-protection goals might be achieved. As the findings of this evaluation show, procedural opacity and the lack of a binding feedback culture 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 government 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 encourage participation in the updating of the Climate Action Plan.

Alongside an external perspective, which can use these suggestions 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.

1 Evaluation assignment and focus

Background

In the coalition agreement for the 18th legislative period the governing 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 parties to drawing up a national Climate Action Plan 2050, which is to include “concrete measures formulated in the course of broad dialogue”.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 envisaged the participation of representatives from regional governments, 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 process 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 preferably 1.5°C. As had been anticipated, the content of the Conference and the culminating “Paris Agreement” impacted on the participatory 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.

Climate Action Plan 2050 is a major step on the way to implementing 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 contributing 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 representatives 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 participation.

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 stakeholders, 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 respect to associations, enabling any organisation in the associations forum to have a representative in each workshop. When issues 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

the Länder, municipalities, business groups and civil-society organisations, 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 participatory 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.

Approx. 200 representatives of the Länder, municipalities and associations 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, representatives 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 / associations forum took part in the first session of the delegates’ committee on 28th October 2015. The delegates looked at the action proposals drawn up in the Länder / local authority / associations forum. 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 citizenry”: 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 expressed a readiness to sit on the panel of delegates, the delegates were drawn by lot from this group of people.

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 comment 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 activity

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 additional 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 arising 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 proposals 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).

On 23rd January 2016 delegates from the forum covering Länder, municipalities and associations convened again, this time alongside delegates from the citizenry group. The 2nd session of the delegates’ 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 involving 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 proposals 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 delegates 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 proposals 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 consultations began with the individual departments. Preliminary drafts of the Plan had already been made public by a number of media organisations, which had access to the documents.

On the same day, the BMUB published the draft on which departmental 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.

For the hearings, associations could apply for a place on six differently 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 process 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 involvement 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 intended 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, people’s opinions regarding the legitimacy of the process,

▪ the transparency of the process as a whole,

▪ feedback provided on the results of dialogue

▪ factors affecting success and scope for developing the involvement of different groups of people and the design of the participatory 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.

1.3 The objectives system

As a first step in the evaluation, the objectives system informing the participatory process was reconstructed based on the strategy/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 anticipated 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 accessed: 27.03.2017). No longer online; further information from http://www.bmub.bund.de/themen/klima-energie/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.

Political objectives

As stated previously, participation in the planning of action on climate 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 participatory process. Moreover, this kind of involvement is intended to promote 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- Objective(s) tive(s)

Political objectives Obtain broad acceptance for climate action and the energy of participatory transition: process “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 policy is bolstered - without slowing the pace of implementation.” ▪ “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 associations have to be integrated into the process of drawing up the Cli- mate Action Plan. The formulation of goals also points to the involvement 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 decision-making process where the different actors are to be involved.

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 implementation stage. And finally, at the evaluation phase, it is anticipated that the various societal actors will help investigate the extent to which the measures have been properly implemented.

The operational objectives set out the criteria governing the participatory process, which are characterised especially by transparency 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 contain 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 successful implementation of participatory processes in general. A participatory process of this kind should also be open to any results that come in, be launched as early as possible and provide all participants with the means to co-determine the result. The intention 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.

Level of objec- Objective(s) tive(s)

Operational objec- ▪ Involvement of all affected target groups in a wide-ranging tives of participa- dialogue process: tory process  Participation should involve not only Länder, municipalities and associations but also members of the citizenry.  All government departments should be involved on an ongoing basis.  Parliamentary groups should be kept informed of developments 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 process. Five areas of action were initially identified: the energy sector; buildings; transport; agriculture & land use; and business & industry / trade / services. The specifications set out the dialogue formats in which the individual actors are to be involved. Two dialogue 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.

The establishment of a delegates’ committee featuring representatives from the Länder-municipalities-associations dialogue and representatives 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 proposals arising from the two dialogue processes. In a total of seven information events arranged by the respective departments, representatives of the various ministries were also to be kept informed of how dialogue is progressing in the individual sectors.

Level of objec- Objective(s) tive(s)

Task of participatory process Drawing up of concrete proposals covering five areas of activity (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 participatory process: ▪ Two dialogue events involving representatives from Län- der, municipalities and associations ▪ Five regional events and two online dialogues for the involvement of ordinary citizens (approx. 500 participants) ▪ Establishment of a delegates’ committee with representatives from both participatory processes (dialogue with Län- der, municipalities and associations and dialogue with citizenry) with the aim of compiling a catalogue of recommendations 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.

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 analyses 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 documentation

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 dialogue 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 indications 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 process of stakeholder involvement, videos of association hearings, lists of invitees and participants, positions expressed by stakeholders and existing evaluations of the process (e.g. the report on the

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, feedback, 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 conducted 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 project and its implementation and two expert evaluators). A list of interviewees can be found in Section 6.2 of the Appendix.

The selection of interviewees was closely linked to the way that involvement 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 formats had to be taken into account. This meant that, as well as actors who were deeply involved in the process (e.g. delegates), selected 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 already 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 enlarge 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.

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

Depending on the diversity of interviewees and number of statements 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 involving 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 projects.

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 process. 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 collated with the findings of the documentation analysis and interviews. 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.

Recommended action

Based on the conclusions and on the proposals of the actors regarding future participatory processes, the symposium closed with a submission of recommendations regarding the coming involvement in the process of verifying and updating the Climate Action Plan 2050 and the future design of successful participatory processes in general. These are set out in Chapter 5.

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 findings 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, municipalities and politics, as well as citizens, the direct involvement of a broad cross-section of most diverse interest groups represents 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 representativity was especially problematised and with it the legitimacy of the selection of the citizen representatives. Almost all participants involved in the evaluation stated that the members of the citizenry 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 representatives of business associations principally questioned the public participation approach citing, among other, this lack of representativity, most interviewees from the other groups considered this a necessary compromise for a fundamentally meaningful procedure.

Across all groups it was criticised, that key political decision makers, the Parliament and other departments of the federal government 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 workshops at the symposium. While the business representatives often used this to draw attention to what they regarded as the fundamental 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, concerning the participation in the process, were approached and invited directly by the BMUB or an implementing official. However,

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

especially some business representatives also reported that they had, following indirect Information, made an own effort to participate. Overall most participants were not clear on which criteria and according to what process the participants had been selected. This lack of clarity primarily concerns the selection of individual associations and the selection of the citizen delegates. This lack of transparency was especially criticised by the business representatives.

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 representatives. These aspects were also among the features of the participatory 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 selection of the participants. Two associations made rather neutral references to the principal significance of the involvement of industry. Criticism centred among other on the view that “business associations 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 attention 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 representatives 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 representation such as associations and non-governmental organisations. 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 associations and societies, they are not in a position – and neither are they bound – to clear their positions with the group they claim to represent.

Individual business representatives did not share this basic criticism concerning the composition of participants. Their problem was rather more in detail regarding the concrete choice of the citizens, that is the intransparent process for determining the citizen delegates and the weight of citizens in the overall process (especially in the delegates’ committee). A more in-depth assessment of the delegates’ committee is elaborated in the section on the opportunities for participating.

In the statements, especially the way the delegates from the citizenry were selected was systematically criticised. In one symposium 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 interviews and symposium workshops.

All in all, the bulk of the business representatives came to the conclusion that the participatory process had failed to capture appropriately a broad coverage of the different interest groups, especially from the area of the different business sectors. This failure to encompass all the relevant actors led to call into question the legitimacy of the process and its findings as a whole. For example, a “very selective and inadequate stakeholder involvement” was criticized 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 exemplary approach. In the interviews, the actors on the whole expressed 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 representing 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 association argued, the pan-societal interests would suffer from such a composition.

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 interests, 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 systematic 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 association 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 process. 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 inclusion 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 associations’ forum and the citizens’ initiatives and other half-organised groups should not be seen as supplementary to citizen participation.

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 selection of the difference in participants. They described the composition as “colourful” and were also partially positively “surprised”. This verdict applied in particular to the invitations extended to what many representatives, especially at municipal level,

referred to as “micro associations”. However, this heterogeneity was occasionally prone to sporadic criticism, as such that a common base for discussion with the different actors could only be achieved with difficulty.

In detail the evaluation of the composition by the representatives from politics, Länder, and municipalities reveals a heterogeneous picture. Länder government representative criticized the composition as too ministerial, while some municipal representatives 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 political 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 associations.

Local representatives highlighted the direct involvement of ordinary 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 criticism of certain details relating to the way prospective participants had been approached and selected, no one from this group questioned 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 unanimous in favour of the inclusion of citizens and receiving an equal standing to the also included associations, Länder and municipalities. 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 during the symposium.

On the whole, the via interviews included citizen delegates evaluated 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 account a person’s expert knowledge on climate protection. Moreo- ver, the majority of the citizens, who in the context of the event

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 representatives, who were very sceptical towards the basic idea of a direct and equally weighted participation of citizens. With reference to a missing democratic or ulterior legitimacy as well as poor representativeness of selected groups, the composition for them consequently 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 societal 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 requirement is hardly realisable in reality. Hence, the benefits stemming from involving the citizenry is therefore not called into question.

It is also worth considering that direct discussions with citizens represent a new format in the process of political opinion-making and interest representation. As such, association representatives 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 individual 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 relevant groups and the possibility of drawing together the spectrum of actors in a participatory process. That said, all groups agreed that an early involvement of the Parliament and further departments should be aspired.

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 involvement 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 especially 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 representatives 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 delegates 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 delegates 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 criticised 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’ committee was likewise the subject of lively debate. Some interviewees, however, pointed to a lack of detailed knowledge regarding the

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 forum, deeming their scope for participation to be limited. Large associations 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 representatives, 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 criticised. The main problem here was identified as the restrictions im- posed on (active) participation, in particular the policy of (sometimes) 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 interviews 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 relevant issues had not been adequately discussed and accordingly no joint solution proposal developed. Some business interviewees 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 dialogue can take place”. Another issue raised in the interviews and

discussions during the symposium was the claim that in the individual 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 actors 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 associations enjoyed direct representation, even in the individual formats.

This composition was particularly criticized given that the recommendations 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 representatives 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) refers 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 delegates were apportioned: the number of seats granted to the business community was seen not to have reflected the economic importance 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’ committee 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 process.

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.

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 business 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 associations rated the composition of the panel overall as balanced.

Political establishment / Länder / municipalities

Many of the interviewees from the politics / Länder municipalities group rated the opportunity to integrate themselves into the process 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 available 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 citizenry 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 majority in this evaluation included citizens indicated that they could integrate their ideas rather or even very well. Over half also thought that minority opinions had been given rather or even very well consideration. Only a minority considered it difficult ”to have themselves heard”. The majority of citizen delegates saw also no difficulty in finding a common position with other delegates.

These generally positive evaluations are also reflected in the interviews 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 organisations in the discussions. In this context, ordinary citizens questioned the extent to which associations could really integrate the full spectrum of opinions held by their members. Some representatives 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 opportunities 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 assessing these arguments, it is to be noted that the business associations have an established position in classical processes and formats of interest representation. In comparison to usual processes of consultation they now stood with other actors, who through the process had new opportunities to integrate themselves. This might also explain why the other actors had more positive evaluations of their participatory opportunities. One common criticism of the association representatives concerned the limitation of participants to one person per association 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 substantive goals were to a large extent defined by the structure of

the Paris Climate Agreement and were clear and comprehensible to most of the actors. This applied less to the procedure. Here actors’ assessments diverted. For instance, business representatives 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 understanding that the results of the participatory process would directly 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 heterogeneous 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 entered the process without great expectations. In contrast, the citizens especially and the civil-society representatives had, based on the aim of a “broad dialogue process”, quite high expectations regarding 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 decision are. There seemed to be clarity amongst business representatives that these proposals in the political decision making process would once more undergo significant changes. Among the civil-society associations there were differences of perception regarding the process development. While some representatives initially assumed that the proposal of the catalogue of measures would be adopted more or less the same in its content by the government in its formulation of the Climate Action Plan, others expected 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 participatory process – high on the part of civil-society groups regarding in- novative and broad-based participation, low on the part of the business 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

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 comprehensible. 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 developing the Climate Action Plan. On another tack, the assertion was made that discussions had concentrated too much on climate protection 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 interviewees maintained that the aims had been spelt out clearly; others 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 criticism 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 during the discussions and deliberations leading up to decision-making. 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 composition 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 expectations of an objective discussion and the opportunity of voicing their arguments fulfilled. According to one illustrative statement from a

representative one “had been expecting a wide-ranging and difficult 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 issues 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 regarding 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 completely 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 proposed measures that had been put forward.

Civil society

The representatives of civil-society associations generally felt that they had been well informed about the aims of the participatory 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 actors had high expectations of their participation possibilities, the overall process and its results. During the process their expectations 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 departmental consultations. Although their voice had been “heard”, they were dissatisfied with the ultimate result.

This was the background to complaints by a number of interviewees that the Ministry had encouraged unrealistic expectations regarding 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 identified, as this was a new form of participation, which required a certain implementation time and variance.

Political establishment / Länder / municipalities

There was unitary opinion among policy makers, Länder and municipalities regarding the goals and expectations. Although most representatives felt sufficiently informed as to the aims of the participatory process, a smaller group reported lack of clarity with regards 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 representatives, 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 processes 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 interviewees was predominantly positive. And for some participants,

the opportunity to bring their own ideas and positions to bear was less relevant.

Especially some local representatives also expected to be gathering ideas for a new modus of political decision-making, leading to “a breaking up old structures”. In the expectation of the interviewees, this had at least in parts been fulfilled. The dialogue process had provided “important impetus”, had showed a “democratic advance” and had broken up “working structures of interest representation”, 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 process 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 assessment of the actual participatory process and the question concerning the extent to which the actors’ substantive expectations of the participatory process and the remoulding and feedback by politicians had been fulfilled. As set out earlier, ordinary citizens and civil-society representatives in particular were under the impression that their proposals would find their way, more or less unaltered, into the Climate Action Plan 2050. And the ordinary citizens 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 during departmental consultations produced a very dissatisfactory end result. Criticism here centred on the lack of transparency and justification for the changes (see Section 3.6).

Interim conclusion

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 towards 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 representatives. 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 processing of the outcome. The business representatives, however, considered this to have been predictable and evaluated the substantive 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 process formed one of the bases for departmental consultations. From this perspective the lack of proper feedback on and substantive integration of the catalogue of measures developed was one reason why actors of all groups felt in their expectations disappointed.

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 consultation the process was described as intransparent. Criticism was two-pronged. Firstly, it took issue with the lack of detailed feedback relating to the political processing of the results of the participatory project. Secondly, many actors reported that it had not been made sufficiently clear at the beginning that the catalogue of proposed measures would be subject to alteration during the governmental decision-making phase. Representatives of civil-society associations especially were disappointed that the process, which was widely viewed as important and meaningful, was consequently made vulnerable.

Nonetheless, some feedback was positive. In all groups there were a few representatives who praised the process as fundamentally transparent, highlighting the clearly defined steps in the process 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 complicated and hard to comprehend.

Business associations in particular, but also some civil-society groups, criticised what they saw as an intransparent flow of substantive information regarding the participatory process. Many interviewees 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 documentation 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 documentation.

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 representatives 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 environmental 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 criticized the transparency especially from the point of the departmental 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 departmental 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 association representative described not being able to comprehend what had actually been made of the participants’ “input”. When the

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 others were not. Another individual also mentioned that no one had known whether and where written statements had fed into the process.

Many representatives of the business associations expressed criticism with regard to the minutes of individual events of the process. From their perspective, it was not presented with sufficient transparency 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 adequately documented.

The practice of publishing minutes unapproved was deemed problematic 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 incorporated 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 design 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.

With respect to the transparency of specific dialogue formats, interviews focused especially on the delegates’ committee. Some interviewees 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 without 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 opinions 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, especially 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 observation 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 conditions. 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.

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 transparency 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 detailed and comprehensive but criticised the lack of overview and partially overly complex content. Two interviewees doubted that outsiders 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 representatives of the civil society. One was especially critical in this regard 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 documented. Echoing the point made by a number of business representatives, 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 departmental consultations, almost all civil-society groups criticised the lack of detailed feedback concerning further development of the catalogue 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 transparency. In one of the few written statements submitted there was explicit 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 process, 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.

Two people held up the internet presence as a model of transparency 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 municipalities expressed exclusively criticisms towards the point of transparency. One branded the entire process “nebulous”, especially with respect to the spelling out of goals and the results expectations. The other mainly criticised the lack of clarity in the procedures determining which measures were to be included in the proposed 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 process 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 process 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 consultation was partially sharply criticised. “On the final mile,” as one person 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 transparency, especially post submission of the catalogue for departmental

consideration, it is clear that many participants felt that the structure of the participatory process was appropriate and understandable. Two aspects in particular were praised. Firstly, the repeated 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 process 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 behind 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 process 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 relation 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 methodological design of the process. The professional organisation and design attracted particular praise. Positive feedback on the participatory 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 general 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

events and more opportunity to discuss issues during a given event or dialogue format.

Assessments divided over the concept and course of the process. While business representatives principally criticised the design of the process and, as a corollary, move to be included as co- designers of future dialogue processes, some civil-society representatives drew other conclusions, finding fault with “technical, superficial errors” in a process that was otherwise well-meaning 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 participation 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 participation had been restricted to one person per organisation and event, which meant that not all subjects had received adequate treatment.

Business

Most business representatives criticised the structure of the dialogue process on the grounds of poor preparation, badly communicated 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 associations 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 representatives 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

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 business associations, too, thought that the process could have been less rushed. The time frame was not appropriate for the importance 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 allotted for discussions on the panel of delegates; one business representative 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, another 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 suggestions 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 political 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 format existed for the inclusion of business/industrial innovators.

There was an overall sense that the process was “unusual” and rather (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, involvement of many different groups). With regard to the underlying

concept, civil-society representatives also positively remarked factors 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 preparation of participants, alteration of procedural rules) laid the organisers 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 analyses and the interviews.

A range of aspects were touched on. One association held that people were unclear about the process by which measure proposals were to be arrived at. In several interviewees negatively remarked the voting procedure at the end (see Section 3.6 in particular). 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 procedures 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 discussion. 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 strategic extent, four weeks were deemed inadequate.

A range of opinions emerged concerning the various discussion formats used in the associations forum, which some people criticised, 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, municipalities 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 regarded 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 interviewees was either content with the time scale or considered it appropriate to the circumstances.

A total of three Länder submitted written statements that addressed 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 consultation. 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 participants were very late in arriving and the deadline pressure meant that no concerted opinion from the Länder had been available.

Hardly any opinions were expressed on individual formats. Without singling out specific formats, representatives took issue with superficial 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 participatory 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.

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 suggested 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 suggests 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 desire 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 citizenry 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 especially 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 individuals).

Interim conclusion

In their assessment of the timetabling, there was broad agreement among the representatives of business associations, civil-society groups and the political establishment, Länder and municipalities. 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

events not too rushed. Citizens interviewed were showed no unitary 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 assessed very positive. However, the brevity of the sessions was at odds with the mass of issues to be discussed, making it almost impossible 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 associations especially took issue with the tendency to collate the results of group discussions without recording who had made the respective 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 matter 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 municipalities. 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 criticism that the various interests and viewpoints were not equitably represented on the panel. On this point, the business representatives 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 provided an adequate, structured summary of the results.

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 - independent of the results evaluation. Also participants who welcomed the Cabinet decision and welcomed the altered results of the process were disappointed with the process of the political decision making.

The criticism, espoused by all groups, focused on the lack of transparency 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 feedback 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 often 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 published 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 alter, and had altered, the content of the package, other interviewees – 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 detailed 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 interviews 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

clearly and thoroughly. Also the communication of the results alterations many participants could subsequently be better comprehended.

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 package 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 proposals 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 expectations, or at least minimised, discontent later on.

At the same time, many interviewees described the political decision 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 actors 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 official position being presented.

Accordingly, most interviewees expressed the expectation for future processes that a feedback should occur not only through substantive 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

Civil-society groups cited the adjustments made to the proposals 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 influence exerted by some interest groups, and subsequently the dialogue process had been “damaged”. Other representatives regretted 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 expected”.

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 feedback 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 closing 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-society representatives sympathetic to the argument that written feedback would not have been feasible.

Political establishment / Länder / municipalities

Actors representing the political establishment, Länder and municipalities 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 consultations 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.

The majority of interviewees were also surprised and disappointed 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 described 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 representatives spoke of the Ministry’s honest and energetic campaign 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 process, some interviewees also had a problem with the significance of the work of interest association outside or following the participation. This had undermined the credibility of the whole process.

The interviewees were also disappointed by the lack of feedback 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 helpful, open and honest. The development and content could following be better placed.

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 citizenry 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 representatives partially irritated that the promised feedback on the catalogue 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 repeated suggestions that future projects should be clearer and more open in concept and communication and more clearly embedded 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 stakeholder groups during the participatory process. Criticism from business 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 representatives, 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 citizenry, largely due to the different precondition and levels of specialised knowledge. Unlike in their talks with association representatives on equal footing, most business representatives found it almost impossible with citizens, since the latter were rarely in pos- session of the necessary expertise.

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 facilitation 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 citizenry, the political establishment, Länder and municipalities considered the behaviour of the business associations as destructive. They cited in particular the domineering stance of the business 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-society groups and their entrenched positions, interviewees from civil- society groups, the political establishment, Länder and municipalities took issue with the blocking approach of business associations, 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 constant criticism.

Individual interviewees among civil-society representatives and politicians, Länder officials and municipalities likewise considered the different levels of specialised knowledge in the various discussion 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 impediment to productive discussions. At the same time, some interviewees expressed some sympathy for the business representatives, 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 criticism for business associations. Firstly, they maintained that it was

nearly impossible to work with civil-society groups. Secondly, instead 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 extremely 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 standpoints.

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 individual formats used in the dialogue process. One interviewee described the discussion in the Buildings forum as vehement and contentious but also useful and productive due to the objective nature of the debate and its lack of polemic. Two interviewees commented on the associations forum but came to different conclusions: 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, actually 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 between the various groups of actors. One civil-society group referred in writing only to many actors’ openness to the idea of dialogue – on the part of both the business sector and the unions.

On the subject of how the various associations got on working together, civil-society groups mostly agreed that interactions between organisations were generally good. Differences in character and style - assertive versus reserved, for instance –

were not a problem; they were seen as part and parcel of dialogue processes. Types of comportment were also determined by people’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 preconceived opinions and lack of willingness to compromise. A number of times and in the context of various fora and areas of opera- tion the “role of inhibitor” was used with reference to the business associations. One interviewee maintained that this stance could be blamed for the emergence of a “pact of solidarity” between 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 establishment, 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 proposed not only by the citizenry but also by Länder and municipalities 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 interviewees also labelled the behaviour and style of business representatives’ as destructive.

However, as far as the other actors went, the representatives from the political establishment, Länder and municipalities rated cooperation between groups as generally fair and positive.

Citizenry

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 objective 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 interviewee spoke of the power relation between citizenry delegates and business associations being asymmetrical. The way the system 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 associations 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 unpleasant experiences.

In the opinion of civil-society groups, members of the citizenry and representatives from the political establishment, Länder and municipalities, however, discussions were deemed to have been conducted “on an equal footing”. Business associations had blocked movement on issues and not been persuaded to reassess the relative 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 representatives.

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-oriented. 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 representatives 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 participants.

With regard to the execution of the process, most interviewees were agreed that it had been positive. All in all, concept and structure 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 management and execution of the project. In the view of the participants the desired free discussions had taken place. A minority of interviewees would have preferred to have seen a stronger involvement 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 participation 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 interviewees joined the others in praising the role and attitude of the BMUB and external officials with respect to the conduct of the process. 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

stance could have curtailed some of the more long-winded discussions. The meagre involvement of the Ministry had, in some instances, weakened the processes and had not been goal oriented. 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 indeed from the outset its own agenda and substantive ideas regarding a desired outcome leading to the exclusion of certain issues from the debating process. One business representative also criticised the prior pre-determination (regarding work groups, subject 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 participatory 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 considered indiscriminate influence on the part of the Ministry. Many representatives, especially those of the umbrella organisations, would have liked to have clearer ground rules –voiced in the conversations as well as at the symposium. The feeling was that a framework 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 observed 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

be made had not received due attention and there had been insufficient 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 secretary 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 others 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 delegates, 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 process to a neutral party was uniformly welcomed. Reviewing the performance of the moderators, the representatives of civil-society groups likewise aligned themselves with the generally positive reception. The consensus was that the officials had defused delicate incidents and often vehement attacks and always managed to steer proceedings back to the core issues.

One participant would like to have seen a narrower substantive focus in discussions. The process had addressed every single theory, 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,

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 municipalities 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 process alone, especially as it had neither the competency nor the capacity for the implementation of such a process. The actors interviewed were also unanimously satisfied with the control by the external service provider. They found the implementation to be professional 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 representatives as very reticent in discussions. While most found this stance to be appropriate and conducive to a successful process, 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 irritated 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 interviewee wryly commented, ministerial reserve had fostered the impression among the members of a work group that its representatives 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 involvement of the BMUB. One group of interviewees welcomed the reserved approach of Ministry representatives, while others would have preferred to see a more hands-on style, especially with respect to stronger support for the role and suggestions of the citizenry.

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 expressed 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 having succeeded. The outsourcing of project execution to neutral officials was met with almost unanimous approval. The achievements of the officials in managing and facilitating the process/discussions also received positive ratings in the main. Only a few actors 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 climate protection plan 2050 were less attributed to the process control and implementation, but rather to the complexity of the topic, the composition of the participants as well as the framework conditions.

Verdicts on the role of the BMUB, especially regarding management 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 engagement – was reported by only a few actors, and they had only critical positions to all other aspects of the process. With respect to the goals of the process, the observer role of the BMUB was considered 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 regard to content.

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 focus. 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 assessment 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, transparency, dialogue-orientation or feedback-culture.

The analysis of governance addresses the following guiding questions:

▪ 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.

▪ 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, organisation 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 participatory 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 basis throughout the duration of the project. This is in line with the observation that complaints on the lack of clarity regarding procedural steps were more often heard from people who took part in only a few of the events. It is also worth mentioning that within individual 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 expressed itself as fundamental criticism of the idea and form of (citizenry) participation – and of the importance given to their views.

More specific criticism – especially with reference to a lack of clarity - centred on the delegates’ committee format, beyond the business-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 “delegate” was often associated with far-reaching powers and, by extension, 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

largest extent comprehended by the actors. For the superordinate goals of the process this applied to a lesser extent. Many participants 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 participatory process, the “unexpected influence” wielded by the government 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 generally be concluded that the dialogue process in its basic structure met this requirement. In particular for participants who were intensely 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 “delegates”.

The biggest area for improvement, however, concerns the need to make the role of the dialogue process in the whole political decision-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.

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 question of legitimacy relates to which actors were principally included. And on the other hand, the significance or weight of individual actor groups in the process. Following these two aspects a compounded assessment is provided.

The selection of participants was one of the major causes of friction 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 selection 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 representing.

The selection of the other stakeholders (representatives of business 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 particular in discussions taking place in working groups with more specialised areas of competency.

Beyond the actor groups the participants considered problems of legitimacy in that the central political decision makers, and the representatives 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 person 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 remaining 13 seats were spread among the other groups of stakeholders (business associations, civil-society groups, Länder and municipalities).

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,

by extension, lack of legitimacy. This was frequently linked to criticism 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 process can be said to have been achieved. As long as the involvement of the citizenry is considered to be illegitimate on principle, there are hardly any opportunities to connect with these for example through changes in the selection modus or the process design to enhance acceptance. New approaches first have to find fundamental 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, success would seem to hinge on resolving the issue of the role and significance of both the process as a whole and the individual participants 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 representativity was neither sought nor achieved for any of the target groups, quite apart from the fact that no group equipped with limited 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 representatives 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 understanding 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 process 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 legitimacy.

This also applies to the practical opportunities for participation available to the individual actors and the composition of the individ-

ual bodies. It would be possible to make concessions to critical associations by allowing them more representatives if they have a legitimate interest or can demonstrate that they are “affected” by a particular issue. After all, structuring a body or panel (of “delegates”) 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 participatory 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 package 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 submitted as a package were altered and adjusted in a subsequent phase of departmental consultations was criticised as intransparent. 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 beginning of political consultations in the federal government. A clear discrepancy arose here between expectations and the management of expectations and the actual implementation. This also applies to the final feedback on the results (see Section 4.4 for details).

As alluded to in the previous section, the lack of transparency in the selection/inviting of stakeholders as part of the dialogue process was criticised above all by business representatives. Set against a backdrop of general reservations regarding the involvement 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 forum 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 complaint levelled especially by civil-society groups and representatives from the Länder and municipalities concerning the extensive- ness of preparatory documents and shortage of time to prepare

showed that no exact correlation can be made between transparency (including transparency of content and substance) and the volume of information provided, as transparency is gauged in particular by the extent to which information can be assimilated. The question of the cost-benefit ratio for both participants and organisers 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 minuting meetings and conferences. Coming on top of the less-than- clear role and significance of the participatory process and its results (see also Section 4.1), a lack of reportage relating to the direction taken in discussions and the failure to record which way individuals 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 technical 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 chapter 5).

Evidence suggests, therefore, that efforts were made in the execution 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 deliberations 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 relating to the catalogue of measures produced at the end of the dialogue 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 feedback. Participants expected a thorough examination of the measures in the sense of an assessment and justification of the

changes, deletions and additions of each of the suggestion. In result the transition from the jointly developed catalogue of measures to the actual Climate Action Plan 2050 was regarded across all actors 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 disappointment among many participants and a concomitant fall in acceptance levels regarding the process. This in turn meant that people 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 project’s initiators never intended to replace traditional political decision-making at governmental level with a dialogue process, this meant that it was all the more important to make sure that all participants 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 towards 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 process represented a new and reasonably effective form of political discussion and decision-making. As far as organisation and execution 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

seems unreasonable, therefore, to expect immediately a “perfect” process design and realisation.

One major criticism, emphasised especially by business representatives, concerned the question of the legitimacy of the actors involved. 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 criticism has to do with a fundamental questioning of the idea of citizenry 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 communication 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 continue 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 especially 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 alternative 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 decision 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

measures drawn up in the course of the dialogue process was going 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 approval 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 acceptance for the measures to protect the climate. Consequently, here lies the central need of action for the implementation of further participatory processes in such an extent.

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 participation. In addition to referring to the insights from the implementation of past processes it builds upon the ideas and suggestions on the development of the scope of the design from the interviewed 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 (composition) and the allocated time frame for these steps.

Measures to be taken for the improvement of the participatory process

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 somehow “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 participants’ ideas and standpoints, examining approaches that can command a majority, developing concrete proposals, etc), the issue 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 establishing 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.

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 expected.

Recommendations for the design of other processes

When determining who will be involved in the participatory process, 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 available (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 stakeholders 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:

Municipalities

With regard to the participation of municipalities, it is first advisable to obtain the involvement of as many municipal umbrella organisations as possible. This should begin as far back as the conceptualisation 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, procedures 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 participation is largely dependent on the time and funding available to the individual towns and local communities. Hence it should be assumed 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 representatives, 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 conceptualisation stage, to ensure that they and the organisers have the same ideas of what form and direction the process is to take. Actors’ experience of previous participation at Land level may also be of help to the process. It is also worth keeping in mind that the time available 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 national 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 criteria 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 beyond 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.

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 improvement of consultation relating to the coordination of central organisations 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, criticised 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 consideration – conceivably in joint consultations with civil-society representatives – 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 obstacle 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 formats (e.g. narrowly focused online consultations). While this type of format may involve less work and effort on the part of participants, the task of putting together a professionally designed format (e.g. including online assistance and direct feedback/response features) poses serious challenges to organisers. Mention might also be made at this point of the discussion kick-started during the evaluative process by a number of interviewees, who were in favour of

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, organisers 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 essential 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 analyses 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 expectations 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 representatives, had high expectations of the significance of the participatory 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 influence of the process on the final results. This led some actors, especially representatives from the business community and civil-society groups, to increase their involvement only after the official start of the project and then to redouble the intensity of their participation after the signing of the Paris Agreement.

In summary, this perceived lacking in concretisation of the goals of the participatory process caused irritation among the groups, especially regarding their own role and function. This applied not merely in relation to the process as a whole but also at the level of individual 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 attributed to the name of the body itself. Many participants assumed that the delegates’ committee had extensive decision-making powers, which had not been the exact intention of the organisers.

Finally, the point should be made that, although both the responsible 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 objectives 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 irritation 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 people 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 objective 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 organisers are advised to monitor and steer the expectations of the participants from the beginning of the process onwards, for instance by asking confirmatory questions on an ongoing basis and considering 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

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 associations, it is advisable to set down these functions in writing.

Finally, it is worth reviewing the titles given to certain dialogue formats. 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 commitment from other departments to take part

Findings of analysis

The BMUB outsourced project management to professional service providers. The demarcation of roles had thus been communicated internally and externally and had been accepted by the participants.

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 interests to reactive observer. In the light of the inactivity of other departments, many participants were increasingly of the impression that the government was not providing important input for the discussion process by setting out a range of different ideas and interests. 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 commitment.

Recommendations for the design of future processes

Roles and tasks must be defined in the run-up to the actual process 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 process – 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 continuous 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.

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 engagement 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 procedural issues. As the project wore on, procedural practices and dialogue formats were modified, partly in response to said discussions, partly due to external factors. Participants did not always understand why these modifications had been made, nor who was behind them, and this led to accusations of “despotism” and criticism 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 acceptance, 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 heterogeneous 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

case a broad and diverse participatory process conducted at national 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 interests 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 period), 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 participants, 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 important 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

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 opportunities 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 process that must also comply with dates in the political calendar (UN climate conferences, legislative period). On the one hand, the dialogue process has to be timed logically to fit into the existing structure 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 duration of individual formats if more debate is needed on a particular subject.

Recommendations for the shaping of future processes

The glimmer of a solution to this dilemma lies in the methodical design 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 enable 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 difficult 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 outlining of entrenched positions in a “slanging match”. It can also help matters if participants are reminded more often of the rules of engagement 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 individual themes and foci of discussion.

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 limitations of the dialogue process and also the affirmation that a detailed statement would be forthcoming on any adjustments made to the proposals package, the participants had very different expectations – in some cases inflated expectations – of what the process could achieve.

These expectations were largely dashed. In the eyes of the participants, the process by which the action catalogue had been modified after the fact was opaque and there had been no real feedback relating to the changes made. The disappointment came to the fore in the interviews. The whole process had been “discredited” and the work of hundreds of people had been “swept aside in the final straight”.

Measures to be taken regarding feedback on adjustments to results

If the participants are to work productively, they must receive early coaching in what to expect from the process. By the time the process 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 achievement of those objectives. And this coaching in expectations should be an ongoing process due to the layered nature of dialogue formats 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 symposium, 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 relevant actors is enlisted to “scope” or ascertain the need for and de-

gree of participation and the exact form that it should take. A process of dialogue helps to produce a road map for the dialogue process. Participation scoping can permanently raise the actors’ acceptance of the chosen structure of the project and help frame realistic expectations.

This stratagem can also help boost the average level of commitment among ministerial departments, if the various parties in the relevant echelons of the political establishment and the civil service are agreed on how they might usefully contribute to the participatory 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 culture in participatory processes and the fundamental idea of accountability, 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 welcomed 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 representatives 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 special mention are the way the results of the process are modified and commented on (see also Section 5.7), the information provided regarding the role and significance of the participatory process (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.

Alongside the methodological and stylistic improvements, it is also important for the jointly prosecuted process that trust and motivation be won (back) and expanded.

Measures to be taken to improve the participatory process

Insufficient transparency and the lack of a binding culture of feedback 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 different social groups are to bring high levels of motivation to their participation in the “Vision 2050” dialogue process, they must be convinced – 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 constructive 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 being made). Actors already familiar with the project would have to receive much clearer information on the objectives of, and opportunities to influence, a future process (“What can and should participation 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 dialogue process contributing to the drafting of the Climate Action Plan was unprecedented in scale and breadth. Not only the participants have been on a learning curve; the BMUB, too, as the initiat- ing force behind the process, has gathered new and valuable insights such as the fundamental need to provide the promised feedback 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.

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 between organisers and participants. The process of building confidence 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 basis but also by setting up permanent dialogue formats.

Another core element of Vision 2050 concerns a parallel information 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 information 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” (analogous 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 approached 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 already in the description of action to be taken. This social group has hardly been represented up to now. Based on previous participatory 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, materials and dialogue formats suitable for use in schools and universi- ties.

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.

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.

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.

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-dialog-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.

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.

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.

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/nationale-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/nationale-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.

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.

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.

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.

100

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.

101

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/koalitionsvertrag.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.

102

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.

103

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.

104

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 zweiten 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.

105

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.

106

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.

107

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.

108

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.

109

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

110

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.

111

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)

112

▪ 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.

113

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

114

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

115

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

Focus groups 1: Conceptualisation of participatory process 11:00 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

116