Just Transition Planning Toolbox

The stakeholders who are relevant and should be engaged are diverse and will depend on the context. Key categories are likely to be:

• Government agencies at the national and subnational levels;
• The private sector in affected regions, including employers, industry representatives and business associations, small and mid-sized enterprises (SMEs), as well as the finance sector;
• Worker representatives, including trade unions, and making sure to also engage informal workers where they are present;
• Land and asset owners (e.g. farmers);
• Indigenous communities;
• Environmental groups, civil society groups, and other local community representatives; and
• Researchers and educational institutions.

Deliberate efforts should be made to engage with groups who are often not included in policy and planning processes, such as women, migrants, and the landless.

Many actors have the opportunity to engage different stakeholders in dialogue about transition, not only governments. Civil society organizations, corporations, business associations, and the finance sector all have networks – and public speaking opportunities – that can be activated. Thus, it can be helpful to think about how different actors might be mobilized so that they, in turn, actively engage other groups, and thus broaden the momentum for transition planning.

Methods for identifying relevant stakeholders include:

• Stakeholder mapping (see Module 2.2.1), can be used to identify the different groups with a stake in the outcome of a transition, or otherwise have the expertise or interest to contribute to transition planning. Mapping can be targeted to understand the key roles or activities of each stakeholder, as well as where (and at what level) they are engaged. It might use the broad categories of impacts detailed in Module 3 (employment, social, economic, environmental) to identify government agencies and other stakeholder groups with the mandate and/or resources to implement solutions, as well as those with a role in promoting a broader agenda of social equality.
• Social impact analysis (see Module 3.3.1), can be used to identify the specific groups that may be particularly affected by transition.

Regardless of what type of organization takes a lead on engagement, strategies will need tailoring to different stakeholder groups:

• Government: Different levels of government across multiple portfolios may need to be involved, given the broad spectrum of potential transition impacts – and required policy and fiscal tools to address them. There may be different levels of readiness to engage between different parts of government, or between national and local governments. Engagement strategies should be sensitive to the political challenges that both elected officials and bureaucrats may face, as those challenges may make them reluctant to participate. Some governments may also lack the funding, staff, or skills needed for transition planning.
• Workers: Various strategies may be needed to promote exchanges between workers’ representatives (e.g. labor unions), employers, and government. In some places there may be formal dialogue mechanisms in place that can be utilized, but it is important that engagement specifically includes non-union workers, and informal (and even illegal) workers where these are a significant part of the local workforce. Engagement processes should facilitate consensus building and ensure workers’ have genuine influence over decisions about their futures. Different workers groups may be represented by different unions, so who legitimately speak for different groups of workers is an important question. Transparency and open communication are crucial, and workers and their representatives must be able to speak freely, without fear.
• Private sector: Effective engagement with the private sector is essential for a just transition. This is a highly heterogeneous group, including incumbent industries that may be facing restructure or closure; other businesses, including SMEs, that are exposed to transition risks and/or possess the skills and supply chains to play a role in future economic diversification; and financial institutions who shape transitions through, for instance, their allocation of capital. Not all private sector actors will be aware of these risks and roles, nor automatically inclined to bring a just transition focus to a broader planning process. Strategies should engage a diverse range of private sector interests, and be mindful of potentially conflicting interests (and in some cases active resistance to change) within the private sector. Once engaged, representatives of the private sector can be encouraged to reach out to their industry peers and to share best practices, or to look for collaboration opportunities that might support the growth of new industries locally.
• Marginalized or particularly vulnerable groups: Finding and amplifying the voices of women, the elderly, youth, Indigenous Peoples, people with disabilities, and other disadvantaged or other marginalized groups in the planning process is central to a just transition. The populations who are marginalized or vulnerable will vary by context and across sectors. Strategies to engage them should be designed with consideration of their specific needs and constraints. For example, meetings scheduled during the day may be difficult to attend for women who are busy with household responsibilities – or for farmers and farm laborers. When engaging Indigenous communities, simply translating documents into local languages may be insufficient, because some groups have purely oral traditions for communication, so culturally experienced translators are required. Furthermore, observing protocols ensuring Free, Previous and Informed Consent is a requirement when engaging Indigenous Peoples.

In all cases, the process should provide people with the knowledge and resources they need to participate and have influence. For all stakeholder groups, capacity building may be needed to ensure they can effectively engage with the topic of just transition planning, e.g. to bridge the gap between national green economy or just transition policies and plans and issues at the local or company level.

People-centered design approaches put people – and the social, cultural, economic, and environmental contexts in which they live and work – at the heart of a design or planning process. They are ways of working to define problems or opportunities, and to develop solutions or strategies, that are based on the knowledge and perspectives of people living or working in the context.

The theory of people-centered design is that, in order to design systems that meet different users’ or stakeholders’ needs and expectations, those people must be deeply involved in the design and planning process. Some knowledge, and some perceived needs, may be tacit rather than articulated explicitly. And stakeholders usually have a hierarchy of needs and desires, some of which may be “rational” and some “emotional.” Hence, methods of people’s involvement should be able to share or distil each of these components.

A wide range of methods may be useful in eliciting input from stakeholders as part of a people-centered design process, such as:

• Card sorting: A method in which users organize topics or thematic elements into groups. It can help to explore relationships between different ideas, for deciding hierarchies or structures between different elements.
• Contextual inquiry: Using semi-structured interviews and observations together, in the contexts where people live or work.
• Design sprints: Usually a multi-day process to identify problems, sketch out possible solutions, design and prototype the best ideas, and test ideas with stakeholders to get feedback.
• Ethnographic research: Using a combination of observations and interviews can be useful to distil people’s tacit knowledge (revealed in what people do, not what they say).

These can complement more “traditional” methods, such as interviews, surveys, and public consultations.

For meaningful participation, stakeholders must have sufficient knowledge and skills to participate. Capacity development, or knowledge sharing, can support this.

Some stakeholders may not be cognizant of the nature or timing of changes, or of the risks and opportunities a transition could bring. Capacity development may focus on deepening the understanding that different actors have of the challenges and opportunities ahead, and on sharing knowledge about lessons learned and best practices from past cases of transition.

Capacity building might take different forms. Knowledge exchanges involving participants from different transition regions can provide practical insight into real transitions and allow learning through interactions between stakeholders. Expertly facilitated workshops with diverse participants can help stakeholders hear and understand other people’s perspectives. Knowledge exchanges between different regions, reports or descriptive briefs that synthesize knowledge from across different contexts, and regular electronic communications (through websites, phone messages, e-newsletters) are all potentially useful modes for building stakeholder knowledge.

To devise a capacity development strategy, an assessment of capacity gaps can be useful to identify what capacity needs to be strengthened, and by whom. It should be recognized that stakeholders at different scales or levels (subnational, national, sectoral, regional) may need capacity building, and their needs may be different. Further, any assessment of capacity gaps should itself be inclusive, meaning different stakeholders should be invited to identify their own perceived capacities and needs. An inclusive process can itself help build both capacity and interest in further engagement.