Unpacking the term ‘just’ in Just Energy Transition Partnerships

The transition of energy production from fossil fuels to renewable resources has numerous social benefits and challenges. While reduced use of fossil fuel will lessen air pollution [27], shrinkages in fossil fuel industries have economic consequences like job loss, which, in turn, will affect the economic stability of vast regions [28,29]. Upgrading the skills, capacities, and technological know-how required to support the rapid deployment of renewable energy projects within a short time is challenging, especially in regions affected by fossil fuel industry closures [30]. Alternative livelihood options can also be limited in mono-industrial fossil fuel regions if unequal regional development policies have limited the growth of other mass employment opportunities [29]. Livelihood creation takes time, especially in areas dependent on specific natural resource extraction and separated from industrial ecosystems of interrelated activities. Addressing the social and economic repercussions of phasing out fossil fuel, especially in previously economically well-off regions, is critical for the smooth and rapid transition to a carbon-neutral future; a sustainable low-carbon society hinges on social stability.

An approach focused on equity, justice, and fairness is also required to promote renewable energy within a country. Economic logic or environmental motivations alone will not drive such a transition. [31] argued that social, political, and market acceptance are vital for the flourishing of renewable technologies. Therefore, decarbonizing the energy systems needs to be well aligned with the existing sociopolitical realities of a place, region, or country. It is also necessary to reduce negative impacts on marginalized and vulnerable groups affected by a shift towards renewable energies and not create new susceptible groups. Being cognizant that renewable energy industries can be unethical, exacerbate old inequalities, create new social disparities, generate severe negative externalities, or have adverse ecological impacts is also essential [32].

The concept of just transition has become a “guiding norm” having “both an ethical and moral dimension” to which energy transition “policy developments should aspire” [33,p.147]. A just transition to a low-carbon economy is more inclusive of different stakeholders affected by a change in how energy is produced and consumed. Recognizing the different stakeholders, how they are affected, and how their voices and concerns can be heard and addressed in policymaking while phasing out fossil fuel and adopting renewable energy strategies are part of a just transition approach. In other words, it is just fair in effect and processes. Consequently, a just transition narrative creates a “space to challenge prevailing policy narratives and foreground social struggles” so that there is no repeat of the “inequalities and deficiencies manifested in the incumbent carbon-based energy regime” [34,p.151].

The idea of just transition is rooted in the US labor movement in the 1970s when trade unionists raised concerns about the impact of strict environmental laws on workers [35]. When stricter policies were required worldwide to mitigate climate change, protecting workers’ rights started gaining attention beyond the US and is now witnessing international recognition [36]. From 2006, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) took leadership in championing the idea of a just transition while implementing strict energy, climate, and environmental policies, especially at international climate negotiations like the Conference of the Parties (COP) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) [37].

The most significant recognition came for this concept when a just transition to a low-carbon future was adopted in letter and spirit in the preamble of the Paris Agreement in 2015 [38]. Subsequently, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) published a set of principles to protect workers’ rights while transitioning towards a sustainable economy and society [39]. Since then, the term has been used in different contexts by policymakers, academics, and practitioners (see [40], for a detailed overview). It also gained increasing traction in international climate negotiations like the Silesia Declaration on Solidarity and Just Transition adopted in COP 24 and the Just Transition Declaration at COP26 which led to the formation of the JETPs. It has evolved from its initial labor justice implications and has embraced ideas from environmental, climate, and energy justice literature [41].

Numerous frameworks of just transition have roots in academia and non-academic literature, including those published by civil society, Indigenous organizations, government agencies, energy companies, and national and international financial institutions. Some focus on themes like job loss, quality job creation, addressing trauma, and finding alternative solutions for a post-fossil-fuel prosperous society [42]. Others call for a more inclusive approach to include other dimensions like gender, health, education, sanitation, and water in the just transition discussion, as all these factors are essential to leading a good life along with energy supply [43].

Some scholars have also argued that feminist [44] and anti-racist/ post-colonial theories of justice [45,46] that challenge dominant ideas of justice that often reinforce patriarchal and racist legacies should inform just transition framings. As evaluating all the available frameworks of just transition is beyond the scope of this paper, the basic idea of just transition followed in this research is the five tenets of social justice: distributional, procedural, recognition, restorative, and cosmopolitan justice [47,48]. These five tenets of social justice provide normative guidance for just transition policies [47,48]. However, Table 1 enumerates how existing literature has translated the normative justice-based ideas of just energy transition into implementable policy advice. The list is non-exhaustive and open-ended.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Examples of just energy transition policy advice.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000121.t001

The tenets of justice provide a conceptual openness to form a broad consensus around the idea of just transition [51,52]. However, others are skeptical of this openness as they are apprehensive that such a broad understanding of the term can make it an empty signifier [40]. These challenges stem from the fact that the term ‘just transition’ lacks specific content or a strict accountability framework to evaluate energy and climate policies. As a result, influential stakeholders, such as foreign investors, can co-opt any policy or plan as ‘just’ without delivering justice in effect or implementation [28]. Though there are hundreds of academic articles on just transition [53], there are still challenges to applying the tenets in practice and policies [28].

Co-option of the just transition narrative by influential stakeholders can delimit contestations and even dissent by affected yet less-powerful stakeholders, even to the extent of silencing them. It can become impossible to argue or oppose something framed as “just” without appearing evil or cynical. As a result, [54, p.265] argue in this context that “elite forces can create the sense that they are addressing the crisis and produce both a reduced sense of urgency and confusion” in such a way that status quo is maintained that reinforces and exacerbates inequality. As an unjust transition is not sustainable, packaging wrong policies and plans as a ‘just transition’ eventually affects the trust in policymakers, eroding the political support essential for the success of new, strong, and innovative climate action policies. Therefore, examining and interpreting the specific frames of scope, scale, and context becomes crucial, who is implementing on whom, the power relations between the stakeholders, and how their visions align or differ on what they understand as the justice dimensions of a just energy transition. As delivering justice is vital, a de-hegemonized understanding of ‘just’ for whom and how to deliver it is critical [28,29].

Conceptualizing ‘partnerships’ in Just Energy Transition Partnerships

Critically unpacking the concept of partnership is the second component of this article. Since the 1970s, partnership approaches have become a requirement rather than an option in many international development assistance [55,56] and have a complicated history [57]. Essentially, it points towards an imbalance where “one partner has the right answers” [58, p.141] that the others can learn. However, others have argued that partnerships, or relationships between entities (for example, between nations in the case of international development), can be based on cooperation between equal partners to pursue a common goal that involves trust, mutuality, accountability, transparency, compromise, and consensus [55]. Partnerships are dynamic and evolving [59], like having a life of its own. Put in another way, partnerships are not just contractual agreements between two volunteering parties to coordinate their activities; it is essentially long-term commitments that are based on a set of normative yet non-violable rules and values that facilitate exchange between them [57] where each party holds an equal status [60].

Though there is no universally accepted definition of partnerships [61], all partnerships have at least three standard features: 1) involvement of at least one outside entity, 2) a common goal, and 3) interest in working together [62]. In international development, partnerships are formed for specific purposes like aid, loans, trade, the flow of technological knowledge, capacity, and similar topics [63]. The nature of a partnership depends on its purpose, scope of work, operating timescale, and the different stakeholders included in the partnership arrangement [64]. However, often, “partnerships do not simply live up to expectations for several reasons: from paltry financial resources to weak logistical support, from poor planning to substandard execution, from bad policy to cumbersome guidelines, and unstable leadership to inconsistent follow-up” [65,p.5].

However, factors like trust, mutual respect, and shared values critical to a partnership are difficult to achieve between entities with a past of power imbalances [59]. Entering into a partnership may not necessarily improve the power imbalances or erase the historical (mis)apprehensions of the colonized countries in the Global South for their colonizers in the Global North. Given the mismatch of how these two sets of countries have developed, their economic and political pursuits can vary widely [59], which can affect their partnership relationship. These inequalities become more potent when one set of countries acts as the donor partner or the superior one with the money, whereas the other acts as the recipient partner or the more passive and less powerful half of the partnership [66].

Over time, innovative development partnerships have been adopted to address the challenges arising from the power differences between the Global North and Global South, especially after the 2011 Busan Partnership event, which ended the donor-recipient model of development relations [67]. These new forms of partnerships became more inclusive, bringing in non-state actors like non-governmental organizations, local communities, businesses, corporations, think tanks and other members of significant societal stakeholders along with government agencies.

In the case of JETPs, a plurilateral partnership approach is adopted. The selected countries will act as individual partners with IPG countries to receive financial support to transition away from coal while providing social protection to the worst affected. For the IPG countries, the outcome of these partnerships is to make maximum differences in terms of greenhouse gas reduction by supporting clean energy transition in some of the most highly emitting nations of the world, hence fulfilling the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities principle under the UNFCCC [68]. JETPs focus on coal transition and emission reduction in chosen Global South countries. However, as discussed previously, a just energy transition is highly complex. In addition, JETPs are based on partnerships between countries that are historically asymmetrical in social, economic, and political ways. As a result, exploring the opportunities and challenges of such partnerships is crucial.

Exploring ‘just’ dimensions in the JETP political declarations

The four political declarations between the IPG countries and the four Global South countries are divided into two parts. In the first part of each document, a few points make a case for why a just transition to a low-carbon future is essential for each case country. For this, each document begins with the case of the critical need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, for which restructuring energy production and use is vital. Therefore, every political declaration mentions the commitment of the Paris Agreement to arrest global temperature rise within 1.5 degrees C. Only in the political declaration with Indonesia mentions the Agenda 2030, especially Goal 7 of Clean and Affordable Energy for All, which was mentioned along with the Paris Agreement. Therefore, the primary goal of the JETPs is, first and foremost, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as made clear in the political declaration documents. Goal 7, which necessitates providing clean and affordable energy to all, must be included in this context in Global South countries. Arguably, prioritizing arresting global temperature without adequately addressing the needs of millions of people to have access to an affordable and ample supply of energy is lop-sided as it can give birth to energy-related injustice, incongruent with the idea of just transition.

Each document, however, also mentions the different challenges faced by each of the JETP Global South partner countries, such as poverty, inequality, the impact of COVID-19, and others. After acknowledging these challenges, the documents proceed to the second and more important resolution section, where the IPG countries resolve to support their JETP partners by mobilizing finance for each country within the amount committed to each country. Providing appropriate finance is mainly dedicated to technological advancement. There is no mention, however, of how socioeconomic dimensions of a just transition will be financed. Overall, the primary goal of the JETPs is to reduce global emissions by helping Global South partners transition to a low-carbon economy without much details about how such a transition can be fair and just for all.

Common but differentiated responsibilities and commitments of cosmopolitan justice

At the heart of the resolve that drives the JETPs is the urgency of mitigating global warming to 1.5 degrees under the Paris Agreement of the UNFCCC as a vital challenge facing humanity. Each political document singularly focuses on the energy sector of the four countries of the Global South and the importance of weaning away from fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement is not a goal of a single or a single set of countries but an international commitment where all countries have a role. However, there is a difference between countries in the type of role they will play. For example, the Global North, historically high emitting group of nations (and also high-income nations), has a greater role in reducing global emissions than low and middle-income countries with limited historical emissions. In this, the JETP political declarations abide by Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ (CBDR) approach. While the four countries of the Global South have expressed their intention to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector by predominantly phasing out coal-based energy, the IPG countries have taken the role of mobilizing long-term financial support for increasing energy efficiency and expanding renewable energy sector as part of their Nationally Determined Contribution. For these, each country will initially be supported by public sector finance from the IPG countries for three to five years, which will act as a catalyst for eventually luring private finance as foreign direct investments. The partners from the Global South will be able to avail of these funds through multilateral and bilateral grants and concessional loans.

The commitment towards cosmopolitan justice is evident in these resolutions of the four JETPs. The responsibility of reducing climate change impacts of fossil fuel-dependent energy systems is shared. While the IPG countries have adopted the role of mobilizing finance to support energy transition in the developing countries, the four countries of the Global South have agreed to reduce emissions as a part of their nationally determined contribution. Access to finance is critical for Global South partners as fighting poverty and inequality are significant financial burdens, and finding separate domestic sources of finance to drive energy transition may become challenging. In contrast, wealthy countries can arrange for these resources initially from public sector money, encouraging private players in the later stages to participate.

Cosmopolitan justice proponents [72] and [73] argue that there needs to be a global resource redistribution principle where countries hitherto benefitting from a favorable resource distribution, for example, through colonialism and global economic policies, must compensate those countries who have fared poorly. As governments of rich countries undertake global orders that perpetuate and may exacerbate existing global poverty, the people must compensate for its damaging effects [73]. In mobilizing public sector finance under the JETPs, the commitments of the IPG countries are aligned with cosmopolitan justice. However, much is unknown about the terms and conditions of these financial grants and loans, which time will reveal. Unfavorable financial terms and conditions for the Global South, can, easily overturn cosmopolitan justice ideas of the JETPs.

Inadequacy of distributive justice

The JETPs recognized how building new energy infrastructure has implications for driving energy prices, especially in countries like Senegal, Vietnam, and South Africa, where accessible and affordable energy for all is still a significant challenge. Each of the political declarations mentioned the implications of these burdens on the Global South countries, especially in addition to their traditional structural challenges like poverty, inequality, and high-level unemployment that have further deteriorated due to the recent global pandemic. To solve this, the South African, Indonesian, and Vietnamese JETPs pointed out that transitioning to a low-carbon future would create numerous quality green jobs and drive opportunities for industrial innovation in each country. JETPs would create “unprecedented opportunities” [74] for them from collaborating with IPG partners in the long term to embarking on their journey to an “ambitious and climate-resilient future” [74]. Similarly, in Viet Nam, the JETPs will create an “opportunity for sustainable development” [75].

Along with recognizing that restructuring the energy sector in the Global South countries is critical for arresting global temperature rise, each political declaration explicitly recognized that such a transition to a low-carbon future should be just and equitable to all. Some of the significant burdens of transitioning to a low carbon future identified in the JETP political declarations in all the Global South countries were the implications of the expenses to be borne by each country to convert their cheap fossil fuel-based energy production infrastructure to renewables-based energy production. For all the Global South partners, such a transition meant depending on foreign resources. JETPs will facilitate cheap foreign loans and grants from the IPG countries so that Global South partners can afford foreign technologies that they still need to manufacture or have specific capacities to develop locally. However, critically evaluating these conditions through the lens of distributive justice shows that the mismatch is between who shares the burdens and who gets the benefits.

Some distributive justice elements was found to address the challenges of workers and the affected communities. In the Vietnamese JETP, affected communities and workers would “benefit from opportunities brought by this transition, so that no one is left behind: noting that the transition should be accompanied by programmes of training and retraining, upskilling, job creation and other forms of support for workers in the affected sectors and areas”[75]. The Indonesian political declarations also mentions upskilling and reskilling through human capital development programs. Additionally, a just transition would also “implement human capital development programs through reskilling and upskilling, creating employment and providing other forms of collaboration so that workers are major beneficiaries of the transition to a greener future” [76]. Similarly, the political declaration with South Africa mentions “targeted programmes of reskilling and upskilling, creating employment and providing other forms of support to ensure that workers are the major beneficiaries of our transition to a greener future” [74].

While there was a recognition of the need to create livelihood opportunities for the workers and communities affected by job loss in the fossil fuel energy sector through upskilling and retraining programs, there is no mention of how to do it and what kind of resources will be allocated from the loans and grants and how will specific job programs will be earmarked for the workers. There is also no mention of how upskilling and reskilling programs or any other programs that would benefit workers would be implemented under the JETPs. For example, will human capital development be a precondition for loans and grants? If not, how would funds be allocated for these programs, and what will be done to ensure compliance? Clarity on whether investments under JETPs will cover capacity-building programs for the people who would lose their jobs and livelihoods in the energy transition is also missing.

Additionally, not all workers affected by livelihood losses from the shrinkages in the fossil fuel sector would benefit from upskilling and reskilling programs. People tend to vary in their capabilities to learn new skills [77]. Moreover, the JETPs overlook how distributive justice will be achieved, such as workers’ compensation, retirement benefits, mobility support, skill matching, and other support. These ideas of distributive justice are tricky to fulfill in Global South countries where collective bargaining rights and institutional support do not protect workers’ rights. Even in developed countries, labor unions are not always successful in negotiating the best compensation for the workers as, over the years, these organizations have lost their power, resources, and membership to put pressure on the management of companies of their members [28]. Therefore, achieving a fair and just transition for all will take time and effort.

In other words, though the challenges and opportunities created by JETPs are recognized, the resolve to include these programs in the financial obligations is missing. The financing objective of the JETPs needs to focus on building the domestic manufacturing and technological capacities of the Global South partners. This raises questions about whom the Global South partners will purchase expensive technologies on borrowed money and for how long. In addition, whether and how renewable energy technology transfers will be ensured from the Global North partners to their Global South partners or the regulatory feasibility of such transfers requires consideration. Global South partners must gain the skills, technical capacities, and indigenous capabilities to transition to a robust renewable energy future based on their indigenous capabilities.

Accelerated decarbonization for electricity production is key, while procedural justice lacks priority

One of the key messages that emerged from all the JETPs is the urgent need for accelerated decarbonization in the Global South countries identified for the partnerships. Each country showed commitment to participate in the JETPs to fulfill their commitments towards the Paris Agreement while obtaining support from the IPG countries. However, one of the most evident justice dimensions largely missing in the JETPs is procedural justice.

Procedural justice underlines the need for fair processes that allow for equitable and meaningful participation of all stakeholder groups in meaningful decision-making processes. The lack of procedural justice in the JETPs is evident on two levels. The JETP political declarations need more clarity on the types of processes that will allow for meaningful participation of the countries of the Global South to put the JETPs into action. It needs to be made clear how the partnerships would evolve under the JETPs in terms of who will have what power to influence decisions and negotiate or bargain the terms of conditions. Moreover, as there is a historical asymmetry of power between the two sets of countries and a donor-recipient relation at the core of the JETPs, clarification is required on what kind of fair processes will be implemented with two sets of sovereign entities agreeing.

A lack of procedural justice was evident in the second level, which is implementing the just transition to a low-carbon future in the Global South. Though each political declaration document emphasized that a just transition would be "inclusive," there is no clear indication of how this inclusion will reflect in processes and actions. Though some elements of procedural justice are seen in the South African political declaration when it mentions that "the process of transition needs to be based on the full involvement of organized labor and business in targeted programs… " [74], it is too little. The transition from coal affects a larger group of stakeholders not represented by trade unions or businesses. Similarly, engagement with civil society organizations for long-term societal-level changes in the coal transition regions was only mentioned once in the political declaration with South Africa and twice in the Indonesian political declaration. The political declarations remain driven mainly by national governments to encourage the participation of private businesses. The JETPs mentioned various activities for the private sector, like "de-risking credit, facilitating equity and bank finance, auctioning permits, speeding up licensing, and enhancing competition" [75]. However, such specific actions that enable greater civil society participation, remain elusive.

Recognition of some vulnerable groups like women and youth in JETPs

In terms of recognition justice, the political declaration of JETPs with Indonesia, Viet Nam, and South Africa mention very similar language of “delivering a just energy transition by developing a robust plan, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, to identify and support the segments of … population most vulnerable to potential negative impacts of the transition, workers and all societal groups with a particular focus on women, youth, and vulnerable populations that earn a living in the coal industry or jobs connected with the coal industry” [74,75]. As a coal-based energy industry is nonexistent in Senegal, the impacts of the energy transition on vulnerable groups and how they would be consulted in the transition process are missing. Moreover, where several ways were suggested to include the private sector to participate in the just energy transition process, such details were mainly missing in going beyond just consulting with women, youth, and vulnerable groups affected by the closure of the coal industry. Additionally, no specific funding is earmarked to help women, youth, and other vulnerable groups towards a just and equitable transition. Mainstreaming these groups and their specific lived experiences of energy-related challenges is critical for developing a just transition that is fair and just for all.

Restorative justice is missing

One of the most ignored aspects in just transition in academic and non-academic discussions is remediating the environmental impacts of coal mines, associated wastes, and coal-fired power plants that continue polluting waterways and surrounding habitats without proper rehabilitation. The management of mine closure and continuous management post-closure is a critical yet expensive task as mining residues like waste dumps, tailings, and subsidence can continue to affect waterways, affecting human and non-human lives in the surrounding areas [78]. Also, coal mines pose other severe threats to the local areas, like air pollution, fire hazards, and land deformation when not appropriately closed [79,80]. Additionally, closed mines often open new forms of environmental impacts that are often not present when these mines are active, leading to a variety of geochemical pollution in the surrounding landscape depending on the characteristics of the land allocated for the mining in the first place [81]. Developing countries often lack the resources and expertise to mitigate these environmentally dangerous aspects of coal mine closure that continue to affect surrounding areas for generations. However, as JETPs only focus on capturing the new business opportunities generated by the Global South’s burgeoning renewable energy and green hydrogen sector, restoring and rehabilitating the habitats in coal mining regions remains missing.