In 2018, the European Union laid the foundation for a large-scale energy transition: away from fossil-based energy and towards renewable, sustainable energy solutions. The need for a transition is mainly accepted, but it is questioned whether all European Union citizens benefit f
...
In 2018, the European Union laid the foundation for a large-scale energy transition: away from fossil-based energy and towards renewable, sustainable energy solutions. The need for a transition is mainly accepted, but it is questioned whether all European Union citizens benefit from such a change. In fact, the greenhouse gas reduction will lead to a costly restructuring of carbon-intensive regions. Consequently, the European Union and its critics expect extreme job destruction and decreased economic activity in such areas. To cope with the ills that an energy transition brings, the Just Transition Fund is proposed. It serves as a financial buffer and provides strategic support for the successful energy transition to decrease injustices. Support for the most affected regions is undoubtedly necessary but is the Just Transition Fund increasing justice for these regions? The European Commission provided a similar strategic support program earlier with the Initiative for Coal Regions in Transition, which included providing support to apply for funding. As such, the question arises whether the Just Transition Fund increases justice when comparing to the predecessor programs.
This master thesis serves as a first insight into the justness of the European Union’s proposed Just Transition Fund. To do so, several projects of the Initiative for Coal Regions in Transition are compared to the current setup of the fund. The data for the Just Transition Fund has been gathered in previous research while information on the Initiative for Coal Regions in Transition was acquired with an exploratory desk research approach. The gathered data was structured coherently by the creation of two main categories, the project and contextual factors. Each was complemented with subcategories allowing allowed the comparison of the projects. Ultimately, these findings could be evaluated with a transition justice framework that has been adapted to the research needs.
It becomes clear that many injustice issues were present and often left unresolved in the assessed projects. Compared with the Just Transition Funds current criticism, many of these issues can be detected again. The most prominent justice issues found were of distributive nature due to scarce funding and a lack of stakeholder participation. The interplay of both problems leads to the desire to reach one goal: receiving as many funds as possible. As a result, the eligibility criteria seem to be seen as obstacles to overcome or boxes to tick leading to window dressing to meet imposed requirements. Implementing the same process kind for both programs is thus an inadequate path to take as the most critical justice issues stem from precisely this process.
The inadequacy of some criteria leads to the conclusion that the Just Transition Fund merges indicators of funding needs with requiring solutions to grand societal problems. The European Union needs to reassess the posed criteria on their ends and make the said challenges a priority to be addressed during the energy transition. Furthermore, it becomes evident that the application process can lead to injustice due to a lack of capacities and political capabilities of the regions in need.
With the current setup of the fund, transition justice can only increase to some extent. Still, there is potential for this program the first step is made towards a more holistic approach to coping with justice issues. The monetary aid, although insufficient now, can help the most affected if distributed and spend adequately. Besides, the fund serves as a symbol of solidarity with the most affected regions currently left behind. Policymaking is always a trial and error. Now, the identified shortcomings must be addressed to increase the fund’s impact.
