Methodology

This project seeks to fill the gap in defining the key environmental, political, and socio-economic indicators that are needed to track a just transition. While some work has been done on guidelines and principles that should underpin a just transition, a common framework for thoroughly monitoring a just transition is yet to be developed, to the best of our knowledge.

The project team used a phased approach to developing a monitoring framework. At the beginning of the project, the team conducted an extensive literature review of existing just transition research. This research helped to classify several components of just transition to structure the framework and develop an initial list of indicators under each component. Next, the team held interviews* with international experts from international organizations, trade unions, civil society organizations, and other research institutions, which further refined the framework. Finally, this framework was discussed with local representatives from trade unions, civil society groups, and academia from regions currently undertaking transitions away from fossil fuels or at risk of such transitions in the near future in Canada, Germany, and India. This approach ensured the development of an internationally coherent framework that can be applied in different local contexts.

The final monitoring framework aims to capture three overarching just transition themes, including

1. Risks: Just transition risks refer to the exposure of a region to an unmanaged transition away from its fossil fuel sector. It also covers the ability of an existing institutional context to support the facilitation of a just transition and related policies.
2. Response: The just transition response refers to the extent and quality of the involvement of the worker representatives (tripartite) and other stakeholders (tripartite+), the government’s vision of just transition and institutional setup to implement it, and the quality of the national and local just transition plans. It further refers to the funding disbursed to implement the just transition and policy coherence.
3. Results: The just transition results refer to the actual outputs and outcomes of the transition, looking at aspects such as climate mitigation and environmental restoration, economic diversification, employment opportunities, social equity, and, more broadly, the general public sentiment toward the transition.

These overarching themes can be viewed sequentially so that subsequent themes build on previous ones. Specifically, the risks inform the response required, shaping the results. Vice-versa, subsequent themes also loop back to previous ones. For example, the results can inform whether the response is sufficient or adjustments are needed, while the response can reduce the risks of an unmanaged transition. In addition, these themes embed ten building blocks summarizing key components that further include multiple individual indicators selected to break down each building block into tangible information that can each be measured. Figure 1 illustrates this structure.

Figure 1. Illustration of the just transition monitoring framework

The just transition monitoring framework developed by IISD proposes 62 individual indicators—some are specific to the oil and gas sector, and others are more general environmental and socio-economic indicators. These indicators, however, are not equally distributed across the ten building blocks. Certain building blocks need more indicators, whereas, for others, fewer individual indicators are sufficient. The list further does not aim to be exhaustive but rather provides a first set of indicators that can be adjusted and built on in the future.

Table 1 illustrates the full just transition monitoring framework developed under this project. As clean energy transitions will generally have very localized impacts on specific fossil fuel regions, most of the indicators are designed to track socio-economic and environmental impacts at the subnational level, with data at the federal level serving as a natural benchmark for comparison. Yet, the federal level also plays a crucial role in addressing some of the other themes of a just transition (e.g., the institutional context and planning oversight), so the framework includes indicators that can only be tracked at a national level.

The framework predominantly includes indicators that are tracked through numerical data (quantitative indicators); however, several indicators can only be tracked through ordinal data (qualitative indicators). Proposed suggestions for how these could be tracked can be found at the bottom of this page.

Finally, the impacts of a just transition must be particularly assessed for vulnerable groups, who will vary depending on each country’s context. Factors such as gender, age, income, caste, race, belonging to a disadvantaged group, and disability should be considered. The framework considers this approach throughout all building blocks, noting where separate data on vulnerable groups must also be tracked.

*Experts from the following organizations have been consulted to develop this just transition monitoring framework:…

Table 1. Just transition monitoring framework

Additional Notes for Collecting Data for These Indicators

Standardized data collection is well developed, or the approach is methodologically straightforward for most indicators. However, some indicators (primarily those based on qualitative information) require defining an approach to how data could be tracked. The following information summarizes the proposed approaches for these indicators, building as much as possible on existing frameworks.

1. Perception of national and local labour organizations about the just transition social dialogue/perception of national and local civil society groups about the just transition stakeholder engagement

Proposed approach: Surveys of national and local labour and civil society organizations about their satisfaction, looking at the size and quality of engagement, similar to what has been previously done by the European Trade Union Confederation. The specific questions and answer options could be as follows:

1. Is social dialogue/stakeholder engagement sufficient to formulate, plan, and implement a just transition?

Answer options:

1 – Not at all
2 – Not in a substantive manner
3 – Yes, but not comprehensively
4 – Yes

1. Were the trade union/civil society positions taken into account to formulate, plan, and implement a just transition?
   Answer options:
   1 – Not at all
   2 – Not in a substantive manner
   3 – Yes, but not comprehensively
   4 – Yes

2. Level of formal government acknowledgment of the need for and understanding of a just transition

Proposed approach: Independent expert rating of the relevant national and local governments based on existing approaches (e.g., from the Just Transition Research Collaborative or Climate Investment Funds) using literature reviews and interviews. The specific answer options could be as follows:

1 – Status quo/Incremental reform

2 – Managerial reform/Top-down transition

3 – Structural reform/Narrow reform

4 – Transformation/Systems change

3. Existence and level of resources of a formalized body/bodies to deal with a just transition

Proposed approach: Independent expert rating of the relevant national and local governments using literature reviews and interviews. The specific answers could be as follows:

1 – No formalized body within the government is assigned to manage a just transition.

2 – A formalized body is assigned within the government to manage a just transition in addition to its other work.

3 – A formalized body within the government is dedicated solely to managing a just transition, but it lacks the staffing and resources required to ensure whole-of-government coordination.

4 – A formalized body within the government is dedicated solely to managing a just transition with sufficient staffing and resources to ensure whole-of-government coordination.

4. Level of development of a formalized just transition process at the national level

Suggested approach: An independent expert rating using literature reviews and interviews. The specific answer options could be as follows:

1 – No national just transition strategy exists.

2 – A national just transition strategy exists, but it is not robust due to a lack of independent advice, comprehensive social dialogue, or stakeholder consultations.

3 – A robust national just transition strategy exists that builds on independent advice, comprehensive social dialogue, and stakeholder consultations

4 – A legalized framework exists for regularly updated, robust national just transition strategies.

5. Level of development of a formal regional just transition plan

Suggested approach: Independent expert rating of the regional just transition plan based on existing approaches (e.g., from the World Wide Fund for Nature) using literature reviews and interviews. The specific principles could be as follows, rated with scores from 1 to 3:

• Climate ambition
• Fossil fuel phase-out
• Sustainable economic diversification
• Addressing inequalities
• Supporting environmental objectives
• Polluter pays
• Adequate public and private funding
• Participatory processes
• Place-based local approach
• Review and indicators