JUST TRANSITION, STILL DEEP DIVERGENCES

• A new draft of the Just Transition Work Programme has been published, which is more detailed than the previous version and has been the subject of an intensive round of technical consultations.
• There are some areas of convergence, particularly on the need for multi-stakeholder approaches, the role of skills and the link between transition, adaptation and ecosystems.
• However, there remain deep political divisions on several key issues, including fossil fuels, the link to the Global Stocktake, the governance of critical minerals, choices on the architecture to be adopted and references to the CBAM.

The pace at the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) table is increasingly fast. On Monday morning, the co-facilitators published a new informal note, which was first discussed in a closed-door session in the evening and then in a night-time discussion at midnight Belém time. Unlike previous meetings, on Monday, ample space was also given to observers and consultancies. The updated document came shortly after the version released on Friday, when many delegations had requested additions and amendments to a text that, in their view, still had considerable room for improvement. 

On Tuesday morning, a further iteration was shared, incorporating some of the comments that had emerged during the latest consultations. These are specific updates requested by countries, which serve to refine the wording of the text. Overall, the document is more substantial than the first informal note drawn up at the interim negotiations in Bonn: nine pages including an extensive preamble and now 31 paragraphs, many of which present alternative options reflecting often diametrically opposed political positions. Nevertheless, thanks to the intense pace of the technical work, some key shared messages on Just Transition have emerged. 

The closed-door discussions have yielded initial signs of progress: countries seem to be converging on some key elements of the Work Programme. These include the importance of truly multi-stakeholder approaches that ensure broad participation and effective social dialogue; the central role of upskilling and reskilling in accompanying economic transformation; the need to integrate climate adaptation and resilience into transition strategies; and the essential link between Just Transition, ecosystem protection and biodiversity protection.

Alongside these points of agreement, however, there remain several unresolved issues, which in many cases are the same ones that are also slowing down other COP30 negotiating tables. Let us therefore look at the main points of divergence on the new text, which will have to be reworked by the co-chairs before being forwarded to the Presidency.

Different paths for the Just Transition 

One of the main points of contention concerns the link between a just transition and the level of climate ambition. The question is straightforward: can a transition be considered “just” if it is not consistent with the 1.5°C trajectory? For many developed countries – including the UK, the EU, Australia and the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG) – the answer is no: the social dimension of the transition must go hand in hand with rapid decarbonisation. For them, anchoring the text to 1.5°C means recognising that climate justice requires deep, rapid and lasting emissions reductions.

For the G77+China group, however, the perspective is different. A transition is only “fair” if it takes into account the different starting points, historical responsibilities and conditions of the most vulnerable countries. That is why they are calling for a broader formulation that also includes the 2°C limit, strengthens the role of adaptation and focuses on what they consider essential: finance, technology and capacity building. The message is clear: climate ambition must grow, but only if accompanied by the necessary means to support it.

Global Stocktake: yes or no?

A particularly sensitive issue arises in the text: whether or not the results of the first Global Stocktake (GST) should be linked to the Just Transition Work Programme. The positions are clearly divided: some delegations, including the Arab Group, Russia, Kuwait and China, support a no-text option, which implies the complete deletion of the paragraph or article in question, and prefer to avoid any reference to the results of the Global Stocktake. For others, such as the European Union, the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG) and Canada, including GST means ensuring consistency with what was recognized at COP28 and remembering that the world remains outside the trajectory of the goals of the Paris Agreement. The political significance is clear: without a connection with the GST, the Just Transition runs the risk of moving forward without an anchor to the reality of the climate process. In addition, the issue also remains open at the table specifically devoted to the Global Stocktake, confirming that the role in negotiations is still far from being defined.

The controversial issue of fossil fuels

The debate on the energy sector remains one of the most sensitive issues in the negotiations. For developed countries, universal access to energy requires a strong push towards renewables and a gradual phase-out of fossil fuels. It is precisely on this point that the greatest differences emerge: many developing countries still consider fossil fuels essential for their economies, public finances and energy security. It is therefore not surprising that the issue continues to polarise the debate.

The Arab Group has been clear: it will not accept formulations that could limit access to fossil fuels. In contexts marked by energy poverty, the priority remains ensuring energy at sustainable prices and economic stability, not the elimination of fossil fuels. Hence the insistence on language that does not diminish the role of these resources in national energy mixes. 

On a different front, delegations such as the United Kingdom, the Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Marshall Islands believe that a gradual phase-out of fossil fuels is essential to maintain credibility on the path towards 1.5°C. The wording appears in two options in the draft and is among the most controversial elements: Russia, for example, criticises the absence of any reference to the economic and social impacts on countries that are most dependent on fossil fuels.

The text also mentions controversial transitional fuels, in particular natural gas – an option that the European Union and the United Kingdom do not consider consistent with a just transition because it risks slowing down the shift to fully zero-emission energy systems. Finally, the draft recognises the socio-economic risks of the energy transition; however, some delegations are calling for the opportunities it brings to be included as well, a sign of how the transformation of energy systems is interpreted differently depending on national and political contexts.

Responsible governance of critical minerals

The text highlights the need, emphasised by several countries, to address the social and environmental risks associated with the expansion of supply chains for clean energy technologies, including those related to the extraction and processing of critical minerals. Responsible governance of these resources is considered essential to avoid widening existing inequalities or creating new ones, especially in producing countries.

It is therefore not surprising that there is also a no text option here, supported by various extractive countries, including China, which perceive this language as a possible interference in their internal choices on strategic resources. The issue of national sovereignty also emerges here: for several producing countries, it may seem like an attempt to influence sovereign choices on how to manage their mineral resources from outside. Some countries, such as Uganda, also propose using the term “transition minerals” instead of “critical” to soften the geopolitical connotation of the term and better reflect the role of these resources in the energy transition.

CBAM: an unwelcome guest 

One of the most difficult points for developing countries to swallow is, once again, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The issue had already exploded last Thursday, when the debate on border adjustment policies quickly turned into a unanimous criticism of the CBAM, accused of not respecting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC). On the other hand, the European Union and the United Kingdom continue to defend the national nature of the measure, insisting that it does not fall within the scope of multilateral decisions.

In the updated version of the text – in addition to mentioning the negative impacts of unilateral trade-restrictive measures, including border adjustment mechanisms – there is a significant new development: a direct reference to the CBAM. The paragraph cites estimates that the mechanism would increase the revenues of Annex II Parties (essentially, the richest countries) by $2.5 billion, while reducing those of developing countries by $5.9 billion, with a minimal impact on global CO₂ emissions (only 0.1%). This wording clearly reflects the concerns and narrative of developing countries. The discussion remains complex and the issue remains open.

The architecture of the Just Transition

On the implementation front, the updated note now also introduces the option of a Just Transition Action Plan, incorporating the European Union proposal. 

Essentially, the ideas on the table move in four directions:

1. establish a mechanism for the just transition,
2. develop a dedicated action plan,
3. create a policy toolbox, a set of tools to help countries advance on their paths,
4. or give up new institutional arrangements, merely providing guidance to the constituted bodies of the UNFCCC on how to integrate the just transition into their work.

The options show very different views on how “structured” the future of the just transition under the UNFCCC must be. Within this framework, there is a growing need to focus on operationalization: it is time to move from theory to implementation.

Finally, the text introduces a new footnote on the term gender, in line with what has also been discussed at other negotiating tables. The clarification responds to the requests of Paraguay and Argentina, which requested clarification that the term be interpreted according to their respective constitutional and regulatory frameworks.

The comparison of the last few hours confirms that the Just Transition remains a highly political topic, crossed by very different priorities and sensitivities. The text will now be submitted to the Presidency for consideration: the next negotiating steps will show how far it will be possible to converge on a shared wording.

Article by Elisa Mauri, delegate of Italian Climate Network.

Cover image: Photo by IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).