JUST TRANSITION, THE BAM TAKES SHAPE

• G77+China call for an institutional mechanism to coordinate and support the Just Transition.
• Developed countries remain cautious, fearing duplication and additional costs, and propose strengthening existing instruments.
• Civil society proposes the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM) as a model for structuring a mechanism for implementing the Just Transition.

Tuesday’s first session dedicated to the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) opened with an obvious sticking point: the request to discuss an implementation mechanism, which had already been raised in Bonn and reiterated in the co-chairs’ informal note, and was now being strongly pushed by the G77+China group. The reaction from developed countries was not long in coming. Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia and the European Union expressed concern about the risk of duplicating existing institutions, creating inefficiencies and introducing new costs and complexities. Australia, in particular, called for less focus on architecture and more on results.

What are developing countries asking for?

The G77+China group has reiterated the need to establish an implementation mechanism that puts into practice the principles of justice, fairness and shared but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and that allows climate action to be integrated with sustainable development and poverty eradication priorities. They are calling for an instrument capable of providing technical assistance and knowledge, promoting international cooperation, making resources, finance, technologies and capacity-building available, and identifying gaps and support needs. In their view, the mechanism should be Party-driven and non-prescriptive, i.e. it should not impose models or obligations, nor should it be duplicative, i.e. it should be designed to create synergies with existing processes and bodies within and outside the UNFCCC.

The civil society proposal: the Belém Action Mechanism

In parallel with the demands of developing countries, civil society – in particular the Climate Action Network and Women & Gender Constituency – presented a detailed document proposing a Belém Action Mechanism (BAM) as a possible architecture for responding to this political demand. The initiative builds on what has already emerged in Bonn and provides a comprehensive overview of objectives, functions and timelines. The message is clear: to transform the principles of Just Transition into a concrete, coherent and truly applicable system within the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. 

In UNFCCC language, the BAM would be an Institutional Arrangement: a formalised structure with an operational function, designed to implement the Just Transition Work Programme. It was created in response to a fragmented global context, made up of unconnected initiatives and unclear principles, in which the Just Transition does not yet have a coherent international framework or a common point of reference. The goal is ambitious: to create the shared space that is lacking, capable of aligning the trajectories of the Just Transition with social and climate objectives, in full respect of the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

What is the potential of the BAM?

This mechanism would provide an opportunity to establish a global reference point capable of guiding, coordinating and supporting the Just Transition. In particular, the Belém Action Mechanism would offer:

• a shared framework and language, avoiding ambiguity and misalignment;
• stronger coordination, capable of linking national, regional and international initiatives while avoiding duplication;
• greater knowledge, capacity and support, thanks to structured exchanges and better alignment of finance, technology and capacity building.

In practical terms, how would the BAM work?

The Belém Action Mechanism would be based on three operational pillars, three cogs that together drive the entire system.

• A Coordinating Entity, which brings together constituencies observers and other stakeholders. It acts as a “control room”: it organises information from various bodies within and outside the UNFCCC, monitors progress, identifies gaps and opportunities for correction, and guides the work of the other components of the BAM, linking it to the negotiation processes and offering guidance on how to move forward.
• A component dedicated to knowledge generation and sharing, which creates a structured space for dialogue and exchange on existing practices. It includes a Global Hub to connect countries, experts and communities, promoting mutual learning and preventing each from proceeding in isolation. The aim is to circulate concrete knowledge that can accelerate the implementation of the Just Transition.
• A concrete support component (action and support), designed to put these principles into practice: it identifies funding, available technologies and structural barriers, offers a helpdesk to respond to doubts and difficulties, and acts as a bridge between countries, projects, experts and financiers to transform plans into action.

In the proposal, the Belém Action Mechanism is not conceived as a simple technical structure, but rather as a mechanism based on broad and participatory governance. The document calls for the involvement of the Parties, observer constituencies, international organisations active in the field, together with local communities, experts, operators and national contact points. The aim is to make it a truly shared tool, capable of representing and connecting all actors in the Just Transition.

The proposed roadmap is modular and, above all, immediate: the mechanism, the support component and the Global Hub can already be launched at COP30; at COP31, the knowledge component will be strengthened; at COP32, the coordination body will take shape. The message that emerges is simple: the Just Transition does not have to wait for the perfect architecture to begin. It can start now and grow step by step.

Where are we now?

On the negotiating front, the debate remains focused on whether or not to establish a new institutional mechanism. The update to the text circulated on Friday confirms that the discussion is still far from reaching a shared solution. The critical point remains unchanged: on the one hand, the G77+China group continues to promote a new institutional mechanism capable of monitoring needs, coordinating support and facilitating cooperation; on the other hand, developed countries insist on the need to avoid additional structures and to build on what already exists under the umbrella of the UNFCCC. 

This scenario also includes the European Union’s new proposal, the Just Transition Action Plan (JTAP), which introduces an alternative approach: it does not create new structures, but strengthens the implementation of the Just Transition Work Programme through knowledge sharing, capacity building and broader stakeholder participation. The aim is to improve coherence between existing processes and support countries and communities in integrating the key elements of the Just Transition, without introducing a new institutional mechanism.

With a week of negotiations still ahead, the debate remains open. The real challenge for negotiators will be to understand whether there is common ground between the different visions for implementing the Just Transition, or whether there is a risk that the issue will continue without a shared framework, in a context already marked by tensions over border adjustment policies. The next version of the text will show us whether convergence is emerging or whether the stalemate remains.

Article by Elisa Mauri, delegate of Italian Climate Network.

Cover image: photo by CAN Europe.