First week of COP30 sees sharp divergences over the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP).
Developing countries push for a new implementation mechanism with predictable finance.
Developed countries resist, questioning the need for additional structures under the UNFCCC.
Disputes intensify over unilateral trade measures such as the EU’s CBAM.
Fossil fuel language and the role of “transitional fuels” emerge as major sticking points.
The United Arab Emirates’ Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) is a significant agenda item at the ongoing 30th session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP30). This is due to the cross-cutting nature of the issue, which reflects barriers to the transition such as unilateral trade measures (UTM), as well as implications for additional finance for developing countries, among other means of implementation. Since COP29, there has been increased momentum on just transition, and this was evident from the 62nd session of the Subsidiary Body held in Bonn in June this year.
However, the momentum built at this COP does not necessarily imply convergence on the outcomes of the JTWP. For instance, the scope of the programme has always been contested, with developed countries focusing solely on workforce dimensions of just transitions, particularly in the energy sector, whereas developing countries want the scope to reflect the broader question of poverty eradication and sustainable development.
Week one saw a proposal by the G77 and China, the largest bloc at the negotiations, representing 134 developing countries, to establish a mechanism that would support the implementation and coordination of the JTWP, with additional financial flows to strengthen just transition pathways in the Global South. However, developed countries, led by the United Kingdome and European Union, remained non-committal, questioning the need for another mechanism. The rationale for a new mechanism, as stated by Nigeria, is to provide a coherent structure to the work programme, one that brings in additional and predictable finance for developing countries.
However, this is just one of several divergences that have emerged as parties continue to negotiate. For instance, developing countries led by the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), the Arab Group and the African Group want a strong articulation of the cross-border impacts of UTMs on their just transition. Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the LMDCs, cited the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) and argued that CBAM is less about climate ambition and more about protectionism.
Furthermore, India and China added that finance flows in this context may be reversed, implying that money could flow from the Global South to the Global North. This, they argued, would violate the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities enshrined in the UNFCCC. However, there were strong reservations from developed countries such as the European Union and the United Kingdom, which pointed out that the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement were not designed to address nationally determined policies and that any international validation is outside the scope of the multilateral forum. As an alternative, the EU proposed a Just Transition Action Plan that would facilitate the exchange of views on how to operationalise and enhance capacities to implement JT pathways.
Discussions moving forward were based on the draft text proposed by the chair on November 14. Among several other points of divergence, one key issue was the reference to transitioning away from fossil fuels, which was a non-negotiable for Russia and the Arab Group. Oman, speaking in its national capacity, stated that fossil fuels are essential for its economic stability and social development, and that any proposal to include such a reference would also impede its decarbonisation journey.
Additionally, the role of transitional fuels such as natural gas in achieving a just transition was supported by Russia and Egypt. However, countries including the UK, EU and Colombia opposed this, arguing that these are “false solutions” that risk stranded assets and are inconsistent with the 1.5 degree Celsius (°C) target.
Countries are well aware of each other’s positions on most of the contentious issues. It will now fall to the co-chairs and the Brazilian presidency, in the second week of the UN climate summit, to facilitate greater political will in order to arrive at a multilateral framework for a just transition that leaves no one behind.