Developing countries at the ongoing 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have mounted one of their most unified pushes yet to reshape the global debate on Just Transition (JT), insisting that equity, Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), national sovereignty and predictable finance must define any outcome delivered in Belém.
This follows week one’s 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 United Arab Emirates’ Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), with additional financial flows to strengthen just transition pathways in the Global South. However, developed countries, led by the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU), remained non-committal, questioning the need for another mechanism.
At the third annual high-level ministerial roundtable on JT on November 20, countries from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, the Pacific and Latin America stressed that JT “cannot be prescriptive,” must remain “anchored in the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement,” and must not become a tool for “new forms of conditionality, sectoral impositions or trade barriers.”
Speaking for itself and the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs), India sharpened the political tone: “JT is not limited to an energy transition. It is an economy-wide, all-inclusive, people-centred transformation that must respect national circumstances, ensure equity and secure social justice,” India said, warning that unilateral trade-restrictive climate measures are “serious disablers of a fair and equitable JT.” India backed the widespread call for a Just Transition Mechanism under the UNFCCC, saying it is “essential for identifying gaps and advancing practical solutions for the Global South, including affordable finance, technology and capacity-building.”
Across Africa, Tanzania speaking for the African Group stressed that JT “is not a single pathway, but a diverse set of nationally determined approaches” that must “advance sustainable development, poverty eradication and climate resilience.” Several African countries flagged growing anxiety about carbon border taxes: “Measures including carbon border adjustment mechanisms risk transforming the just transition into an unjust transition.”
Pacific Island states framed the stakes in existential terms. Vanuatu, speaking for Pacific Small Island Developing States (Pacific SIDS), said ambition without fairness “undermines trust,” while fairness without ambition “undermines survival.” The group called for the “rapid, equitable, global phase-out of fossil fuels and fossil-fuel subsidies,” but in ways that protect indigenous rights, culture and the ability of Pacific peoples to remain on their islands. “For SIDS, transitions are not guaranteed. They require international support,” Vanuatu said.
From Asia, the tone was set unmistakably by India, whose intervention for the LMDCs became the reference point for several Asian Parties. India insisted that JT must be nationally determined, respect policy space and reflect differentiated starting points. It underscored that developing countries’ immediate priorities remain eradicating energy poverty, ensuring energy security and achieving sustainable development, warning that prescriptive models or sector-focused approaches violate the mandate of the JTWP. Crucially, India demanded that developed countries fulfil their obligations under Article 9.1 and stressed that JT “must not prescribe pathways, constrain natural resources, or dictate development trajectories.”
Indonesia echoed India’s equity-centred framing, emphasising trust-based finance, technology access and predictable support. It backed the G77 and China proposal for a UNFCCC-led Just Transition Mechanism to “strengthen cooperation” and prevent unilateral measures. Pakistan insisted that means of implementation—finance, technology and capacity-building—are the “central enabler of JT, not an optional add-on,” calling for people-centred, resilience-oriented national pathways.
The Arab Group, led by Saudi Arabia, issued a firm warning against reinterpretation of the mandate. “JT must be nationally defined, grounded in equity and CBDR-RC. We will not accept any outcome that weakens or reinterprets these principles,” it said. They rejected sector-specific framing and denounced the rise of carbon border measures as a “politically motivated, inconsistent approach.”
Peru described JT as a “multi-sectoral long-term process” embedded in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and long-term strategies. ILAC members urged stronger institutional coherence, social protection systems and enhanced capacity-building.
The EU continued to press for a more structured, action-oriented approach, promoting its proposed EU Just Transition Action Plan. The EU framed JT as inseparable from the 1.5°C pathway, with Spain noting: “Only by addressing the social and economic dimensions of the transition can we build the legitimacy needed to scale ambition.”
Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Estonia highlighted labour rights, skills development and social dialogue as essential components. While advocating fairness and inclusion, the EU avoided addressing concerns over carbon border adjustment mechanisms—an omission noticed by several developing countries.
The UK aligned with the EU on the need to embed JT into long-term climate strategies, emphasising workforce reskilling, job creation, community-level support and protection for vulnerable workers. The UK underscored that JT must be “fair, inclusive and grounded in real economic opportunities,” highlighting its own domestic transition models as templates for international cooperation. Like the EU, the UK focused heavily on labour and economic restructuring rather than addressing global equity or CBDR-RC concerns raised by developing countries.
As ministers enter the decisive stretch of COP30, the battle lines are clear: the Global South demands a UNFCCC-anchored Just Transition Mechanism and finance-centred equity, while the EU and UK push for structured social-transition models tied to 1.5°C and economic reform.
As COP30 is about to wind up by November 21, which may be extended by a day or two, the unresolved question is whether Belém will produce a Just Transition framework that enables developing countries or one that risks constraining them.