As we entered the second week of the ongoing 30th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), countries from the Global South and North doubled down on their positions and articulated their non-negotiables in the outcomes.
Observers also anticipated a shift in the nature of negotiations as ministers from numerous countries arrived, signalling a greater political goodwill in the negotiations. The COP presidency also asked the co-faciliators of all the agenda items to wrap up the negotiations by November 18. However, that did not materialise
In this context, the spotlight was well and truly on delivering an outcome on implementing just transition pathways. However, the first week of the United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) saw several faultlines between the countries. They included key issues such as the establishment of a new mechanism, addressing climate related trade-restive unilateral measures, transitioning away from fossil fuels amongst a few more.
The second week has been a mix of new negotiation draft texts and closed-door meetings amongst only country parties. While the needle on most of the core contentious issues mentioned earlier did not move towards convergence, new points of divergences widened. For instance, Paraguay and Argentina objected to the use of the word ‘gender’ in the outcome, with Paraguay citing that the term entails a constitutional issue. Instead, they proposed the term ‘equality between men and women’ to be used. This was opposed by most countries.
Another key issue in the JTWP has been the emergence of the role of critical minerals. A few developed countries such as the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) proposed the diversification of critical mineral supply chains and advocated for enabling fair access to opportunities and fair distribution of benefits of value addition. Countries such as South Africa, Panama and a few others stated their need to highlight the social and environmental risks associated with scaling up the supply chain for clean energy technologies originating from the critical minerals although this was not supported by the EU and UK.
African countries such as Uganda and Ethiopia objected to the use of ‘critical minerals’ and suggested ‘transition minerals’, alluding to the argument that minerals identified as ‘critical’ can be different for various countries. The literature on critical minerals also points out that criticality of a mineral is not just related to energy transition but also to the aspects of defence, artificial intelligence, healthcare amongst a few more sectors. However, China strongly opposed any references to the critical minerals under the JTWP and is at loggerheads over the arguments of the developed countries
A new text that came out on November 21, the penultimate day of the UN climate summit, provides a clear picture of how things stand. The Presidency text strengthens the mechanism by outlining roles such as international cooperation, technical assistance, capacity-building, and knowledge-sharing. Additionally, references to transitioning away from fossil fuels and to the role of transitional fuels (like natural gas) and unilateral trade measures were removed entirely in the proposal of November 21.
On the Global Stocktake, the text included consideration of just transition pathways in aligning NDCs, NAPs, and LT-LEDS with GST outcomes. The language to strengthen developed-country obligations on means of implementation was diluted and instead the emphasis is now simply on the link between efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C and pursuing just transition pathways.
The final outcome on just transition may come out soon but how just it is, is yet to unfold.