CGIAR@30: Just Transition Negotiation Updates

Climate action isn’t only about reducing emissions; it’s also about ensuring the shift to a green economy is fair and inclusive. This is the crux of the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) under the UNFCCC, which is gaining momentum as we head into COP30. Established at COP27 and fully operationalized at COP28, the JTWP provides, for the first time, a dedicated forum to advance equitable, people-centered climate action. The idea of a “just transition” centers on shifting to a low-carbon economy in a way that supports affected workers, communities, and industries. In practice, this means as we phase out fossil fuels or transform sectors like energy, agriculture, and transport, we simultaneously create decent jobs, protect livelihoods, and address social justice. Over the past year, a series of global and regional dialogues under the JTWP have delved into designing inclusive transition strategies – discussing how to retrain workers from polluting industries, how to ensure communities reliant on coal mines or industrial farming aren’t left behind, and how to integrate considerations of gender, youth, and indigenous rights into climate plans. However, COP29 in Baku ended without a formal decision on the JTWP’s future structure. This makes COP30 in Belém a critical juncture: countries must decide how to strengthen the work programme and move it from high-level talks to tangible outcomes. With Brazil putting social justice at the forefront, there’s optimism that COP30 could turn the JTWP into a real catalyst for action on the ground.

Whether JTWP should include Loss and Damage references, some developed Parties want L&D bracketed or removed, while developing countries groups oppose bracketing and insist on L&D relevance. Regarding Unilateral Trade Measures (UTM), continued disagreements on UTM with developing countries supporting option 1 (strong text on UM/CBAM as unfair) and developed countries resist UTM language. 

Regarding key messages in Paragraph 12, disagreements reflect broader ideological divides: energy transition, technology transfer, IP rights, critical minerals, finance/MOI, and equity. EIG suggested replacing “critical minerals” with “transition minerals” as bridging language. 

In 2024, CGIAR and FAO jointly submitted views to the UAE Just Transition Work Programme, advocating a comprehensive, people-centric approach. However, COP29 ended without agreement on the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), primarily due to disagreements between developed and developing countries over the scope, with developed nations favoring mitigation and developing nations emphasizing adaptation, finance, equity, and labour rights.

Just Transition is key for the agriculture sector, in CGIAR’s 2025 “Submission to the UNFCCC United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme – views relevant to the topic of the third dialogue” CGIAR stresses the importance of a just transition for agriculture, recognizing agrifood systems as both vulnerable to climate change and significant emission sources. The submission calls for capacity building, multistakeholder partnerships, and targeted social support.

What to Watch at COP30:

COP30 is poised to deliver a defining decision on the Just Transition Work Programme’s future. A top expectation is that Parties will agree on a clear mandate and structure for the JTWP moving forward. This could include establishing concrete elements like a toolbox of best practices, a technical assistance facility, or a global platform for just transition – all ideas floated in negotiations. CGIAR will be keen to see that any such toolbox or platform includes modules on agriculture and land use just transitions, not just energy and industry. For instance, a guidance framework might have chapters on transitioning smallholder farming systems or ensuring just rural adaptation. Another thing to watch is whether COP30 links the JTWP to financial and support mechanisms. Many parties have argued the program shouldn’t just be a talk shop – it needs to help countries access finance, technology, and capacity building for just transition efforts. We might see decisions encouraging the Green Climate Fund and others to integrate just transition criteria (e.g. funding projects that have social inclusion plans). For agriculture, this could translate into more funding for programs that retrain farmers, or invest in rural infrastructure to support new sustainable livelihoods (like renewable energy mini-grids for farming communities). CGIAR will also pay attention to the scope: whether just transition is framed broadly (covering mitigation and adaptation in all sectors) and whether principles like human rights, gender equality, and indigenous peoples’ knowledge are explicitly referenced as foundations of the program. A strong outcome would reaffirm that all climate actions – including those in food systems – should be assessed for their social impacts and designed to maximize social benefits. We also expect some countries to announce national Just Transition plans or commitments at COP30, given the spotlight. For example, a group of nations might pledge to develop sector-specific roadmaps (some could be agriculture-specific, like a plan for a climate-neutral and equitable rice sector by 2030). Such announcements often get made in COP high-level segments or initiatives, and CGIAR could be involved as a technical partner in crafting those roadmaps. Finally, COP30 will likely schedule continued dialogues or set up a working structure (annual high-level roundtables, etc.) for the JTWP through the next years up to COP31 and beyond. CGIAR stands ready to continue contributing research and on-the-ground insights to these dialogues, ensuring they remain grounded.

COP30 Day 3 – 12th November 2025

Discussions under the UAE Just Transition Work Programme revealed deep divisions over language referencing fossil fuel phase-out. Developed countries and several groups (AILAC, AOSIS) supported wording aligned with a 1.5°C pathway, emphasizing equitable transitions, clean energy access, and decent work. In contrast, other Parties objected to or sought to alter this framing, rejecting direct references to transitioning away from fossil fuels and the 1.5 limit. Developing Parties stressed that just transitions must be underpinned by predictable finance, technology transfer, and capacity building, grounded in equity and historical responsibility.

Parties broadly agreed that just transition pathways should reflect national circumstances and safeguard human rights, gender equality, and the right to development, with several calling for stronger mentions of indigenous peoples, informal workers, and vulnerable groups. Many also emphasized integrating adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage into just transition frameworks and pathways to ensure resilience and universal energy access. The session concluded with plans to further discuss institutional arrangements and areas of divergence, especially around fossil fuels and trade measures, with new draft text expected by Friday.

COP30 Day 4 – 13th November 2025

Negotiations continued with strong opposition from developing countries—including G77+China, LMDCs, AGN, the Arab Group, AOSIS, AILAC, and others—who argued that unilateral trade measures, particularly the CBAM, violate CBDR-RC, undermine development, and shift mitigation burdens onto the Global South, framing them as protectionist and contrary to the Paris Agreement. In contrast, the EU and UK defended their policies as WTO-compatible, equitable, and essential to preventing carbon leakage while supporting the 1.5°C goal. Several delegations also questioned whether trade issues should be addressed within the Just Transition Work Programme at all, with discussions centered on placement within the draft text. Overall, the exchanges underscored deep conceptual and political divides between those viewing UTMs as tools for climate ambition and those seeing them as obstacles to equity and development.

COP30 Week 1 Summary

The Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) proved to be one of the most polarized tracks in Week 1. This program, launched at COP28, aims to ensure that the shift to a low-carbon economy is fair and inclusive. Negotiations in Belém highlighted several faultlines between developed and developing countries, and by Friday there was little progress on a unified plan. 

A core debate is over institutional mechanisms and finance. The developing country bloc proposed creating a new implementation mechanism under the UNFCCC to coordinate just transition support, complete with predictable finance for developing countries’ transitions. They argue that without a structured mechanism, promises of “just” transitions will remain empty especially for communities reliant on high-carbon industries or smallholder farmers needing support to shift practices. Developed countries, pushed back, questioning the need for any new bureaucracy or funds, and preferring to use existing channels. 

Contention also flared over trade and energy issues. Developing groups  insisted the JTWP address unilateral trade measures like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, warning such policies could unfairly penalize their economies. Some even argued measures like CBAM contradict the principle of common-but-differentiated responsibilities. In response, the EU and others said trade measures lie outside the UNFCCC’s scope, proposing instead a more dialogue-oriented “Just Transition Action Plan” without new binding rules. Similarly, referencing fossil fuel phase-out proved divisive: many parties want the just transition framework to include moving away from coal, oil, and gas, but major exporters resisted any language on fossil fuels or even on “transitional fuels” like natural gas. 

Importantly, there are early signs that the agri-food systems agenda is beginning to surface within JTWP discussions. At least two countries raised the importance of food systems in the context of just transitions a notable step in a space long dominated by energy and industry. Earlier this year, CGIAR and partners made formal submissions advocating for the inclusion of agri-food systems in the JTWP, emphasizing the need to support smallholders and rural communities in managing the shift to low-emission agriculture. 

By week’s end, an informal note was issued reflecting divergent views with no consensus. CGIAR sees a strong JTWP as essential for enabling equitable transitions in agriculture. Bridging divides on finance, trade, and energy will be critical in Week 2 to deliver real support for rural communities. 

COP30 Day 7 – 17th November 2025

The negotiations show persistent divides between developed and developing blocs around equity, CBDR, and the role of fossil fuels. Agrifood-related language—especially on food security, smallholders, and rural resilience—receives general support, except India, which “Climate resilient food production” as a red line. Some parties oppose establishing a new institutional mechanism. They prefer enhancing existing UNFCCC bodies and non-prescriptive measures, often aligning with Option 3 or 4 in Para. 28. Several Parties converge around Norway’s formulation “human rights in approaches” rather than “human-rights based approaches.” This is in response to interventions noting that “human rights in approaches” is unclear and not universally defined in the multilateral process. Developing countries  want stronger CBDR-RC and equity references throughout, plus robust finance and MOI language, with LMDC requesting a paragraph added on the historical responsibility of Annex I countries. Developed countries want streamlined, less repetitive MOI sections and resist expanding CBDR framing.

The UK suggested streamlining several MOI-related paragraphs with language on financing as coming from “wide variety if sources.” This is a fundamental Global North–Global South fault line shaping several paragraphs.  Some Parties, including developed and small islands, support clearer fossil fuel transition language, while others oppose any explicit fossil fuel transition references and want technology-neutral wording, or no specific references to energy sources.  

On Agrifood Systems: On paragraph 12(f) – “rural economy actors, especially smallholder farmers and that contribute to the creation of green and decent jobs and climate-resilient food production.” Most parties agree or are indifferent to the inclusion of this language. India noted which “Climate resilient food production” is a “red line.” Many Parties support continuing work through the inf-inf process, indicating desire to continue working through this text and finalizing it.

COP30 Week 2 Summary

We can consider Just Transition outcomes as one of the bright sides of COP30. A new mechanism was adopted, the Belem Action Mechanism (BAM). Even when developed Parties initially rejected the creation of a new mechanism, this ended up in the agreed final text. However, this BAM is just a starting point as it is not yet operationalised, there is no detailed roadmap, timeline or dedicated funding, but it recognized and will try to address the needs of international cooperation, technical assistance, capacity building and knowledge sharing. 

Language on labour rights, human rights, indigenous peoples, gender equality and youth was also included in the final text. However, no language on fossil fuels, trade measures, and critical minerals made it to the final text, which is key to achieving an actual just transition. 

In the final text, smallholder farmers are included, noting the multisectoral and multidimensional nature of just transitions and the resultant need for whole-of-economy approaches to just transitions that engage the private sector, including micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, and rural economy actors, especially smallholder farmers, and that contribute to the creation of decent work and quality jobs and food production.