Just Transition Negotiations at SB64: From Political Commitment to Effective Implementation
By Maggie Rochi and Zilan Linnéa Hansen
After the big win of civil society last year with the commitment of parties to establish and operationalise a mechanism, there was a lot of hope for the Just Transition negotiations at the sixty-fourth session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB64).
The negotiations surrounded three main points: (a) the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the renewal of the United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), (b) the outcomes and key findings of the sixth dialogue on just transition on the food and agriculture sector and (c) the operationalisation of the mechanism.
ToR
Under decision 3/CMA.5, para. 3 that established the Work Programme, a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the work programme must be undertaken, ahead of the consideration of its continuation this year at CMA8. However, the lengthy discussion of the Terms of Reference over procedural questions and formalities to undertake the review became a barrier to substantive and thorough discussion on the remaining points on the agenda. Parties debated, for instance, what to include as the objectives and elements of the review, whether modalities should be reviewed and whether to consider the mapping of relevant instruments, initiatives and processes on just transition in the review. Although these are in effect relevant questions to be addressed, these procedural and formal issues are generally undertaken following UNFCCC precedent; thus, the detailed discussions and the political friction generated on these points could have well been avoided, allowing for discussions on substantive issues to carry on. The agreement reached on the ToR is included in the Annex to the Draft conclusions proposed by the Chairs.
Key findings from the 5th dialogue
15 key messages or principles deriving from the 5th dialogue held under the JTWP were included in the informal note of the negotiations, referring to inter alia coastal communities, gender-responsiveness, the informal work sector as well as traditional and indigenous knowledge sharing systems. Although there was initial debate on the key messages or principles during the negotiations, due to the ToR becoming central during the debate, the key findings included in the informal notes circulated by the Chairs remained the same over the course of the SBs and will potentially be further discussed during COP31.
There are significant gaps in the messages included thus far in the informal note, particularly on gender-differentiated impacts in food systems—including calls to redistribute and recognise care work, guarantee rural women's meaningful participation in decision-making, and protect rural women from exposure to agrochemicals and other hazardous substances. Additionally, it would be critical to address intellectual property rights, which were likewise absent from the key messages, despite their direct relevance for just transition pathways in agriculture and food systems. It is necessary to balance IP frameworks with States' human rights obligations, safeguarding Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' authority over their knowledge and innovations, and preventing the expansion of IP regimes over seeds and plant varieties from undermining food sovereignty.
Operationalisation of the BAM
Paragraph 24 of Decision 2/CMA.7 includes the mandate to develop and operationalise a mechanism at CMA8 in November. During the negotiations, parties firstly shared their individual priorities, touching on issues related to means of implementation and ranging from enhanced dialogues to financing and cooperation. The different contact groups held showed support for the mechanism to go beyond the existing mandate of the JTWP, by not only allowing knowledge sharing but also strengthening existing initiatives, encouraging technology transfer, supporting policy-making and implementation at the national level. By focusing on implementation, this new scope would go beyond a merely consultative forum. The provided capacities would especially benefit those States that have limited institutional and financial capacity to begin their just transitions. The ambition to operationalise was questioned by some States that argued the mechanism should be limited to function as a platform to exchange information, despite that being the focus of the JTWP as an SBSTA/SBI guided forum.
Discussion on the mechanism allowed for parties to deliver initial statements with a proposed vision for the mechanism, but could not reach a level of detail capable of delivering text on the structure and functions for the mechanism. The informal notes circulated during the SBs and the final version reflect the depth of the debate, including the vision for the mechanism, consisting of a skeleton on a potential proposal, but failing to operationalise that vision into the text.
After the ToR ended up taking up a significant part of the time of discussions held, it was clear that much more time was needed to hold further debate on the mechanism capable of leading to a detailed text to establish the mechanism in Antalya. Parties came up with a potential window for those debates: a late addition to the draft conclusions in paragraph 10 created the possibility of intersessional work to be done before COP31. This opens a critical window for further technical and political work on the new mechanism. That window must be used to ensure the mechanism can support implementation at the national level, strengthen international cooperation, enable technology transfer and guarantee meaningful participation by the people and communities most affected by climate and energy decisions.
The operationalisation of the mechanism must put people at the centre: a truly just transition needs to promote social justice and human rights, including the rights of women, children and people with disabilities. It must protect workers and align with international labour law to guarantee that the transformation of our societies towards sustainability does not leave workers behind. The mechanism needs to reduce existing and often intersecting inequalities, while at the same time creating sustainable and inclusive opportunities. The established mechanism should provide practical support, while further allowing for the promotion of international cooperation. Without these crucial elements, the commitment to a Just Transition risks remaining an aspiration rather than becoming a reality.
The road ahead towards Antalya
Although SB64 produced fewer concrete outcomes than hoped, it was able to identify the priorities that will shape negotiations leading to COP31 in Antalya. The limitations of contemporary international climate negotiations and multilateralism have once again become visible, underlining the indispensability of civil society engagement. At the same time, the Bonn June climate meetings made clear that significant technical and political work remains necessary before Parties can reach an agreement on burning questions around the operationalisation of the BAM. Consequently, the period between SB64 and COP31 will be decisive for determining whether the momentum created in Belém can be translated into meaningful institutional progress and implementation.
While State parties highlighted the party-driven nature of the UNFCCC negotiations, the importance of continued engagement by civil society, feminist organisations and other stakeholders should not be disregarded. Throughout the negotiations, civil society and constituencies contributed legal expertise, policy proposals, local and indigenous knowledge and coordinated advocacy aiming at strengthening human rights protection, gender equality and meaningful participation within climate governance. The international climate regime must extend beyond State parties as it benefits from diverse perspectives and knowledge capable of improving both the legitimacy and effectiveness of negotiated outcomes.
Strategic procedural disputes, differing national priorities and diverging interests all slowed down the progress required to tackle the urgent climate emergency. More efficient and actionable formats that go beyond simple dialogue are needed. While exchange of best practises and knowledge sharing is of utmost importance, what is necessary are tools that allow for country-specific transitions. In accordance with the COP31-presidencies’ ambition, the negotiations in Antalya need to move from planning to implementation, hence operationalising the BAM as a full institutional framework allowing for enhanced international cooperation as well as technology transfer. Transition pathways need to be human-rights centred and gender just. The institutional architecture of the mechanism must allow for meaningful engagement of women and gender-diverse people, workers, indigenous people and local communities, youth and children, as well as people with disabilities.
Author:
Maggie Rochi
Maggie works as Programme Officer on Climate and Environmental Justice for the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. She is an international lawyer working on the intersections between gender, human rights, environmental and economic law. Prior to joining GI-ESCR, she worked dealing with the protection of economic and social rights in Argentina, at an NGO focused on strategic litigation and as a clerk in the judiciary. She holds an LL.B. and a J.D. from the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, where she specialised in International Law and an LL.M from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Switzerland.
Author:
Zilan Linnéa Hansen
Linnéa is a student assistant to Prof. Dr. h.c. Anne Peters at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg. She studies law at the Ruprecht Karls University Heidelberg with a focus on public international law. Linnéa was a visiting master's student in Aberystwyth, Wales, where she studied International Human Rights. Her recent publications arefocused on International Environmental Law and International Humanitarian Law.