By Baboloki Semele: For years, the concept of a “just transition” has lingered at the margins of international climate negotiations treated more as an aspirational slogan than a concrete workstream. But this year’s climate talks in Bonn marked a shift in tone and priority. Thispublication followed proceedings virtually and made a thorough analysis, borrowing from experts in attendance. Under the Brazilian presidency’s leadership, just transition has been elevated to one of the top three priorities for COP30 in Belém, alongside the Global Goal on Adaptation and implementing the outcomes of the first global stocktake.

“We are not anymore the sort of black sheep at the end, negotiating at 9pm when no one is paying attention,” said Anabella Rosemberg, senior advisor on transition at Climate AInternational. “I’m optimistic, because I feel like the soil is a bit more fertile.”

The Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), first launched at COP27, was previously marred by inadequate time slots, poor logistical support, and lack of political prioritization. Its failure to reach an agreement in Baku last year added to the frustrations. But in Bonn, negotiators saw a notable shift: more space, more time, and more serious engagement. The JTWP has also grown in scope. During Bonn’s opening agenda fight, discussions on unilateral trade measures, a highly contentious issue, were folded into the JTWP track. This underscored the programme’s growing relevance, but also revealed deep geopolitical divides. Global North countries pushed for a narrow focus on labour-market issues: reskilling workers, protecting jobs, and managing the shift away from fossil fuels. But many developing nations, especially from the Global South argued for a broader, systemic approach. For them, a just transition must also address poverty eradication, economic diversification, human rights, and access to finance. Negotiators disagreed over several points in the draft texts, including the inclusion of trade measures, language around human rights and Indigenous Peoples, pathways to 1.5°C, and critically, means of implementation (MoI), a persistent sticking point in nearly every area of climate talks.

Antonio Hill, advisor at the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), noted that while the JTWP talks were more amenable than other tracks, finance remained a looming obstacle: “Even if things kind of were looking decent, things could get held up because of bigger forces.”

Another point of divergence was the fate of the JTWP itself. The programme is scheduled to end in November 2026, but several parties are now calling for a more permanent institutional arrangement to carry forward its work. While some countries, such as the UK, felt it was premature to discuss post-2026 plans, civil society groups celebrated the inclusion of this option in the latest informal text.

Rosemberg called it a big win, while the ECO newsletter described the proposed Belém Action Mechanism for Just Transition as a promising pathway toward integrating social equity into economy-wide climate transitions. The informal note published on 23 June included several positive developments. For the first time, it was explicitly suggested that just transition should be incorporated into countries’ national climate plans (NDCs). The note also highlighted the importance of making climate finance available to support the social dimensions of the transition, an inclusion that was widely praised. However, the text remains riddled with unresolved issues. A revised version released on 25 June saw few major changes, save for new options in paragraph 25 addressing trade-related impacts. Most parties including the EU, the UK, AOSIS, the LDC Group, and the Philippines supported forwarding the current text to COP30 without further edits. Still, not everyone was satisfied. Paraguay objected to gender-based language, while Russia demanded a reference to unilateral trade measures. Meanwhile, the LMDCs and Arab Group pushed to modify language on clean energy, leading to three competing options in paragraph 11.g including a “no text” fallback. Despite these tensions, civil society actors remained hopeful.

 Dr. Leon Sealey-Huggins of War on Want described the current draft as a good basis for Brazil to build upon in Belém, potentially serving as an 

“anchor for our movements on the outside.”

As with other key issues in Bonn; from adaptation to loss and damage, progress on just transition cannot be separated from finance. The Global South continues to argue that without predictable, public, and grant-based finance, just transition risks becoming yet another hollow concept. Developing countries are increasingly calling for climate finance to be linked not just to emissions reduction, but to justice-oriented outcomes: equitable access to clean energy, reskilling of fossil-fuel workers, and protection for communities most vulnerable to both climate impacts and economic disruption. The $300 billion annual climate finance goal set at COP29 remains a reference point, but one that many see as inadequate. With rising debt, shrinking aid, and global economic uncertainty, negotiators in Belém will need to confront the reality that delivering a just transition requires more than good intentions. It demands money, structure, and political resolve.

Looking Ahead to Belém

While far from resolved, the JTWP negotiations in Bonn showed that just transition is no longer relegated to the sidelines. It now commands space on the main stage of global climate diplomacy. The next challenge is to keep it there and to ensure that it delivers meaningful outcomes, especially for those most affected by the transition. Brazil’s stewardship of COP30 will be critical. As the host country, it holds a unique position to bridge divides between North and South, and between ambitious rhetoric and practical delivery. As Rosemberg put it, “We have to try to keep (these positive elements) for as long as possible.” Whether the just transition momentum survives the political frictions of COP30 and translates into real change will be a defining test for climate justice in 2025.By Baboloki Semele: For years, the concept of a “just transition” has lingered at the margins of international climate negotiations treated more as an aspirational slogan than a concrete workstream. But this year’s climate talks in Bonn marked a shift in tone and priority. Thispublication followed proceedings virtually and made a thorough analysis, borrowing from experts in attendance. Under the Brazilian presidency’s leadership, just transition has been elevated to one of the top three priorities for COP30 in Belém, alongside the Global Goal on Adaptation and implementing the outcomes of the first global stocktake.

“We are not anymore the sort of black sheep at the end, negotiating at 9pm when no one is paying attention,” said Anabella Rosemberg, senior advisor on transition at Climate AInternational. “I’m optimistic, because I feel like the soil is a bit more fertile.”

The Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), first launched at COP27, was previously marred by inadequate time slots, poor logistical support, and lack of political prioritization. Its failure to reach an agreement in Baku last year added to the frustrations. But in Bonn, negotiators saw a notable shift: more space, more time, and more serious engagement. The JTWP has also grown in scope. During Bonn’s opening agenda fight, discussions on unilateral trade measures, a highly contentious issue, were folded into the JTWP track. This underscored the programme’s growing relevance, but also revealed deep geopolitical divides. Global North countries pushed for a narrow focus on labour-market issues: reskilling workers, protecting jobs, and managing the shift away from fossil fuels. But many developing nations, especially from the Global South argued for a broader, systemic approach. For them, a just transition must also address poverty eradication, economic diversification, human rights, and access to finance. Negotiators disagreed over several points in the draft texts, including the inclusion of trade measures, language around human rights and Indigenous Peoples, pathways to 1.5°C, and critically, means of implementation (MoI), a persistent sticking point in nearly every area of climate talks.

Antonio Hill, advisor at the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), noted that while the JTWP talks were more amenable than other tracks, finance remained a looming obstacle: “Even if things kind of were looking decent, things could get held up because of bigger forces.”

Another point of divergence was the fate of the JTWP itself. The programme is scheduled to end in November 2026, but several parties are now calling for a more permanent institutional arrangement to carry forward its work. While some countries, such as the UK, felt it was premature to discuss post-2026 plans, civil society groups celebrated the inclusion of this option in the latest informal text.

Rosemberg called it a big win, while the ECO newsletter described the proposed Belém Action Mechanism for Just Transition as a promising pathway toward integrating social equity into economy-wide climate transitions. The informal note published on 23 June included several positive developments. For the first time, it was explicitly suggested that just transition should be incorporated into countries’ national climate plans (NDCs). The note also highlighted the importance of making climate finance available to support the social dimensions of the transition, an inclusion that was widely praised. However, the text remains riddled with unresolved issues. A revised version released on 25 June saw few major changes, save for new options in paragraph 25 addressing trade-related impacts. Most parties including the EU, the UK, AOSIS, the LDC Group, and the Philippines supported forwarding the current text to COP30 without further edits. Still, not everyone was satisfied. Paraguay objected to gender-based language, while Russia demanded a reference to unilateral trade measures. Meanwhile, the LMDCs and Arab Group pushed to modify language on clean energy, leading to three competing options in paragraph 11.g including a “no text” fallback. Despite these tensions, civil society actors remained hopeful.

 Dr. Leon Sealey-Huggins of War on Want described the current draft as a good basis for Brazil to build upon in Belém, potentially serving as an 

“anchor for our movements on the outside.”

As with other key issues in Bonn; from adaptation to loss and damage, progress on just transition cannot be separated from finance. The Global South continues to argue that without predictable, public, and grant-based finance, just transition risks becoming yet another hollow concept. Developing countries are increasingly calling for climate finance to be linked not just to emissions reduction, but to justice-oriented outcomes: equitable access to clean energy, reskilling of fossil-fuel workers, and protection for communities most vulnerable to both climate impacts and economic disruption. The $300 billion annual climate finance goal set at COP29 remains a reference point, but one that many see as inadequate. With rising debt, shrinking aid, and global economic uncertainty, negotiators in Belém will need to confront the reality that delivering a just transition requires more than good intentions. It demands money, structure, and political resolve.

Looking Ahead to Belém

While far from resolved, the JTWP negotiations in Bonn showed that just transition is no longer relegated to the sidelines. It now commands space on the main stage of global climate diplomacy. The next challenge is to keep it there and to ensure that it delivers meaningful outcomes, especially for those most affected by the transition. Brazil’s stewardship of COP30 will be critical. As the host country, it holds a unique position to bridge divides between North and South, and between ambitious rhetoric and practical delivery. As Rosemberg put it, “We have to try to keep (these positive elements) for as long as possible.” Whether the just transition momentum survives the political frictions of COP30 and translates into real change will be a defining test for climate justice in 2025.By Baboloki Semele: For years, the concept of a “just transition” has lingered at the margins of international climate negotiations treated more as an aspirational slogan than a concrete workstream. But this year’s climate talks in Bonn marked a shift in tone and priority. Thispublication followed proceedings virtually and made a thorough analysis, borrowing from experts in attendance. Under the Brazilian presidency’s leadership, just transition has been elevated to one of the top three priorities for COP30 in Belém, alongside the Global Goal on Adaptation and implementing the outcomes of the first global stocktake.

“We are not anymore the sort of black sheep at the end, negotiating at 9pm when no one is paying attention,” said Anabella Rosemberg, senior advisor on transition at Climate AInternational. “I’m optimistic, because I feel like the soil is a bit more fertile.”

The Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), first launched at COP27, was previously marred by inadequate time slots, poor logistical support, and lack of political prioritization. Its failure to reach an agreement in Baku last year added to the frustrations. But in Bonn, negotiators saw a notable shift: more space, more time, and more serious engagement. The JTWP has also grown in scope. During Bonn’s opening agenda fight, discussions on unilateral trade measures, a highly contentious issue, were folded into the JTWP track. This underscored the programme’s growing relevance, but also revealed deep geopolitical divides. Global North countries pushed for a narrow focus on labour-market issues: reskilling workers, protecting jobs, and managing the shift away from fossil fuels. But many developing nations, especially from the Global South argued for a broader, systemic approach. For them, a just transition must also address poverty eradication, economic diversification, human rights, and access to finance. Negotiators disagreed over several points in the draft texts, including the inclusion of trade measures, language around human rights and Indigenous Peoples, pathways to 1.5°C, and critically, means of implementation (MoI), a persistent sticking point in nearly every area of climate talks.

Antonio Hill, advisor at the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), noted that while the JTWP talks were more amenable than other tracks, finance remained a looming obstacle: “Even if things kind of were looking decent, things could get held up because of bigger forces.”

Another point of divergence was the fate of the JTWP itself. The programme is scheduled to end in November 2026, but several parties are now calling for a more permanent institutional arrangement to carry forward its work. While some countries, such as the UK, felt it was premature to discuss post-2026 plans, civil society groups celebrated the inclusion of this option in the latest informal text.

Rosemberg called it a big win, while the ECO newsletter described the proposed Belém Action Mechanism for Just Transition as a promising pathway toward integrating social equity into economy-wide climate transitions. The informal note published on 23 June included several positive developments. For the first time, it was explicitly suggested that just transition should be incorporated into countries’ national climate plans (NDCs). The note also highlighted the importance of making climate finance available to support the social dimensions of the transition, an inclusion that was widely praised. However, the text remains riddled with unresolved issues. A revised version released on 25 June saw few major changes, save for new options in paragraph 25 addressing trade-related impacts. Most parties including the EU, the UK, AOSIS, the LDC Group, and the Philippines supported forwarding the current text to COP30 without further edits. Still, not everyone was satisfied. Paraguay objected to gender-based language, while Russia demanded a reference to unilateral trade measures. Meanwhile, the LMDCs and Arab Group pushed to modify language on clean energy, leading to three competing options in paragraph 11.g including a “no text” fallback. Despite these tensions, civil society actors remained hopeful.

 Dr. Leon Sealey-Huggins of War on Want described the current draft as a good basis for Brazil to build upon in Belém, potentially serving as an 

“anchor for our movements on the outside.”

As with other key issues in Bonn; from adaptation to loss and damage, progress on just transition cannot be separated from finance. The Global South continues to argue that without predictable, public, and grant-based finance, just transition risks becoming yet another hollow concept. Developing countries are increasingly calling for climate finance to be linked not just to emissions reduction, but to justice-oriented outcomes: equitable access to clean energy, reskilling of fossil-fuel workers, and protection for communities most vulnerable to both climate impacts and economic disruption. The $300 billion annual climate finance goal set at COP29 remains a reference point, but one that many see as inadequate. With rising debt, shrinking aid, and global economic uncertainty, negotiators in Belém will need to confront the reality that delivering a just transition requires more than good intentions. It demands money, structure, and political resolve.

Looking Ahead to Belém

While far from resolved, the JTWP negotiations in Bonn showed that just transition is no longer relegated to the sidelines. It now commands space on the main stage of global climate diplomacy. The next challenge is to keep it there and to ensure that it delivers meaningful outcomes, especially for those most affected by the transition. Brazil’s stewardship of COP30 will be critical. As the host country, it holds a unique position to bridge divides between North and South, and between ambitious rhetoric and practical delivery. As Rosemberg put it, “We have to try to keep (these positive elements) for as long as possible.” Whether the just transition momentum survives the political frictions of COP30 and translates into real change will be a defining test for climate justice in 2025.