COP 30 in Belém delivered one of the most consequential outcomes on just transition under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to date: the Parties agreed to develop a Just Transition Mechanism “to enhance international cooperation, technical assistance, capacity-building and knowledge-sharing, and enable equitable, inclusive just transitions.” This marks the first time the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP)—launched in 2022 and operationalised in 2023—has been given a forward-looking institutional pathway, rather than a mandate centred primarily on dialogue and exchange.

Yet the decision uses the word “develop” rather than “establish,” which had appeared in earlier proposals. And, instead of launching the mechanism at COP 30, the Parties requested that the Subsidiary Bodies, at their sixty-fourth session in June 2026, recommend a draft decision “on the process for its operationalisation” for adoption at COP 31 in November 2026. While overall this represents a major step in the evolution of the JTWP, the practical delivery of support to countries, workers, and communities is still some time away—despite the urgent need to scale up just transition efforts now.

Convergence Towards an Institutional Outcome

Throughout the year, and again in Belém, developing countries have emphasised the need for a stronger institutional framework for the JTWP, noting that many countries require concrete support to design and implement just transition pathways. This is especially true where fiscal space is limited, institutional capacity is constrained, and socio-economic vulnerabilities are high.

Other Parties preferred more incremental approaches. The European Union (EU) proposed a just transition action plan managed by the Secretariat, while the UK, Canada, Norway, and others supported a policy toolbox to capture good practices and guidance. Several developed countries highlighted concerns about establishing a new mechanism without dedicated resources, stressing the importance of avoiding duplication with existing arrangements under the convention and the Paris Agreement.

During negotiations, it became clear that developing countries remained united behind their proposal, and that observers—including labour unions, Indigenous Peoples’ organisations, and youth—strongly supported a more actionable JTWP, often referring to the prospective mechanism as the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM). This consolidated support led to the agreement to develop such a mechanism.

A Stronger Rights-Based and Inclusive Foundation for Just Transition

Negotiations on gender and rights were delicate. Some Parties opposed direct references to “gender- and human-rights-based approaches” to just transitions, while others proposed footnotes referencing regressive domestic gender definitions. These elements were ultimately removed.

The Belém decision contains the strongest gender- and rights-based framing ever adopted in a COP decision on just transition. It emphasises the importance of respecting, promoting, and fulfilling human rights and labour rights; the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment; and the individual and collective rights of Indigenous Peoples, including self-determination and Free, Prior and Informed Consent. It also recognises the rights and needs of people of African descent, local communities, migrants, internally displaced persons, informal workers, women, youth, children, older people, disabled people, and people in vulnerable situations. The final outcome reflects a robust rights-based foundation and goes well beyond earlier decisions, which only included the requirement to “respect, promote and consider” obligations on human rights – a formulation that was weaker because it merely required governments to take note of their self-defined obligations, rather than to actively realise these rights in practice.

The Belém decision contains the strongest gender- and rights-based framing ever adopted in a COP decision on just transition.

Meaningful participation is highlighted throughout. The text underscores broad and inclusive participation involving workers affected by transitions, informal workers, Indigenous Peoples, youth, women, people of African descent, and others. It also stresses the importance of social dialogue, decent work, quality jobs, education, skills development, and social protection systems in shaping fair and inclusive pathways.

The decision also marks a shift in the narrative of just transition. While the 2023 decision emphasised mitigating the potential negative impacts of the transition, the COP 30 outcome presents just transition as a contributor to accelerated climate action, strengthening mitigation and adaptation outcomes. Adaptation and resilience are further described as “integral” to just transition pathways, reflecting their importance for communities on the front line of climate impacts. A clear connection was also made between just transition pathways and ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems, as well as protecting biodiversity.

The Role of National Circumstances and Links to UNFCCC and Other Processes

Another defining element of the Belém decision is the strong emphasis on national determination. Parties emphasise that just transitions must be “tailored to national circumstances,” based on “nationally defined development priorities,” and pursued in ways that acknowledge that “there is no one-size-fits-all approach.” This applies not only to mitigation but also to adaptation, reaffirming that transition pathways will unfold differently across economies, sectors, and communities.

The decision further clarifies that just transition pathways should be implemented at the national level through national plans, policies, and strategies, including nationally determined contributions (NDCs), national adaptation plans (NAPs), and long-term low-emission development strategies (LT-LEDS). This anchoring in existing UNFCCC instruments signals that just transition will become increasingly woven into the Paris Agreement’s implementation cycle.

Importantly, the decision also “invites the JTWP to integrate the outcomes of the first Global Stocktake (GST) relevant to just transition.” This establishes a formal link between the JTWP and the Paris Agreement’s five-year ambition cycle, indicating more structured follow-up through future NDCs, NAPs, and long-term strategies.

The decision further reaffirms that just transitions are multisectoral and multidimensional, requiring holistic, whole-of-economy approaches that extend beyond the energy sector and workforce impacts.

Due to a strong push from developed countries (such as those in the EU), the final decision also places strong emphasis on enhancing links with efforts both inside and outside the UNFCCC. This recognises the value of building on relevant work undertaken under and beyond the convention and the Paris Agreement. It also underscores that external instruments and initiatives—such as the International Labour Organization Guidelines for a Just Transition, the UN Global Accelerator on Jobs and Social Protection, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—provide elements relevant to nationally determined just transition pathways. To support this, the decision asks the UNFCCC Secretariat to map relevant instruments, initiatives, and processes under the convention, the Paris Agreement, and the wider UN system to support JTWP implementation.

Support, Finance, and the Realities Confronting Developing Countries

Developing countries highlighted structural barriers to planning and implementing just transition efforts during the negotiations, many of which are reflected in the final decision. The text recognises that the principles of “equity” and “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” should guide just transitions; and it acknowledges the limited institutional capacity, implementation gaps, and financial and technical constraints of developing countries. It notes that widening adaptation finance gaps may hinder the pursuit of just transition pathways, and it stresses the importance of providing support that avoids exacerbating debt burdens. It recalls the continuing essential need for scaled-up, new, and additional grant-based and highly concessional finance, as well as increased access to non-debt instruments.

The decision further reaffirms that just transitions are multisectoral and multidimensional, requiring holistic, whole-of-economy approaches that extend beyond the energy sector and workforce impacts.

Other Key Topics Under Discussion

Energy was an especially sensitive topic area. Early draft texts for the decision contained references to transitioning away from fossil fuel, phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, and identifying socio-economic opportunities in the fossil fuel phase out, but also the role of “transition fuels.” None of these formulations were retained. Instead, the final decision includes a reference to the inherent connection between pursuing efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 °C and pursuing just transition pathways. It also focuses on areas of broad agreement: universal access to clean, reliable, and affordable energy; access to clean cooking; and renewable energy deployment and energy efficiency, linked with their gains in energy security.

Another contentious issue was unilateral climate-related trade measures. Several developing countries argued that such measures negatively affect their economies and climate efforts, while developed countries maintained that the JTWP was not the appropriate forum. As no agreement emerged, the issue was not included in the final decision.

Earlier drafts of the decision featured references to the social and environmental risks associated with scaling up supply chains for critical minerals and clean energy technologies—the first time such references had appeared in a JTWP draft text. These were ultimately removed, but their presence in the drafts highlights the growing relevance of supply-chain issues in transition planning.

The Year Ahead: Designing the Mechanism and Reviewing the JTWP

The next year will be decisive. Parties and observers are invited to submit their views on the operationalisation of the Just Transition Mechanism by 15 March 2026 so that a draft decision can be adopted at COP 31. In parallel, the JTWP will undergo its first effectiveness and efficiency review, which will help to shape its next phase of work.

In summary, the Belém decision establishes a clear political direction for a Just Transition Mechanism and significantly strengthens the rights-based and nationally determined foundation of just transition under the UNFCCC. But many practical questions remain. COP 30 set the course; 2026 will determine whether the mechanism can spur real action on developing and implementing just transition pathways to protect workers and communities.