From informal workers to small island communities, delegations are weighing how a proposed mechanism could provide practical assistance while respecting national priorities and avoiding duplication of existing institutions.
Delegations favour political oversight and a technical arm, but their mandates, financing and relationship with existing institutions remain unresolved.
Negotiators at COP31 have expressed broad support for a possible structure for a just transition mechanism, while differences remain over financial support, additional institutions and conditions attached to assistance.
The proposed mechanism is intended to support climate action that protects workers and communities while responding to countries’ different development needs.
During a contact group meeting on the Just Transition Work Programme under the UN climate convention’s subsidiary bodies, delegations outlined their preferred arrangements. The discussion indicated convergence on some design elements rather than an adopted agreement.
Political oversight and technical support
Delegations broadly favoured an arrangement combining a political or governing body with a separate, complementary technical arm.
Their respective mandates, responsibilities and working arrangements remain unsettled. Negotiators must also determine what assistance the technical arm would provide and how countries would access it.
Different priorities on finance and functions
The Environmental Integrity Group called for a voluntary approach driven by participating countries, without prescribing national policies. It proposed dialogue, knowledge exchange and coordination with organisations outside the UN climate process, while cautioning against establishing a new fund.
The African Group emphasised practical support for developing countries. It said the mechanism must address informal economies and limits on public spending, both of which affect governments’ ability to support workers and communities through the transition.
Brazil called for better access to finance, technology and capacity building, while avoiding processes that duplicate existing arrangements.
The European Union proposed a work plan covering policy dialogue, implementation across sectors, international cooperation, technical assistance and coordination with external bodies.
These positions overlap in several areas. Support for access to finance does not necessarily imply support for a new fund, while opposition to additional institutions does not automatically mean opposition to assistance.
The financing debate involves three distinct questions: how the mechanism’s operations would be funded, whether a new funding arrangement is needed, and how it would help countries obtain resources from existing sources.
Capacity, efficiency and rights
The Alliance of Small Island States called for technical assistance shaped by countries’ requests and tailored to the limited capacities of small island developing states.
Japan cautioned against creating additional bodies and favoured using existing programmes to improve efficiency.
Panama called for technical assistance guided by Indigenous Peoples and local communities, with their free, prior and informed consent.
The Arab Group stressed national sovereignty and technological neutrality, arguing against prescribing countries’ choice of technology. It also favoured guidance that leaves national policy choices to governments and opposed conditions attached to support.
These interventions raised questions about who would set priorities, how assistance would be delivered and how affected communities would participate in decisions.
Connecting participation with support
For workers and communities, the mechanism’s practical value will depend on whether it connects national transition plans with accessible assistance.
Sohanur Rahman, executive coordinator of YouthNet Global, called for participation to be matched by resources and just financing for fair climate transition.
“Workers and communities must have a say in decisions affecting their livelihoods. The mechanism should connect that participation with accessible finance, skills and social protection, especially for informal workers, women and young people,” he said.
Negotiators still need to define the technical arm’s mandate, its relationship with existing institutions and how countries would obtain support. Those decisions will determine what the proposed mechanism can deliver for workers and communities.
