Just transition governance: What can we do?

The urgent need for a global fossil fuel phaseout and a just energy transition have been at the center of climate negotiations in the last few years. Efforts by civil society and political leaders from some of the countries most impacted by the climate crisis have led to historic milestones in terms of institutional arrangements to make the transition a reality. However, the current challenges facing democracies and multilateralism raise a difficult question: how can we land these international wins in diverse contexts of climate denialism, green extractivism, or deregulation of socioenvironmental safeguards? 

This question was the starting point of the panel The governance of just energy transitions, which convened speakers from Sussex University, the People’s Climate Diplomacy Program, and INCLO members CELS and HCLU, environmental news media Mongabay as moderator. This was the first of the three-part INCLO webinar series Holding the Line: Just energy transitions amid democratic backsliding.

Fossil fuels: once ignored, now ‘hot’ topic

Despite being the primary driver of climate change, fossil fuels went entirely unmentioned in the first editions of the climate Conferences of the Parties (COP) back in the 1990s, as Peter Newell, professor of international relations at the University of Sussex, recalled. It was only a few years ago that the discussion around leaving fossil fuels behind and advancing a just energy transition took the center stage. 

So what do we talk about when we talk about just energy transition? As Ayshka Najib, a young activist and member of the People’s Climate Diplomacy Program explained, there has been a transformation of the concept, from its original focus on labour rights, to a broader understanding of justice. “An understanding that there are systemic levels of extraction, exploitation, and colonization that have driven and continue to drive the climate crisis, and just transition is an opportunity to address these underlying systemic barriers.”

Since 2021, there have been attempts under the United Nations framework to create mechanisms for advancing States’ actions towards an equitable phaseout and a just transition, without much progress. But in 2025, a diversity of civil society coalitions arrived at COP30 in Belém with a bold proposal: creating a Just Transition Mechanism to ensure implementation, action and support, knowledge building, international cooperation, transferring of resources, “and most importantly, a seat at the table for civil society and rights holders,” as Ayshka pointed. After endless discussions and attempts to block the initiative, the Just Transition Mechanism (also known as Belem Action Mechanism) was approved and included in the final COP text. 

In parallel scenarios, other milestones have been achieved that have built an international momentum on just transitions. On the one hand, two international courts issued advisory opinions confirming States’ obligations in regard to climate change. Additionally, the first International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, held in Santa Marta, Colombia, gathered over 60 countries around this discussion, including some of the world’s largest producers. 

Opportunities and setbacks for transition policies

Santa Marta was proof that there are countries willing to adopt different types of policies and measures to transition away from fossil fuels. Peter Newell has studied the origins and results of such policies across the world, including bans, moratoria, subsidy removals and restrictions on exports. He explained there are different drivers behind those policies: some countries put them in place because renewables appear as an economic opportunity, others do it when they have the pressure of hosting a climate conference, and others simply because their reserves are ending. In some cases, the initiative comes not from politicians but from social movements, such as the Ecuadorian referendum to end oil extraction in the Yasuní National Park, a biodiversity hotspot in the Amazon rainforest. 

Although phaseout policies in Ecuador, Costa Rica, Chile, Denmark, or Colombia came as a drop of hope, now they face political scenarios that put their implementation at a high risk. “All of these are potentially reversible victories that we need to fight for again and again”, said Peter. On top of the political shifts in each of these countries, powerful global interests opposing a world without fossil fuels add additional pressure, including “some of the richest companies in the world” and Trump who, especially in his second term, is “actively using the very significant power of the US to try and lock in economies to even greater use of fossil fuels”.

But it has been precisely the new oil wars triggered by the United States that came to remind world leaders of the risks of fossil fuel dependence. Impacts like the increase in gas prices within days of the attacks on Iran have motivated some governments to take measures to become more resilient to global shocks, such as developing their own industries and investing in renewables. 

Unjust transitions

The rise of authoritarian governments is threatening an energy transition grounded in justice for workers and communities. Argentina is an example of this. Since the arrival of Javier Milei in 2023, the country has become a magnet for external investors interested in extracting lithium, a mineral needed for renewable infrastructure such as batteries or electric vehicles. However, the country does not really have an energy transition agenda; “it is only seen as a way to attract investment, a performative attitude”, according to Manuel Tufró, from the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS). 

As a result, the lithium rush has come with a series of human rights violations of indigenous communities who resist the extraction and defend their water sources. What takes place in those territories is a model that Manuel calls “corporate governance”, where lithium companies manage social relations and promise to solve structural problems within communities, acting as intermediaries between those communities and the provincial government. Added to this governance system is a national government that is now taking a leading role in eliminating the environmental and social safeguards to ensure the investors always get a green light despite community concerns. 

Why is this the case if Argentina has a long-standing framework of safeguards for territorial, indigenous and environmental rights? According to Manuel, several factors made those standards difficult to implement even before the arrival of the current government, including a federal structure where the provincial authorities often decided to ignore those standards, together with a national government that only responded with emergency norms to structural problems. In other words, “many of the far right’s successes stem from the weakness of the pre-existing institutional framework”.

The democracy factor

Does it make any difference, then, to advocate for just transitions with or without a democracy? For Attila Szabó, from the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU), the answer is a clear yes. During the 16 year authoritarian regime of Viktor Orbán, Hungarians witnessed how the government relaxed environmental procedures and skipped public participation mechanisms with the aim of transforming the country into a battery “superpower” for electric vehicles.

In that difficult context, civil society organizations kept demanding their rights to access information and express their views on these projects, with the entire establishment working against them. That began to change after the 2026 elections, when Orbán’s party lost power and the country started opening up to democracy again. As Attila explained, it is now possible to access public information, have a say in decision-making, and carry out advocacy work without becoming a target of government stigmatization campaigns. Therefore, he calls to keep fighting for democracies everywhere, because “without democratical possibilities, a just transition is not possible.”

Pathways forward

“When governments falter, what can communities, trade unions, courts, cities, and social movements do to advance action and accountability?” This question, posed by moderator David Akana, framed the pathways each speaker outlined to drive just energy transitions amid democratic challenges and prevent repeating historical injustices.

• For Ayshka Najib, it is crucial for civil society to advocate for ensuring an ambitious development of the Belem Action Mechanism at COP31 in Antalya. In terms of preventing unjust transitions, she calls for human rights defenders to make use of  paragraph 12 of Decision 2CMA7, one of the agreements reached at COP30, as a tool to push for rights-based national just transition plans, embedding human rights, labor rights, gender equality, and Indigenous peoples’ rights.
• For Peter Newell, ensuring that states include concrete measures to phase out fossil fuels in their National Determined Contributions is a priority towards COP31. He also calls for advancing reforms to Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms to prevent major fossil fuel companies from suing states that are implementing phaseout policies.
• Peter also highlights the importance of including just transition dialogues, commissions, and oversight bodies in any phaseout policy to protect workers and create alternative employment. However, he warns that advancing them requires financing that does not generate debt burdens for developing nations.
• For Attila Szabó, local communities and movements are the foundation of any real energy transition. Without people on the ground standing up against extractive projects, mining, and unjust developments, there is no momentum for change. He calls for building networks capable of connecting local struggles globally.
• For Manuel Tufró, it is essential to dispute the legitimacy of extractivist projects in the public discourse, using artistic pressure, international solidarity, and corporate accountability strategies. He calls to resist the framing of energy transition debates as matters of national and hemispheric security, which could erode access to information and undermine international agreements. 
• Manuel also urges sustained pressure to keep states active and engaged in multilateral spaces. International networks and committed countries have a critical role in preventing states from abandoning these spaces.