Brazil Has a Historical Opportunity to Deliver a Just Transition Work Programme That Upholds Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Safeguard Ecosystems
By Bryan Bixcul (Maya-Tz’utujil), SIRGE Coalition Global Coordinator
As SB62 concludes in Bonn, the world now turns to Brazil, the incoming COP30 presidency, with cautious optimism. Brazil has a historic opportunity, and responsibility, to ensure that the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) becomes a vehicle for real justice, not empty promises. This must include strong recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, protection of ecosystems, and clear safeguards against harmful activities carried out in the name of the transition.
The Just Transition Work Programme: What It Is and Why It Matters
The JTWP was established at COP27 in 2022 and further defined at COP28 in 2023 as a response to long-standing calls to ensure that climate action is fair, inclusive, and equitable. Its purpose is to guide how countries develop “just transition pathways” that support workers, communities, and the most affected populations as economies shift toward low-carbon futures.
At COP29 in Baku, however, the Work Programme failed to reach a decision. The talks collapsed over deep disagreements, particularly around whether to include references to phasing out fossil fuels, human rights, and the rights of Indigenous Peoples. What had started as a promising process was ultimately shut down by political resistance and entrenched corporate interests.
For Indigenous Peoples, the stakes are high. Activities under the JTWP must fully respect Indigenous Peoples’ right to Self-determination and the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). As countries reconfigure their economies, energy systems, and mobility infrastructure, a new wave of extractivism, driven by demand for transition minerals like lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, and large-scale renewable energy projects, is increasingly encroaching on Indigenous Peoples lands without consent. This threatens not only the rights, livelihoods, and cultures of Indigenous Peoples but also the integrity of the ecosystems they have protected since time immemorial. These lands are essential for carbon sequestration and biodiversity protection, and multiple studies have shown that Indigenous-managed territories often have equal or better conservation outcomes than state-protected areas.
What Happened at SB62? Informal Progress, Cautious Optimism
At the June 2025 session in Bonn, Parties returned to the negotiating table. Instead of a new draft decision, the co-chairs issued an informal note, under their own responsibility. It holds no formal status and was intended to assist discussions, not serve as an agreed-upon outcome.
Even as this is only an informal note, it is a good basis for negotiations as Indigenous Peoples rights, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are referenced in the operative text. This reflects strong advocacy from Indigenous representatives and support from several parties. For example, paragraph 11(h) explicitly mentions the importance of respecting Indigenous Peoples rights when designing just transition pathways.
However, major gaps remain. Drawing from the Indigenous Peoples Constituency’s official intervention at SB62, several key demands are still missing or inadequately reflected:
Paragraph 11(c), while it references Indigenous Peoples’ broad and meaningful participation, it must also acknowledge Indigenous Peoples’ collective rights, Self-determined governance systems, and the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent.
Paragraph 11(g) must clarify that energy security strategies must also respect human rights, including Indigenous Peoples’ rights.
Furthermore, the formulation of paragraph 11(g) in the informal note is deeply problematic. None of the current options explicitly commits to phasing out fossil fuels, an omission that mirrors the breakdown of negotiations at COP29, where references to fossil fuels, human rights, and Indigenous Peoples’ rights became points of contention. Option 1 makes only a vague reference to the “opportunities” of transitioning away from fossil fuels, while Option 2 strips the text of any mention of transitions altogether. This creates a loophole that could allow parties to avoid addressing the fossil fuel phase-out entirely. To prevent this, we recommend that the text clearly call for a just and time-bound transition away from fossil fuels, in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement. This would ground the Work Programme in both climate science and equity, ensuring that justice is not sacrificed for the sake of political compromise.
Indigenous Peoples are also calling for explicit recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Voluntary Isolation and Initial Contact (PIACI) in Paragraph 11(h). This paragraph speaks to applying a gender-based and rights-based approach to the just transition, and it is the right place to recognize the rights of PIACI.
Nature-based solutions are referenced in paragraph 11(k) without safeguards. These can be harmful when imposed without FPIC or meaningful participation from Indigenous Peoples.
In the absence of language addressing the negative impacts of mining and renewable energy infrastructure associated with the energy transition on Indigenous lands, Indigenous Peoples proposed a new subparagraph [11(l)]. This paragraph should affirm respect for Indigenous Peoples’ right to Self-determination and to FPIC. It must also explicitly reference and affirm the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Voluntary Isolation and Initial Contact, and recognize the need to confront the social, cultural, and environmental harms caused by extractive projects undertaken in the name of the just transition.
Paragraph 18, which references UNDRIP, needs to be expanded to also recognize other instruments relevant to the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Voluntary Isolation and Initial Contact, including the Precautionary Principle and the Principle of no Contact, as well as other regional human rights decisions and relevant international reports, such as the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on CETM report Resourcing the Energy Transition: Principles to guide critical energy transition minerals toward equity and justice.
There is no recognition that adequate resources will be needed to support Indigenous Peoples’ meaningful participation in the implementation phase of the JTWP.
In short, while progress has been made, it is far from sufficient.
Looking Ahead: The Fourth Dialogue and the Stakes for Paragraph 11
The Fourth Dialogue of the Just Transition Work Programme, expected around September 2025, will be a key moment to influence the next draft of the JTWP outcome, particularly paragraph 11, which currently includes a placeholder for “key messages” from this dialogue. This makes the Dialogue not just a procedural requirement but a crucial political space to influence the substance of the JTWP.
There are strong signals that the focus of the Fourth Dialogue will be the energy sector, making it the right forum to confront the social, cultural, and environmental impacts of transition-related extractivism, including mining for transition minerals and large-scale renewable energy projects. These projects often proceed on Indigenous Peoples’ lands without FPIC, threatening Indigenous Peoples’ lives and ecosystems.
Previous JTWP dialogues have included a formal call for inputs, where Parties, observers, and stakeholders were invited to propose agenda topics. We anticipate a similar process this time. Indigenous Peoples’ organizations, environmental justice groups, and allies should prepare to submit recommendations that ensure mining and renewable infrastructure impacts are central to the Dialogue agenda.
To stay informed, monitor the UNFCCC Just Transition Work Programme webpage, and sign up for notifications from the UNFCCC Secretariat. Once the call for inputs opens, there will be only a short window to shape what gets discussed.
Choosing the Right Path: Options in Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28 outlines three options for how the Just Transition Work Programme could be implemented beyond COP30:
Option 1: Improve existing modalities
Option 2: Establish new institutional arrangements (e.g. toolbox, guidance framework, global platform, technical assistance network, mechanism)
Option 3: Defer decision to 2026
Among these, Option 2 presents the most promising path. Simply refining current modalities may not be sufficient to address the structural gaps in participation, accountability, and implementation that continue to undermine just transition efforts. Deferring the decision by another year would basically mean another failure to act.
Establishing a new global platform would enable the JTWP to be implemented through a dedicated, inclusive, and rights-based approach. Such a platform must:
Embed meaningful participation of Indigenous Peoples, recognizing them as rights-holders, not stakeholders
Support just transition implementation through technical assistance and capacity building rooted in Indigenous Peoples and human rights frameworks
Ensure adequate resources to support the participation of Indigenous Peoples and other rights-holders, including for sustained engagement in dialogues, implementation, and monitoring
Be informed by key international frameworks, including the findings of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals
Brazil’s Role: A Legacy and a Responsibility
Brazil enters the presidency of COP30 with considerable political capital. As host of the 1992 Earth Summit, where the three sister conventions were born, including the UNFCCC, Brazil has long played a foundational role in international environmental diplomacy. Its negotiators are known for their skill and ability to broker complex deals.
But this legacy also brings responsibility. Any attempt to sacrifice human rights or Indigenous Peoples’ rights for the sake of reaching consensus would not only undermine the credibility of the JTWP, but it would also betray the principles launched in Rio over three decades ago. A just transition cannot be built on the exclusion or dispossession of Indigenous Peoples.
Looking Forward to Belém
As we look toward COP30 in Belém, we are reminded that justice doesn’t reside in rhetorical statements or speeches. It must be embedded in the details: the language of decisions, the design of institutions, the allocation of resources, in broad and inclusive participation, and the integrity of the process itself.
Indigenous Peoples have laid out clear, constructive proposals for ensuring that the Just Transition Work Programme delivers justice. The Parties to the UNFCCC Convention must now choose a path that delivers a truly just transition, for the sake of humanity and the 8.7 million species that share this planet with us.
