ECO 3, SB64
10 June 2026
Let’s make today Just Transition Day
Trade unions, social movements, Indigenous Peoples, People of African descent, feminist groups, youth, and civil society fought hard, and we got a breakthrough decision on Just Transition at COP30. But that was only the beginning. Momentum is growing. And expectations are high: COP31 must put people at the centre of climate policies and establish the Belém-Antalya Mechanism (BAM) for a Global Just Transition.
The BAM has to deliver practical, meaningful support for the workers, communities and countries trying to make Just Transition real.
When agreeing to develop a mechanism, Parties agreed that two dialogues and one ministerial a year was not enough for making climate action click with prosperity and social justice. Sure, reviewing the Work Programme is needed, but let’s keep our eye on the ball – we have a Mechanism to develop and launch in four months!
What can make this BAM transformational, ECO wondered? What will this mechanism do to “enhance international cooperation, technical assistance, capacity-building and knowledge sharing” and “enabling equitable, inclusive just transitions”?
So ECO wanted to share some questions to help provide guidance…
Will this mechanism support the roll out of the principles and key messages agreed at COP30?
Will the mechanism have the capacity to provide technical and financial support for Just Transition strategies and address the global barriers for a just transition?
Will the mechanism create the space for workers, communities and all the rightholders mentioned in the COP30 decision to come on board and have a say? Will it give their representatives a seat in its bodies?
If your answer to these questions is yes, ECO will welcome you as a BAMbassador outside the venue at 6pm tonight. And if your answer is no, well, you might still want to join the movement trying to make just transition happen – you might find some inspiration.
***
Tripling Needs a Home (Before the House Burns Down)
Everybody has the right to a home. Well, the global commitment to triple adaptation finance is currently wandering the sterile corridors of the UNFCCC, looking for one that isn’t locked. Sure, the Mutirao Decision provided a crucial footing, but the commitment remains untethered to any formal negotiation track, and remains, as such, homeless. As things stand, it has knocked on the doors of the Climate Finance Work Programme, Baku Adaptation Roadmap Workshop and Veredas Dialogue. Negotiating teams, however, don’t seem to be in a hurry to welcome it anywhere, leaving the newly adopted Belem commitment homeless.
ECO is confused about this precarity, when the tripling commitment already has a readily available home in the GGA, where it naturally belongs. ECO would like to recall that without adequate finance, the framework’s targets cannot be implemented. So let’s feed two birds with one scone. The task at hand is to operationalize the adaptation finance commitment agreed in Belém. At present, it has no baseline, no breakdown of its sources, and with no way to track or monitor. A clear and direct link must be established between the tripling commitment and GGA targets to give us the clarity we need. It also needs a delivery plan. Failing that, developed countries will continue to treat these obligations as just an exercise in empty articulation while the rest of the world suffers.
Outside the negotiations rooms, time has officially run out. For impacted communities, this is a literal lifeline that is dangerously close to snapping.
Communities are being left to face immediate, compounding climate disasters completely empty-handed, even as the El Niño bears down with devastating potential impacts, especially for countries and communities of the Global South. This nightmare is quickly and surely becoming the norm for the vast majority of the worlds’ peoples.
Finance is the priority of the hour, and it needs to be adequate, accessible, and, above all, fast. The bottom line: get adaptation finance a home, the futures of vulnerable communities cannot afford an endless shuffle.
***
Tax the rich and polluters: earn adoring fans back home, free up $$$
ECO can’t help but notice the recent wailing and gnashing of teeth from developed countries about their lack of fiscal space and subsequent need to raid the climate finance bucket. Yet, at the same time, policy choices are encouraging the wealth of billionaires to spiral, and the big fossil fuel corporations to increase their profits regardless of whether there’s an upturn or a downturn.
It seems strange that rich country governments would rather leave the Adaptation Fund, the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage and the Green Climate Fund desperate for cash, and worthy recipients and worthy projects go without, rather than taxing the rich or taxing the polluters. ECO finds this particularly strange since, again and again, public polling shows how popular taxing the rich and taxing the big polluting corporations is. Global polling shows that 8 out of 10 people support taxing oil and gas corporations to pay for climate damages, while between 57% and 75% agreed that it is wrong for oil and gas corporations to make huge profits without taking responsibility for the damage caused by their climate pollution.
ECO is here to point out the obvious, developed country governments, if you tax big polluting corporations and the super wealthy your citizens will thank you for it. And you’ll unlock a whole new source of finance for both climate adaptation and loss and damage at home and in the UNFCCC funds. This can only count as a win-win solution.
Whilst any time is a good time to tax the rich and big polluting corporations, opportunities are on the horizon to take steps towards fairness and receiving acclaim from your citizens. The opportunity is already knocking at Europe’s door. Following the latest spike in oil and gas prices, Spain, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Austria have urged the European Commission to consider a new EU-wide windfall tax on energy companies. ECO welcomes this renewed interest in making polluters pay which should be built on to deliver higher, permanent taxes on all fossil fuel profits, not just windfalls. Australia, COP31 President of Negotiations, could set a good example by turning around the situation where 1 in 3 Australian fossil fuel corporations pay no tax and instead, impose a new levy on big coal and gas corporations – which has the support of 60% of its citizens. France could seize the moment too. 7 in 10 French people support taxing fossil fuel superprofits, while 3 in 4 back an EU-wide initiative to do the same. On the day TotalEnergies announced its obscene profits for the first quarter of 2026, the French government floated the idea of a windfall tax only for the shameless fossil fuel giant to respond with a blunt threat: touch our profits, and French drivers will pay the price at the pump. Since then, the government has kept its head down.
Honestly rich countries, ECO thinks you’ll find taxing the rich and the super polluters much more fulfilling than raiding the already depleted climate finance bank.
***
Don’t kill the only mitigation space we have
Everyone in the UNFCCC universe seems to love the word “implementation” these days. It is being served in plenaries, sprinkled over speeches, and carefully folded into every Presidency roadmap.
But ECO has a small question for Parties: implementation of what and how, if the only formal mitigation-focused workstream has quietly turned into a polite talkshop?
The Mitigation Work Programme was not created as a platform for panel discussions over a cuppa. What we need from it are solid, actionable and equitable outcomes. The MWP was established to “urgently scale up mitigation ambition and implementation in this critical decade”. That means helping close the pre-2030 emissions gap, ensure the fair and equitable delivery of the Global Stocktake outcomes while informing stronger Nationally Determined Contributions, and identifying real solutions that can be implemented, financed and tracked.
The reality of the MWP however holds practically no resemblance to these expectations. In fact its very existence seems to have been reduced to a disparate collection of dialogues and investment-focused events. Summary reports are often little more than a few inspiring examples strung together in an easy-to-forget document. If this is the plan, ECO must raise the alarm, emissions keep rising and we have less than 4 years left in this critical decade.
Let us be clear. The MWP does not need to become prescriptive or over-bearing. But it also cannot be reduced to a climate policy book club. Its Global Dialogues should produce structured outputs: mitigation opportunities, barriers, finance needs, policy tools and action-oriented recommendations.. Investment-focused events should go beyond a discussion on how to do good projects and actually generate funding for some of them. Rather, these events should create the grounds for a sustained legacy of positive and progressive change that lasts long after the microphones are switched off. Partnerships showcased there should be invited to report back on finance mobilised, progress made, obstacles faced and mitigation impact.
And yes, the Global Stocktake should actually matter here. What was the point of agreeing to a global assessment of the emissions gap if Parties then refuse to let its findings shape the one space that can help find solutions to address that gap.
The MWP must also look ahead. Parties should agree a multi-year thematic roadmap focused on fair and equitable mitigation in high-impact sectors, announced early enough for meaningful participation. Civil society, people of African descent, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, workers and experts from the Global South must not be treated as decorative stakeholders, but as essential contributors to implementation.
If Parties are serious about implementation, they must use the Mitigation Work Programme as a space that shapes very real mitigation pathways for countries in a manner that is facilitative, inclusive, practical, just, equitable, accountable and connected to the Paris ambition cycle.
Otherwise, please stop calling it implementation-focused.
***
35 by 35: Watts Without Phaseout Won’t Cut It
ECO welcomes the long-overdue focus on electrification. The COP31 Presidencies made it a priority, and set a target of 35% electrification by 2035 under the Action Agenda. However, this ambition is only as good as the electricity behind it. Swap out your fuel hog for an EV powered by renewable energy, and you’ve done something real. But plug that same EV into a fossil-heavy grid and you’ve mostly just moved the emissions around. The target should be based on renewable-based electrification only. This is a no-brainer.
Renewable-based electrification is the path to universal energy access, better health and reducing inequality, provided it’s founded on CBDR-RC and equity, backed by public finance, and accessible to all. And we know that electrifying households, transport, industry and other sectors with renewable energy is a key component of ending fossil fuel use.
But renewables and electrification are not enough on their own. Global renewable energy capacity is surging, but so is fossil fuel production, pushing global emissions to their highest ever levels, bringing us to the brink of climate catastrophe. The global energy shock experienced in 2026 has also laid bare the inherent risk of fossil fuel dependence in ways no policy brief ever could.
It took nearly thirty years of these talks to begin talking about the number one cause of climate breakdown: the burning of coal, oil and gas. Step back from that, and we’re cooked. We need to focus on the other side of the coin as well by winding down production.
ECO is also concerned that the 35 by 35, and 50 by 50 targets, while sounding catchy, would be voluntary. The Presidency is betting on building a broad coalition quickly, but ECO has read this book before. Voluntary, coalition-based pledges can move fast, but dissolve faster.
The IPCC, IRENA, IEA and others all state that around 80% global electrification by 2050 at the latest is required to limit global warming to 1.5°C in this century and move to 100% renewable energies. This would also require the achievement of 45% global electrification by 2035.
A credible electrification goal backed by a serious implementation and with real support for developing countries, could be a meaningful complement to the roadmap for the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels. But a headline number without clean-grid conditions, equity provisions, and accountability mechanisms is just arithmetic dressed up as ambition. The COP31 Presidencies must build on the global momentum towards a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels and ensure that a just transition is at the heart of COP31.
***
The Obscure Acronym Ruining a Just Transition: Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)
You thought that discussing climate finance and just transition couldn’t get more complicated? Think again! As negotiators in the room try to figure out how to align financial flows to low GHG pathways under Article 2.1(c), there is still a massive elephant in the room: the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism.
“Yet again, another acronym nobody understands!” you might say. And you would be right, as very few grasp the complexities of these mechanisms that allow polluters to sue states that take action on climate change. But it’s not as complicated as it may seem, and ECO is here to demystify.
So, what is ISDS? Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanisms enable foreign investors, for example large fossil fuel and mining companies, to challenge government conduct through special arbitration, seeking compensation (think millions!) for alleged losses (or even “impacts” on projected future profits) resulting from regulatory measures or decisions by the host state, including environmental policies. Let ECO make it concrete for you. Let’s say a country introduced a regulation or decided against a planned pipeline following environmental assessment. Then, the company that was planning on building the pipeline can essentially sue the state for making a decision to protect its people and the environment. Does that seem fair? Navigating or defending against these claims can lead to significant legal costs for states, and when investors are successful in obtaining damage awards, these can amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, with billion dollar cases also known.
Wondering why some governments are reluctant to introduce more ambitious climate policies? Wonder no more! The mere threat of ISDS disputes can have a chilling effect on policy-making, deterring governments from taking essential steps to safeguard communities, and protect human rights and the environment. And when awards are granted, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of public money that are owed to investors. So instead of being able to fund social programs or a just transition, countries have to worry about paying polluters.
And all this while Global South countries continue to face a crippling debt crisis. ISDS cases simply add to that bill. And while we call for polluters to pay, states are paying polluters instead.
Here at ECO, we are smart and knowledgeable and want to finally shed some light on this overlooked barrier to a just transition and encourage Parties to speak up. As the Veredas Dialogue unfolds, and ahead of the Climate and Trade Dialogue on Saturday, ECO urges Parties and observers to face this dinosaur of the colonial era that continues to deter climate action: ISDS.
Let’s make sure that ISDS is no longer an obscure acronym that polluters hide behind, but one that becomes a historical artifact.
***
Losses and Damages everywhere – and not a dime to see
The establishment of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) at the African COP27 in Egypt was seen as a breakthrough for countries and communities who are bearing the brunt of climate impacts.
ECO has seen that after a sweep of initial pledges of funding at COP 28, with much fanfare in Dubai, the hope for a tidal wave of financial support for the FRLD never materialised. With pledges having only reached USD 822 million since then and the harsh reality that only USD 456 million has actually landed in the Fund, ECO wonders whether the optimism was misplaced. The pledged amount is a drop in the ocean compared to the actual needs, which are growing with ever more frequent and devastating impacts.
The declining contributions to climate finance by developed countries is also having a hugely detrimental effect. ECO witnessed this impact at the last Board meeting in April, where the FRLD was unable to expand the envelope to the USD 250 million needed as grants to support interventions. There is simply not enough cash in the Fund which now runs a real risk of oversubscribed applications and exhausted funds. This not only jeopardises the Fund’s credibility but could also massively dent the hope that accompanied it.
The creation of the fund was a great milestone in the fight for climate justice. However, its ultimate success and impact is inherently linked to a barrage of new and additional funding. This requires a real commitment by developed countries to fulfill their legal obligations and deliver ambitious replenishment with scaled up public finance. This must be backed up by a simplified system for approvals and disbursement to ensure timely access.
ECO notes that the FRLD Board will be discussing the Resource Mobilisation strategy at its next meeting in July. We call on Board members to urgently engage the developed countries that have committed to contribute to convert all outstanding pledges to real contributions, and to call for new commitments from all developed countries.
We demand that the phase one replenishment process must target at least 50 billion USD per year by 2032; a minimum of USD 100 billion USD annually starting in 2031, and scaling to at least 400 billion USD annually by 2035. This must be supported by equitable, innovative financing mechanisms based on the “polluter pays” principle.
FRLD’s long-term resource mobilization strategy must focus on delivering new, additional, accessible and predictable grant-based finance at the scale commensurate with growing needs in developing countries. ECO makes an unequivocal call on all developed countries – Fill the Fund!
***
Daria and Natalia should have been in Bonn.
Instead, they risk prison in Russia.
While SB64 negotiations unroll, two important advocates will be absent. They
risk 20 years in a Russian prison for what should never be treated as a crime: working to protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples at the UN, including in this climate space.
Daria Egereva, a Selkup defender from Western Siberia, is the co-chair of the
International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change and championed the rights of Indigenous Peoples at COP30. But a few days after she returned home, Russian authorities arrested her and at least 17 other Indigenous representatives under charges of “terrorism”.
Those who help Indigenous leaders like Daria were also targeted. Natalia Leongardt, a human rights specialist supporting Indigenous Peoples from Russia in attending UN dialogues and developing programmes, was detained on the same groundless accusation.
There is one word to describe what happened to Daria and Natalia: reprisal. One that has left them in pre-trial detention for over six months, with no end in sight.
Human rights organisations and UN independent experts have condemned
Daria and Natalia’s detention as arbitrary and unfounded. Vague anti-terrorism legislation is one of Russia’s core tools to shrink civic space and criminalise peaceful activism.
Since 2019, Indigenous Peoples in Russia have borne the brunt of a heightened wave of repression. They are prevented from protecting our common future by defending a just transition away from an extractivist and fossil fuel-based model that is leading to ecological breakdown, injustice
and violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights.
Daria and Natalia’s appeals continue to be dismissed behind closed doors, leaving them behind bars even before the beginning of a trial with no real evidence of wrongdoing.
Tomorrow, when a court in Moscow will hear one more appeal, we
expect another no to their regaining their freedom – one that should have never been taken from them – and being able to reunite with their loved ones.
Daria and Natalia should be with us in Bonn. Russian authorities have made
it impossible, depriving them of their liberty and ability to contribute to crucial UN cooperation.
ECO and the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change call for Daria and Natalia’s immediate and unconditional release and for the protection of all Indigenous defenders and their allies.
Standing up for rights and our common future is not a crime. The real crime
is to retaliate against defenders for their legitimate work to bring about change.