Ask the Experts: How Can Just Transitions Move from Strategy to Implementation?
During the GGGI-GGKP webinar on Embedding Just Transitions into Long-Term Climate Strategies, panelists reflected on what it takes to move from long-term climate strategies and NDC commitments toward practical just transition action. The discussion brought together perspectives from the ILO, the 2050 Pathways Platform, civil society, and GGGI’s country-level work in India.
Q: How are countries moving from climate strategies to concrete just transition action?
Camilla Roman, International Labour Organization
Once commitments are in place, the priority is implementation. That starts with policy alignment. Countries do not need a proliferation of policies moving in different directions; they need convergence between climate commitments and the policies that shape employment, skills, social protection, industrial development, and enterprise support.
Finance is equally important. Just transition financing needs should be embedded in investment plans and frameworks, and there needs to be a stronger bridge between policy priorities and actual investment projects. In many cases, there is still a disconnect between the two.
Governance is the third critical element. Implementation needs systems that support social dialogue, stakeholder engagement, and accountability. These mechanisms should not exist only in the context of international reporting under the UNFCCC; they also need to be present at the domestic level so that countries can assess whether just transition outcomes are being delivered on the ground.
Q: What country examples show promising approaches to implementation?
Viktoria Dimitrova, 2050 Pathways Platform
Across countries, stakeholder engagement is emerging as one of the strongest tools for securing a just transition. In Fiji, a well-developed stakeholder engagement process helped the long-term strategy become a reference point for the NDC, the Energy Master Plan, the National Development Plan, and Vision 2050.
Peru also offers an important example. The development of its long-term strategy took several years and aimed to integrate climate planning into the national development planning process while reaching a broad range of stakeholders. The strategy is built around human development and well-being, which makes it possible to think more clearly about the sector-level indicators needed to track progress toward a just transition.
Institutional arrangements are also central. South Korea’s long-term strategy includes a social conflict management system, which is an anticipatory way to address conflicts and trade-offs between different priorities. Colombia provides another useful example, with capacity embedded in the ministry to monitor, update, and course-correct long-term strategy modelling and align it with short-term action. However, further attention is still needed to ensure that this capacity also captures just transition dimensions, beyond mitigation and greenhouse gas tracking.
Financing is another area where countries are beginning to connect long-term strategies with implementation. South Africa is a strong example, as its long-term strategy is consistently referenced as a basis for Just Energy Transition Partnership discussions, with just transition treated as a cross-cutting element across the strategy.
Q: From a civil society perspective, how can just transition processes better reflect the voices of vulnerable and affected communities?
Ramon Mon Pascual, independent expert on climate, health, and environment
Just transition processes need to go beyond consultation. Communities that face the greatest risks should also help shape the benefits. That means recognizing vulnerable communities as co-decision makers in transition committees, planning processes, and project design, whether it’s energy, transport, health, or other sectors.
Civil society can help build community evidences and narratives. Community-led vulnerability assessments, gender and social inclusion analyses, and local experiences already exist in many places, but they need to be translated into accessible language and shared through effective communication platforms so that other communities can use and understand them.
Equitable financing is also essential. Communities often have fewer resources to participate than other actors, so civil society can advocate for just transition funds for workers, small farmers, fisherfolk, drivers, and micro-enterprises affected by transition impacts.
Local stakeholders also need stronger capacity to engage in long-term planning and project development. Civil society can help translate technical concepts into local languages, support communities in understanding their rights, and build knowledge on energy literacy, climate mitigation, and governance.
A just transition must also prevent harm. This means stronger human rights safeguards, conduct of “do no harm” screening for renewable energy projects, and health impact assessments for energy projects. Multi-stakeholder governance should not be limited to occasional consultation. It should be institutionalized throughout planning and implementation, with meaningful participation from the most vulnerable groups
Q: How is GGGI supporting just transition implementation in India, and what challenges are emerging?
Ashok Kumar Thanikonda, India Programme Lead, Global Green Growth Institute
GGGI is supporting the Government of India at both state and central government levels through a range of projects. This includes work on mainstreaming low-carbon buildings, supporting floating solar projects in the eastern region, preventing food loss and waste in southern India, and supporting a central government agency with a USD 500 million green bond.
The eastern region is particularly important from a just transition perspective because of its connection to the coal and steel economy. Floating solar projects can help diversify economic activity in this region. GGGI is also developing a pipeline to support the greening of the steel industry, which is significant because many jobs depend on the sector, and maintaining export competitiveness is becoming increasingly important in light of measures such as CBAM.
Several practical challenges remain. In green bonds, the model is already fairly well demonstrated, but there is a continuing need to keep pace with evolving taxonomies, ensure credible impact assessment and reporting, and make sure proceeds are clearly labelled for green assets. One challenge is the absence of a clear “greenium” advantage under current domestic and international financial conditions.
Low-carbon buildings present another major opportunity. India is still expected to build a large share of its future building stock, creating significant potential to shift toward low-carbon construction. However, there are major data and project preparation challenges, including understanding where new buildings will be located, how much energy they will consume, what materials will be used, and how material choices can be influenced. State governments and municipalities will need stronger capacity, supported by project preparation facilities that can also connect projects to finance.
Food loss and waste also shows why just transition cannot be treated only as a mitigation issue. Although the entry point may be emissions reduction, the issue is closely linked to adaptation, farmer livelihoods, long-term sustainability, water allocation, crop choices, and production incentives in a warming world. It cannot be solved only through technology, such as cold chain infrastructure; it requires a more systemic approach.
Finally, financing instruments need to go beyond a “do no harm” compliance approach. If climate finance is to support just transition outcomes, it should also target the right stakeholders and link instruments not only to carbon reductions, but also to job creation, poverty alleviation, and other social indicators.
