Empowering Youth Participation Through the Bern Convention

Nature Protection and Biodiversity as Enablers of Rights, Participation and Well-Being

Written by

Contents

IMG_6572
IMG_6545
IMG_6544
IMG_6542
IMG_6524

Share this article

The Study Session

The biodiversity space is currently feeling overwhelming. The Commission is pushing its simplification agenda, critical decisions are being made at the ongoing Convention of Biological Diversity’s Conference of the Parties (CBD COP 17), and the recent State of Biodiversity Action report has suggested its targets will not be achieved by 2030. However, Youth and Environment Europe’s (YEE) recent study session on the Bern Convention, held at the Council of Europe Youth Centre in Strasbourg in September 2026, was a welcome contrast. 

YEE, European Young Rewilders (EYR), and Europarc Youth Council worked together with the Council of Europe (CoE) to develop a session which raised awareness of the Convention, built capacity among participants to engage in environmental governance and decision-making, and encouraged youth-led action. The week felt positive and proactive, and reminded everyone involved of our collective ability to face these challenges.

 

Why is it Important?

YEE is currently the only youth observer to the Bern Convention’s Standing Committee, but youth engagement with this treaty can go much further. One of the tipping points for the creation of this study session was the down-listing of the wolf from Appendix II to Appendix III of the Convention in 2024. The decision, strongly opposed and campaigned against by YEE, EYR and the Global Youth Biodiversity Network (GYBN), only highlighted the increasing importance of empowering young people to engage more confidently in environmental governance and ensure their voices are heard. Youth participation is essential to ensure that intergenerational justice is not compromised – especially now, as leaders take some of the most consequential decisions for nature to date.

 

What was Covered?

The session started off with discussions exploring the environmental and youth participation challenges that the participants – coming from over 17 countries around Europe – had experienced. Understanding the perspectives of others in the room was a valuable starting point, and the group embraced the variety of approaches to the activities and problems presented during the week.

A central part of the session was understanding how youth can engage with the Bern Convention. The participants spent time reviewing the text itself, and were even given a presentation on how the Convention works in practice from Marta Medlinska, the Programme Manager for the Secretariat of the Bern Convention.

Other activities explored everything from shifting baseline syndrome to conflicting attitudes towards nature. The rights of young people regarding nature were another key focus of the session, and underpinned several exercises. Participants built their understanding of how these rights can be exercised through participation – for example, through a mock session of the Bern Convention Standing Committee based on the 2016 Vjosa case. In this dispute, EcoAlbania submitted a complaint concerning the construction of hydropower plants on the Vjosa River, as well as an airport within the boundaries of the Vjosë-Nartë Protected Area. Small groups were given different roles (including YEE’s own observer position) and were tasked with presenting their case to the room. 

The group also heard from Ashton Melfor, one of YEE representatives, about his experience as an observer at the Annual Standing Committee in 2025, and from Emilie Tamo, a member of the Youth Advisory Council to the Council of Europe. This fed into discussions on tokenistic versus meaningful youth inclusion, and how young people can ensure that their involvement is respected and acted upon.

The participants were also given the opportunity to develop advocacy skills and share strategies to engage others. They were tasked with creating advocacy plans for a hypothetical down-listing of the bear, allowing them to build on what they had learnt about the Bern Convention, YEE’s advocacy efforts on the downlisting of the wolf campaign, and their own position as rights-holders and directors of change.

To ensure that the week’s work did not end in the room, the group collated all their shared knowledge and efforts to create a zine – a collective guide to the Bern Convention for other young people. They were also guided through developing their own personal action plans, and had the opportunity to explore ways of connecting their own ideas with the work of others.

 

Who Participated?

Participants came from over 17 countries from around Europe, all with different experiences and motivations for joining the session. Although the mix of backgrounds in science, policy, law and advocacy meant there was plenty of scope for discussion and comparison, everyone was inspired to find how much their ambitions and priorities overlapped. The group went away with widened perspectives and new connections, but also a renewed realisation of the commitment and support there is to find among people working to protect the planet.

 

What Happens Next?

With new knowledge of their rights as young people and understanding of the Bern Convention and how to use it, the participants will be able to engage more effectively in conservation efforts and influence decision‑making processes around Europe. The importance of study sessions like this one can be seen in the effect the week had on the participants. The relationships built within the group, their drive to create change in their own communities and countries, and their collectively positive attitude towards difficult problems all show the potential young people have to address these challenges. Building the capacity of young people to participate in governance and decision-making is essential. Youth need a seat at the table when decisions are made, but also the confidence, knowledge, and support network to ensure our message is impactful and considered.

If you are part of a youth organisation focused on addressing environmental challenges, consider applying to be part of the YEE network, and get the opportunity to participate in projects such as this one! (Become a member | YEE).

More articles about biodiversity
, ,

Empowering Youth Participation Through the Bern Convention

Read more

Environmental rights at risk?

Youth perspectives on the EU deregulation agenda

Written by

Contents

Share this article

 

Can environmental protections be simplified without weakening environmental rights? The EU is presenting its forthcoming Environmental Omnibus package as a way to boost competitiveness and cut red tape. But speeding up project approvals could come at the expense of public participation and access to justice, while undermining environmental safeguards. For young people, the debate is ultimately about who gets to shape Europe’s environmental future.

The Environmental Omnibus package is set to include proposals to fast-track environmental permitting and expand the range of projects considered “strategic”. These deregulation measures are presented as administrative simplification, but they also weaken existing safeguards and reduce opportunities for public oversight. At stake is whether environmental rights can be protected in the face of growing corporate pressure.

 

Environmental assessments are not red tape

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) play a critical role in ensuring that public authorities understand the potential consequences of incoming projects before a decision is made. They help identify risks to biodiversity, climate, ecosystems, and human health. They are also a key opportunity for public participation.

The European Union now proposes to accelerate its timeline. This creates a key risk: reducing the quality of these evaluations. Faster procedures do not make environmental harms disappear; they make them harder to identify and prevent.

This strategy also hides the real bottleneck behind long procedures, which is often the lack of resources and staffing within public authorities in charge of EIAs. The current proposal should not come as a substitute for adequately funding the relevant institutions.

 

A dangerous expansion of “strategic projects”

Another concerning element currently under discussion is the creation of a broad category of “strategic projects” or “strategic sectors”. Projects falling under this category could be automatically presumed to “serve the public interest” and benefit from a fast-tracked permitting procedure. If adopted, there are only a few guarantees that such projects would then need to meet sustainability or decarbonisation criteria to be approved.

Importantly, some Member States have advocated for an extensive list of eligible sectors, including ports, airports, factories, data centres, AI infrastructure, and military mobility projects, which would de facto dilute the exceptional nature of the mechanism and make it quite mainstream.

 

Access to justice under threat

Discussions at both the Commission and Member State levels have explored introducing new procedural rules. Under these proposals, communities and civil society organisations would not be able to raise legal arguments in court if they failed to present them during the earlier permitting process.

This is an issue because, in many cases, environmental impacts only become visible late in the process. Restricting the ability to raise new arguments during judicial review could make it harder for affected communities and NGOs to challenge permits.

These proposals also conflict with the Aarhus Convention, an international treaty ratified by both the EU and its Member States, which guarantees access to justice as a core environmental right. Courts and compliance bodies have consistently interpreted the rights from the Convention as requiring broad and effective access to judicial review in environmental matters. 

 

Civil society is mobilising

A broad coalition of environmental organisations of which Youth and Environment Europe (YEE) is part, and including the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), BirdLife Europe, WWF, and ClientEarth, has warned against the latest deregulation developments. The campaign Hands Off Nature is calling on decision-makers to reject proposals that undermine environmental law and public participation.

Europe needs faster solutions to the climate and biodiversity crises, but not at the cost of public participation and access to justice.

Young people will live the longest with the consequences of today’s decisions. Yet proposals that weaken environmental scrutiny reduce the ability of future generations to influence decisions that will shape their future.

To learn more about the EU Omnibus Simplification Package, read our report on the topic: Understanding the EU Omnibus Simplification Packages | YEE 

To engage with the campaign, you can visit the website: https://handsoffnature.eu/

More articles about environmental law
, ,

Environmental rights at risk?

Read more

Inheriting a broken system

Why the EU Livestock Strategy fails a generation of farmers

Written by

With the contribution of Patrizia Russo, Silvia Barla, Duarte R. Costa, Nora Eliassen.

Contents

Share this article

In early July 2026, the European Commission published the EU Livestock Strategy and Protein Action Plan, which aim to strengthen Europe’s food system by reducing its dependence on imported protein feed. While having presented somewhat meaningful and important general ideas, YEE argues that the EU needs to take bolder action to ensure sustainable food systems for future generations. 

In a system where nearly two-thirds of the protein consumed by EU citizens comes from animal sources, the problem isn’t simply that livestock farming is environmentally harmful, but that the EU is trying to preserve a model already failing to provide viable futures for many young farmers.

 

The EU has recognised the protein problem, but livestock still dominates

Of the 80 million tonnes of plant-based protein consumed in the EU each year, around 74 million tonnes are fed to livestock (farm animals raised for food production such as cattle, pigs, sheep and poultry[1]). As a result, livestock accounts for around 92.5% of all plant-based protein use (as in legumes, cereals and oil-based products[2]), even though the conversion rate of feed protein to animal protein varies widely. For example, even poultry and eggs, considered the most efficient sector, require 3.6 kg of feed protein for every kilo of animal protein produced. Cattle meat instead requires 15.9 kg of feed protein[3] – over four times as much! At the same time, the EU imports around 16.25% of the plant-based protein it consumes, leaving its food system exposed to global market fluctuations and supply chain disruptions[4].

Figure 1: The allocation gap of plant-based protein

The EU Livestock Strategy and the Protein Action Plan both recognise this challenge and seek to reduce Europe’s dependence on imported protein while strengthening food security.

The former focuses on making livestock production more efficient, sustainable and resilient. It aims to improve animal welfare, prevent and manage animal diseases, reduce environmental impacts and support the role of livestock farming in maintaining rural communities and ensuring food security across the EU.

The latter complements these efforts by increasing the production and use of protein crops grown within Europe. It promotes crops such as peas, beans, lupins and soybeans, while supporting innovation and more sustainable approaches to protein production and consumption. The plan also seeks to make the agri-food system more resilient to geopolitical tensions, market volatility and climate-related disruptions that can affect global supply chains.

Together, these two initiatives aim to strengthen Europe’s protein self-sufficiency, reduce import-related vulnerabilities, and improve the long-term sustainability and resilience of the agricultural sector, while also claiming to support farmers in adapting to future challenges.

Let’s dive deeper and see what was done well and what could be improved. 

 

Taking steps in the right direction

Global agri-food systems face increasing pressures from droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events driven by climate change. As expected, these phenomena cause disruptions to global supply chains, emphasizing the need for the EU to decrease its reliance on protein imports and support the development of a sustainable internal production of plant-based protein. 

Permanent grasslands and fodder, the main source of protein for EU livestock, represent 44% of utilised agricultural area[5], while livestock production accounts for more than 65% of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the EU[6]. This could represent an opportunity to tackle the EU’s dependency on protein imports while decreasing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and land use. The answer relies on decreasing animal protein consumption within the EU and increasing internally produced plant-based protein consumption, valorising the EU’s plant-based food chains. 

The EU Livestock Strategy and the Protein Action Plan do recognise the scope of the problem and seem to try to find solutions. The focus on promoting pulse consumption and awareness of its benefits, while improving the competitiveness of EU protein crops and alternative proteins, is where the Protein Action Plan most shines. Furthermore, the intention to advance research and innovation to strengthen protein systems’ resilience and production through the improvement of Europe’s crop strains is another strong virtue of the Plan. 

A point in favor of the Livestock Strategy is the intention to increase animal welfare within the European Union, as well as the goal to promote products of EU origin. We should also note the recognition of rural areas of important livestock production and their dependency on the sector for their livelihood, as this is crucial to account for in a sustainable just transition to less animal-dependent diets.

 

A strategy that protects the status quo

At its core, however, the strategy avoids addressing the structural problems facing European agriculture, and ultimately the marketisation of the food that should instead sustain our social and ecological systems[7]. While the Commission’s documents seem to acknowledge some of the core concepts that agroecological movements have long been advocating for – such as territoriality, support of rural livelihoods, circularity and diversification of food systems – the model they reproduce is, in practice, still the same exploitative and profit-centered one that is inherently irreconcilable with the mentioned objectives. 

A first core paradox: the documents acknowledge widespread land abandonment, and the failing generational renewal as retiring farmers struggle to find young successors. Yet, they do not address these issues directly. The strategy proposed, formulated through the language of competitiveness and securitisation[8], largely relies on technocentric fixes in support of corporate food production. That is the exact same model that puts increasing pressure on those farmers who cannot compete with the resources and power held by the large industrial farms which drive biodiversity loss and landscape degradation. Just a month after the killing of four agricultural workers as a consequence of the caporalato system in Southern Italy[9], the Commission’s golden ticket for a better food system is “ensuring the sector’s profitability[10]”, while it is exactly this framing of food as a profit-making commodity that enables such exploitation.

Figure 2: Extremely strong predominance of farmers aged 45 and above

In terms of animal welfare, the documents remain vague, without presenting concrete, legally binding provisions and timelines, and do not include all animals affected by industrial livestock production; they fail, overall, to demonstrate a political willingness to commit to the much-needed radical transformation of the sector. For example, promised revisions on cage-free housing and pig welfare remain delayed and surface-level without any guarantee that they will match the citizens’ demands for animal welfare. 

Regarding the transition towards more plant-based consumption, the trend in EU citizens’ diets is headed in the wrong direction, with the increase in animal-based protein consumption and the gap between animal and plant-based protein consumption widening. In light of this, the Livestock Strategy and Protein Action Plan do not offer enough solutions to this worrying trend.

In addition, the EU Strategy on Livestock leans on the disputed ‘biogenic methane’ narrative and voluntary monitoring tools instead of firm, science-based reduction targets, which is especially concerning as livestock constitutes the EU’s largest source of agricultural emissions[11] and a major driver of ground-level ozone pollution[12].

Figure 3: Consumption Trends: no visible projection of reduction in animal protein

To quote Slow Food on the topic, “If we do not question the starting and ending point, making things more efficient changes nothing of substance. If anything, it will entrench the system we need to move away from”[13]. To seriously help build more just and resilient rural futures, while supporting the rural youth in the process, it is necessary to rethink the role that factory farming holds in our food systems and center instead the livelihoods and experiences of those actively working towards food sovereignty, bringing food production back into balance with the ecosystems we depend on.

All in all, instead of proposing a solution that will serve animals, rural communities, and the environment in a sustainable way, this Strategy reinforces the industrial model of livestock farming that aggravates the sector’s crisis. Even if the Protein Action Plan aims toward plant-rich diets and domestic protein crops, the Livestock Strategy pulls in the opposite direction, as the expressed commitments are vague and lack quantifiable targets that would allow the plant-based transition to occur.

 

A just transition must put young farmers at the centre

There is a clear generational equity crisis in the EU’s agricultural sector, as young and new entrants are being priced out of a system where land, capital and market power are concentrated in the hands of large industrial actors. Without binding targets, earmarked funding and a genuine redistribution of power away from industrial agribusiness, these commitments risk remaining too abstract to bring environmental justice for young people. As a youth network, YEE stands with other non-governmental organisations, such as the European Environmental Bureau, in pushing for more decisive and measurable actions within the EU’s agriculture. 

The EU now has an opportunity to turn its recognition of the food system’s vulnerabilities into meaningful change. That means setting measurable targets for reducing livestock-related emissions, supporting the shift towards plant-rich diets, improving animal welfare, and ensuring young farmers can access land, finance and decent livelihoods. For YEE, a just agricultural transition must put young people and rural communities at the centre, not ask them to inherit a broken system.

NOTES

[1] Reducing the plant protein deficit of the EU – Agriculture and rural development 

[2] Plant-based protein as animal feed – ScienceDirect 

[3] eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52026DC0355 

[4] Reducing the plant protein deficit of the EU – Agriculture and rural development 

[5] Protein supply and demand

[6] Protein diversification — strategic risks and opportunities for sustainable food systems

[7] EU’s New Livestock Strategy and Protein Plan Lack Concrete Commitments

[8] The EU’s paradigm shift on cows – POLITICO 

[9] From Calabria to Brussels: the system is working as intended • Agroecology Europe 

[10]  Questions and answers on the Livestock Strategy and Protein Action Plan 

[11] EU agricultural emissions by source and projected emissions | Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture in Europe | European Environment Agency (EEA) 

[12] Heatwaves fuel dangerous smog across Europe 

[13] Slow Food calls for an EU Protein Strategy that Delivers Healthier, More Transparent and Sustainable Food Systems – Slow Food 

More articles about agrifood systems & sustainability
, ,

Inheriting a broken system

Read more

Pushing for accountability: Youth voices at the Aarhus Convention

YEE's experience advocating for youth in Geneva

Written by

Contents

Share this article

In the final week of June, the 30th meeting of the Working Group of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention was held at the United Nations in Geneva. Conversations and negotiations in the corridors of the Palais were cut short as the mounting heat became increasingly stifling.  Against the backdrop of a sweltering heatwave, the meeting room became a cool refuge. For many of the NGOs and civil society representatives in the Aarhus ECO Forum, the temperature added an undeniable urgency and frustration to discussions which still seemed to lack ambitious commitment.

 

YEE and the Compliance Committee

As the only youth observer to the Aarhus Convention, Youth and Environment Europe (YEE) intervened on topics throughout discussions to ensure that youth perspectives were accounted for during the meeting. For example, we took the floor to highlight youth experiences engaging with the Compliance Committee, the treaty’s independent body that reviews public complaints on environmental rights, and to express concerns on the funding crisis of the convention as well as intergenerational fairness. While a contact group has been set up as a result of this meeting, faced with a piling workload and reduced staff capacity, the invaluable work of the Compliance Committee is undermined if parties continue not to fulfil their financial commitments.

Added to this, a survey to compile experiences of those engaging with the Compliance Committee is going to be published. Over the days, it became clear that parties (namely the UK and the EU and its member states) were pushing for the outcomes of this unwritten survey to have the power to revisit Meeting of the Parties’ decisions and revise core mechanism documents. This is a worrying move as it raises questions as to the intentions behind these powers, which can be easily co-opted and undermine the democratic principles underlying the convention.

 

Raising environmental defenders’ voices

Despite these concerns, there were nonetheless hopeful breakthroughs during the week. For example, the intervention of YEE representative Xabier Gomez raised the challenges and insights gathered from the first-ever Environmental Human Rights Defenders (EHRD) Forum in Strasbourg, which took place at the beginning of June this year. By amplifying the testimonies of youth defenders and reiterating the need for the explicit protection of young environmental defenders, parties agreed to recognise the importance of ensuring the safety of environmental defenders for effective implementation of the Convention in the outcomes of the meeting.

 

Consolidating support for the Right to a Healthy Environment

The Campaign for the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in the Council of Europe is also continuing to build momentum. Gathering outside the Palais des Nations, a lunchtime protest reminded the 46 Council of Europe member States that we still demand political leadership to start negotiations on a binding treaty. States were invited to a roundtable breakfast where representatives from countries, institutions and civil society were able to bring questions and share ideas on the Campaign. At this event, we were able to brief States on youth perspectives taken from the EHRD Forum in Strasbourg to demonstrate how the Right to a Healthy Environment underpins the enjoyment of all other human rights. From these conversations, it is clear that we are at a hopeful tipping point to progressing this topic within the Council of Europe, momentum which provided a glimmer of hope across an otherwise sobering week.

 

Civil society, institutions and all other parties to the Convention must continue to advance Aarhus rights: the right to environmental information, the right to public participation and the right to access justice in environmental governance. It is of utter importance, especially during this intersessional period, if we are to safeguard our right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.

More articles about Environmental Defenders
, ,

Pushing for accountability: Youth voices at the Aarhus Convention

Read more

Defending the Environmental Defenders

Key takeaways from the first-ever forum for Environmental Human Rights Defenders

Written by

Contents

Share this article

On the 3rd and 4th June 2026, the Council of Europe hosted the first-ever Forum for Environmental Human Rights Defenders (EHRDs) in Strasbourg, France. More than 280 defenders from across Europe came together alongside NGOs, EU institutions, and state representatives to exchange experiences, strengthen connections, and advance environmental rights.

As one of the forum’s co-organisers, Youth and Environment Europe (YEE) attended and supported several sessions and initiatives throughout the event. This included the establishment of a Youth Taskforce, bringing together youth representatives from civil society organisations, UN and EU institutions to support the active participation of youth EHRDs and ensure that their perspectives were visible and reflected in discussions.

 

YEE’s contribution to the Forum and support to young EHRDs

The ability to bring, for example, youth EHRDs together is critical to empowering defenders. It is through gathering that defenders are better able to share ideas, advocacy and testimonies. This coming-together is essential to creating vital solidarities in the face of the ongoing persecution of EHRDs.

It is an opportunity for those actively risking their own wellbeing to safeguard our shared Environmental Human Rights and futures to have their voices and stories not only heard, but also amplified and acted on.

Within the organisational structure of the Forum, YEE were proud to be working within the Youth Task Force sub-committee. We aimed to promote and safeguard youth engagement throughout the event. 

From ice-breakers and energisers to logistics and raising concerns, we were the port of call for youth EHRDs navigating both the institutional and emotional landscape of the Council of Europe hosting the Forum. 

Seeing how youth defenders came together so enthusiastically, empathetically and tirelessly was truly inspiring. Their courage to attend, share their stories and wholeheartedly engage in debates must be met by the momentum to protect all of our shared environmental human rights.

 

Formalising the right to a healthy environment 

A core message which arose from the Forum was the need for a legally binding additional protocol for the Right to a Healthy Environment in the Council of Europe. 

Testimonies of repression, persecution and the impacts of undertaking environmental human rights activism on mental and physical health clearly laid out the contemporary hostility for defenders in Europe. 

Without this explicit recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the critical advocacy of defenders can be dismissed and weaponised due to the lack of a legal instrument which can support both those advocating for our shared future, and thus European rightsholders more generally.

Protection, accountability and democratic action are central to mitigating the environmental and climate crisis. As a result, the Right to a Healthy Environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of all other human rights.

 

Holding companies accountable for environmental harm

Legal cases holding companies accountable for environmental damage are beginning to emerge across Europe, building good precedents for further legal action. At the same time, while the 2024 EU Environmental Crime Directive has been an important step forward, its transposition across Member States remains slow, demonstrating little appetite to address the issue.

Participants called for greater recognition of, and stronger responses to, corporate harms affecting environmental protection. They also suggested adopting more preventive approaches, such as the active participation of affected communities in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).

 

Recognising and Protecting Defenders

The recognition of EHRDs and the essential role they play for democracies to be considered healthy was at the core of the discussions. Through organising peaceful protests, acting as watchdogs, and building connections with communities, EHRDs contribute to building a sustainable future.

Across their different contexts, defenders shared concerns about Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) and foreign agent laws that continue to restrict civic space. For young people in particular, this often translates into even fewer opportunities to participate in civic life, as limited resources make it harder to respond to legal and administrative pressures. 

The 2024 EU Anti-SLAPP directive is a step in the right direction, and should be transposed by Member States widely. Aarhus Convention review mechanisms are also in place to allow for international pressure. In addition, though, participants highlighted that countering this trend requires reclaiming the narrative around environmental activism and increasing the visibility of the contribution that EHRDs make to environmental rights. 

 

A call for action

It is important not to lose the momentum generated by this Forum. This is supported by the legally binding Additional Protocol to the Right to a Healthy Environment in the Council of Europe, as this right is a precondition to enjoy all other human rights.  We hope that the testimonies and common advocacy messages shared during the forum will inspire defenders, CSOs, as well as the EU and its Member States to continue building a strong commitment to creating an enabling environment for defenders across Europe. Therefore, as we look ahead, we must continue to defend the defenders who not only safeguard our shared environment, but also our democratic futures.

More articles about Environmental Defenders
, ,

Defending the Environmental Defenders

Read more

From Bonn to COP31: realising a Just Transition

A reaction to the outcomes of the SB64 negotiations

Written by

Contents

Stephanny Ulivieri, Secretary General, and Devina Shah in Bonn, Germany, for the UNFCCC SB64
Picture from the negotiations

Share this article

YEE’s take on SB64

In early June, the YEE team participated as observers in the Just Transition negotiating rooms at the 64th session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB64). This event gathers the UNFCCC delegates in Bonn to drive preliminary negotiations in preparation for COP31.

As YEE, we believe that a Just Transition is the cornerstone of climate action, because it ensures that the shift to a sustainable economy is fast and fair, while protecting workers, vulnerable communities, and future generations from the socio-economic shocks of a changing energy landscape.

However, our observations revealed that this effort has really struggled to take off. Negotiations were frequently stalled by procedural delays and technical loops, which pulled the focus away from the need to address governance and funding.

 

The outcomes

By the final contact group on 17 June, negotiators had a package on the table: a revised Terms of Reference (ToR) for the review of the Just Transition Work Programme, and an informal note capturing emerging ideas on the long-awaited Just Transition Mechanism (aka. Belem-Antalaya Mechanism, aka. BAM). As there was resistance to the text on “complementarity and coherence” with other instruments, the session ultimately reached a standstill.

Notably, among the delegations that stood up to call for the ToR to be saved were Burkina Faso, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), the African Group, the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG), the Least Developed Countries (LDC), and Brazil. Eventually, the co-chair narrowed the divide, and the text lived.

While the talks in Bonn were often slow and frustrating, they did indeed set the crucial foundation for a serious and meaningful agreement at COP31 (the 31st Conference of the Parties), making the BAM more attainable.

 

Demanding Intergenerational Equity

Inside this delicate process, the Official Youth Constituency of the UNFCCC (YOUNGO)—of which YEE is a member—made a clear structural request. They proposed a Joint Advisory Body for governance modeled after the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) Advisory Board, which would include permanent seats for all nine UNFCCC observer constituencies and an operational entity for continuity.

YOUNGO suggested that meaningful engagement in the governance of this mechanism is what transforms intergenerational equity from a concept into a practice, reminding negotiators that children and youth will inherit the results of the transitions being designed today.

 

YEE’s response statement

What these observations confirm is that Just Transition was the one track in Bonn that kept moving despite the room’s working methods. A mechanism this important should not depend on whether a handful of words survive a midday break. We maintain that the BAM must progress beyond discussion to help make a Just Transition a reality. YEE explicitly calls for the creation of a new constituted body to oversee the Just Transition Mechanism, ensuring we avoid a hollow void outcome at COP31.

Heading into COP31, YEE urges Parties to endorse governance for the Just Transition Mechanism with formal voting seats for youth and other observer constituencies; it is important for it to be funded so that assistance reaches communities directly instead of circulating through further dialogues. The next few months are critical, and YEE will conduct strategic outreach and coalition-building to guarantee that these governance structures are finalised. 

Bonn showed us the vulnerability and resilience of the multilateral process, and we hope COP31 in Antalya, Turkey, will transfer the resilience into action.

More articles about a Just Transition
, ,

From Bonn to COP31: realising a Just Transition

Read more

How can youth environmental defenders be better protected in Europe?

This position paper is directed at Council of Europe Member States and those working to empower young environmental human rights defenders. It aims to address protection gaps and the empowerment of young environmental defenders, for example through stronger institutional support and recognition.

The three proposals outlined include:

  • The structural inclusion and formal recognition of young environmental defenders, for example within local and national public participation processes.
  • The implementation of targeted protection measures and support systems tailored to the specific risks and burnout faced by young activists.
  • The amplification of civil society voices through strategic forums and active policy engagement to promote democratic environmental governance

We invite young activists, civil society organisations, and partners to support the position paper by engaging with our ongoing advocacy, sharing feedback, and joining our collective efforts to protect young defenders across Europe. If you would like to help shape this living document or collaborate, do not hesitate to reach out to us!

Download

Help us spread the word! Share this statement

, ,

How can youth environmental defenders be better protected in Europe?

Read more

YEE’s reflections on the Santa Marta Conference

A reaction to the outcomes of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels

Written by

Contents

Share this article

Our team has spent the last week closely monitoring the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, which took place from 24 to 29 April 2026 in Santa Marta, Colombia. Coming off the back of the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP30) in Belém, which was also called the COP of Truth, Santa Marta felt like the first real test of whether governments are actually ready to handle that reality.

If Belém was about securing our seat at the table through the Belém Action Mechanism, Santa Marta was about the how. For the first time, we saw a space not bogged down by UNFCCC veto politics. Because it was a dialogue rather than a formal negotiation, it was a safe space for the willing where fossil fuel lobbies were kept out, allowing youth, Indigenous Peoples, and civil society to raise their voices directly to states in a genuine back-and-forth.

What really hit home for us was the translation gap. Let us be real: the EU does not lack the tools to end the fossil era. We have carbon pricing, trade mechanisms, and massive leverage in the World Bank. The problem we see is political coherence.

Currently, these instruments are still calibrated to protect incumbent interests like the old industry while maintaining a thin veil of climate credibility. We saw EU representatives talk about global leadership while greenlighting new domestic gas projects in Germany and the Netherlands back home. This approach seems like a choice to protect the status quo over our future. For instance, while France has submitted a roadmap with time-bound phase-out dates, the broader EU submission remains vague and relies too heavily on loan-based support, and others like Norway, unfortunately remain committed to being stable suppliers of oil and gas.

 

Why this matters for youth

The Childhood and Youth Subchapter group pushed for change in how we judge progress by demanding that the best interests of the child become a binding legal criterion for every single energy project. This is both a moral plea and a structural necessity tied to the new Science Panel for the Global Energy Transition (SPGET), which is a massive win because it can finally close the discrepancy between high-level policy and the indigenous and local expertise that has been ignored for too long.

However, we are wary of the shift toward a technocratic space. If we treat the transition as a technical exercise of energy addition rather than a rights-based phase out, we risk repeating old inequalities. We noticed a clear gap: while there is mention of consulting communities, there is still very little on the actual decision-making power for youth. We must ensure the three new workstreams on roadmaps, economic dependencies, and trade do not become mere technical blueprints but tools for social justice.

This shift is even more urgent given the current security crisis. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed and Europe’s fossil fuel bill jumping by 24 billion euros in just a few months, the old argument that quitting fossils is an economic risk has been exposed as a myth. The real risk to our generation is staying hooked on a volatile and expensive past. By moving the next conference to Tuvalu in 2027, the movement is officially putting the people on the absolute frontlines in the driver’s seat. We are no longer waiting for the powerful to catch up; instead, we are shifting the center of gravity toward those who have the most to lose and the most to teach us about resilience.

 

YEE response statement

The era of voluntary promises has reached its limit. The Santa Marta Conference has exposed a dangerous translation gap where the EU possesses the tools to end the fossil era but lacks the political courage to deploy them fairly. We demand that the best interests of the youth move from a box-ticking exercise to a binding legal mandate for every energy project. If Europe wants to be a partner to the Global South, it must stop using trade mechanisms as protectionist shields and start funding a just transition that does not leave our generation with the bill. We must move beyond temporary windfall taxes toward permanent frameworks and the immediate redirection of the $1.2 trillion in fossil subsidies to end the proliferation of fossil fuels once and for all. We are moving toward a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty with or without the powerful leading the way.

We have followed Santa Marta with mixed feelings but renewed clarity. The willing are not yet powerful, but the momentum is past the point of no return. We specifically look to the new Science Panel (SPGET) to bridge the gap between high-level science and national roadmaps that prioritize social justice over technocratic blueprints. To the governments back home: the economic and security case for a phase-out is closed. The only thing left is your decision to act.

As we move forward in 2026, we will be rigorously following this agenda in the run-up to the 64th sessions of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies (SB 64) intersessional meetings in Bonn (8–18 June 2026). Our focus is on accountability. We will be tracking the formal submission of the conference report as it is handed over to the COP30 Presidency to influence the 2nd Global Stocktake. Furthermore, we are demanding that the Santa Marta outcomes, including the new subsidy disclosure methodology, are officially integrated into the global roadmap heading toward COP31 in Antalya. 

More articles about environmental decision-making
, ,

YEE’s reflections on the Santa Marta Conference

Read more

Position statement on COP 30 Just Transition outcomes

This position statement reacts to the outcomes of COP 30, specifically on the Just Transition Work Programme.

COP 30 in Belem was widely anticipated as the “implementation COP”. That is, the Parties bound by the Paris Agreement commitments were expected to deliver concrete updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and stimulate collective action. Most notably, Parties at COP 30 were expected to deliver on the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) – initially launched at COP 28 in UAE – which entails the guiding principles for designing pathways for just and equitable energy transitions. These principles pertain to the creation of new non-fossil-fuel-related jobs and Just Transition plans grounded on national/local social dialogues and public participation, ultimately prioritising inclusivity and poverty eradication concerns.

The wording matters

Although COP 28 laid the political grounds for just transitions, it was criticised for adopting weak language on fossil fuels. At COP28, the choice to use the phrase ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels’ – rather than stronger language like ‘phasing out fossil fuels’ – created an avoidable interpretation gap. The latter could have signaled a roadmap to terminate fossil fuels exploration, extraction, refinement, trading and burning, whilst the former alludes to a “transition away” without clear milestones and targets. It is thus no coincidence that the weak language on fossil fuels at COP28 corresponded with a record number of fossil fuel lobbyists attending COP30, especially when compared to the size of national delegations, a trend observed since 2021*. We therefore suspect that this disproportionate physical presence had an influence on the final text of the JTWP at COP 30, decision CMA/2025/L.14. In fact, we do not see “fossil fuels” referred to at all, posing a step back compared to COP 28 Decision. Colombian President’s address to delegates at COP 30 aptly confirms the case: “I cannot contradict science […] It is not clearly stated, as science says, that the cause of the climate crisis is the fossil fuels used by capital. If that is not said, everything else is hypocrisy.” 

*Attendance data is available from 2021. Comparative data for the previous Conferences are not available.

A missed opportunity, and a big step for Just Transition at COP 30

COP30 saw over 80 states – including the EU bloc – push to include a ‘Transition Away from Fossil Fuels Roadmap’ in the final Belém Package. However, this effort failed after more than 100 states rejected the proposal. 

We may have been declined a Roadmap agreement at UN level but we hail the joint decision of the Parties to establish the Just Transition Mechanism (also billed as “Belem Action Mechanism” – or “BAM”). This transforms the Just Transition Work Programme from objectives and methodologies to a more concrete framework of implementable components (e.g., international technical exchange and capacity building). 

We also welcome the strong coalition of 24 UN states that stood firmly by the Belem Declaration on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels (thereafter “Belem Declaration”), among them, 9 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Spain and Slovenia).

What’s the EU doing about it?

As a European youth network, we are strategically drawing attention to Ireland and the Netherlands for two different – but potentially connected – reasons:

  1. The Netherlands demonstrated leadership by co-initiating, together with Colombia, the First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels, planned for April 2026 in Colombia. Where COP negotiations fall short to deliver, it is crucial that the issue at stake does not remain stagnant but rather advances at least through bilateralism. 
  2. We underline the initiative of the Netherlands as a representative EU member-state in this bilateral process, and we consider that the outcomes of the Conference can inform Ireland’s upcoming Presidency of the European Council, which begins on 1st July 2026. 

 

Including and empowering young people in Just Transition efforts is paramount

As one of the largest European youth networks for environmental civil society organisations, we welcome the fact that youth were considered in the Just Transition realm of the Belem Package as indispensable stakeholders for the implementation of the agenda: “The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement […] recognizes […] [t]he importance of ensuring broad and meaningful participation involving all relevant stakeholders, including […] youth”. 

We also welcome the strategic integration of the Plans to Accelerate Solutions (PAS), a new element in the COP framework that highlights ongoing and newly agreed initiatives driving climate action at all levels of society. This innovation underscores why COP 30 was billed as the ‘Implementation COP’.

Among these Plans, we set apart the “Plan to Accelerate Just and Inclusive Planning of the Energy Transition” and the “New Skills Development for the Future: Empowering Women and Youth for a Just Transition – A Global Multi-Stakeholder Partnership”. Together, these plans address the Just Transition from multiple angles, aligning climate objectives with social justice, especially by tackling gender and youth disparities in the context of fossil fuel phase-out.     

The progress made on the Just Transition agenda at COP30 – including the discourses and practices adopted – should also shape the Belém Declaration. While the Declaration explicitly acknowledges the link between fossil fuels and global climate change (a step forward from the Belém Package), it fails to address the specific impacts on younger generations or outline a strategic approach to engage them. This omission is striking, given that youth will bear the brunt of escalating climate impacts. Youth demands were clearly articulated in the “Global Youth Statement,” and presented at the Youth-led Climate Forums during COP 30. We echo and endorse the Statement’s call for “a full, fast and fair fossil fuel phase-out […] rooted in human rights, intergenerational equity (adopting the NDC Youth Clause), gender justice and the protection of the rights of nature, while ensuring a just transition”. 

Next steps for EU’s Just Transition post-COP 30

 

Preparedness disparities for just transitions between the EU and other UN Parties

We recognise the EU’s push for a Just Transition Roadmap at COP30, even though these negotiations ultimately failed. Nevertheless, just transition affairs are already more mature within the EU policymaking realm. In fact, since 2020-21 a Just Transition Mechanism (JTM) has been established and Territorial Just Transition Plans (TJTPs) have been developed across member states. 

FAQ: But what are the EU Territorial Just Transition Plans (TJTPs) and the EU Just Transition Mechanism (JTM)? 

The EU JTM is an overarching policy and resources (financing & knowledge resources) framework, aiming to help local communities, companies and industries whose operations are disproportionately dependent on fossil fuels -and primarily on coal-, in their pathways to decarbonisation, whilst ensuring that no societal stakeholder is left behind. It runs alongside the EU’s long-term budget, the “Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)” 2021–2027. The JTM mobilises a total of €55 billion by 2027, with €19.32 billion directly allocated through the Just Transition Fund under the EU’s Cohesion Policy.

The EU TJTPs primarily earmark the geographical territories where there is the highest need for the EU JTM to be leveraged (see the beneficiary territories in the relevant map below). The Plans were drafted in a participatory manner, involving the affected stakeholders of each territory, outlining relevant challenges, as well as the development needs and objectives to be met by 2030. They identify the types of operations envisaged and specify governance mechanisms.

EU Just Transition Mechanism could be compromised in the next MFF

The current EU JTM, however, is set to be transformed and “absorbed” into the European Commission’s proposed “European Fund for Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, Agriculture and Rural, Fisheries and Maritime, Prosperity and Security.” This new fund, with an estimated budget of €771.3 billion, will be part of the proposed MFF 2028–2034. Roughly 90% of this amount (€698.3 billion) is expected to be poured through a new structure, the “National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs)”. According to the European Parliamentary Research Service, the NRPPs allocate significantly less (€210.2 billion) to social cohesion objectives compared to the €392 billion earmarked in the current MFF 2021–2027.

On the other hand, the Commission’s proposal includes an additional €45.4 billion for NRPPs from the Social Climate Fund. It also mandates that at least 43% of the NRPPs budget (€300.269 billion) address climate and environmental goals, and at least 14% (€71 billion) support social objectives. At this point, we need to emphasise that just transition is inherently tied to interventions that integrate social, climate and environmental priorities simultaneously.

Yet, the proposed MFF budget does not explicitly include a just transition strategy. Alongside the broader simplification of EU legislation, the progress achieved in just transition territories risks being undermined, as just transition is now subsumed under the NRPPs. In practice, this means that the development of plans focusing on just transition processes and projects will depend on the discretion of individual member states.

Despite the reduction in funding specifically allocated to social cohesion, the overall mix of EU funds could still support just and equitable transitions – if member states choose to prioritise them. It is therefore crucial that younger generations are actively involved in drafting these plans, especially at the local level, drawing on the COP Plans to Accelerate Solutions (PAS) mentioned earlier. Social cohesion cannot be measured by quantitative indicators alone, such as employment and economic inequality. Meaningful intergenerational participation in planning is equally vital, fostering transparency, trust in public institutions and multi-level governance, thereby strengthening social cohesion at both local and national levels.

Finally, YEE has been a partner in the EUTeens4Green project (concluded in 2024), which empowered teens and young adults (ages 15–24) to become agents of change by proposing actions in their just transition territories, contributing to the governance of the Cohesion Policy. The project revealed both barriers to youth participation and concrete proposals that should inform the drafting and implementation of NRPPs. Key recommendations include financial and technical support for Youth and/or Intergenerational Climate Assemblies in Just Transition Territories; structured consultations with youth-led and youth-centered civil society organisations, with clear procedures for integrating their input into the plans; and dedicated funding for training, capacity building and awareness-raising programs (e.g., through Erasmus+).

Takeaways and Call to Action

Just Transition affairs span across multiple stakeholders, domains of interest, territories, and continents. On the premises of just transition developments at COP 30, and from the standpoint of a European youth network, we examine the position of the EU and its Member States both at the international and domestic (EU) level. 

At the international level, we remind:

  1. The intention of the EU in favor of a Global Just Transition Roadmap 
  2. The establishment of the “Belem Action Mechanism” at COP 30, with the younger generations being accounted for as relevant stakeholders
  3. The Belem Declaration, signed by 9 EU Member States (including Ireland and the Netherlands)
  4. The First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels planned for April 2026, co-initiated by the Netherlands and Colombia
  5. That Ireland will take over the Presidency of the European Council in July 2026
  6. The Plans to Accelerate Solutions – particularly the ones concerning Fair and Equitable Transitions, through inclusive planning and reskilling.

Therefore, we urge Ireland – a signatory Party to the Belem Declaration and upcoming Presidency of the EU Council – to closely follow the developments in Colombia in April 2026, and to ensure the effective and continuous coordination of the implementation of the Just Transition agenda in the EU, alongside the Netherlands and other EU signatories to the Belem Declaration. This coordination should take account of Global Resource Justice considerations and domestic sufficiency of the bloc in critical raw materials, required to replace the energy generated through the burning of fossil fuels.

At the domestic (EU) level, we underline that the proposed National and Regional Partnership Plans (NRPPs) can either impede or become an enabler for the continuation of Just Transition efforts in the EU. The lack of explicit designated funding in the MFF 2028-2034 for the just transition territories could undermine the Just Transition “acquis” in the EU. 

Hence, we propose:

  1. The funding package within the NRPPs does not overlook just transition territories, but instead serves as a catalyst to support their secure and continuous progress toward achieving fair climate neutrality by 2050.
  2. That younger generations are actively involved in the drafting of NRPPs through a place-based approach, in line with the recommendations of the Plans to Accelerate Solutions at COP 30, for example by consulting youth-led and youth-focused civil society organisations, particularly those working on social and environmental rights.
  3. Funding allocated to capacity building and the development of green skills, including both upskilling and reskilling initiatives.

Help us spread the word! Share this statement

Learn more about our work on COP30

Position statement on COP 30 Just Transition outcomes

Read more

Climate-induced displacement

The cost of reparations and who is to pay

Written by

Contents

Share this article

As environmental destruction intensifies, disasters caused by climate change impact livelihoods all around the world. A response to these extreme challenges can include migration, which occurs either voluntarily or involuntarily, chosen preemptively as an adaptive strategy or forced by emergencies.

However, some people intentionally choose to remain in their homes due to strong cultural ties or a lack of capacity to move due to financial issues. While the full picture of climate mobility is important to understand, this post will focus mainly on involuntary displacement, migration and relocation.

Following 2023 as the hottest year ever recorded, in 2024, Europe experienced its most extensive floods since 2013, leading to the displacement of almost half a million people across the region. Further afield, tropical storms caused severe damage across Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam, displacing over a million people at once. With the ever-growing impact of climate change, the urgency of well-structured reparations cannot be stressed enough. 

 

Scale and urgency of the current displacement situation 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that climate extremes and some weather events have become significantly more frequent and intense due to the global impact of human activities, particularly economic and industrial activities. The scale of territories becoming uninhabitable increases alarmingly as a result of sea-level rise and erosion. While livelihoods and settlements are destroyed by floods and storms, people have no choice but to flee their residences. 

Communities in the Global South, war-torn and conflict-impacted areas, are among the most affected. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) stated that 95% of all people who involuntarily left their homes due to internal conflicts in 2021 were in countries that are at high risk from climate change effects.

Disproportionate impact of climate change and climate-disasters is not only defined by the geographical location, but also by socioeconomic inequalities and inequities, hence aggravating vulnerabilities faced by the communities living in those areas manifold. Older people, women, children, indigenous communities and individuals with health problems are less protected in the face of food scarcity, water scarcity and other threats. Therefore, financial and social differences can make it harder for these groups to stay safe and healthy.

The globally estimated number of people displaced internally because of a climate-related disaster is around 250 million over the past 10 years, with 70,000 displacements happening every day, according to the UN refugee agency (UNHCR). Scientists estimate that there could be 1.2 billion climate refugees by 2050, caused by the escalation of intense rainfall, flooding, tropical cyclones and droughts.

 

Addressing climate displacement through loss and damage and adaptation frameworks 

Reparation and resilience-building efforts aimed at addressing climate-induced displacement are incorporated into the concept of loss and damage (L&D). These efforts involve using climate finance to compensate for unavoidable economic and non-economic losses, such as lost livelihoods and cultural connections, and they are operated through the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD). Additionally, these responses are integrated into adaptation strategies by supporting preventive actions like planned relocation and assistance to host communities, which help build long-term resilience.

UNFCCC Frameworks like the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) and its Task Force on Displacement (TFD) recognise displacement as an indispensable component of Loss and Damage (L&D) beyond adaptation limits. The TFD recommendations (2018) provide a structured framework to “avert, minimise and address displacement” through enhanced risk assessments, early warning systems and integration into L&D funding, recognising economic (livelihoods) and non-economic losses (cultural, social ties). This approach emphasises systematic data on displacement cycles for equitable finance allocation under the Paris Agreement.

 

Climate finance allocation to support environmentally displaced people 

Addressing climate change means taking necessary measures by utilising climate finance. This must take unfair disadvantages into account. However, the current way of raising, allocating, spending and managing climate finance fails to address historical injustices; namely, that frontline communities that contributed least to the climate crisis are the ones facing extreme climate-related disasters and challenges most frequently and devastatingly.

In 2023, 82 per cent of displacement caused by conflict took place in countries that are highly vulnerable to climate change, yet these countries receive much less climate funding compared to others. A report by the UNHCR, created in collaboration with the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) and other organisations, shows that at-risk states get only about $2 per person each year for climate adaptation, while non-fragile states receive $161 per person. Tackling the connection between climate change, conflict and displacement needs more funding and better coordination.

Existing mechanisms, such as the aforementioned FRLD, aim to address gaps in current financial systems by providing new, supplementary and reliable funding to tackle issues such as displacement, migration, crop failures, damage to infrastructure and lack of data. But current financial promises to FRLD amount to $821.74 million, which is much less than the estimated $724.43 billion needed each year to cover both economic and non-economic losses in developing nations, making it significantly underfunded. Additionally, these figures do not include the costs related to displacement, which are typically not considered in loss and damage evaluations.

On top of the large financial gap between the pledged amount and actual loss and damage needs, a $2.4 trillion fossil fuel profits in 2023 and a $2 trillion fossil fuel subsidies increase in 2022 showcase another dimension of unfair financial disparity.

With the ever-growing impact and consequences of climate change, the urgency of governments to facilitate accessible and equitable financial distribution is higher than ever. Thus, industries should adhere to their responsibility, derived from being high emitters, to increase financial contributions to the FRLD to ensure such mechanisms deliver urgent support for disaster relief.

 

NCQG and historical responsibility 

The New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) – the new global climate finance target set to a minimum of $100 billion each year, decided during the 29th meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (COP29), must consist of three separate sub-goals that focus on mitigation, adaptation and Loss and Damage. This structure is essential to ensure clarity, accountability and transparency in monitoring finance flows and ensuring that resources are distributed fairly.

Financial quantum and allocation of a total amount estimated to $6.88 trillion should be provided each year under the NCQG. The financial structure should clearly separate grant-based funding, concessional loans and blended finance. Specifically, Loss and Damage should be fully supported by grants to prevent additional strain on vulnerable economies.

The concept of reparations in the context of climate finance suggests that those historically responsible for causing climate change should also bear the costs associated with environmental damage. This principle is reflected in environmental law through the “polluter pays principle,” which was introduced in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Additionally, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledges the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (CBDR) as a key part of international environmental law. This means that while all countries are expected to take action to address climate change, their level of responsibility is not the same. 

Considering the Global North’s major contribution to the current climate crisis, it bears the historical responsibility for providing the necessary financial assets for disaster recovery. Therefore, the polluter pays principle (PPP) mentioned earlier also reckons remediation costs for reparation and resilience-building as integral in addressing aftermath effects like displacement, alongside prevention and control aspects. The “Fill the Fund” campaign, launched by a global civil society coalition in 2025, directly addresses climate inequities by demanding wealthy countries’ immediate contribution to the underfunded Loss and Damage fund. This campaign seeks to enable funds to reach those affected more quickly, placing human rights and justice at the centre, to prevent displacement and rebuild livelihoods.

Historical emitters should also take more competent actions to tackle climate change. In parallel to actively addressing irrevocable harm, it is also imperative to prevent future disasters. Since COP30 failed to deliver an ambitious plan for fossil fuel phase-out, the pursuit of an adequate level of mitigation is uncertain. A lack of concrete climate mitigation ambition means a continued climate change threat posed to humans and other living beings. “We need to finance a just transition for people irreversibly impacted by climate change. A just transition that guarantees a safe and resilient future for these people requires an immediate and significant scale-up of financial support to address current and future loss and damage.”

One of the key milestones for climate justice occurred last July, when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a unanimous Advisory Opinion regarding the obligations of states concerning climate change. Considering the imperative role of climate finance in reparation and resilience-building, the ICJ decision highlighted that international cooperation is a legal requirement, and this includes providing financial support at a level that allows for achieving the temperature targets set out in the Paris Agreement. 

 

Why does equity matter?

The urgent need to respond to the challenges posed by climate change – and the growing number of people facing displacement due to changing environmental conditions that make staying in their homes unsustainable – requires unique approaches to managing climate mobility.

As if the impact of involuntary displacement and relocation is not damaging enough, additional and compounded vulnerabilities emerge from its interaction with other socioeconomic phenomena like race, class and gender. Thus, such conditions should be taken into consideration when delivering disaster relief and recovery. 

Developed nations have the primary responsibility to fund reparations and resilience-building, considering their total greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause of current events. It is also important to note that the communities directly affected by the impacts of the climate crisis are often the ones that have contributed the least to causing it.

Therefore, there is a serious need for increased focus and funding on disaster risk management, emergency response and preventive measures in every country and community.

More articles about climate justice
, ,

Climate-induced displacement

Read more