COP31 and the labour question

As the world prepares for the 31st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, popularly known as COP31, taking place in Antalya, Turkey, from November 9 to 20, we need to interrogate the agenda as it relates to workers. Indeed, climate action cannot be sustainable if it leaves workers poorer, exposes them to greater danger or destroys their livelihoods without providing alternatives.

At the heart of every climate negotiation is the ambition to institutionalise a sustainable green economy. But a green economy that reproduces the injustices of the old carbon economy is not a just transition. It is simply a change of colour.

This is the central message of the October 2026 policy paper of the International Trade Union Confederation, titled Just Transition for Climate Action: Labour Rights at the Heart of Climate Policy. The ITUC is the world’s largest trade union federation.

As governments prepare for COP31, the document offers a timely reminder that climate negotiations are not merely about emissions targets, renewable energy investments and carbon accounting. They are also about people, their rights, their health and their capacity to earn a decent living.

The labour movement is demanding that governments move beyond the rhetoric of a just transition and establish practical mechanisms to deliver it. At the centre of this demand is the proposed Belém–Antalya Mechanism, or BAM, alongside a renewed Just Transition Work Programme under the United Nations climate process.

The challenge is straightforward: climate action must not only protect the Earth; it must protect the people who inhabit it.

One of the most compelling aspects of the ITUC paper is its treatment of extreme heat as a labour rights issue. Climate change is often discussed through the language of rising temperatures, melting ice, changing rainfall patterns and the destruction of ecosystems. But for millions of workers, the crisis is experienced much more directly. It is the unbearable heat on a construction site, the market trader struggling beneath a scorching sun, the farmer labouring in a field, or the transport worker operating in a vehicle that has become an oven.

The consequences are not merely uncomfortable working conditions. They can be fatal.

The ITUC paper cites global estimates attributing 18,970 deaths annually to extreme workplace heat. It also reports 26.2 million cases of chronic kidney disease associated with occupational heat exposure. Looking ahead to 2030, heat stress is projected to account for working-hour losses equivalent to 136 million full-time jobs worldwide, with estimated economic losses of $2.4tn.

These are global figures, not Nigeria-specific estimates. Nevertheless, they offer a sobering warning for a country where many people work outdoors, in poorly ventilated spaces or in the informal economy, often with limited access to occupational health protection.

For Nigeria, the implications are profound. What happens to a building labourer who cannot afford to stop work during extreme heat? What protection does a roadside trader have when temperatures become dangerous? What becomes of the smallholder farmer whose productivity falls because the weather is becoming increasingly hostile?

These questions belong in climate policy discussions just as much as they belong in labour negotiations and public health planning.

The ITUC is therefore right to insist that occupational health and safety must be integral to the just transition agenda. Governments should strengthen workplace protections, establish appropriate safeguards against dangerous temperatures, and develop income and employment protection measures for workers affected by extreme weather.

Employers, too, must recognise that climate adaptation begins with protecting the people who keep their businesses running.

In Nigeria, this should translate into stronger enforcement of workplace safety standards, heat-risk assessments, access to drinking water and rest periods, and appropriate adjustments to working hours during periods of extreme heat. Such measures should be developed in consultation with workers and employers, taking account of the realities of different occupations.

Another important warning in the ITUC paper is that creating green jobs does not automatically guarantee justice.

Renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, cleaner transport and other low-carbon industries offer significant employment opportunities. But if the new jobs are insecure, poorly paid or unsafe, the transition will have failed an essential test.

Related News

• WHO approves clinical trials on two new Ebola vaccines
• Climate, health actions could save 1.6 million lives yearly — WHO
• 5.5 million nomadic children out of school in Nigeria — Report

The paper points out that employment in renewable energy expanded substantially over the 12 years to 2024, although growth has slowed in more recent years. It also warns that precarious working conditions can be more prevalent in renewable energy than in some carbon-intensive sectors.

This matters because the transition away from fossil fuels and other high-emission activities can disrupt existing industries and communities. Workers cannot simply be expected to abandon their occupations and find new ones without assistance. Nor can governments assume that a new industry will automatically compensate for every job lost elsewhere.

A responsible transition requires advance planning, skills development, retraining, redeployment and economic diversification. It also requires social dialogue, meaning structured consultation and negotiation among governments, employers and workers throughout the design and implementation of climate policies.

For Nigeria, this is particularly relevant as the country expands its renewable energy ambitions and confronts unreliable electricity, unemployment and economic vulnerability. Solar energy installation, energy efficiency, climate-resilient agriculture, waste management and sustainable infrastructure could all support employment. But the benefits will depend on deliberate policies that build local skills, protect workers and ensure that the opportunities created are accessible to Nigerians.

The objective must be more than counting announced green jobs.

We must ask how many are decent jobs, how many provide safe working conditions, how many offer opportunities for women and young people, and how many enable communities to build lasting economic resilience.

The ITUC paper makes a significant reference to Nigeria: The Nigeria Labour Congress has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association to protect jobs and uphold workers’ rights during the climate transition.

This is an important foundation that dovetails into NLC’s Just Transition Charter of Demands and broader contributions to Nigeria’s Nationally Determined Contributions 3.0, on which Nigeria can build a more coherent national position ahead of COP31.

The Federal Government, organised labour, and other stakeholders should work towards a national just transition framework that connects climate commitments with employment policy, occupational safety, social protection and industrial development, identifying the sectors and communities most vulnerable to climate impacts and the economic changes associated with decarburization.

Nigeria should therefore approach COP31 not merely as a participant in international negotiations but as a country with practical experiences and proposals to contribute. Our position should reflect the realities of our labour market and the need to combine climate resilience with economic opportunity.

Another important issue the ITUC raised is funding. It argues that climate finance must support employment transitions, social protection, training and the implementation of national policies, while avoiding financing arrangements that impose additional unsustainable debt burdens on developing countries.

This is particularly important for African nations, which must invest in adaptation and development while managing severe financial constraints.

When a community experiences devastating floods, the damage does not end with destroyed buildings and damaged roads. Workers lose income. Small businesses close. Farmers lose crops. Families struggle to pay for food, healthcare and education. Climate disasters can push already vulnerable households deeper into poverty.

Consequently, adaptation finance should not be understood solely as money for physical infrastructure. It must also protect livelihoods and help people recover from climate-related shocks.

The same principle applies to the transition towards cleaner industries. If governments introduce policies that affect employment, they must consider the cost of retraining workers, supporting affected communities and creating alternative economic opportunities.

Climate finance that builds infrastructure but neglects the people who depend on it is incomplete. Equally, a green investment strategy that produces profits while disregarding labour rights cannot credibly claim to be sustainable. This philosophy provides a credible pathway to implementing just transition plans.