Translating promise into practice in Just Energy Transition Partnerships

Translating promise into practice in Just Energy Transition Partnerships | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Translating promise into practice in Just Energy Transition Partnerships Herbagus Unggul Kawiriaan, Thant Thura Zan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9059924/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) have emerged as flagship instruments of Global North–South climate cooperation, promising to accelerate coal phase-out while delivering socially just energy transitions in emerging economies. However, three years into their implementation, growing evidence suggests a widening disconnect between their transformative commitment and on-the-ground realities. This article synthesizes findings from a scoping review of all available studies and grey literature published between 2022 and 2025 to examine this disconnect through the lens of what is termed the translation gap . Translation gap conceptualizes JETPs both as financing mechanisms and as contested policy assemblages in which abstract principles such as justice, partnership, and transition are continually renegotiated as they travel from international declarations to national planning and implementation. The analysis reveals several gaps between financial pledges and disbursements, donor claims of country ownership and retained external control, ambitious coal phase-out commitments and domestic energy security imperatives, and expansive just transition commitments and narrowly defined social provisions. These gaps are shown to be produced through power asymmetries, institutional constraints, and divergent temporal and developmental priorities. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences Social science/Politics and international relations Just Energy Transition Partnerships climate finance energy transition governance climate policy policy translation Figures Figure 1 Introduction The spectacle of international climate summits often produces moments of apparent breakthrough announcements of billion-dollar commitments, press releases proclaiming game-changing partnerships, and photo opportunities featuring heads of state clasping hands across the Global North–South divide. The Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), unveiled with considerable fanfare at COP26 in 2021, exemplified this pattern (Shai, 2024 ). South Africa’s inaugural US $ 8.5 billion JETP was heralded as a template for the rest of the involving states (Houston & Ruppel, 2022 ), followed swiftly by commitments to Indonesia (US $ 20 billion), Vietnam (US $ 15.5 billion), and Senegal (Ha-Duong & Cassen, 2024 ). Collectively, these initiatives were presented as a new model of climate cooperation, meaning one capable of accelerating coal phase-out in emerging economies while simultaneously addressing the social and developmental consequences of energy transition. At their core, JETPs promise to resolve one of the most persistent dilemmas in global climate governance: how to reconcile rapid decarbonization with equity, development, and historical responsibility. Framed as partnerships rather than conditional aid, JETPs claim to depart from traditional North–South climate finance by being country-led, tailored to national circumstances, and explicitly grounded in the principles of a just transition. In doing so, they have attracted extraordinary political attention, becoming emblematic of efforts to operationalize climate justice within the constraints of geopolitics, finance, and unequal Global North–South partnerships. (Banerjee, 2024 ). However, as implementation has progressed, questions have emerged about whether JETPs are delivering on these ambitions or merely repackaging longstanding asymmetries in climate cooperation. Early assessments point to persistent gaps between headline financial commitments and actual disbursements, tensions between donor oversight and recipient sovereignty such as in the cases of Indonesia and Vietnam (Bhabra, 2024; Jazuli et al., 2024 ). They also highlight uncertainty about how justice is defined, measured, and realized in practice (Steadman et al., 2024 ). Moreover, in the cases of Indonesia and Vietnam, recipient countries continue to expand coal capacity or pursue fossil gas development, seemingly at odds with JETP objectives, while civil society actors raise concerns that social dimensions of transition remain under-specified (Do & Burke, 2024 ; Maskun et al., 2023 ). Despite this growing body of critical commentary, existing scholarship on JETPs remains fragmented and under researched. Studies variously conceptualize JETPs as climate finance mechanisms, decarbonization instruments, diplomatic tools, development finance, or justice frameworks, often without interrogating the implications of these divergent framings (Sud, 2024). Much of the literature focuses on individual country cases or specific challenges such as financing gaps, governance design, or coal retirement without systematically examining how meanings, priorities, and commitments shift as JETPs move from international announcements to national policy frameworks and, ultimately, to local socio-economic impacts. As a result, it remains unclear whether observed shortcomings represent contingent implementation failures or reflect deeper structural dynamics embedded in the design of JETPs themselves. This article argues that understanding JETPs requires moving beyond questions of technical adequacy or policy coherence toward an analysis of how climate governance concepts are translated across contexts. Drawing on insights from science and technology studies and development scholarship, it introduces translation gap perspective as an analytical lens to examine how the core principles of JETPs—partnership, justice, and transition—are reinterpreted, contested, and reshaped as they travel from Global North donor discourse to Global South national planning and implementation. Rather than treating discrepancies between rhetoric and outcomes as anomalies, the translation gap perspective conceptualizes them as patterned and politically consequential, shaped by power asymmetries, institutional mandates, and divergent temporal and developmental priorities. By systematically reviewing and synthesizing the exiting JETP literature, this article seeks to contribute three things to ongoing debates. First, it maps how JETPs are framed across academic and policy discourse, revealing the extent of conceptual ambiguity surrounding their purpose and normative foundations. Second, it identifies recurring implementation challenges claims across cases, highlighting where and how translation gaps consistently emerge. Third, it theorizes these patterns to illuminate what JETP reveal about the limits and possibilities of contemporary climate cooperation. Guided by this objective, the article addresses the following research questions: How are Just Energy Transition Partnerships conceptualized and framed in the existing academic and policy literature, and what does this reveal about underlying assumptions regarding energy transition, partnership, and justice? What challenges are identified in discourses of JETP design and implementation, particularly with respect to finance, governance, coal phase-out, and social justice outcomes? The rest of the article is as follows: Section 2 presents the method of the study. Section 3 discusses the results. Section 4 provides implications based on the discussion. Section 5 concludes the article by providing future research directions. Results Architecture of ambiguity: how JETPs frame transition The scoping review reveals striking heterogeneity in how JETPs are conceptualized across studies, donor statements, and national contexts. This definitional instability is not merely academic. It reflects deeper tensions about the purpose and politics of these partnerships. The analysis identified at least seven distinct framing categories: energy transition initiatives (the most common), climate finance mechanisms, decarbonization instruments, compensation mechanisms, diplomatic tools, development finance, and justice frameworks. Notably, as shown in Table 1 , we observe that the just component—ostensibly the defining feature of JETPs—is vaguely defined in international statements, with explicit attention in only approximately one-third of the reviewed studies. Table 1 How JETPS are framed across the literature Framing Category Frequency Percentage Primary Stakeholder Energy transition initiative 24 64.9% Both donors & recipients Climate finance mechanism 18 48.6% Donors (G7, IPG) Decarbonization instrument 12 32.4% International partners Justice framework (explicit) 11 29.7% Civil society, academics Compensation mechanism 4 10.8% Recipient countries Diplomatic/partnership tool 3 8.1% Donor governments Development finance 2 5.4% Development agencies Note : Categories not mutually exclusive; studies may employ multiple framings. N = 37 studies; percentages exceed 100% due to multiple framings per study. This framing variability reflects what translation gap perspective would predict. Different actors emphasize aspects that align with their institutional mandates and political interests. For international partners in the G7, JETPs represent opportunities to demonstrate climate leadership, address their historical carbon debt, and maintain geopolitical influence in strategically important emerging economies (Karg, et al., 2025 ). The emphasis on partnership in donor discourse frames these arrangements as collaborative rather than conditional, obscuring the power asymmetries inherent in North-South financial relationships. For recipient countries like Indonesia and Vietnam, JETPs are framed primarily as energy transition financing mechanisms that are critical sources of concessional capital for infrastructure modernization and renewable energy deployment (Do & Burke, 2024 ). In the case of Indonesia, when the justice dimension appears, it often focuses narrowly on workforce retraining rather than on broader concerns such as distributional equity, energy sovereignty, or the structural drivers of carbon lock-in (Maskun et al., 2023 ). Key national regulations overlook procedural, distributional, and recognitional justice principles, limit regional governments’ ability to manage coal transition impacts, and provide insufficient protection for vulnerable workers and lower-income communities. South Africa’s JETP offers perhaps the clearest example of how translation gaps emerge from political interference and tensions surrounding conditional funding (Fakir, 2023 ). However, studies document persistent confusion about whether JETP funds represent grants, concessional loans, or mobilized private capital—a distinction with profound implications for debt sustainability and national ownership. Seiler et al. ( 2023 ) note that South Africa’s JETP Investment Plan, finalized in 2022, shifted priorities from the original political declaration by focusing heavily on rapid renewable expansion while leaving out key elements such as demand-side efficiency, comprehensive just transition measures, and clear funding pathways. Mapping the implementation challenge The translation gap between JETP commitments and implementation manifests across multiple dimensions, revealed most starkly in the financing architecture as shown in Fig. 1 . Despite headline-grabbing pledges totaling over $ 50 billion across four JETPs (Jain & Bustami, 2025 ), studies consistently report substantial gaps between promised and mobilized capital. Indonesia's $ 20 billion commitment exemplifies the problem: analysis shows that much of this figure represents anticipated private sector mobilization rather than guaranteed public finance, and as of 2024, actual disbursements lag far behind schedule (Bhabra, 2024; Pradnyaswari et al., 2024 ). Vietnam faces similar challenges, with financing concerns compounded by the country's limited absorptive capacity for the scale of investment proposed (Ayas, et al., 2024). The composition of JETP financing packages reveals another translation gap: between the principle of just transition finance and the reality of debt-creating instruments. Across the four JETPs, concessional loans dominate grant financing, raising concerns about debt sustainability particularly in countries like Senegal and South Africa that already face fiscal constraints (Karg et al., 2025 ). Boute ( 2025 ) notes that loans under debt financing must be repaid, which can worsen debt issues, with loan structures often requiring sovereign guarantees that shift financial risk to recipient governments. Nacke et al. ( 2024 ) calculate that if compensation mechanisms comparable to those in existing JETPs were extended to major coal consumers like China and India, the total cost would exceed $ 200 billion, a figure that highlights both the inadequacy of current commitments and the political difficulty of scaling this model. Beyond financing, the translation gap appears acutely in governance structures. The literature documents persistent tensions between donor preferences for conditionality and oversight and recipient demands for sovereignty and policy space. Indonesia's JETP illustrates this dynamic: while political declarations emphasize country-led implementation, Jazuli et al. ( 2024 ) report that such as in the case of Indonesia, the International Partners Group maintains significant influence over investment priorities through the secretariat structure and approval processes. This creates what one study terms a participation paradox. Recipient countries are invited to lead but within boundaries predetermined by donor priorities and risk appetites (Zan et al., 2024 ). Vietnam's experience echoes this pattern, with expert interviews revealing frustration that JETP governance mechanisms privilege international partners' timeline pressures over domestic political economy constraints (Do & Burke, 2024 ). The coal phase-out dimension exposes perhaps the most glaring translation gap. Despite JETPs' stated objective to accelerate coal retirement, Ordonez et al. ( 2024 ) document that Indonesia's and Vietnam's planned coal capacity expansions until 2030 are inconsistent with the goals of their JETP commitments. This reflects not policy failure but rather the collision between international climate ambitions and domestic energy security imperatives. Both countries face rapidly growing electricity demand, concerns about grid reliability, and powerful political-economic interests tied to the coal value chain (Do & Burke, 2024 ). The JETP financing packages, even if fully mobilized, prove insufficient to compensate for the economic and political costs of premature coal retirement. South Africa confronts a different but equally challenging dynamic. While coal capacity is declining, the transition threatens jobs in coal-dependent regions where alternative economic opportunities remain scarce, and the JETP's 'just' transition funds are inadequate to the scale of social dislocation anticipated (Fakir, 2023 ). Social dimension of translation gaps If the financing and governance translation gaps reveal implementation challenges, the justice dimension exposes a more fundamental problem. The absence of shared understanding about what just means in just transition. Steadman et al. ( 2024 ) identify multiple iterations of justice operating across JETP discourse procedural (participation in decision-making), distributional (fair allocation of costs and benefits), recognitional (acknowledgment of marginalized voices), and restorative (addressing historical injustices). But JETPs integrate these dimensions coherently. South Africa's JETP, despite having the most developed justice framework due to the country's pre-existing National Just Transition Framework (Karg et al., 2025 ), illustrates the gap between principle and practice. Studies document that while the Investment Plan references support for affected workers and communities, implementation mechanisms remain underspecified. Fakir ( 2023 ) emphasizes that for the JETP in South Africa, the socio-economic and just outcomes will be fundamental to measuring its ultimate success, noting that these just outcomes must go beyond the consideration of new jobs and compensation; there must be an embedding of equity, dignity, and genuine quality of life. Questions persist about how worker retraining programs will address the reality that renewable energy jobs tend to be fewer, more geographically dispersed, and require different skill sets than coal mining. Indonesia and Vietnam face even steeper justice challenges, as neither country had established just transition frameworks when their JETPs were announced. The translation gap appears in multiple forms: between national-level JETP commitments and the exclusion of local governments and affected communities from planning processes; between donor emphasis on 'stakeholder consultation' and the reality of limited civil society space for energy policy influence; and between compensation for formal sector workers and the invisibility of informal workers and small-scale coal miners in transition planning. Maskun et al. ( 2023 , p. 4) note that in Indonesia, "Presidential Regulations 112/2022 and 11/2023, which serve as the foundation for JETP implementation, contained no specific provisions for ensuring justice outcomes," reflecting the gap between international rhetoric and domestic institutional capacity. The literature also reveals gendered and intersectional dimensions of translation gaps. While JETP declarations frequently reference inclusive transitions and opportunities for women and youth, implementation plans rarely specify mechanisms to prevent energy transitions from reinforcing existing inequalities (Steadman et al., 2024 ). Studies note that coal sector job losses disproportionately affect men, while energy poverty and household energy costs disproportionately burden women, yet JETP financing for social dimensions remains inadequate to address these differentiated impacts simultaneously. Contested transitions and competing development visions Perhaps no issue more starkly reveals the translation gap than the role of natural gas in JETPs. This dispute exposes fundamental tensions between Global North climate priorities and Global South development imperatives. European JETP partners, bound by commitments to cease public financing for fossil fuels, categorically exclude gas from JETP support. However, several recipient countries, most notably Senegal, and in wider African policy debates argue that gas represents a necessary transition fuel for energy access, industrialization, and baseload power while renewable capacity scales up (Sayne, 2022 ; Hege et al., 2022 ). The gas debate illustrates how translation gaps emerge from incompatible timeframes and development trajectories. From the Global North perspective, the urgency of meeting Paris Agreement targets admits no space for new fossil fuel infrastructure that could operate for decades. From the Global South perspective, energy poverty remains an immediate development crisis, and renewable technologies alone cannot yet meet the reliability, affordability, and dispatchability requirements of energy-intensive industrialization. Gabor ( 2023 ) and Tamasiga ( 2024 ) documents this as a stranded development concerning the fear that rigid climate finance conditionality could lock developing countries into low-value economic activities, perpetuating rather than transforming global inequalities. Africa's Common Position on Energy Access and Just Transition, which calls for using both renewable and non-renewable resources, represents a direct challenge to the JETP model's implicit assumption that climate mitigation and development can proceed along the same pathway (Hege et al., 2022 ). Some African climate experts worry that prioritizing gas could distract from renewable deployment and leave countries with stranded assets; others view European opposition to African gas finance as hypocritical given Europe's scramble to secure gas supplies following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. As Wemanya and Opfer ( 2022 ) emphasize, this reveals a deeper translation gap between universalizing climate policy frameworks and the particularities of national development contexts. Discussion The scoping analysis of JETP literature exposes fundamental tensions in contemporary climate governance that translation gap perspective helps illuminate. It reveals how apparently technical instruments embed political choices. The decision to structure JETPs primarily as loans rather than grants is framed as fiscal pragmatism but reflects deeper assumptions about responsibility for climate action and the legitimacy of South's claims on North's historical carbon debt (Boute, 2025 ). The emphasis on country-led processes while maintaining donor approval mechanisms reveals what political scientists call participatory authoritarianism - inclusion without substantive power-sharing. The analysis also highlights how translation gaps are produced through the temporal architecture of climate finance. JETPs operate on donor timeline horizons (three-to-five-year funding cycles, 2030 targets) that misalign with the longer-term political-economic transformations required for deep decarbonization and the even longer-term structural changes needed for just outcomes (Ha-Duong & Cassen, 2024 ). This temporal mismatch creates pressure for visible short-term wins that may undermine more transformative but slower-burning changes. Moreover, the evidence suggests that translation gaps are not merely implementation failures but may serve functional purposes for different actors. For donors, the gap between commitment and disbursement creates space for continued leverage and policy influence while claiming credit for ambitious pledges. For recipients, the gap between JETP targets and national energy plans preserves flexibility to pursue domestic priorities while accessing available climate finance (Jazuli et al., 2024 ). For both, the definitional vagueness around just allows continued cooperation without resolving fundamentally incompatible visions of what fair transitions entail (Sud, 2024). This dynamic resonates with transaction cost economics perspectives identified in the literature, which analyze JETPs through the lens of asset specificity, uncertainty, and frequency of interaction (Zan et al., 2025 ). The translation gap can be understood as emerging from high transaction costs of coordinating across multiple actors with divergent interests, compounded by uncertainty about technological pathways, political stability, and climate impacts. But transaction cost theory alone cannot fully explain JETPs' challenges; insights from political ecology highlight how power asymmetries shape which uncertainties get prioritized and whose transaction costs get minimized. For policymakers, the translation gap analysis yields both cautionary insights and potential pathways forward. The evidence suggests that unless translation gaps are actively addressed, JETPs risk becoming another instance of climate finance that over-promises and under-delivers, potentially damaging trust in international cooperation precisely when it is most needed (Fünfgeld & Wischermann, 2024 ). Financing structures must be fundamentally revised. The heavy reliance on loans rather than grants is inconsistent with both the principle of climate debt and the practical reality of recipient countries' fiscal constraints (Karg et al., 2025 ). International partners should substantially increase the grant component of JETP packages and explore debt-for-climate swaps that address existing debt burdens while enabling transition investment. JETPs represent an opportunity to leapfrog from coal to clean energy, but only if financing structures genuinely enable transformation rather than creating new debt burdens (Kramer, 2022). Moreover, private sector mobilization targets should be separated from public commitments; conflating the two obscures accountability and overstates available resources (Bhabra, 2024). Governance mechanisms require redesign to enable genuine country ownership. Current structures, which give International Partners Group members effective veto power over investments, should evolve toward models where recipient countries hold decision-making authority with international partners playing advisory and supportive roles (Zan et al., 2024 ). This might involve transitioning JETP secretariats from international to domestic control, establishing independent oversight bodies that include civil society representation, and creating transparent, participatory processes for investment prioritization. The justice component must move from rhetorical commitment to resourced implementation. This requires dedicated, unconditional funding streams for social transition that are at least 20–30% of total JETP packages rather than the current 5–10% (Steadman et al., 2024 ). It requires legally binding commitments to worker and community participation in transition planning, not mere consultation. And it requires acknowledging that just transitions may slow coal phase-out timelines if meaningful social support takes time to organize—a trade-off that current JETP structures avoid confronting (Fakir, 2023 ). The gas question demands honest dialogue rather than imposed conditionality. Rather than categorically excluding gas, JETPs should engage seriously with recipient countries' arguments about energy access and development, establishing clear criteria for temporary, limited gas support that is genuinely transitional rather than locking in long-term fossil dependence (Sayne, 2022 ; Kramer, 2022). This might involve sunset clauses, prohibitions on export-oriented liquefied natural gas development, and requirements that gas infrastructure be renewable-ready. These adjustments, however necessary, may prove insufficient if the translation gap perspective reveals more fundamental problems with the JETP model itself. If the gaps between promise and performance reflect not implementation challenges but irreconcilable tensions between donor and recipient interests, between climate urgency and development imperatives, between global frameworks and local realities, then closing these gaps may require not refining JETPs but reimagining climate finance cooperation entirely (Michael & Martini, 2023 ). Conclusion The JETPs represent an important experiment in climate finance—an attempt to move beyond fragmented project funding toward comprehensive sectoral transformation, to integrate justice considerations from the outset rather than as afterthoughts, and to organize cooperation through focused partnerships rather than sprawling multilateral negotiations (Gunfaus et al., 2022 ). However, three years into implementation, JETPs remain more aspiration than accomplishment, more blueprint than building. The translation gap perspective helps explain why. The pathway from international commitment to national implementation to local impact is neither linear nor automatic but rather a contested political process in which meanings shift, priorities evolve, and power relations shape outcomes. JETPs promised to de-risk climate investment, but they have instead exposed the deeply political nature of transition the incompatible timeframes, the distributional conflicts, the competing development visions that cannot be resolved through technical financial instruments alone (Sud, 2024). This should not counsel despair but rather realism. Climate cooperation requires moving beyond the ritualistic optimism of summit announcements to the difficult work of building institutions, redistributing resources, and negotiating trade-offs across profound asymmetries of power and wealth (von Lüpke, 2025 ). JETPs may yet succeed, but success will require acknowledging rather than obscuring these challenges, closing the gap between rhetoric and reality, and recognizing that just transitions demand not merely financial transfers but transformations in the structures of global economic and political power that produced climate crisis in the first place. The question for researchers, policymakers, and civil society actors is whether JETPs can evolve to meet this challenge or whether their translation gaps are symptoms of deeper contradictions that require altogether different approaches. The next phase of JETP implementation, and the decisions about whether to extend this model to additional countries, will provide crucial evidence. But the burden of proof has shifted: proponents of JETPs must demonstrate not merely that these partnerships can mobilize finance but that they can deliver transformative, equitable outcomes for the workers and communities whose futures hang in the balance. Limitations Some limitations constrain this analysis. First, the literature review captured only published academic and policy documents, missing important dynamics in confidential negotiations, internal government deliberations, or community-level implementation experiences. Second, the concentration of studies in 2022–2025 means the analysis captures early implementation phases and longer-term outcomes remain uncertain. Third, language limitations restricted the search strategy to English-language publications, potentially underrepresenting perspectives from recipient countries where scholarly debates may occur in national languages. Despite these constraints, the scoping approach enables robust identification of patterns across the existing evidence base and grounds the theoretical framework in empirical observations rather than normative assumptions. Method This article employs a scoping review to map, synthesize, and critically interpret the emerging body of literature on JETPs. A scoping review approach (Munn et al., 2018 ) is appropriate given the relative novelty of JETPs as a policy instrument, the limited number of peer-reviewed empirical studies, and the heterogeneity of available sources spanning academic research and policy-oriented analysis. Rather than aiming for exhaustive coverage or quantitative aggregation, the review seeks to identify dominant themes, conceptual framings, and recurring patterns relevant to understanding how JETPs are designed, interpreted, and implemented. The review was conducted on June 29, 2025, using a structured search strategy across academic databases (Web of Science, and Scopus) and a broad range of grey literature sources. Initial searches in scholarly databases revealed a limited number of peer-reviewed studies engaging substantively with JETPs, which reflects the relative novelty of JETPs as a policy instrument and the lag between policy implementation and academic publication. In response, the review was intentionally expanded to include grey literature, where the bulk of analytical and evaluative discourse on JETPs currently resides. Search terms included “Just Energy Transition Partnership,” “JETP,” “climate finance,” “coal phase-out,” and combinations of these terms with country names associated with announced JETPs (South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Senegal). Grey literature sources included policy analyses and reports from international organizations, government agencies, think tanks, civil society organizations, as well as analytical commentary in specialized energy and climate policy media. The search targeted materials published between 2022—following the announcement of South Africa’s JETP at COP26—and June 2025. Sources were screened based on predefined inclusion criteria: substantive engagement with JETP design, governance, implementation, or anticipated outcomes, the presence of empirical evidence or analytical argumentation, and publication in English. Peer-reviewed journal articles, policy briefs, working papers, analytical reports, and institutional assessments were included. Through this process, a total of 39 sources are retained for analysis. The list of the sources in this article is shown in Appendix. Given the limited size and emergent nature of the evidence base, the review did not follow formal PRISMA reporting steps. Instead, sources were identified and screened iteratively and carefully at the outset to ensure analytical relevance and depth, consistent with the exploratory objectives of scoping reviews. The review does not seek to evaluate the effectiveness of individual JETPs or establish causal relationships. Rather, it provides an interpretive foundation for deploying the translation gap perspective as a lens through which to analyze how JETPs function as contested governance instruments across international, national, and local contexts. An analytical lens: Policy translation gap perspective Conceptually, the framework draws on policy translation theory in science and technology studies (Callon, 1984 ; Latour, 1987 ) which emphasizes how ideas are reinterpreted as they circulate across actors, boundary object theory (Franco-Torres et al., 2020 ) which explains how deliberately ambiguous concepts enable coordination without consensus, and scholarship on policy mobility and vernacularization (Herberg et al., 2023 ), which highlights how global policy models are reshaped through domestic political economy and institutional constraints. Synthesizing these strands, the translation gap perspective treats JETPs as contested governance assemblages in which ostensibly technical instruments of climate finance are continually negotiated, redefined, and politically mediated rather than implemented as neutral or uniform solutions. This analytical lens is particularly useful for examining JETPs because we pay attention toward the processes through which meaning, authority, and responsibility are redistributed as policies move across scales (Ha-Duong & Cassen, 2024 ). Rather than interpreting discrepancies between international commitments and national outcomes as implementation deficits, the translation gap framework conceptualizes them as expected and politically consequential outcomes of translation across heterogeneous institutional settings (Nur et al., 2025 ). It enables analysis of how key terms such as just transition, partnership, and country ownership function simultaneously as enabling devices that sustain cooperation and as sites of contestation that mask unresolved conflicts over finance, risk allocation, and development pathways (Cassidy, 2022 ). In doing so, the framework makes visible the power asymmetries embedded in JETP design and governance, the temporal and developmental assumptions shaping donor and recipient expectations, and the mechanisms through which justice commitments are narrowed, deferred, or displaced during implementation (Tan, 2024 ). By foregrounding these dynamics, the translation gap framework provides a structured way to interrogate why ambitious climate finance initiatives repeatedly fall short of their transformative claims without reducing those outcomes to technical shortcomings or insufficient political will. Declarations Credit Roles H.U.K and T.T.Z equally contribute to the article. ORCID Herbagus Unggul Kawiriaan: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3691-1789 Thant Thura Zan: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4837-9649 Competing Interests No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding Statement The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript Author Contribution All authors approve the final version.Credit RolesH.U.K and T.T.Z equally contribute to the article. Acknowledgements XXX Data Availability The data used in this article are listed in the Appendix. References Ayas, C., Vo, N., Khuat, B., Hu, D. & Giawangkara, J. et al. Building blocks for a successful just energy transition: A stocktake analysis of Indonesia and Vietnam. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1511, 012010 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1511/1/012010 Banerjee, A. Transforming the rhetoric of Just Energy Transition Partnerships into reality: The devil lies in the details. PLOS Sustain. Transform. 3, 0000121 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000121 Bhabra, A. Just energy transition partnerships in Vietnam and Indonesia: Building blocks for success. Climateworks Centre https://www.climateworkscentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Energy-Transitions-in-Vietnam-and-Indonesia_Building-blocks-for-successful-Just-Energy-Transition-Partnerships_May-2023.pdf Boute, A. Phasing out coal investment contracts: Does just transition finance legitimize unjust compensation? ICSID Rev. – Foreign Invest. Law J. 40, 315–340 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siae037 Callon, M. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review , 32 (1_suppl), 196–233 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x Cassidy, C. The Politics of Just Transitions: Definitions Matter. Research Institute for Sustainability (2022). https://www.rifs-potsdam.de/en/blog/2022/11/politics-just-transitions-definitions-matter Do, T. N. & Burke, P. J. Phasing out coal power in two major Southeast Asian thermal coal economies: Indonesia and Vietnam. Energy Sustain. Dev. 80, 101451 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101451 Fakir, S. South Africa’s just energy transition partnership: A novel approach transforming the international landscape on delivering NDC financial goals at scale. Dev. South. Afr. 40, 297–312 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/10220461.2023.2233006 Franco-Torres, M., Rogers, B. C., & Ugarelli, R. M. A framework to explain the role of boundary objects in sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions , 36 , 34–48 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.04.010 Fünfgeld, A. & Wischermann, J. Why just energy transition partnerships are not enough. GIGA Focus Global 2(German Institute for Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, 2024). https://doi.org/10.57671/gfgl-24022 Gabor, D. (2023). The Wall Street Consensus and the just transition: Private finance, public risk, and global inequality. Development and Change, 54(3), 429–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12766 Gunfaus, M. T., Tyler, E., Treyer, S., Okereke, C., Boer, R., et al. (2022). Just Energy Transition Partnerships: Can they really make a difference, and how? https://www.iddri.org/en/publications-and-events/blog-post/just-energy-transition-partnerships-can-they-really-make Hadley, S.What’s the state of play on just energy transition partnerships? ODI Insights https://odi.org/en/insights/whats-the-state-of-play-on-just-energy-transition-partnerships/ (2022). Ha-Duong, M., & Cassen, C. Just Energy Transition Partnerships at Two: Doctrine, Executions and Way Forward . SSRN Library (2024). https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4728216 Ha-Duong, M. & Cassen, C. Just energy transition partnerships at two: Doctrine, executions and way forward. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4728216 (2024). Hege, E., Okereke, C., Treyer, S., Sokona, Y. & Kingiri, A. et al. Just energy transition partnerships in the context of Africa–Europe relations: Reflections from South Africa, Nigeria and Senegal. Ukȧmȧ (IDDRI, Paris, 2022). https://www.iddri.org/en/publications-and-events/report/just-energy-transition-partnerships-context-africa-europe-relations Herberg, J., Drewing, E., Reinermann, J.-L., Radtke, J., LaBelle, M., Stojilovska, A., & Gürtler, K. Energy spaces: Bridging scales and standpoints of just energy transitions. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning , 25 (2), 135–141 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2023.2193024 Houston, L. J. & Ruppel, O. C. Just energy transitions in progress? The partnership between South Africa and the EU. J. Eur. Environ. Plan. Law 19, 31–54 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-19010004 Hug, F. Local content requirements in Asia’s just energy transition: Neutralising tensions with international economic law. J. World Energy Law Bus. 18, 2 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1093/jwelb/jwaf003 Jain, G. & Bustami, G. Realising the potential of just energy transition partnerships in the current geopolitical environment. Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia Univ. https://www.jetknowledge.org/knowledge/realising-the-potential-of-just-energy-transition-partnerships-current-geopolitical-environment/ (2025). Jazuli, M. R., Roll, K. & Mulugetta, Y. A review of Indonesia’s JETP through the dynamics of its policy regime. Glob. Policy 15, 989–1006 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13452 Jindal, A., Shrimali, G., Gangwani, B. & Lall, R. B. Financing just energy transitions in Southeast Asia: Application of the just transition transaction to Indonesia, Vietnam, and Philippines. Energy Sustain. Dev. 81, 101472 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101472 Karg, A., Gupta, J. & Chen, Y. Just energy transition partnerships: An inclusive climate finance approach? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 125, 104103 (2025). Kramer, K. Just energy transition partnerships: An opportunity to leapfrog from coal to clean energy. International Institute for Sustainable Development https://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/just-energy-transition-partnerships (2022a). Kramer, K. Making the leap: The need for just energy transition partnerships (JETPs) to support leapfrogging fossil gas to a clean renewable energy future. International Institute for Sustainable Development https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2022-11/just-energy-transition-partnerships.pdf (2022b). Latour, B. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society . Harvard University Press (1987). Maskun, M., Paliling, V. E. S., Hamzah, A. N. I. & Al Mukarramah, N. H. Justice element in just energy transition partnership decarbonization policy: A conceptual legal analysis. E3S Web Conf. 467, 05003 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202346705003 Michael, J. & Martini, L. How can the G7 and G20 improve just energy transition partnerships? Taking stock of just energy transition partnerships (JETP). Ecologic Institute https://www.ecologic.eu/19349 (2023). Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 18 (1), 143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x Nacke, L., Vinichenko, V., Cherp, A., Jakhmola, A. & Jewell, J. Compensating affected parties necessary for rapid coal phase-out but expensive if extended to major emitters. Nat. Commun. 15, 3742 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47667-w Nur, U. A., Bainus, A., & Darmawan, W. B. The Role of the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP): Between Commitment and Implementation. Ilomata International Journal of Social Science , 6 (4), 1309–1323 . (2025). https://doi.org/10.61194/ijss.v6i4.1831 Pradnyaswari, I., Batrisyia, I., & Rakhiemah, A. N.. Bridging the Investment Gap: Empowering Energy Transition Through Climate Finance. ASEAN Climate Change and Energy Project (2024). https://accept.aseanenergy.org/bridging-the-investment-gap-empowering-energy-transition-through-climate-finance Ordonez, J. A., Vandyck, T., Keramidas, K. & Garaffa, R. Just energy transition partnerships and the future of coal. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 1026–1029 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02086-z Sandria, A., Adji, K. D. & Prabowo, J. J. Exceptions for stop building coal-fired power plants in Indonesia. E3S Web Conf. 467, 05007 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202346705007 Sayne, A. Just energy transition partnerships for gas-producing countries. Natural Resource Governance Institute https://resourcegovernance.org/sites/default/files/documents/just_energy_transition_partnerships_for_gas-producing_countries.pdf (2022). Seiler, A., Brown, H. & Matthews, S. The JETPs of South Africa and Indonesia: A blueprint for the move away from coal? Center for Global Development https://www.cgdev.org/publication/jetps-south-africa-and-indonesia-blueprint-move-away-coal (2023). Simpson, N. P., Jacobs, M., & Gilmour, A. (2023). Taking stock of just energy transition partnerships . Overseas Development Institute. https://odi.org/en/publications/taking-stock-of-just-energy-transition-partnerships/ Steadman, S., Colenbrander, S., Simpson, N., McKechnie, A., & Cole, M. (2024). Putting the “just” in Just Energy Transition Partnerships: What role for the multilateral development banks? Overseas Development Institute. https://odi.cdn.ngo/media/documents/Putting_the_just_in_Just_Energy_Transition_Partnerships-what_role_for_the_MDBs.pdf Sud, N. (2025). Unjust energy transition: Vignettes from the COPs, climate finance and a coal hotspot. World Development, 190, 106906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106906 Shai, T. What are JETPs? (Just Energy Transition Partnerships). Institute for Human Rights and Business (2024).. https://www.ihrb.org/resources/what-are-jetps-just-energy-transition-partnerships Tan, C. Equity and the Global Climate Finance Architecture: An Evaluation of the Just Transition Partnership (JETP) Framework ( 2024). https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Rome_Presentation_TAN.pdf Tamasiga, P. (2024, November 12). Challenges and opportunities for Just Energy Transition Partnerships in Africa. Megatrends Afrika Policy Brief No. 30. https://doi.org/10.18449/2024MTA-PB30 von Lüpke, H. (2025). The Just Energy Transition Partnership in South Africa: Identification and assessment of key factors driving international cooperation. Earth System Governance, 25, 100274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2025.100274 Wemanya, A., & Opfer, K. (2022). Principles for Just Energy Transition Partnerships in the African energy context. Germanwatch. https://www.germanwatch.org/en/87617 Zan, T. T., Smith, I. D., & Øverland, I. (2024). The political economy of climate finance: Stakeholder relationship dynamics in the Indonesian Just Energy Transition Partnership. Cambridge Journal of Climate Research, 1(2). Zan, T. T., Smith, I. D., Øverland, I., & Pradnyaswari, I. (2025). Transaction costs of the Indonesian Just Energy Transition Partnership. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1511, 012012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1511/1/012012 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 28 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Apr, 2026 Reviews received at journal 22 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 16 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 12 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 12 Mar, 2026 First submitted to journal 07 Mar, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9059924","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":607573194,"identity":"a832e36f-473a-4c2d-8f5d-955e2b009492","order_by":0,"name":"Herbagus Unggul Kawiriaan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Gadjah Mada University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Herbagus","middleName":"Unggul","lastName":"Kawiriaan","suffix":""},{"id":607573195,"identity":"7eb1b5f7-9863-4334-9678-2cc2d9eee5d9","order_by":1,"name":"Thant Thura Zan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kyoto University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Thant","middleName":"Thura","lastName":"Zan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-07 16:53:28","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9059924/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9059924/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104875031,"identity":"d0ef289d-bc19-4fd7-b586-5816dc8f422a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 08:36:24","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":100599,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey implementation challenges of JETPs. \u003c/strong\u003eSummary of key implementation challenges identified in the JETP literature, with frequency of occurrence across reviewed studies (N=37) and illustrative examples.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9059924/v1/3cc9743f9a6490ff4b5fbe37.jpg"},{"id":105034360,"identity":"bb24abf8-15b5-494c-ad93-3d14c6957d74","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-20 07:23:11","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":673478,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9059924/v1/b75dda66-dbda-434e-a573-e6762c7f197e.pdf"},{"id":104875032,"identity":"fa3ee4e0-d127-4960-9074-86c8eca7bb7e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 08:36:24","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":19766,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9059924/v1/90d458af9e35c90c6bec3329.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Translating promise into practice in Just Energy Transition Partnerships","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe spectacle of international climate summits often produces moments of apparent breakthrough announcements of billion-dollar commitments, press releases proclaiming game-changing partnerships, and photo opportunities featuring heads of state clasping hands across the Global North\u0026ndash;South divide. The Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), unveiled with considerable fanfare at COP26 in 2021, exemplified this pattern (Shai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). South Africa\u0026rsquo;s inaugural US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e8.5\u0026nbsp;billion JETP was heralded as a template for the rest of the involving states (Houston \u0026amp; Ruppel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), followed swiftly by commitments to Indonesia (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e20\u0026nbsp;billion), Vietnam (US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e15.5\u0026nbsp;billion), and Senegal (Ha-Duong \u0026amp; Cassen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Collectively, these initiatives were presented as a new model of climate cooperation, meaning one capable of accelerating coal phase-out in emerging economies while simultaneously addressing the social and developmental consequences of energy transition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt their core, JETPs promise to resolve one of the most persistent dilemmas in global climate governance: how to reconcile rapid decarbonization with equity, development, and historical responsibility. Framed as partnerships rather than conditional aid, JETPs claim to depart from traditional North\u0026ndash;South climate finance by being country-led, tailored to national circumstances, and explicitly grounded in the principles of a just transition. In doing so, they have attracted extraordinary political attention, becoming emblematic of efforts to operationalize climate justice within the constraints of geopolitics, finance, and unequal Global North\u0026ndash;South partnerships. (Banerjee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, as implementation has progressed, questions have emerged about whether JETPs are delivering on these ambitions or merely repackaging longstanding asymmetries in climate cooperation. Early assessments point to persistent gaps between headline financial commitments and actual disbursements, tensions between donor oversight and recipient sovereignty such as in the cases of Indonesia and Vietnam (Bhabra, 2024; Jazuli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). They also highlight uncertainty about how justice is defined, measured, and realized in practice (Steadman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, in the cases of Indonesia and Vietnam, recipient countries continue to expand coal capacity or pursue fossil gas development, seemingly at odds with JETP objectives, while civil society actors raise concerns that social dimensions of transition remain under-specified (Do \u0026amp; Burke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Maskun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite this growing body of critical commentary, existing scholarship on JETPs remains fragmented and under researched. Studies variously conceptualize JETPs as climate finance mechanisms, decarbonization instruments, diplomatic tools, development finance, or justice frameworks, often without interrogating the implications of these divergent framings (Sud, 2024). Much of the literature focuses on individual country cases or specific challenges such as financing gaps, governance design, or coal retirement without systematically examining how meanings, priorities, and commitments shift as JETPs move from international announcements to national policy frameworks and, ultimately, to local socio-economic impacts. As a result, it remains unclear whether observed shortcomings represent contingent implementation failures or reflect deeper structural dynamics embedded in the design of JETPs themselves.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis article argues that understanding JETPs requires moving beyond questions of technical adequacy or policy coherence toward an analysis of how climate governance concepts are translated across contexts. Drawing on insights from science and technology studies and development scholarship, it introduces translation gap perspective as an analytical lens to examine how the core principles of JETPs\u0026mdash;partnership, justice, and transition\u0026mdash;are reinterpreted, contested, and reshaped as they travel from Global North donor discourse to Global South national planning and implementation. Rather than treating discrepancies between rhetoric and outcomes as anomalies, the translation gap perspective conceptualizes them as patterned and politically consequential, shaped by power asymmetries, institutional mandates, and divergent temporal and developmental priorities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy systematically reviewing and synthesizing the exiting JETP literature, this article seeks to contribute three things to ongoing debates. First, it maps how JETPs are framed across academic and policy discourse, revealing the extent of conceptual ambiguity surrounding their purpose and normative foundations. Second, it identifies recurring implementation challenges claims across cases, highlighting where and how translation gaps consistently emerge. Third, it theorizes these patterns to illuminate what JETP reveal about the limits and possibilities of contemporary climate cooperation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGuided by this objective, the article addresses the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow are Just Energy Transition Partnerships conceptualized and framed in the existing academic and policy literature, and what does this reveal about underlying assumptions regarding energy transition, partnership, and justice?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhat challenges are identified in discourses of JETP design and implementation, particularly with respect to finance, governance, coal phase-out, and social justice outcomes?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe rest of the article is as follows: Section 2 presents the method of the study. Section 3 discusses the results. Section 4 provides implications based on the discussion. Section 5 concludes the article by providing future research directions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eArchitecture of ambiguity: how JETPs frame transition\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe scoping review reveals striking heterogeneity in how JETPs are conceptualized across studies, donor statements, and national contexts. This definitional instability is not merely academic. It reflects deeper tensions about the purpose and politics of these partnerships. The analysis identified at least seven distinct framing categories: energy transition initiatives (the most common), climate finance mechanisms, decarbonization instruments, compensation mechanisms, diplomatic tools, development finance, and justice frameworks. Notably, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, we observe that the just component\u0026mdash;ostensibly the defining feature of JETPs\u0026mdash;is vaguely defined in international statements, with explicit attention in only approximately one-third of the reviewed studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHow JETPS are framed across the literature\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFraming Category\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePercentage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary Stakeholder\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy transition initiative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e64.9%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoth donors \u0026amp; recipients\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClimate finance mechanism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48.6%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDonors (G7, IPG)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDecarbonization instrument\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternational partners\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJustice framework (explicit)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.7%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCivil society, academics\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompensation mechanism\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.8%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecipient countries\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiplomatic/partnership tool\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.1%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDonor governments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment finance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.4%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment agencies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote\u003c/b\u003e: Categories not mutually exclusive; studies may employ multiple framings. N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;37 studies; percentages exceed 100% due to multiple framings per study.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis framing variability reflects what translation gap perspective would predict. Different actors emphasize aspects that align with their institutional mandates and political interests. For international partners in the G7, JETPs represent opportunities to demonstrate climate leadership, address their historical carbon debt, and maintain geopolitical influence in strategically important emerging economies (Karg, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The emphasis on partnership in donor discourse frames these arrangements as collaborative rather than conditional, obscuring the power asymmetries inherent in North-South financial relationships. For recipient countries like Indonesia and Vietnam, JETPs are framed primarily as energy transition financing mechanisms that are critical sources of concessional capital for infrastructure modernization and renewable energy deployment (Do \u0026amp; Burke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the case of Indonesia, when the justice dimension appears, it often focuses narrowly on workforce retraining rather than on broader concerns such as distributional equity, energy sovereignty, or the structural drivers of carbon lock-in (Maskun et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Key national regulations overlook procedural, distributional, and recognitional justice principles, limit regional governments\u0026rsquo; ability to manage coal transition impacts, and provide insufficient protection for vulnerable workers and lower-income communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSouth Africa\u0026rsquo;s JETP offers perhaps the clearest example of how translation gaps emerge from political interference and tensions surrounding conditional funding (Fakir, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, studies document persistent confusion about whether JETP funds represent grants, concessional loans, or mobilized private capital\u0026mdash;a distinction with profound implications for debt sustainability and national ownership. Seiler et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) note that South Africa\u0026rsquo;s JETP Investment Plan, finalized in 2022, shifted priorities from the original political declaration by focusing heavily on rapid renewable expansion while leaving out key elements such as demand-side efficiency, comprehensive just transition measures, and clear funding pathways.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMapping the implementation challenge\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe translation gap between JETP commitments and implementation manifests across multiple dimensions, revealed most starkly in the financing architecture as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Despite headline-grabbing pledges totaling over \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e50\u0026nbsp;billion across four JETPs (Jain \u0026amp; Bustami, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), studies consistently report substantial gaps between promised and mobilized capital. Indonesia's \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e20\u0026nbsp;billion commitment exemplifies the problem: analysis shows that much of this figure represents anticipated private sector mobilization rather than guaranteed public finance, and as of 2024, actual disbursements lag far behind schedule (Bhabra, 2024; Pradnyaswari et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Vietnam faces similar challenges, with financing concerns compounded by the country's limited absorptive capacity for the scale of investment proposed (Ayas, et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe composition of JETP financing packages reveals another translation gap: between the principle of just transition finance and the reality of debt-creating instruments. Across the four JETPs, concessional loans dominate grant financing, raising concerns about debt sustainability particularly in countries like Senegal and South Africa that already face fiscal constraints (Karg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Boute (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e) notes that loans under debt financing must be repaid, which can worsen debt issues, with loan structures often requiring sovereign guarantees that shift financial risk to recipient governments. Nacke et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) calculate that if compensation mechanisms comparable to those in existing JETPs were extended to major coal consumers like China and India, the total cost would exceed \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e200\u0026nbsp;billion, a figure that highlights both the inadequacy of current commitments and the political difficulty of scaling this model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeyond financing, the translation gap appears acutely in governance structures. The literature documents persistent tensions between donor preferences for conditionality and oversight and recipient demands for sovereignty and policy space. Indonesia's JETP illustrates this dynamic: while political declarations emphasize country-led implementation, Jazuli et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) report that such as in the case of Indonesia, the International Partners Group maintains significant influence over investment priorities through the secretariat structure and approval processes. This creates what one study terms a participation paradox. Recipient countries are invited to lead but within boundaries predetermined by donor priorities and risk appetites (Zan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Vietnam's experience echoes this pattern, with expert interviews revealing frustration that JETP governance mechanisms privilege international partners' timeline pressures over domestic political economy constraints (Do \u0026amp; Burke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe coal phase-out dimension exposes perhaps the most glaring translation gap. Despite JETPs' stated objective to accelerate coal retirement, Ordonez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) document that Indonesia's and Vietnam's planned coal capacity expansions until 2030 are inconsistent with the goals of their JETP commitments. This reflects not policy failure but rather the collision between international climate ambitions and domestic energy security imperatives. Both countries face rapidly growing electricity demand, concerns about grid reliability, and powerful political-economic interests tied to the coal value chain (Do \u0026amp; Burke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The JETP financing packages, even if fully mobilized, prove insufficient to compensate for the economic and political costs of premature coal retirement. South Africa confronts a different but equally challenging dynamic. While coal capacity is declining, the transition threatens jobs in coal-dependent regions where alternative economic opportunities remain scarce, and the JETP's 'just' transition funds are inadequate to the scale of social dislocation anticipated (Fakir, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSocial dimension of translation gaps\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIf the financing and governance translation gaps reveal implementation challenges, the justice dimension exposes a more fundamental problem. The absence of shared understanding about what just means in just transition. Steadman et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) identify multiple iterations of justice operating across JETP discourse procedural (participation in decision-making), distributional (fair allocation of costs and benefits), recognitional (acknowledgment of marginalized voices), and restorative (addressing historical injustices). But JETPs integrate these dimensions coherently.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSouth Africa's JETP, despite having the most developed justice framework due to the country's pre-existing National Just Transition Framework (Karg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), illustrates the gap between principle and practice. Studies document that while the Investment Plan references support for affected workers and communities, implementation mechanisms remain underspecified. Fakir (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) emphasizes that for the JETP in South Africa, the socio-economic and just outcomes will be fundamental to measuring its ultimate success, noting that these just outcomes must go beyond the consideration of new jobs and compensation; there must be an embedding of equity, dignity, and genuine quality of life. Questions persist about how worker retraining programs will address the reality that renewable energy jobs tend to be fewer, more geographically dispersed, and require different skill sets than coal mining.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndonesia and Vietnam face even steeper justice challenges, as neither country had established just transition frameworks when their JETPs were announced. The translation gap appears in multiple forms: between national-level JETP commitments and the exclusion of local governments and affected communities from planning processes; between donor emphasis on 'stakeholder consultation' and the reality of limited civil society space for energy policy influence; and between compensation for formal sector workers and the invisibility of informal workers and small-scale coal miners in transition planning. Maskun et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e, p. 4) note that in Indonesia, \"Presidential Regulations 112/2022 and 11/2023, which serve as the foundation for JETP implementation, contained no specific provisions for ensuring justice outcomes,\" reflecting the gap between international rhetoric and domestic institutional capacity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe literature also reveals gendered and intersectional dimensions of translation gaps. While JETP declarations frequently reference inclusive transitions and opportunities for women and youth, implementation plans rarely specify mechanisms to prevent energy transitions from reinforcing existing inequalities (Steadman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Studies note that coal sector job losses disproportionately affect men, while energy poverty and household energy costs disproportionately burden women, yet JETP financing for social dimensions remains inadequate to address these differentiated impacts simultaneously.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eContested transitions and competing development visions\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePerhaps no issue more starkly reveals the translation gap than the role of natural gas in JETPs. This dispute exposes fundamental tensions between Global North climate priorities and Global South development imperatives. European JETP partners, bound by commitments to cease public financing for fossil fuels, categorically exclude gas from JETP support. However, several recipient countries, most notably Senegal, and in wider African policy debates argue that gas represents a necessary transition fuel for energy access, industrialization, and baseload power while renewable capacity scales up (Sayne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Hege et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe gas debate illustrates how translation gaps emerge from incompatible timeframes and development trajectories. From the Global North perspective, the urgency of meeting Paris Agreement targets admits no space for new fossil fuel infrastructure that could operate for decades. From the Global South perspective, energy poverty remains an immediate development crisis, and renewable technologies alone cannot yet meet the reliability, affordability, and dispatchability requirements of energy-intensive industrialization. Gabor (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Tamasiga (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) documents this as a stranded development concerning the fear that rigid climate finance conditionality could lock developing countries into low-value economic activities, perpetuating rather than transforming global inequalities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAfrica's Common Position on Energy Access and Just Transition, which calls for using both renewable and non-renewable resources, represents a direct challenge to the JETP model's implicit assumption that climate mitigation and development can proceed along the same pathway (Hege et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Some African climate experts worry that prioritizing gas could distract from renewable deployment and leave countries with stranded assets; others view European opposition to African gas finance as hypocritical given Europe's scramble to secure gas supplies following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. As Wemanya and Opfer (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize, this reveals a deeper translation gap between universalizing climate policy frameworks and the particularities of national development contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe scoping analysis of JETP literature exposes fundamental tensions in contemporary climate governance that translation gap perspective helps illuminate. It reveals how apparently technical instruments embed political choices. The decision to structure JETPs primarily as loans rather than grants is framed as fiscal pragmatism but reflects deeper assumptions about responsibility for climate action and the legitimacy of South's claims on North's historical carbon debt (Boute, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The emphasis on country-led processes while maintaining donor approval mechanisms reveals what political scientists call participatory authoritarianism - inclusion without substantive power-sharing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis also highlights how translation gaps are produced through the temporal architecture of climate finance. JETPs operate on donor timeline horizons (three-to-five-year funding cycles, 2030 targets) that misalign with the longer-term political-economic transformations required for deep decarbonization and the even longer-term structural changes needed for just outcomes (Ha-Duong \u0026amp; Cassen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This temporal mismatch creates pressure for visible short-term wins that may undermine more transformative but slower-burning changes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the evidence suggests that translation gaps are not merely implementation failures but may serve functional purposes for different actors. For donors, the gap between commitment and disbursement creates space for continued leverage and policy influence while claiming credit for ambitious pledges. For recipients, the gap between JETP targets and national energy plans preserves flexibility to pursue domestic priorities while accessing available climate finance (Jazuli et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). For both, the definitional vagueness around just allows continued cooperation without resolving fundamentally incompatible visions of what fair transitions entail (Sud, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis dynamic resonates with transaction cost economics perspectives identified in the literature, which analyze JETPs through the lens of asset specificity, uncertainty, and frequency of interaction (Zan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The translation gap can be understood as emerging from high transaction costs of coordinating across multiple actors with divergent interests, compounded by uncertainty about technological pathways, political stability, and climate impacts. But transaction cost theory alone cannot fully explain JETPs' challenges; insights from political ecology highlight how power asymmetries shape which uncertainties get prioritized and whose transaction costs get minimized.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor policymakers, the translation gap analysis yields both cautionary insights and potential pathways forward. The evidence suggests that unless translation gaps are actively addressed, JETPs risk becoming another instance of climate finance that over-promises and under-delivers, potentially damaging trust in international cooperation precisely when it is most needed (F\u0026uuml;nfgeld \u0026amp; Wischermann, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinancing structures must be fundamentally revised. The heavy reliance on loans rather than grants is inconsistent with both the principle of climate debt and the practical reality of recipient countries' fiscal constraints (Karg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). International partners should substantially increase the grant component of JETP packages and explore debt-for-climate swaps that address existing debt burdens while enabling transition investment. JETPs represent an opportunity to leapfrog from coal to clean energy, but only if financing structures genuinely enable transformation rather than creating new debt burdens (Kramer, 2022). Moreover, private sector mobilization targets should be separated from public commitments; conflating the two obscures accountability and overstates available resources (Bhabra, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGovernance mechanisms require redesign to enable genuine country ownership. Current structures, which give International Partners Group members effective veto power over investments, should evolve toward models where recipient countries hold decision-making authority with international partners playing advisory and supportive roles (Zan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This might involve transitioning JETP secretariats from international to domestic control, establishing independent oversight bodies that include civil society representation, and creating transparent, participatory processes for investment prioritization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe justice component must move from rhetorical commitment to resourced implementation. This requires dedicated, unconditional funding streams for social transition that are at least 20\u0026ndash;30% of total JETP packages rather than the current 5\u0026ndash;10% (Steadman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). It requires legally binding commitments to worker and community participation in transition planning, not mere consultation. And it requires acknowledging that just transitions may slow coal phase-out timelines if meaningful social support takes time to organize\u0026mdash;a trade-off that current JETP structures avoid confronting (Fakir, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe gas question demands honest dialogue rather than imposed conditionality. Rather than categorically excluding gas, JETPs should engage seriously with recipient countries' arguments about energy access and development, establishing clear criteria for temporary, limited gas support that is genuinely transitional rather than locking in long-term fossil dependence (Sayne, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Kramer, 2022). This might involve sunset clauses, prohibitions on export-oriented liquefied natural gas development, and requirements that gas infrastructure be renewable-ready.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese adjustments, however necessary, may prove insufficient if the translation gap perspective reveals more fundamental problems with the JETP model itself. If the gaps between promise and performance reflect not implementation challenges but irreconcilable tensions between donor and recipient interests, between climate urgency and development imperatives, between global frameworks and local realities, then closing these gaps may require not refining JETPs but reimagining climate finance cooperation entirely (Michael \u0026amp; Martini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe JETPs represent an important experiment in climate finance\u0026mdash;an attempt to move beyond fragmented project funding toward comprehensive sectoral transformation, to integrate justice considerations from the outset rather than as afterthoughts, and to organize cooperation through focused partnerships rather than sprawling multilateral negotiations (Gunfaus et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). However, three years into implementation, JETPs remain more aspiration than accomplishment, more blueprint than building.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe translation gap perspective helps explain why. The pathway from international commitment to national implementation to local impact is neither linear nor automatic but rather a contested political process in which meanings shift, priorities evolve, and power relations shape outcomes. JETPs promised to de-risk climate investment, but they have instead exposed the deeply political nature of transition the incompatible timeframes, the distributional conflicts, the competing development visions that cannot be resolved through technical financial instruments alone (Sud, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis should not counsel despair but rather realism. Climate cooperation requires moving beyond the ritualistic optimism of summit announcements to the difficult work of building institutions, redistributing resources, and negotiating trade-offs across profound asymmetries of power and wealth (von L\u0026uuml;pke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). JETPs may yet succeed, but success will require acknowledging rather than obscuring these challenges, closing the gap between rhetoric and reality, and recognizing that just transitions demand not merely financial transfers but transformations in the structures of global economic and political power that produced climate crisis in the first place.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe question for researchers, policymakers, and civil society actors is whether JETPs can evolve to meet this challenge or whether their translation gaps are symptoms of deeper contradictions that require altogether different approaches. The next phase of JETP implementation, and the decisions about whether to extend this model to additional countries, will provide crucial evidence. But the burden of proof has shifted: proponents of JETPs must demonstrate not merely that these partnerships can mobilize finance but that they can deliver transformative, equitable outcomes for the workers and communities whose futures hang in the balance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Limitations","content":"\u003cp\u003eSome limitations constrain this analysis. First, the literature review captured only published academic and policy documents, missing important dynamics in confidential negotiations, internal government deliberations, or community-level implementation experiences. Second, the concentration of studies in 2022\u0026ndash;2025 means the analysis captures early implementation phases and longer-term outcomes remain uncertain. Third, language limitations restricted the search strategy to English-language publications, potentially underrepresenting perspectives from recipient countries where scholarly debates may occur in national languages. Despite these constraints, the scoping approach enables robust identification of patterns across the existing evidence base and grounds the theoretical framework in empirical observations rather than normative assumptions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis article employs a scoping review to map, synthesize, and critically interpret the emerging body of literature on JETPs. A scoping review approach (Munn et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) is appropriate given the relative novelty of JETPs as a policy instrument, the limited number of peer-reviewed empirical studies, and the heterogeneity of available sources spanning academic research and policy-oriented analysis. Rather than aiming for exhaustive coverage or quantitative aggregation, the review seeks to identify dominant themes, conceptual framings, and recurring patterns relevant to understanding how JETPs are designed, interpreted, and implemented.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe review was conducted on June 29, 2025, using a structured search strategy across academic databases (Web of Science, and Scopus) and a broad range of grey literature sources. Initial searches in scholarly databases revealed a limited number of peer-reviewed studies engaging substantively with JETPs, which reflects the relative novelty of JETPs as a policy instrument and the lag between policy implementation and academic publication. In response, the review was intentionally expanded to include grey literature, where the bulk of analytical and evaluative discourse on JETPs currently resides.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSearch terms included \u0026ldquo;Just Energy Transition Partnership,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;JETP,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;climate finance,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;coal phase-out,\u0026rdquo; and combinations of these terms with country names associated with announced JETPs (South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Senegal). Grey literature sources included policy analyses and reports from international organizations, government agencies, think tanks, civil society organizations, as well as analytical commentary in specialized energy and climate policy media. The search targeted materials published between 2022\u0026mdash;following the announcement of South Africa\u0026rsquo;s JETP at COP26\u0026mdash;and June 2025.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSources were screened based on predefined inclusion criteria: substantive engagement with JETP design, governance, implementation, or anticipated outcomes, the presence of empirical evidence or analytical argumentation, and publication in English. Peer-reviewed journal articles, policy briefs, working papers, analytical reports, and institutional assessments were included. Through this process, a total of 39 sources are retained for analysis. The list of the sources in this article is shown in Appendix.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the limited size and emergent nature of the evidence base, the review did not follow formal PRISMA reporting steps. Instead, sources were identified and screened iteratively and carefully at the outset to ensure analytical relevance and depth, consistent with the exploratory objectives of scoping reviews. The review does not seek to evaluate the effectiveness of individual JETPs or establish causal relationships. Rather, it provides an interpretive foundation for deploying the translation gap perspective as a lens through which to analyze how JETPs function as contested governance instruments across international, national, and local contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAn analytical lens: Policy translation gap perspective\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptually, the framework draws on policy translation theory in science and technology studies (Callon, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e; Latour, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e) which emphasizes how ideas are reinterpreted as they circulate across actors, boundary object theory (Franco-Torres et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) which explains how deliberately ambiguous concepts enable coordination without consensus, and scholarship on policy mobility and vernacularization (Herberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), which highlights how global policy models are reshaped through domestic political economy and institutional constraints. Synthesizing these strands, the translation gap perspective treats JETPs as contested governance assemblages in which ostensibly technical instruments of climate finance are continually negotiated, redefined, and politically mediated rather than implemented as neutral or uniform solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis analytical lens is particularly useful for examining JETPs because we pay attention toward the processes through which meaning, authority, and responsibility are redistributed as policies move across scales (Ha-Duong \u0026amp; Cassen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Rather than interpreting discrepancies between international commitments and national outcomes as implementation deficits, the translation gap framework conceptualizes them as expected and politically consequential outcomes of translation across heterogeneous institutional settings (Nur et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). It enables analysis of how key terms such as just transition, partnership, and country ownership function simultaneously as enabling devices that sustain cooperation and as sites of contestation that mask unresolved conflicts over finance, risk allocation, and development pathways (Cassidy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn doing so, the framework makes visible the power asymmetries embedded in JETP design and governance, the temporal and developmental assumptions shaping donor and recipient expectations, and the mechanisms through which justice commitments are narrowed, deferred, or displaced during implementation (Tan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). By foregrounding these dynamics, the translation gap framework provides a structured way to interrogate why ambitious climate finance initiatives repeatedly fall short of their transformative claims without reducing those outcomes to technical shortcomings or insufficient political will.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCredit Roles\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eH.U.K and T.T.Z equally contribute to the article.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eORCID\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eHerbagus Unggul Kawiriaan: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://orcid.org/0009-0003-3691-1789\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3691-1789\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThant Thura Zan: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://orcid.org/0009-0002-4837-9649\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4837-9649\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding Statement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll authors approve the final version.Credit RolesH.U.K and T.T.Z equally contribute to the article.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eXXX\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data used in this article are listed in the Appendix.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAyas, C., Vo, N., Khuat, B., Hu, D. \u0026amp; Giawangkara, J. et al. Building blocks for a successful just energy transition: A stocktake analysis of Indonesia and Vietnam. \u003cem\u003eIOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 1511, 012010 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1511/1/012010 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBanerjee, A. Transforming the rhetoric of Just Energy Transition Partnerships into reality: The devil lies in the details. \u003cem\u003ePLOS Sustain. Transform.\u003c/em\u003e 3, 0000121 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000121\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBhabra, A. Just energy transition partnerships in Vietnam and Indonesia: Building blocks for success. \u003cem\u003eClimateworks Centre\u003c/em\u003e https://www.climateworkscentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Energy-Transitions-in-Vietnam-and-Indonesia_Building-blocks-for-successful-Just-Energy-Transition-Partnerships_May-2023.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoute, A. Phasing out coal investment contracts: Does just transition finance legitimize unjust compensation? \u003cem\u003eICSID Rev. \u0026ndash; Foreign Invest. Law J.\u003c/em\u003e 40, 315\u0026ndash;340 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siae037\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCallon, M. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. \u003cem\u003eThe Sociological Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(1_suppl), 196\u0026ndash;233 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCassidy, C. The Politics of Just Transitions: Definitions Matter. \u003cem\u003eResearch Institute for Sustainability \u003c/em\u003e(2022). https://www.rifs-potsdam.de/en/blog/2022/11/politics-just-transitions-definitions-matter\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDo, T. N. \u0026amp; Burke, P. J. Phasing out coal power in two major Southeast Asian thermal coal economies: Indonesia and Vietnam. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Sustain. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e 80, 101451 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101451\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFakir, S. South Africa\u0026rsquo;s just energy transition partnership: A novel approach transforming the international landscape on delivering NDC financial goals at scale. \u003cem\u003eDev. South. Afr.\u003c/em\u003e 40, 297\u0026ndash;312 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/10220461.2023.2233006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFranco-Torres, M., Rogers, B. C., \u0026amp; Ugarelli, R. M. A framework to explain the role of boundary objects in sustainability transitions. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Innovation and Societal Transitions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e, 34\u0026ndash;48 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.04.010 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eF\u0026uuml;nfgeld, A. \u0026amp; Wischermann, J. Why just energy transition partnerships are not enough. \u003cem\u003eGIGA Focus Global\u003c/em\u003e 2(German Institute for Global and Area Studies, Hamburg, 2024). https://doi.org/10.57671/gfgl-24022\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGabor, D. (2023). The Wall Street Consensus and the just transition: Private finance, public risk, and global inequality. Development and Change, 54(3), 429\u0026ndash;459. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12766 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGunfaus, M. T., Tyler, E., Treyer, S., Okereke, C., Boer, R., et al. (2022). Just Energy Transition Partnerships: Can they really make a difference, and how? https://www.iddri.org/en/publications-and-events/blog-post/just-energy-transition-partnerships-can-they-really-make \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHadley, S.What\u0026rsquo;s the state of play on just energy transition partnerships? \u003cem\u003eODI Insights\u003c/em\u003e https://odi.org/en/insights/whats-the-state-of-play-on-just-energy-transition-partnerships/ (2022). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHa-Duong, M., \u0026amp; Cassen, C. \u003cem\u003eJust Energy Transition Partnerships at Two: Doctrine, Executions and Way Forward\u003c/em\u003e. SSRN Library (2024). https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4728216 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHa-Duong, M. \u0026amp; Cassen, C. Just energy transition partnerships at two: Doctrine, executions and way forward. \u003cem\u003eSSRN\u003c/em\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4728216 (2024).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHege, E., Okereke, C., Treyer, S., Sokona, Y. \u0026amp; Kingiri, A. et al. Just energy transition partnerships in the context of Africa\u0026ndash;Europe relations: Reflections from South Africa, Nigeria and Senegal. \u003cem\u003eUkȧmȧ\u003c/em\u003e (IDDRI, Paris, 2022). https://www.iddri.org/en/publications-and-events/report/just-energy-transition-partnerships-context-africa-europe-relations\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerberg, J., Drewing, E., Reinermann, J.-L., Radtke, J., LaBelle, M., Stojilovska, A., \u0026amp; G\u0026uuml;rtler, K. Energy spaces: Bridging scales and standpoints of just energy transitions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Policy \u0026amp; Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 135\u0026ndash;141 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2023.2193024 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHouston, L. J. \u0026amp; Ruppel, O. C. Just energy transitions in progress? The partnership between South Africa and the EU. \u003cem\u003eJ. Eur. Environ. Plan. Law\u003c/em\u003e 19, 31\u0026ndash;54 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-19010004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHug, F. Local content requirements in Asia\u0026rsquo;s just energy transition: Neutralising tensions with international economic law. \u003cem\u003eJ. World Energy Law Bus.\u003c/em\u003e 18, 2 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1093/jwelb/jwaf003 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJain, G. \u0026amp; Bustami, G. Realising the potential of just energy transition partnerships in the current geopolitical environment. \u003cem\u003eCenter on Global Energy Policy, Columbia Univ.\u003c/em\u003e https://www.jetknowledge.org/knowledge/realising-the-potential-of-just-energy-transition-partnerships-current-geopolitical-environment/ (2025). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJazuli, M. R., Roll, K. \u0026amp; Mulugetta, Y. A review of Indonesia\u0026rsquo;s JETP through the dynamics of its policy regime. \u003cem\u003eGlob. Policy\u003c/em\u003e 15, 989\u0026ndash;1006 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13452\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJindal, A., Shrimali, G., Gangwani, B. \u0026amp; Lall, R. B. Financing just energy transitions in Southeast Asia: Application of the just transition transaction to Indonesia, Vietnam, and Philippines. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Sustain. Dev.\u003c/em\u003e 81, 101472 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101472\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarg, A., Gupta, J. \u0026amp; Chen, Y. Just energy transition partnerships: An inclusive climate finance approach? \u003cem\u003eEnergy Res. Soc. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 125, 104103 (2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKramer, K. Just energy transition partnerships: An opportunity to leapfrog from coal to clean energy. \u003cem\u003eInternational Institute for Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003e https://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/just-energy-transition-partnerships (2022a).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKramer, K. Making the leap: The need for just energy transition partnerships (JETPs) to support leapfrogging fossil gas to a clean renewable energy future. \u003cem\u003eInternational Institute for Sustainable Development\u003c/em\u003ehttps://www.iisd.org/system/files/2022-11/just-energy-transition-partnerships.pdf (2022b). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLatour, B. \u003cem\u003eScience in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard University Press (1987).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaskun, M., Paliling, V. E. S., Hamzah, A. N. I. \u0026amp; Al Mukarramah, N. H. Justice element in just energy transition partnership decarbonization policy: A conceptual legal analysis. \u003cem\u003eE3S Web Conf.\u003c/em\u003e 467, 05003 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202346705003 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMichael, J. \u0026amp; Martini, L. How can the G7 and G20 improve just energy transition partnerships? Taking stock of just energy transition partnerships (JETP). \u003cem\u003eEcologic Institute\u003c/em\u003e https://www.ecologic.eu/19349 (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMunn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., \u0026amp; Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. \u003cem\u003eBMC Medical Research Methodology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 143 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNacke, L., Vinichenko, V., Cherp, A., Jakhmola, A. \u0026amp; Jewell, J. Compensating affected parties necessary for rapid coal phase-out but expensive if extended to major emitters. \u003cem\u003eNat. Commun.\u003c/em\u003e 15, 3742 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47667-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNur, U. A., Bainus, A., \u0026amp; Darmawan, W. B. The Role of the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP): Between Commitment and Implementation. \u003cem\u003eIlomata International Journal of Social Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1309\u0026ndash;1323 . (2025). https://doi.org/10.61194/ijss.v6i4.1831 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePradnyaswari, I., Batrisyia, I., \u0026amp; Rakhiemah, A. N.. Bridging the Investment Gap: Empowering Energy Transition Through Climate Finance. \u003cem\u003eASEAN Climate Change and Energy Project \u003c/em\u003e (2024). https://accept.aseanenergy.org/bridging-the-investment-gap-empowering-energy-transition-through-climate-finance \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrdonez, J. A., Vandyck, T., Keramidas, K. \u0026amp; Garaffa, R. Just energy transition partnerships and the future of coal. \u003cem\u003eNat. Clim. Change\u003c/em\u003e 14, 1026\u0026ndash;1029 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02086-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSandria, A., Adji, K. D. \u0026amp; Prabowo, J. J. Exceptions for stop building coal-fired power plants in Indonesia. \u003cem\u003eE3S Web Conf.\u003c/em\u003e 467, 05007 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202346705007 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSayne, A. Just energy transition partnerships for gas-producing countries. \u003cem\u003eNatural Resource Governance Institute\u003c/em\u003ehttps://resourcegovernance.org/sites/default/files/documents/just_energy_transition_partnerships_for_gas-producing_countries.pdf (2022). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeiler, A., Brown, H. \u0026amp; Matthews, S. The JETPs of South Africa and Indonesia: A blueprint for the move away from coal? \u003cem\u003eCenter for Global Development\u003c/em\u003e https://www.cgdev.org/publication/jetps-south-africa-and-indonesia-blueprint-move-away-coal (2023).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSimpson, N. P., Jacobs, M., \u0026amp; Gilmour, A. (2023). \u003cem\u003eTaking stock of just energy transition partnerships\u003c/em\u003e. Overseas Development Institute. https://odi.org/en/publications/taking-stock-of-just-energy-transition-partnerships/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteadman, S., Colenbrander, S., Simpson, N., McKechnie, A., \u0026amp; Cole, M. (2024). \u003cem\u003ePutting the \u0026ldquo;just\u0026rdquo; in Just Energy Transition Partnerships: What role for the multilateral development banks?\u003c/em\u003e Overseas Development Institute. https://odi.cdn.ngo/media/documents/Putting_the_just_in_Just_Energy_Transition_Partnerships-what_role_for_the_MDBs.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSud, N. (2025). \u003cem\u003eUnjust energy transition: Vignettes from the COPs, climate finance and a coal hotspot.\u003c/em\u003e World Development, 190, 106906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106906 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShai, T. What are JETPs? (Just Energy Transition Partnerships). \u003cem\u003eInstitute for Human Rights and Business \u003c/em\u003e(2024).. https://www.ihrb.org/resources/what-are-jetps-just-energy-transition-partnerships \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTan, C. \u003cem\u003eEquity and the Global Climate Finance Architecture: An Evaluation of the Just Transition Partnership (JETP) Framework (\u003c/em\u003e2024). https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Rome_Presentation_TAN.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTamasiga, P. (2024, November 12). \u003cem\u003eChallenges and opportunities for Just Energy Transition Partnerships in Africa.\u003c/em\u003eMegatrends Afrika Policy Brief No. 30. https://doi.org/10.18449/2024MTA-PB30 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evon L\u0026uuml;pke, H. (2025). \u003cem\u003eThe Just Energy Transition Partnership in South Africa: Identification and assessment of key factors driving international cooperation.\u003c/em\u003e Earth System Governance, 25, 100274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2025.100274 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWemanya, A., \u0026amp; Opfer, K. (2022). \u003cem\u003ePrinciples for Just Energy Transition Partnerships in the African energy context.\u003c/em\u003eGermanwatch. https://www.germanwatch.org/en/87617\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZan, T. T., Smith, I. D., \u0026amp; \u0026Oslash;verland, I. (2024). \u003cem\u003eThe political economy of climate finance: Stakeholder relationship dynamics in the Indonesian Just Energy Transition Partnership.\u003c/em\u003e Cambridge Journal of Climate Research, 1(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZan, T. T., Smith, I. D., \u0026Oslash;verland, I., \u0026amp; Pradnyaswari, I. (2025). \u003cem\u003eTransaction costs of the Indonesian Just Energy Transition Partnership.\u003c/em\u003e IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1511, 012012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1511/1/012012 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":false,"email":"","identity":"npj-environmental-social-sciences","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"npj Environmental Social Sciences","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"Unsupported Journal","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Just Energy Transition Partnerships, climate finance, energy transition governance, climate policy, policy translation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9059924/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9059924/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eJust Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) have emerged as flagship instruments of Global North\u0026ndash;South climate cooperation, promising to accelerate coal phase-out while delivering socially just energy transitions in emerging economies. However, three years into their implementation, growing evidence suggests a widening disconnect between their transformative commitment and on-the-ground realities. This article synthesizes findings from a scoping review of all available studies and grey literature published between 2022 and 2025 to examine this disconnect through the lens of what is termed the \u003cem\u003etranslation gap\u003c/em\u003e. Translation gap conceptualizes JETPs both as financing mechanisms and as contested policy assemblages in which abstract principles such as justice, partnership, and transition are continually renegotiated as they travel from international declarations to national planning and implementation. The analysis reveals several gaps between financial pledges and disbursements, donor claims of country ownership and retained external control, ambitious coal phase-out commitments and domestic energy security imperatives, and expansive just transition commitments and narrowly defined social provisions. These gaps are shown to be produced through power asymmetries, institutional constraints, and divergent temporal and developmental priorities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Translating promise into practice in Just Energy Transition Partnerships","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-18 08:36:19","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9059924/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-04-28T07:31:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"333058411942617875301347872963162940364","date":"2026-04-11T08:27:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"258062390249984789271144841553777404663","date":"2026-04-07T14:33:23+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-22T14:52:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"217915820065605161567575122291314866389","date":"2026-03-16T13:23:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-16T13:18:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-12T20:11:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-03-12T08:58:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"npj Environmental Social Sciences","date":"2026-03-07T16:45:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":false,"email":"","identity":"npj-environmental-social-sciences","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"npj Environmental Social Sciences","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":false,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"Unsupported Journal","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"f66dace0-4427-4e20-ab42-c0c24c63f775","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":64650740,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences"},{"id":64650741,"name":"Social science/Politics and international relations"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-18T08:36:19+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-18 08:36:19","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9059924","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9059924","identity":"rs-9059924","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}