Report on the Efficacy of Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) in Southeast Asia

An Analysis of Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: The JETP Framework and Sustainable Development Goals

Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) have emerged as a key international cooperation model aimed at accelerating the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy in developing nations. Launched at COP26, these partnerships are designed to mobilise climate finance, directly supporting the objectives of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• SDG 13 (Climate Action): JETPs are a primary mechanism for implementing climate mitigation strategies by phasing out coal dependency.
• SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy): The partnerships aim to increase the share of renewable energy in the national energy mix.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): JETPs represent a multi-stakeholder partnership between developing nations, donor countries (the International Partners Group – IPG), and private financial alliances to achieve sustainable development.

The initial JETP was established with South Africa, followed by agreements with Indonesia and Vietnam. This report assesses the progress and structural integrity of the Indonesian and Vietnamese JETPs, evaluating their effectiveness in delivering a “just” transition that aligns with the broader principles of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

2.0 Case Studies: Indonesia and Vietnam

2.1 Indonesia’s JETP Agreement

Announced in 2022, Indonesia’s JETP secured a pledge of US$20 billion over three to five years. The partnership’s objectives are critical for advancing SDG 7 and SDG 13 within the country.

1. Financial Commitment: US$20 billion from IPG members and the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ).
2. Climate Targets (SDG 13):
   • Peak power sector emissions at 290 MtCO₂e by 2030.
   • Achieve net-zero emissions in the power sector by 2050.
3. Clean Energy Targets (SDG 7):
   • Increase the share of renewable energy to 34 percent by 2030.

In November 2023, Indonesia released its Comprehensive Investment and Policy Plan (CIPP) to guide these efforts. However, implementation has been slow, with only US$1.1 billion of the promised funding received as of March 2025.

2.2 Vietnam’s JETP Agreement

Vietnam’s US$15.5 billion JETP was also established in 2022, with funds split between IPG governments and GFANZ. The agreement outlines ambitious goals to support Vietnam’s transition towards sustainable energy systems.

1. Financial Commitment: US$15.5 billion.
2. Climate Targets (SDG 13):
   • Reduce electricity-sector emissions to 170 MtCO₂e by 2030.
   • Limit coal power capacity to 30.2 GW and begin phasing out coal plants.
3. Clean Energy Targets (SDG 7):
   • Increase the share of renewable energy to 47 percent of electricity output.

Vietnam released its Resource Mobilisation Plan (RMP) in late 2023, but progress remains limited, with only a few projects having secured funding.

3.0 Analysis of JETP Shortcomings Against SDG Principles

Despite their potential, the current structure and implementation of JETPs in Indonesia and Vietnam fall short of embodying a truly just transition, revealing significant conflicts with core SDG principles concerning equity, justice, and inclusivity.

3.1 Financial Inequity and Climate Justice (SDG 10 & SDG 13)

The financial composition of the JETPs undermines SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities central to SDG 13 (Climate Action). The partnerships place a disproportionate financial burden on developing nations with low historical emissions.

• Indonesia: 97% of JETP financing is composed of loans, with only 3% as grants. Just 60% of the total is offered on concessional terms.
• Vietnam: 96% of the funding is in the form of loans, with only 34% offered at concessional rates.

This debt-based model shifts the responsibility for decarbonisation onto countries least responsible for the climate crisis, such as Indonesia (4% of historical emissions) and Vietnam, rather than historically high-emitting nations.

3.2 Inadequacy of Financial Scale (SDG 7 & SDG 13)

The capital committed through JETPs is insufficient to meet the recipient countries’ climate and energy goals, hindering progress towards SDG 7 and SDG 13.

• Indonesia: The US$20 billion JETP covers only 7% of the estimated US$285 billion needed by 2030 to meet its climate targets.
• Vietnam: The US$15.5 billion JETP provides approximately 4% of the US$368 billion required by 2040 to achieve net-zero.

This persistent gap between committed funds and actual requirements, compounded by slow disbursement, mirrors broader failures in global climate finance and jeopardises the feasibility of a successful energy transition.

3.3 Deficiencies in Governance and Participation (SDG 16)

The JETP process has been criticised for a lack of transparency and meaningful stakeholder engagement, failing to uphold the principles of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which calls for responsive, inclusive, and accountable institutions.

• Civil society organisations have raised alarms about their limited participation in the design and oversight of JETP agreements.
• Public consultation periods, such as the three-week window for Indonesia’s CIPP, have been deemed insufficient.
• Vietnam has been criticised for not fulfilling commitments to conduct regular consultations with affected communities.

3.4 Neglect of Community-Centric Energy Solutions (SDG 7 & SDG 11)

The investment strategies outlined in the JETPs prioritise large-scale, centralised, on-grid power projects. This approach overlooks the potential of distributed renewable energy systems to advance SDG 7.3 (universal access to energy) and SDG 11 (inclusive and sustainable communities).

• Focusing on megaprojects risks displacing local communities and harming ecosystems.
• In an archipelagic nation like Indonesia, community-based renewable energy is critical for ensuring energy justice and access for remote populations, yet the CIPP only references the need for a future study on this topic.

4.0 Conclusion and Key Takeaways

While JETPs represent an important application of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) to address climate change, their current implementation in Southeast Asia is fundamentally misaligned with the principles of a just transition. The heavy reliance on debt financing violates SDG 10, the inadequate scale of funding threatens the achievement of SDG 7 and SDG 13, and the lack of inclusive governance contravenes SDG 16.

For JETPs to become effective instruments of global climate action, they must be redesigned. Financial structures must shift from loans to grants to reflect historical climate responsibilities. Investment strategies must be co-developed with local communities, prioritising inclusive and decentralised solutions that promote energy justice. Without these fundamental reforms, JETPs risk exacerbating inequalities rather than fostering a sustainable and equitable future for all.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) in Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia and Vietnam, addresses several interconnected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis reveals connections to the following goals:

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: The core of the article is the transition from coal to renewable energy sources in Indonesia and Vietnam, which is the central theme of SDG 7.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The JETPs are a direct response to the need for climate change mitigation. The article discusses specific emission reduction goals and the financing required to achieve them, aligning with the objectives of SDG 13.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article is fundamentally about the JETPs, which are multi-stakeholder partnerships involving developing countries (Indonesia, Vietnam), a group of donor countries (International Partners Group – IPG), and private financial alliances (GFANZ) to mobilize finance and technology.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: A major critique in the article is the lack of “justice” in the JETPs. It highlights the inequalities between historically high-emitting developed countries and developing nations, which are now burdened with debt to finance a transition for a crisis they largely did not create.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article criticizes the lack of transparency, public consultation, and inclusive decision-making in the implementation of JETPs, pointing to a failure to build accountable and inclusive institutions as promoted by SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the article’s discussion of JETPs in Indonesia and Vietnam, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
   • Explanation: The article explicitly states Indonesia’s goal to “increase the share of renewable energy to 34 percent” and Vietnam’s goal to increase it to “47 percent of electricity output.”
2. Target 7.a: By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology… and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology.
   • Explanation: The entire JETP model is an example of this target in action, where the IPG and GFANZ provide financing (e.g., US$20 billion for Indonesia, US$15.5 billion for Vietnam) and technical assistance to accelerate the transition away from coal.
3. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
   • Explanation: The article mentions the creation of national plans as a result of the JETPs, such as Indonesia’s “Comprehensive Investment and Policy Plan (CIPP)” and Vietnam’s “Resource Mobilisation Plan (RMP),” which outline investment priorities and policy reforms for climate action.
4. Target 13.a: Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties… to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually… to address the needs of developing countries.
   • Explanation: The article critiques the scale and disbursement of JETP funds, noting the “persistent gaps between the capital requirements of developing countries, the commitments made by high-income countries, and the actual disbursement of funds.” This directly relates to the broader climate finance commitments under the UNFCCC.
5. Target 17.3: Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources.
   • Explanation: The JETPs are designed to mobilize funds from both public (IPG governments) and private (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero – GFANZ) sources to finance the energy transition in developing countries.
6. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • Explanation: The article criticizes the JETP process for its “lack of engagement and transparency” and “limited participation” from civil society and affected communities. It notes that while Indonesia held a “three-week public consultation period,” the overall process was insufficient, and Vietnam was criticized for not meeting consultation commitments.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article provides several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Share of renewable energy: The article provides specific targets that serve as indicators: 34% for Indonesia and 47% for Vietnam. Progress can be measured against these figures.
• Greenhouse gas emissions levels: Specific emission reduction targets are mentioned, which are direct indicators of climate action.
  • Indonesia: Peak power emissions at 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e) by 2030.
  • Vietnam: Reduce electricity-sector emissions to 170 MtCO₂e by 2030.
• Coal power capacity: Vietnam’s goal to “limit coal power capacity to 30.2 gigawatt (GW)” is a measurable indicator of its move away from fossil fuels.
• Amount of financial resources mobilized: The total pledged amounts for the JETPs (US$20 billion for Indonesia, US$15.5 billion for Vietnam) are key indicators.
• Disbursement of funds: The article implies an indicator for the effectiveness of financial partnerships by highlighting the gap between commitments and delivery, noting that Indonesia had only received “US$1.1 billion” of the promised funding by March 2025.
• Composition of financial instruments: The article provides data on the type of financing, which serves as an indicator of the “justice” of the transition.
  • Indonesia: 97% loans vs. 3% grants.
  • Vietnam: 96% loans.
  • Percentage of concessional loans (60% in Indonesia, 34% in Vietnam).
• Public and civil society participation: The article implies a qualitative indicator by mentioning the “three-week public consultation period” in Indonesia and the general criticism regarding the “lack of engagement and transparency,” which can be used to assess the inclusiveness of the process.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: orfonline.org