The First Conference on the Transition to Abandon Fossil Fuels brought together 57 countries and concluded on April 29 in Santa Marta, on Colombia’s Caribbean coast, with the global debate beginning to shift from the question of the need to act to the question of how this transition should be carried out.
During the five days of meetings, the debates focused on the instruments, financing, and international cooperation needed to gradually eliminate coal, oil, and gas without exacerbating inequalities or trapping economies dependent on fossil fuels in this model.
Organized by Colombia and the Netherlands, the conference brought together representatives from both the industrialized North and the global South, including small island states in the Pacific. Among the most notable absences were the United States, China, Russia, Japan, and India, as well as the oil-producing countries of the Middle East.
Representatives from academia, civil society, indigenous peoples, unions, parliamentarians, multilateral banks, and the private sector also participated.
According to the co-organizers, the participating countries represent approximately one-third of the world’s GDP.
Together, they sought to drive the implementation of the commitment made in 2023 at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) to abandon fossil fuels in energy systems.
At the end of the meeting in Colombia, a second conference was announced for 2027. The preparatory meeting will be held in Ireland, and the main conference in Tuvalu, a small island nation in Polynesia and one of the countries most vulnerable to rising sea levels. This will continue the so-called “Santa Marta Process” and move the debate to a region highly exposed to the climate crisis.
A new space for debate
Beyond diplomacy, the first conference opened a space that complements traditional climate negotiations, focusing less on drafting a consensus text and more on identifying practical conditions to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
For Daniel Högsta, global leader of the transition to fossil fuels at WWF, the conference was important because it addressed “the main driver of the climate and environmental crises” in a context of stalled formal progress.
As he stated to SciDev.Net, the Santa Marta conference sought to “break this deadlock, shifting the focus from whether to act to how to achieve a just, orderly, equitable, and effective transition.”
One of the announcements was the creation of the Global Energy Transition Scientific Panel, aimed at supporting countries in developing roadmaps aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. Its value, Högsta notes, will depend on its ability to translate scientific evidence into high-impact and short-term public decisions.
“There is no room for further expansion of fossil fuels if we want to keep the 1.5 °C target within reach,” he stated.
Work lines
The conference results describe three work lines for Tuvalu. The main one involves developing national roadmaps related to the new scientific panel and the NDC Partnership (a global coalition including more than 140 countries to help achieve the Paris Agreement and promote sustainable development).
The second part will address how to modify financial rules that currently hinder the transition, especially for countries with limited fiscal space or high levels of debt.
Finally, the third objective will be to align producers and consumers to reduce trade barriers created by bans on hydrocarbon exploration and production, as well as to reduce the weight of fossil fuels in trade balances, among other issues.
The final document warns that abandoning fossil fuels requires transforming tax systems, labor markets, territories, and infrastructures, as well as expanding access to energy and diversifying economies.
To implement climate goals, Ignacio Arróniz, senior consultant at Earth Insight—an international organization working on analyzing and protecting territories against extractive expansion—stated to SciDev.Net that so-called hydrocarbon-free zones can be a key tool.
He explains that it is not necessarily a new concept, but rather a “general term” to organize territorial protection instruments based on ecological and social criteria within national energy transition plans.
According to Arróniz, the appeal of these instruments lies in that they do not always require the creation of new institutions: “They can be built on existing structures.” However, he warns that many protected areas have proven insufficient to contain hydrocarbon extraction.
In this sense, he states: these zones must be accompanied by administrative and financial support, debt conversion mechanisms, fair trade funds, and an active dialogue with communities, especially with indigenous peoples, whose contribution is crucial for the creation of these zones.
The evaluation of Santa Marta includes elements in this regard. Among the options analyzed are plans for the closure of hydrocarbon concessions, fossil fuel-free zones, suspension of new licenses, management of obsolete assets, and equitable distribution of closure costs, with an emphasis on community participation and the creation of alternative jobs.
Beyond climate and economy
However, the transition was not debated solely in economic or climatic terms.
Jessica Newberry Le Vay, researcher at Climate Cares, the University of Oxford, and Imperial College London, stated to SciDev.Net that air pollution, extraction, and transportation of fossil fuels, loss of biodiversity, and rising temperatures have cumulative impacts on respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological, and mental health.
However, she emphasizes that the physical and mental costs of the climate crisis remain underestimated in energy policies.
Newberry argues that the energy transition “already makes sense from an economic standpoint,” but by including its health benefits, “the arguments for the transition become even stronger.”
For her, the gradual elimination of fossil fuels could mean “cleaner air, healthier communities, and more resilient health systems.”
Source: Nicolás Bustamante Hernández/ SciDev.Net
