Santa Marta Explained: What Happened at the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels

By Sarah Thompson, PhD Candidate, Université libre de Bruxelles and Senior Research Programme Manager, European Chair for Sustainable Development and Climate Transition, Sciences Po, and Fée van Cronenburg, Research Assistant, European Chair for Sustainable Development and Climate Transition, Sciences Po

The first International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels (TAFF), held from 24 to 29 April 2026 in Santa Marta, Colombia, marked a new moment in international climate diplomacy. Co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, the conference brought together almost 60 countries to address one of the most difficult implementation gaps in global climate policy: how to give practical meaning to the commitment, first adopted at COP28, to transition away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner.

The choice of Santa Marta was pointed: a historic port city whose own economy is deeply intertwined with coal exports, making it a symbolically charged setting for discussions on how to reduce reliance on coal, oil, and gas. Colombia, more broadly, embodies many of the tensions at the heart of the transition: a government seeking to position itself as a climate leader, an economy still shaped by fossil fuel revenues, and communities whose livelihoods remain connected to extractive industries.

The idea for the conference grew out of tensions during last year's COP30 in Belém, Brazil, where around 80 countries called for a global roadmap to phase out coal, oil and gas. However, this faced strong resistance from major fossil fuel producers and consumers, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, India and China.

In this context, the TAFF conference was not designed to replace existing processes under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or to resolve the politics of fossil fuel phase-out. Rather, its significance lay elsewhere: in creating a political and technical space for countries willing to move faster to discuss what fossil fuel transition might require in practice.  

Setting the agenda for a transition away from fossil fuels

The conference explicitly positioned itself as a "coalition of the willing" or, as some participants put it, a "coalition of the doers." Its purpose was to solidify political momentum among like-minded countries and inform the COP30 Presidency’s roadmap on transitioning away from fossil fuels. This would then help lay groundwork for COP31, to be hosted by Türkiye in November 2026 with Australia leading the negotiations. 

Discussions were structured around three thematic pillars: overcoming dependence on fossil fuels, transforming supply and demand, and advancing international cooperation and climate diplomacy. These themes reflect a growing recognition that fossil fuel transition is not only a matter of emissions reduction; it also requires tackling issues of fiscal policy, debt, trade, energy access, industrial strategy, and social protection.

This was particularly visible in the composition of attendees. The 57 countries in attendance represent approximately one-third of global GDP and a significant share of global fossil fuel consumption. Moreover, several participating countries are themselves major fossil fuel producers, including Canada, Norway, Brazil, Nigeria, and Colombia. Their presence underscored a central challenge: the transition away from fossil fuels cannot be designed only by countries that consume fossil fuels, nor only by those already able to diversify their economies. It must also address the interests and vulnerabilities of countries whose public finances, employment structures and development strategies remain deeply tied to extraction. 

Nevertheless, it is also worth noting that not all countries were invited to participate. In particular, some major emitters and fossil fuel producers, such as the United States, China, India, and Russia, were absent from the process. According to Carbon Brief, the co-hosts based their invitation criteria on countries’ support for the fossil-fuel roadmap at COP30 and sought to avoid reproducing the deadlock seen in Belém. While their absence limits the immediate reach of the process, it may also have enabled more candid discussion among more like-minded participating countries.

At the same time, the conference attracted criticism for the modesty and ambiguity of its expected outputs. It was never intended to produce a negotiated declaration, instead promising to deliver a summary report of prioritised solutions, a structured implementation process, and a statement from the co-chairs. For some observers, this raised questions about the conference's level of ambition and overall utility, while others welcomed the deliberately open-ended format as a refreshing departure from the slow and often defensive logic of formal climate negotiations.

The elusive fossil fuel treaty

One of the most politically sensitive questions in Santa Marta concerned the possibility of a new international legal instrument or treaty on fossil fuels.

The conveners were clear, however, that the conference was not a formal negotiation space for a fossil fuel treaty and therefore should be understood as running parallel to, and not a replacement for, the UNFCCC process. Yet this issue inevitably surfaced. A group of 18 nations, mostly small island states and host country Colombia, called for recognition of the urgent need to negotiate a new binding international instrument to manage the phase-out of coal, oil and gas. 

Their proposal reflected a broader demand from civil society and climate-vulnerable states, emphasising that voluntary roadmaps and political declarations are insufficient without legal obligations, financial support, and mechanisms to address the unequal costs of transition. Advocates of a Fossil Fuel Treaty have also called for measures such as an importers-exporters club, a global just transition fund, and a debt resolution facility for countries constrained by fossil fuel dependence. 

Whether or not Santa Marta becomes a stepping stone toward such a treaty remains uncertain, though the TAFF process at least helped bring the treaty debate closer to the centre of climate diplomacy. The conference, however, also exposed a deeper divide between those seeking binding international rules for fossil fuel phase-out and those favouring nationally determined, flexible transition pathways.

Geopolitics, on and off the table

The conference did not take place in a geopolitical vacuum. Against the backdrop of conflict in Iran, renewed concerns over energy security and fossil fuel price volatility undoubtedly shaped the discussions. For many participants, continued dependence on fossil fuels was framed not only as a climate risk, but also as an economic and security vulnerability.

Yet the politics of transition remain deeply unequal. Predictably, large oil and gas producing nations urged caution, while African countries, including Nigeria, stressed the need for flexibility, development space, and recognition of differing national capacities. For many lower- and middle-income countries, the question is not simply how to leave fossil fuels behind, but how to do so while maintaining public revenues, expanding energy access, and financing development.

This highlights one of the strengths of the TAFF process: the conference brought into the open questions that are sometimes marginalised in formal climate negotiations: how fossil fuel revenues are embedded in national budgets; how subsidies, debt, and trade rules can lock countries into extraction; and what forms of international cooperation are needed to make transition politically and economically viable.

Civil society actors played a key role in pushing these issues further. Indigenous peoples, NGOs, trade unions, and representatives from affected communities called for faster action, more inclusive decision-making, and stronger rights protections. Through the Assembly of the People, held on April 27, civil society demands were formally brought into the process. These included reforming international investment, trade and financial architecture to increase fiscal space for Global South countries; developing national just transition plans grounded in human rights and social protection; and adopting a Fossil Fuel Treaty.

What Santa Marta delivered

The TAFF process was deliberately designed not to produce a negotiated political outcome. Its results therefore should be judged less by the standards of a COP decision and more by whether it created momentum, structure, and political clarity for future action. On that basis, the conference produced several notable outcomes.

First, delegates agreed on three workstreams to organise efforts ahead of a follow-up conference in 2027:

• Designing national and regional transition roadmaps that address supply-side emissions — a persistent blind spot in international climate commitments.
• Tackling the fiscal, debt and subsidy structures that lock countries into fossil fuel dependence.
• Examining how trade systems continue to incentivise extraction and how they might be reoriented toward green alternatives. 

Second, the conference announced the creation of a new Global Energy Transition Panel, an international scientific body intended to advise policymakers on the energy transition. It was framed as complementary to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with a more focused mandate on transition pathways. The idea was welcomed in principle, though some participants flagged concerns about the lack of clarity on its mandate, composition, independence, and deliverables, as well as its ability to incorporate diverse knowledge systems, including Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems.

Third, Santa Marta offered a platform for national initiatives. France presented a new national roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels, which climate envoy Benoît Faraco framed as an invitation for other countries to develop comparable plans. Colombia and Brazil are also reportedly working on their own draft roadmaps, though neither has been finalised.

Finally, the conference helped connect a fragmented landscape of existing initiatives, including efforts such as the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, the Coalition on Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Incentives Including Subsidies, and the Powering Past Coal Alliance. One of the main challenges ahead, however, will be ensuring that these initiatives complement, rather than compete with, the UNFCCC process.

A different kind of climate diplomacy?

Perhaps one of the most important outcomes of Santa Marta was less tangible. Many delegates pointed to the quality of the conversations themselves as a key achievement. The conference created an unusually candid space for ministers, officials, experts, and civil society to discuss politically sensitive questions that rarely surface in formal multilateral forums. 

The format itself drew praise. Compared with many UN climate negotiations, the TAFF conference made a clear effort to incorporate the voices of Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants, youth, trade unions, and civil society organisations. Amnesty International commended both the participatory approach and the decision to vet participants with the aim of limiting fossil fuel industry influence— a recurring concern within COP processes. 

The spirit of the conference was described by several participants as being less about convincing others than about learning from one another. This may be one of Santa Marta's most durable legacies. At a time when consensus-based diplomacy often struggles to address fossil fuel production directly, smaller coalitions can create space for policy experimentation and political trust-building. 

However, this approach is not without its risks. Parallel processes may generate momentum, but they can also fragment climate governance or allow governments the opportunity to avoid accountability on more serious questions. A key challenge therefore is to ensure the TAFF process strengthens, rather than weakens, the multilateral climate regime. Its work should remain connected to the UNFCCC, while addressing questions that the COP process has so far struggled to resolve.

The road to Tuvalu

The next test for this parallel process will come in 2027, when a second TAFF conference is expected to take place in Tuvalu, with Ireland as co-host. The pairing is symbolically powerful: a high-income European nation alongside one of the countries most existentially threatened by sea-level rise — a sobering reminder of who has the most to lose from delayed climate action. A coordination group of participating countries will be established to maintain momentum in the intervening period.

Civil society organisations are already keeping expectations in check. Greenpeace has cautioned that “signal isn’t a solution”, arguing that for Pacific islands and other climate-vulnerable communities, the transition remains dangerously slow. Amnesty International has similarly called on governments to move from dialogue to legally binding commitments, pointing to the International Court of Justice's recent advisory opinion, which strengthened the legal basis for challenging continued fossil fuel expansion and clarified states’ responsibilities to prevent harm. 

Santa Marta did not, however, settle the politics of fossil fuel phase-out. Nor was it designed to. Its aim was to treat the transition away from fossil fuels not as an abstract aspiration, but as a practical governance challenge. 

The question now is whether this emerging coalition can translate political willingness into durable implementation. Tuvalu will inherit not only the momentum from Santa Marta, but also its central dilemma: how to move from a shared recognition that fossil fuel dependence must be brought to an end, towards a fair, financed and enforceable pathway for ending it.

References

Amnesty International. (2026, April 29). Santa Marta conference unlocks historic political momentum for just transitions that must translate into rights-centric action. Santa Marta conference unlocks historic political momentum for just transitions that must translate into rights-centric action

Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. (n.d.). About BOGA. Retrieved May 5, 2026, from https://beyondoilandgasalliance.org/about

Coalition on Phasing Out Fossil Fuel Incentives Including Subsidies. (n.d.). About COFFIS. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Retrieved May 5, 2026, from https://www.iisd.org/coffis/about

Dunne, D. (2026, April 30). Santa Marta: Key outcomes from first summit on ‘transitioning away’ from fossil fuels. Carbon Brief. Santa Marta: Key outcomes from first summit on ‘transitioning away’ from fossil fuels

Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (2026). High-level segment of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels. High-level Segment of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels

Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (2026, April 28). Highlights and images for 28 April 2026: First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Highlights and images for 28 April 2026

Earth Negotiations Bulletin. (2026, April 29). Highlights and images for 29 April 2026: First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Highlights and images for 29 April 2026

First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels. (n.d.). About. About — First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels

Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative. (2026, April 27). Coalition of countries call for Santa Marta Conference to recognise need for a new legal instrument. Coalition of countries call for Santa Marta Conference to recognise need for a new legal instrument — Fossil Fuel Treaty

Greenpeace International. (2026, April 30). Santa Marta conference to end fossil fuels a landmark moment for climate and energy stability [Press release]. Santa Marta conference to end fossil fuels a landmark moment for climate and energy stability - Greenpeace International

Le Monde. (2026, April 30). Transition écologique : l’Afrique défend son droit au développement économique à la conférence de Santa Marta sur la sortie des énergies

Powering Past Coal Alliance. (n.d.). Home - The end of coal is in sight. Retrieved May 5, 2026, from https://poweringpastcoal.org/

Rodriguez, S., Rowling, M. (2026, April 28). Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out. Climate Home News.  (Santa Marta: Ministers Grapple with Practicability of Fossil Fuel Phase Out

Thompson, S. (2025, August 25). The ICJ's historic advisory opinion: A new era for climate justice? European Chair for Sustainable Development and Climate Transition, Sciences Po. https://www.sciencespo.fr/chair-sustainable-development/news/the-icjs-historic-advisory-opinion-a-new-era-for-climate-justice/

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2023). Outcome of the first global stocktake: Draft decision -/CMA.5 (FCCC/PA/CMA/2023/L.17). Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, Fifth Session. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2023_L17_adv.pdf