Banner image: People’s Summit for a Fossil-Free Future

A landmark conference on the transition away from fossil fuels took place in the coastal city of Santa Marta, Colombia from 24-29 April, co-hosted by the governments of Colombia and the Netherlands.  

The conference sought a robust and inclusive approach, reaching beyond just national government representatives. Before and during the conference were a series of dialogues which produced contribution papers from Indigenous Peoples, trade unions, youth, NGOs, feminists, social movements, business, subnational governments, cities, parliamentarians and others. 

During the week there was a two-day academic dialogue, a parliamentary and sub-national government chapter, a People’s Assembly and other complementary events, including a People’s Summit for a Fossil Free Future. This led to a lot of cross-pollination of ideas. The conference culminated in a two-day high-level segment, attended by 57 countries and representatives of various rightsholder and stakeholder groups. 

A focus on “doers” 

Unlike annual climate talks, which fixate on closed-door negotiations and written text, the atmosphere at Santa Marta was solutions-focused and evidence based.  

What was striking as the week kicked off was the sheer amount of evidence that the transition is well underway. From how Uruguay transitioned to 99% renewable energy, to the impact of The Philippines coal moratorium. From Quebec ending fossil fuel exploration and production in its territory, to NGOs supporting regulators with free tools like SkyTruth’s Cerulean – which track oil spills, helping to prosecute violations and reduce the industry’s social license. People spoke about bans on fossil fuel advertising and lobbying in various countries. There were several discussions on how ending fossil fuel subsidies could help free up finance for the transition, as could stronger tax. Legal experts discussed the cross-boundary issues of offshore oil and gas – where one country may seek to profit from an offshore industry, but multiple countries are exposed to environmental risks. 

While legitimate resource constraints were raised by many, the power of pro-active planning for the transition was also emphasized, especially by subnational governments, which could help to shepherd resources as they became available or encourage funding.  

The absence of fossil fuel lobbyists fostered a space refreshingly free of false solutions. “Offsets” and “carbon capture” barely got a mention. By contrast, 1 in 25 delegates to the 2025 climate talks in Belém were fossil fuel lobbyists.  

Inequalities in systems of extraction 

Key discussions taking place at Santa Marta occurred on two levels. On one level, the focus could be a specific policy issue such as debt cancellation or a particular trade rule. However, scratch the surface, and these speak to a deeper historic legacy. Rather than seeming intractable, in a geopolitical moment of great change, there was a sense that it may be possible to help unpick some stich by stitch.   

Examples include:  

• The rights of people, and government, to decide their future. In the high-level summit, there was momentum on Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). ISDS reflects a clause in some trade agreements that lets investors sue governments for any new policy that could harm them financially. Often introduced by strong-arming or stealth, governments are uniting against the idea that a company can over-ride their ability to govern. The high-level summit also reflected support for talks on a Fossil Fuel Treaty. Civil society groups stressed that fossil fuels often drive militarism and militarism itself has climate impacts and diverts budgets away from climate action.  

• Rejecting economic approaches based on people from one place exploiting the resources or labour from another. Several contribution papers warned against further extractivism. In the 21st century, there is a returning emphasis on circular economies – systems that are more self-sustaining, place-based and retain resources in circulation longer. This may focus on good design, durability, capturing waste or re-use. Diverse parties supported rights-based frameworks, including Indigenous Peoples’ calls to respect their right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent.  

• Critique of economic doctrines that focus on infinite growth. Alternative approaches ask what the objective of the economy is and measure how well it delivers on those objectives. An infinite growth model may assume that everyone consuming more and working more is a good outcome. A well-being model may prioritise people working enough for a good life and having time for social connection, leisure or care.  

• Transforming the global financial system architecture.  Addressing debt was a significant focus, including debts that governments may inherit from previous loans to finance fossil fuel projects (even when renewables are cheaper), forcing more extraction to repay. A lesser explored issue was credit risk. After the Ecuadorian referendum deciding that the Yasuni oil reserves in the Amazon should not be exploited, private credit ratings agencies threatened to downgrade Ecuador which would affect its cost of credit. Indigenous leaders described this as anti-democratically impacting the government’s decision to over-ride the referendum. Reparations and climate finance were raised extensively, as was common but differentiated responsibility.  

Good transition vs. bad transition  

A clear message was that, done well, transition is about more than just energy systems. It can strengthen local economies, democratise and decentralise resources, curb overconsumption and help to tackle inequality. Energy efficiency gains span everything from better insulation to fixing power lines. Strong workforce planning can ensure more equal access to green jobs. Better design and circularity can reduce waste and support local economies.  

There were clear warnings against bad transition that relies on violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights or entrenching inequality. This includes no holds barred mining for inputs for new energy technologies, land grabs or unfair access to technology. A commitment to minimise new mining can drive better design and innovation. Fairer access to renewables ensures that poor people don’t get locked out of cheaper, cleaner energy.  

Although it was clearly acknowledged that countries seeking to phase out fossil fuel production can face real barriers – including the need for economic diversification - there was less acknowledgement of resource curse dynamics that can see fossil fuels harm national economies in some contexts. In those cases, stopping fossil fuel exports could itself drive economic benefits.  

One mystery was who attended the business stream. In international fora, “business” can often be conflated with multi-national corporations. This creates an opportunity for future discussions to reflect the diversity of business – including small and medium enterprise, state-owned companies, farming smallholders, social enterprise, co-operatives, credit unions and others. 

The transition is happening. Australia is falling further and further behind.  

Few big announcements came out of the high-level summit – in line with the focus on connecting and proof of concept. Discussions will continue at a second conference in Tuvalu in 2027, co-hosted with Ireland. 

Whatever the future outcomes, the Santa Marta conference reflects a broader shift, where political processes are now playing catch up with a transition well underway.  

As of mid-2025, 91% of renewable energy projects are already cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel option. The world leaders on solar panel production, EVs, circularity, climate diplomacy or just approaches to transition took their spot years ago. The fight today is less about leadership, than how to remain relevant. Amid price volatility and global disruption, some countries also see growing energy at home via renewables as a security issue, supporting energy sovereignty.  

Yet Australia has over 80 new fossil fuel projects in the development pipeline. It’s the equivalent of being in 1998 and making a 30+ year bet on selling typewriters. 

Technically, Australia attended the conference - the Australian official’s remarks to the opening plenary ignored any reference to fossil fuel exports at all. It was a stark contrast to the forward-looking approach of Colombia and many other countries.  

The world is moving on from fossil fuels in one of the most foundational industrial transformations we’re likely to see in our lifetime. Sadly, Australia will fall further and further behind.  

In 2026, no one expects countries wedded to an increasingly outdated fossil fuel status quo to drive change - not Saudi Arabia, nor Russia, nor Australia.  

The successful post-transition economies will be defined by energy efficiency, effective design that holistically looks at environmental, social and economic factors, and a thoughtful, rights-based uptake and supply of technology. They will puzzle through genuinely complex problems of equity, resources, justice and reparations – but they won’t stagnate.  

Author: Shona Hawkes

Director of Land and Environmental Justice Program