The first international conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels convened in Santa Marta, Colombia from April 24,29, 2026, bringing together ministers, subnational governments, academics and civil society in an effort to move the debate on phasing out oil, gas and coal from abstract commitments to concrete roadmaps.
Organisers framed the summit as a pragmatic, science‑informed forum to break the diplomatic deadlock of large UN processes and to test policy tools that could enable a just, orderly and equitable managed decline of fossil fuel production.
Summit context and objectives
Colombia and the Netherlands co‑hosted what organisers described as the first government‑level effort to address fossil‑fuel phaseout in operational terms, pairing a political conference with an adjacent science and policy convening intended to inform roadmaps and options.
The event explicitly sought to move beyond high‑level pledges by focusing on legal instruments, sequencing (halt new expansion before managed decline), subsidy reform, and measures to protect the most vulnerable economies and workers.
The summit took place amid an acute energy security shock: the International Energy Agency reported that global oil supply fell sharply in March 2026, a geopolitical backdrop summit delegates said both complicates and strengthens the rationale for accelerating a shift away from fossil fuels.
Participants and coalitions
More than 50 countries attended the Colombia summit, including a mixture of high‑income governments, some fossil‑fuel producers and climate‑vulnerable states; European governments and a number of medium producers were notably present.
Major emitters and several oil‑exporting powers, including the United States, China, India and some Gulf states, did not participate, underscoring the summit’s role as a coalition of the willing rather than a universal negotiating forum. Observers said that absence highlights both political limits and the potential for a snowballing diplomatic process if the coalition can demonstrate practical wins.
Civil society, Indigenous delegations and academic networks were present in strength through a People’s Summit and a Global Science & Policy Conference, contributing demands for immediate limits on new fossil infrastructure and for binding protections for communities dependent on land and ocean resources.
Policy proposals on the table
Delegates debated a menu of policy instruments: moratoria on new fossil‑fuel projects, accelerated removal of production‑side subsidies, targeted transition funds for affected regions, and a proposal modelled on a “Fossil Fuel Non‑Proliferation Treaty” to halt expansion and sequence declines.
Scientific convenings feeding the summit urged a stop to new fossil expansion as a baseline: that is, to prevent further lock‑in before designing country‑specific managed‑decline pathways that align with Paris Agreement temperature goals. Delegates discussed how to translate those recommendations into verifiable national roadmaps.
Legal and diplomatic options were also explored, from soft‑law political declarations to the longer, more contested path of legally binding frameworks, with experts stressing that any credible approach must combine clear timelines, finance and dispute‑resolution mechanisms.
Financing the phase-out
Finance was repeatedly described by ministers and analysts at Santa Marta as the single biggest practical barrier: developing and fossil‑exporting countries face fiscal risk, stranded‑asset exposure and balance‑of‑payments pressures if production declines too quickly without compensating investment and structural support.
Delegates pressed multilateral development banks, climate funds and richer governments to design instruments that lower borrowing costs, derisk private capital for renewables, and offer direct transition financing, including compensation pathways for jurisdictions heavily dependent on fossil rents. Many civil‑society briefs and technical panels argued for an expanded role for MDBs and for blended finance that prioritises public additionality and equity.
Participants also highlighted practical investment barriers: permitting bottlenecks for renewables, grid upgrades, domestic supply‑chain development, and the need to re‑skilled workforces, all of which require predictable multi‑year finance commitments rather than one‑off pledges.
Political friction and geopolitical context
The summit unfolded against a volatile geopolitical backdrop, disruptions to Middle East oil flows and elevated prices sharpened energy‑security arguments used by states resisting rapid supply reduction. Summit organisers argued that energy independence and climate action can be complementary, but delegates acknowledged the political difficulty of sequencing phaseout during supply shocks.
At the same time, the exclusion or non‑attendance of major fossil producers underlined the diplomatic constraints: without participation from the largest producers and consumers, any phaseout architecture will face gaps in coverage and questions about leakage and competitiveness. Observers at Santa Marta framed the conference as a first, pragmatic step, to create norms and pilot instruments that might later attract broader buy‑in.
Industry and exporting states signalled resistance in public and private fora; delegates emphasised the need to craft transition options that reduce fiscal shocks, preserve energy access and protect sovereign creditworthiness, or risk political backlash that could stall implementation.
Metrics, timelines and accountability
One of the summit’s core preoccupations was how to measure progress: participants discussed nationally determined phaseout roadmaps with clear milestones, data requirements for monitoring production declines, and independent review mechanisms to ensure transparency. Technical experts stressed the value of harmonised reporting to prevent double‑counting and to track transition finance flows.
Delegates explored governance models ranging from a repeating Santa Marta process to link science‑based targets with finance commitments, to more formal treaty‑style arrangements advocated by some campaigners, recognising that political feasibility and speed are often inversely related.
Several speakers underlined a pragmatic sequencing: halt new projects immediately, accelerate demand‑side measures and renewables deployment, and then design differentiated timelines for managed decline that reflect national circumstances and historical responsibilities. That sequencing was offered as a way to reconcile climate ambition with development and security concerns.
Overall, Santa Marta functioned as a testing ground rather than a finishing line: it generated political energy, technical inputs and a clearer menu of policy options, but left the hardest questions unresolved, chiefly, how to finance and enforce an orderly global phaseout when key producers abstain.
Whether the summit’s coalition can translate declarations into binding commitments, scalable finance instruments and verifiable roadmaps will determine if Santa Marta is the start of a durable diplomacy for phasing out fossil fuels or another transient forum in a crowded climate calendar.
