The Santa Marta summit achieved a breakthrough by securing UNFCCC agreement to phase out fossil fuels, a historic pivot after decades of climate negotiations blocked by fossil fuel interests. Yet the agreement's implementation now faces a critical obstacle: control over how the transition unfolds.
Developing nations risk losing agency in shaping their own energy futures if wealthy countries and their financial institutions dominate the transition process. The Global North has historically controlled climate policy frameworks, from carbon markets to technology transfers, often imposing solutions that reflect rich-nation priorities rather than the economic realities of poorer countries.
This asymmetry matters concretely. Developing economies depend heavily on fossil fuel revenues and fossil-based industries. A transition designed in Geneva or Washington, without meaningful participation from fossil fuel-dependent nations, risks locking in solutions that ignore local contexts. Mining economies, oil-exporting states, and nations with limited grid infrastructure each need pathways tailored to their circumstances.
The Santa Marta agreement opened a door. Now developing countries must hold the pen, meaning they must lead the technical working groups, set timelines, determine financing mechanisms, and structure just transition programs for workers and communities. This requires resources. Developing nations need independent technical capacity to negotiate with Western institutions and each other.
The specific threat lies in procedural capture. Global North institutions control major development banks, carbon finance mechanisms, and technical standard-setting bodies. If these same actors design fossil fuel phase-out protocols, developing countries become implementers rather than architects. They may accept terms that prioritize renewable energy exports to wealthy nations while neglecting domestic energy security.
The alternative framework requires genuine capacity-building from day one. Developing countries need funding for their own policy research institutes, independent energy transition planning, and direct participation in all decision-making structures without predetermined outcomes. They need the technical expertise to evaluate competing proposals and the political space to reject unsuitable ones.
The window