ClimaTalk sat down (virtually) with COP30 Youth Climate Champion, Marcele Oliveira, to discuss her experiences and the outcomes of the First Conference on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia (co-hosted with the Netherlands), 24-29th April 2026.
Interviewee: Marcele Oliveira
Interviewer: Shreya Patel
Marcele Oliveira, Executive Director of Perifalab Institute, is a Brazilian climate leader, communicator and cultural producer from Realengo, a neighbourhood on the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro. Her work sits at the intersection of climate and culture, rooted in her lived experience of environmental and racial inequality. At 26, she became the Presidency Youth Climate Champion for COP30, the second person globally to hold this role, created at COP28 to strengthen youth participation in climate governance.
Getting a feel for the conference itself
SP: If you could summarise your experience at Santa Marta in 3 words, what would those be?
MO: Urgency, coalition, hope(?)
SP: What were your expectations going into the conference?
MO: This was the first international conference dedicated specifically to the transition away from fossil fuels – something genuinely unprecedented. The expectation was that, by operating outside the traditional COP model, the event could bypass the diplomatic blockades imposed by major fossil fuel producers.
There was anticipation around the creation of concrete mechanisms: national roadmaps, transition financing, and critically real space for civil society, indigenous peoples, and youth.
SP: What did the actual structure of the conference look like?
MO: The event ran from 24–29 April in Santa Marta, Colombia. The first phase (24–27 April) consisted of Academic Dialogues and a People’s Assembly, bringing together over 400 scientists, civil society organisations, indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant communities, women, and youth delegations, hosted at the Universidad de Magdalena, a central and vital space for the production of knowledge and learning.
The High-Level Segment (28–29 April) convened ministerial representatives from around 57–60 countries alongside working group representatives and civil society delegates to participate in rounds of technical discussions.
Parallel events included the People’s Summit for a Fossil-Free Future, where the Youth Declaration, developed by the Youth Working Group, was formally presented. Representation was broad: subnational governments, trade unions, global youth networks, researchers, and grassroots movements all had a presence.
The conference also opened with a reception hosted by the Colombian and Dutch governments, which featured a fashion show by Colombian brand @manifiesta.col and took place at the Quintanas cultural venue. Throughout the conference’s time in Santa Marta, culture remained a strong presence — visible in the banners and artistic expressions that accompanied the March.
SP: Talk me through the People’s Summit for a Fossil Free Future?
MO: The People’s Summit was where our team was on the ground, and the Youth Declaration launched there was not built overnight. It was the result of months of regional consultations across every continent, including consultations we led in Brazil to map the demands and priorities of young people on the frontlines of the climate crisis.
What emerged reflects that depth: beyond what has already been mentioned, the [Youth] Declaration calls for:
- The protection of territorial autonomy and Free, Prior and Informed Consent as non-negotiable rights;
- An end to energy dependency imposed by colonial control;
- Safeguards ensuring that the fossil fuel phase-out cannot be used as a pretext for land dispossession or the extraction of critical minerals under military control
- The recognition that demilitarisation is inseparable from any genuine energy transition.
There is no just transition, the document asserts, without a counter-colonial vision and no climate justice without sovereignty over land, energy and resources for marginalised and colonised peoples.
Outcomes and takeaways from Santa Marta
SP: Would you be able to talk us through 3 outcomes of the conference?
MO: [First, the] launch of the Scientific Panel for the Global Energy Transition, based in São Paulo, co-chaired by Brazilian researcher Gilberto Jannuzzi, Vera Songwe (Cameroon) and Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany). Unlike the IPCC, it will produce faster, nationally tailored scientific guidance, with its first report expected at COP31 in Türkiye.
[Second, the] formation of a coalition of 57 countries committed to developing national and regional transition roadmaps, aligning trade policies, and unlocking transition financing over the coming months.
[Third], The Youth Declaration on Just Transitions Beyond Fossil Fuels, developed by ANGRY (Alliance of Non-Governmental Radical Youth).
Going well beyond energy substitution, the document demands a legally binding fossil fuel phase-out treaty tied to 1.5°C, cancellation of illegitimate debt in the Global South, energy embargos against states accused of genocide, and the explicit rejection of false solutions such as carbon markets and geoengineering.
The Declaration was formally delivered to Ana Toni, COP30 Executive Director, a moment that brought youth demands directly into the hands of those shaping the formal negotiating agenda. It is one of the most politically comprehensive youth climate documents to emerge from any international process and a clear signal that young people are not waiting to be consulted.
SP: “The objective of the Conference is to initiate a concrete process through which a coalition of committed countries, subnational governments, and relevant stakeholders can identify and advance enabling pathways to implement a progressive transition away from fossil fuels creating sustainable societies and economies” [1]. Do you feel this objective has been met, and to what extent?
MO: The conference successfully initiated a concrete coalition process outside the UNFCCC, with participating countries committing to advance national roadmaps. However, all outcomes remain non-binding, which was expected for a first edition. The true measure of success will be the adhesion of more countries to the second edition of the conference, notably, Tuvalu explicitly expressed interest in hosting it on behalf of the Pacific island nations.
The concluding document acknowledges the need for fossil-free zones and just financing, but the real test will be the actual delivery of national roadmaps. The COP30 Presidency has already made progress on this front, receiving 444 contributions to two international roadmaps, 267 on the transition away from fossil fuels and 177 on halting deforestation by 2030, with final documents expected ahead of COP31 in Antalya, Türkiye.
SP: What do established plans for implementation look like? To what extent are they realistic and reflect the true state of urgency?
MO: Countries agreed to coordinate national and regional roadmaps and align trade policies. The new scientific panel will provide country-level data ahead of COP31.
That said, without legally binding accountability mechanisms, implementation ultimately depends on individual political will.
The Youth Declaration makes this gap explicit: it calls for a legally binding fossil fuel phase-out treaty, with progressive production reduction targets, an immediate halt to new fossil fuel projects, international monitoring, and accountability mechanisms covering fracking, fossil gas, and coal.
Representation
SP: What did you think of youth representation at the conference, both in terms of presence and informing or shaping discussions?
MO: We recognize the difficulties young people face in attending events like this, from visa barriers to accommodation challenges, yet youth found ways to participate in multiple forms: in person, through prior consultations, and through sustained virtual engagement.
The Youth Declaration demonstrates considerable political depth and intersectionality, linking the climate crisis to colonialism, military occupation, debt, and labour rights. However, actual influence on the decisions made during the High-Level Segment remains limited. As the Declaration itself states, young people refuse to be “mere supporting actors consulted after decisions have already been made.” The challenge going forward is translating visible presence into binding influence — a structural problem that Santa Marta did not fully resolve.
SP: What did you think of Indigenous representation at the conference, both in terms of presence and informing or shaping discussions?
MO: Indigenous presence was central to several of the conference’s key proposals, particularly the push for fossil-fuel-free zones and the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, reaffirmed in the Youth Declaration with reference to UN General Assembly Resolutions 1803 and 3171.
Santa Marta itself set the tone: situated on the Caribbean coast, in the shadow of the Sierra Nevada, home to the Arhuaco, Kogui, Wiwa and Kankuamo peoples. Traditional communities were present as active voices, bringing with them cosmovisions that treat energy, land and life as inseparable. That said, as with youth representation, there remains a structural gap between presence in parallel spaces and genuine decision-making power in the high-level political process.
Looking to COP31…
SP: Was there an appropriate feeling of urgency? How were you left feeling after the conference, and looking towards SB64 and COP31?
MO: Among the countries present and civil society, the urgency felt genuine. However, the day after the conference closed, Türkiye’s designated COP31 president stated that simply telling nations to phase out fossil fuels “is not realistic,” a clear signal that resistance remains strong within the formal UNFCCC space.
Also, it happened to be my birthday — and the greatest gift I could have received was being surrounded by people mobilising for a better future for everyone.
Santa Marta was designed precisely to work around that impasse, but the weight of major absent petrostates continues to shape what is politically possible. At SB64, we hope to see this mobilisation reflected in technical recommendations and global and national climate policies. Stepping outside the UNFCCC framework is also a welcome shift — one that allows us to keep championing multilateralism and the meaningful participation of the communities most affected by the consequences of climate change.
