Something shifted in Santa Marta last month — and for those of us working to put methane at the heart of the fossil fuel phase-out debate, it felt good.
The First International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels brought 57 governments to the Colombian coast from 24–29 April. Born out of the frustration of COP30 — where a bloc of 80 countries tried and failed to get a formal fossil fuel “roadmap” into the outcome text — it was designed as a space for the “coalition of the willing”: countries ready to move, outside the gridlock of consensus-based UN negotiations.
Here’s what happened on methane.
A Workstream of Our Own
The summit began with a two-day science conference at the Universidad del Magdalena, which drew around 400 academics into 18 thematic workstreams. One of those was dedicated entirely to fossil methane, co-facilitated by Payal Parekh, PhD, and Anaid Velasco of CEMDA.
The workstream landed on three core arguments:
- Methane is the emergency brake. The science is clear, the technology exists, and cuts are cost-effective — with immediate public health benefits to boot. This isn’t a long-term planning question; it’s an emergency response.
- Voluntary pledges aren’t cutting it. The workstream called for binding, enforceable, sanctionable regulations — and financial accountability mechanisms that distinguish between the responsibilities of exporting and importing countries.
- Cutting methane must accelerate phase-out, not justify more drilling. Methane reduction is not a licence to keep extracting. The workstream explicitly named this.
Santa Marta also saw the launch of the Fossil Methane Circle, whose ask was concrete: explicit inclusion of methane in the high-level agenda.
The Science Said It Too
The broader science synthesis — the SMART report, led by Dr Friedrich Bohn of the Earth Resilience Institute — backed this up. Among its key recommendations: a ban on new fossil fuel infrastructure, accelerated electrification, and deep, legally binding cuts to methane emissions in the energy sector. Not a pledge. An obligation.
E3G’s post-conference assessment listed “legally binding methane reductions” as one of the systemic recommendations that emerged from the academic pre-conference. That language didn’t get there by accident.
Methane in the Coverage
One of our goals heading into Santa Marta was simple: get journalists and commentators to write “methane” instead of the industry’s preferred euphemism. It happened — not everywhere, but enough to matter.
Carbon Brief noted the pre-conference workstreams ranged from “fossil-fuel phaseout policies and the role of methane” to just transitions. Climate Home News reported that academics called for action on methane as ministers debated the practicalities of phase-out. Amnesty International used the phrase “so-called ‘natural’ gas (methane).” Clean Technica independently inserted “methane” into its paraphrase of Guardian coverage, writing “coal, oil, and methane” rather than the usual trio.
What’s Next: Tuvalu, and COP31
The most exciting development for methane may be what comes after Santa Marta. On the UNFCCC track, COP31 host Turkey is already talking about action on waste methane.
Tuvalu, a frontline Pacific nation with everything to lose from near-term heating is already a leading voice for strong methane action, and has called for binding methane commitments, making it a natural ally for the road ahead.
The EU Methane Regulation, coming into effect, will publish a Methane Transparency Database later this year, ranking the methane intensity of all energy imports globally. That’s real regulatory architecture to build on.
The Santa Marta Fossil Methane Circle
Santa Marta wasn’t going to deliver a binding methane agreement in one week. But it delivered a dedicated workstream, legally binding language in the scientific outputs, meaningful media uptake of our framing, and the establishment of a new group: the Santa Marta Fossil Methane Circle.
As four co-hosts, fifteen stakeholder groups and 57 countries try to figure out what’s next in the Santa Marta Process, the Circle will help make sure methane stays at the centre of the action.
As the process moves through Bonn, COP31, and on to Tuvalu, we’re not done yet. But Santa Marta was a real step forward.