by Isabel Cristina Preciado Ochoa and Fabián Andrés León Peñuela, BHRC

The promise of “moving beyond fossil fuels” sets the agenda for the First International Conference on the Transition Beyond Fossil Fuels, to be held in Santa Marta, Colombia, next week. The conference will address three strategic themes: reducing economic dependence on fossil fuels; transforming the supply and demand for fossil fuels; and strengthening international cooperation and climate diplomacy. These themes represent some of the main challenges in consolidating a just energy transition.

The central question, then, is not simply whether the transition is necessary, but how it will be carried out, under what rules, and for whom. And this comes at a time when the regulatory framework remains fragile. Moving forward requires incorporating a human rights-based approach that guarantees the duty to respect human rights and nature, shared prosperity, and fair negotiations in the territories where the transition is taking place.

Why is fossil fuel phase-out necessary? 

In many countries, oil, gas or coal revenues sustain jobs, tax revenues and the balance of payments, a fact glossed over by the notion of economic dependence on fossil fuels as a structural barrier for the Global South. The energy transition does not represent a simple ‘technological shift’, but a macroeconomic dilemma. However, if the transition is delayed, the climate crisis and extreme events will intensify and hit the most vulnerable countries hardest, deepening existing social inequalities through loss of livelihoods, increased illness and heat-related mortality, deterioration of working conditions and forced displacement. The social and economic costs of failing to advance an energy transition are likely to exceed, in the medium and long term, the costs associated with a planned phase-out of fossil fuels.

This dilemma is exacerbated by the unequal distribution of wealth and the ongoing dynamics of structural dependency. Global investment in the transition remains concentrated, and capital for the Global South comes at a higher cost, often in the form of debt. In this scenario, phase-out requires a transformation of the rules of international finance. Otherwise, the expansion of renewables and the demand for critical minerals may perpetuate the same pattern of territorial dispossession under new names (hydrogen corridors, mega-infrastructure, ‘strategic’ mining).

If these asymmetries are not corrected, the transition risks becoming an additional burden on economies already constrained by debt and by public budgets dependent on extractive revenues. A truly just energy transition should follow three interdependent principles: respect for human rights and the promotion of environmental justice; fair negotiations; and shared prosperity. With this approach, human rights would play a decisive role in decision-making, offering concrete ethical and operational criteria to prevent the ‘green’ energy model from reproducing the colonial and extractivist patterns of the past.

There is international consensus on states’ duty to protect and companies’ duty to respect human rights, and the right of people affected by economic projects to have access to restorative guarantees and principles of non-repetition. Applied to the transition, this requires mandatory human rights due diligence to identify, prevent and mitigate impacts, rather than to ‘manage crises’ once the damage has already occurred.

In Latin America, this is particularly critical: many renewable energy and mining projects for the transition are located in territories inhabited by peasant, Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities. In this context, the standard cannot be reduced to a procedural requirement, but must ensure meaningful participation, transparent and culturally appropriate information, and, where applicable, free, prior and informed consent. Shared prosperity is essential – not only as a fair distribution of benefits, but as a pathway for communities to effectively participate in decision-making regarding the direction, limits and conditions of projects that affect their territories.

Is a rights-respecting post-fossil future possible?

A post-fossil fuel future – if it is to be at all resilient – must be grounded in a human rights-centred approach that enables governance equipped with real guarantees (participation, fiscal transparency, traceability, benefit sharing and territorially grounded productive alternatives), and a dynamic interaction between context-specific regulations, community-based monitoring mechanisms, and effective sanctions against abuses.

Context-sensitive standards

Effective regulation must incorporate differentiated standards that take into account, at a minimum, the scale of the project, the ecological sensitivity of the territory, the presence of Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant communities and peasant communities, as well as local socio-economic conditions and cultural diversity.

Community control mechanisms 

Effective mechanisms for social control and oversight are necessary. Communities living in the territories where energy projects are established must have genuine opportunities for participation to enable ongoing monitoring of impacts, trigger early warnings, and strengthen mechanisms such as citizen oversight committees, without this leading to attacks on their efforts to defend human rights. Experience shows community monitoring improves transparency and can correct instances of non-compliance that often arise when public attention wanes.

Possible consequences of non-compliance 

The recognition of standards and control mechanisms loses its meaning if there are no clear consequences for non-compliance. A just energy transition requires regulatory systems capable of sanctioning those who violate human rights and fail to meet their environmental and social obligations. This includes administrative sanctions, civil liabilities and, in the most serious cases, criminal liabilities. It also involves ensuring access to effective remedies for affected communities, including restitution, compensation and guarantees of non-repetition.

Conclusion 

The energy transition is urgent in the face of the climate crisis, but its implementation will determine whether it paves the way for justice or simply perpetuates inequalities through new technology. Moving beyond fossil fuels cannot be reduced to simply changing the energy mix: it involves transforming the power relations that have governed access to energy and control over land.

The Santa Marta Conference could be a real opportunity if it manages to turn narrative into policy: regulatory frameworks with a human rights and nature-based approach, differentiated standards, community control and effective sanctions against abuses. A just energy transition also requires tackling the fiscal and economic structures that sustain fossil fuel dependency and ensuring shared prosperity and fair negotiations between states, companies, the financial system and communities. Only in this way will the transition reduce emissions without undermining democracy, and without turning territories into the usual sacrificial zones.