“We don’t want another endless process without real implementation”

Xiomara Acevedo Navarro in an interview with Leon Kirschgens 

You have been involved in climate activism for many years. How did you end up participating in the Santa Marta conference?

I’m from Barranquilla in Colombia, and I’ve been working on climate and environmental issues for more than 10 years now, basically for half of my life. The work of Barranquilla +20, the civil society organisation I founded, combines local community initiatives with international climate advocacy. At the local level, we support projects led mostly by women and schools, such as wetland preservation, water governance initiatives and agroecological orchards. But we also endeavour to strengthen the voices of social movements, especially women and youth movements, in global decision-making spaces. That’s how we became interested in the conference in Santa Marta – for many organisations and activists, it felt like a potentially important political moment.

Why did the TAFF conference feel so important to you politically?

Because many of us have been frustrated with the COP process for years. Under the UN climate framework, fossil fuels are still rarely addressed directly as the core driver of the climate crisis. Every year, there are negotiations and declarations, but there is very little concrete action on fossil fuels themselves. So, when Colombia and the Netherlands announced a separate conference focused specifically on transitions away from fossil fuels, many activists embraced this as something new that focuses directly on this key issue. And the fact that more than 50 countries voluntarily decided to participate was crucial. It means that these countries are at least willing to openly discuss this urgently needed transition. That already changed the political atmosphere compared to many COP negotiations.

How did you prepare for the conference as a representative of civil society?

Our work started long before the conference itself. Together with women’s organisations and youth movements, we arranged consultations and discussions to develop our own positions and demands. One important topic for us was ensuring that care was recognised as a pillar of any just transition. We wanted to bring perspectives linked to gender, care work and climate justice into the process. 

The participation process was quite difficult. There were assemblies, sectoral dialogues, consultations and parallel meetings almost every day. If you missed one activity, you sometimes risked not being represented in another. Many people found it exhausting, especially activists who had travelled long distances to attend the conference. And honestly, at times it felt overwhelming. Civil society groups were constantly being asked for declarations, proposals and inputs. But in the end, many of us were still left wondering how much influence those contributions actually had on the final outcomes.

The aim of the conference was not to produce yet another declaration, but to develop promising solutions and a process for their implementation. What do you think about the outcome?

I expected something more ambitious for such an important historical moment. Of course, I understand that it is difficult for countries to agree on concrete measures. But after bringing together more than 50 countries willing to discuss fossil fuels directly, I had hoped for clearer political proposals. Instead, many things still feel unclear. There is talk of a roadmap, scientific panels and thematic working groups. But we still do not really know what the final political outcome of this process is supposed to be.

What are the biggest unanswered questions for you?

For me, the central questions are: What exactly is the roadmap? What are countries actually committing themselves to? And what will implementation look like? But these questions remain unanswered. And this uncertainty also created frustration among some civil society groups. After all, we had spent enormous amounts of time contributing ideas and participating in consultations.

Some observers described Santa Marta as more open and creative than a typical COP. Did it feel different to you as well?

In some ways, yes. The countries attending were at least openly discussing fossil fuels, science and decarbonisation. And unlike at many COPs, the governments that usually block stronger language on fossil fuels were largely absent. That reduced some of the tensions you normally see during climate negotiations. At the same time, I would not romanticise the process too much. From the perspective of civil society participation, it still felt very structured and limited in many ways. There were differences, but not necessarily as radical as some people have described them.

Did you notice tensions between countries from the Global North and Global South?

Not in the same way as during the COP negotiations. Since this conference was basically an invitation to countries already willing to engage on fossil fuels, many of the usual geopolitical conflicts were less visible. The tension I noticed more was actually between this process and the UN climate framework itself. I had the impression that some people within the UN system were asking themselves how this new process could fit into the existing climate architecture. There seemed to be a concern that climate politics might move to some extent outside the traditional COP structures.

Did you personally still feel represented as part of civil society?

To some extent, yes. Before the conference, the Colombian government organised several preparatory activities, and some institutions genuinely tried to engage with social movements. I was invited to contribute to discussions on gender and climate issues, for example. And during the conference itself, some of the official civil society interventions reflected demands that feminist and women’s movements had collectively developed beforehand. So, in that sense, I did feel represented. But at the same time, one short intervention cannot represent all women and movements globally. So, of course, it still felt insufficient.

Despite your criticism, do you still think this kind of conference makes sense?

Yes, definitely. I think it is important precisely because it exists outside the traditional UN climate negotiations. At the same time, we do not want another endless multilateral process full of declarations and promises but without real implementation. Many people in civil society are tired of that dynamic. We already have the science. We already know governments need to act urgently. The real question now is whether countries are actually willing to move from discussions to implementation and structural change.

A second TAFF conference is scheduled for 2027 in Tuvalu. What will determine whether it becomes meaningful?

I think trust will be decisive. If countries manage to turn this process into concrete measures and implementation, then it could become politically important. But if it simply turns into another slow diplomatic process without tangible outcomes, many people will lose confidence very quickly. So, the next phase will be crucial. People are watching closely to see whether this becomes a genuinely new political space – or simply another conference cycle.

LINK
Thompson, S., and van Cronenburg, F., 2026: Santa Marta explained: What happened at the first conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels. Sciences Po.

Xiomara Acevedo Navarro is a Colombian climate activist. She founded the civil-society organisation Barranquilla +20, which aims to include women and youth in climate justice processes.
xio.acevedo@gmail.com 

This story is part of The 89 Percent Project, an initiative of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now.