TAFF: How phasing out fossil fuels is becoming the central issue at COP

The debate on a timetable for phasing out fossil fuels is emerging as one of the key issues at COP30. Behind the scenes, a group of countries led by Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Environment Minister Marina Silva, Colombia, Kenya and Germany, France, the UK and Denmark are pushing for a COP decision on TAFF (“Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels”). Implementing Article 28 of the COP28 decision on the Dubai Global Stocktake in this way would constitute an overwhelming success for COP30 — but it faces obstacles in both substance and form.

Marina Silva has been promoting the idea of a fossil fuel phase-out roadmap for some time now. Surprisingly, President Lula took up this proposal at the opening of COP, calling for “an end to dependence on fossil fuels“ — even though his government had just awarded new oil and gas licenses.

The idea has met with approval from the countries pioneering the global shift to renewable energy. On Wednesday, senior heads of delegation and climate representatives from France, Colombia, the UK, Denmark, Kenya and Germany declared their support for Lula’s initiative during a demonstrative joint appearance in the Brazilian pavilion: “We will support any decision on a roadmap for TAFF here in Belém,” said German State Secretary for Climate Action Jochen Flasbarth.

On the fringes of the negotiations, these countries are now seeking the broadest possible support for this idea. Colombia has drawn up a “Belém Declaration on TAFF”, which is available to Table.Briefings. It refers to the opinion of the International Court of Justice ICJ on responsibility for climate action and makes assurances that they want to co-operate on a transition away from fossil fuels. However, it also notes that every country’s specific circumstances must be taken into account and transitional aid granted.

The Colombian environment minister plans to publish the paper next Tuesday. The more countries that rally behind the initiative by then, the greater the chances that the COP presidency will take up the proposal. At the same time, behind closed doors countries with significant fossil fuel production are have made it clear that they would reject such a process: For them, a continuation of TAFF from COP28 would be a strategic defeat.

The place for a TAFF passage could be a general political declaration (“cover decision”), but it is still uncertain what a COP30 decision might look like in detail.

• A concrete roadmap for a phase-out, which may involve a specific end date, for instance, is considered practically impossible.

• However, similar to the financial “Baku to Belém Roadmap”, COP could task the presidency with drafting the main features of a phase-out roadmap by the next conference.

• The easiest solution would be if COP30 simply decided to start a dialog process on a roadmap.

The exact wording of a COP28 TAFF decision could be important. The text talks about “transitioning away” in a “just, equitable, and orderly manner”. This call for a “just and orderly manner” could, in turn, mean financial aid or exemptions that may persuade some fossil fuel countries to get on board. However, it could also severely water down the statement and undermine its substance. An example of this is the G-7 decision in 2016 to end “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” within ten years. Its goal was not achieved because, if in doubt, subsidies are considered efficient and are therefore not covered by the phase-out clause.

Pressure is mounting on COP30 to agree a phase-out of fossil fuels whose combustion is causing the climate crisis. Outside the UNFCCC framework, calls to end their use are already getting louder: The “Initiative for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty”, for example, is pushing for an international treaty similar to the treaties banning landmines or the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Kumi Naidoo, head of the initiative and former head of Greenpeace International, believes that the “threat posed by fossil fuels is greater than that posed by nuclear weapons.”

In an interview with Table.Briefings, Naidoo welcomes the initiative at COP but also warns against greenwashing. Too often, he says, countries talk about these issues and then hardly take any action. So far, 17 countries have joined the initiative, particularly from island states, but the fossil fuel producers Pakistan, East Timor and Colombia are also involved. Colombia wants to promote the issue with an international conference in April 2026 to campaign for a binding international agreement to ban fossil fuels.

The Brazilian COP30 presidency is very cautious and reserved on the topic. COP President Corrêa do Lago publicly stated that “there are a considerable number of countries that would like to discuss this”. But there are also countries whose priorities are different and where, for example, financial questions clearly take precedence over mitigation issues.

The push for a TAFF declaration also harbors a major strategic risk for the presidency. As the proposal comes from the Brazilian president and his environment minister, the COP presidency must avoid giving the impression that it is advancing Brazilian interests. A broad front of countries from all groups and continents could refute this accusation. Bringing this front together will be the task of many delegations over the next few days.

In addition to countries dependent on fossil fuel exports, opponents of fossil fuels will also have to deal with an absent giant: They could well face headwinds from the US, whose policy of global and fossil “energy dominance” runs directly counter to a COP process to phase fossil fuels out.