The establishment of “fossil fuel free zones” as a tool for mitigating the climate crisis has been contested for more than a decade. But in April, when representatives of 57 countries met in Colombia for the first Transition Away conference, something shifted. They were listed in the desired outcomes – the first time a major climate conference had platformed them this significantly.
Fossil fuel free zones are areas of significant ecology, biodiversity or culture, where fossil fuel exploration, extraction and other related infrastructural development are permanently prohibited. Dialogue Earth consulted Juan Pablo Osornio, engagement and policy director at Earth Insight, an advocacy group dedicated to protecting key environments from industrial expansion. He says fossil fuel free zones offer “something concrete, very intuitive” that governments can use in their energy transitions.
“We’re at a point where everyone is demanding that things be put into concrete terms,” agrees Carolina Sánchez, a spokesperson for the Fossil Free Wider Caribbean (GCLF) network. She tells Dialogue Earth that concerned parties want energy transition roadmaps that “include dates and set out more specific details of how things are going to be done … fossil fuel free zones are a concrete thing that already exists and countries should expand.”
Fossil fuel expansion is threatening important forests. In April, Earth Insight released an analysis of governmental data of oil and gas blocks at various stages of development and production, mapped onto satellite imagery of tropical moist forest cover in the Amazon, the Congo basin and Southeast Asia. Earth Insight says the overlap between the two amounts to 179 million hectares, and approximately 21% of the “high-integrity tropical forests” in those regions.
The Transition Away conference took place in the coastal city of Santa Marta, in Colombia’s Caribbean region. But elsewhere in the Caribbean, Guyana has reignited offshore oil expansion, prompting Barbados, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic to take similar action.
A country’s route to fossil fuel free zones is littered with obstacles, such as pendulum-swinging politics and fossil-dependent economies. But increasing numbers of governments still recognise the concept as a path away from extraction.
How could fossil fuel free zones be adopted?
Fossil fuel free zones have been proposed by campaigners and academics for over a decade. The Leave it in the Ground (Lingo) initiative, an anti-fossil fuels NGO, was one of their first proponents. In 2022, the academic Fergus Green – currently a professor of public policy at University College London – created an introductory framework for them. It was partly inspired by Nuclear Weapon Free Zones. This treaty-based arrangement was first proposed for consideration at the UN general assembly in 1999; Nuclear Weapon Free Zones currently cover Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific and Central and Southeast Asia.
In his proposal, Green writes that fossil fuel free zones should be “enshrined in national laws and international agreements and accompanied by measures to ensure an equitable distribution of burdens and benefits”. He acknowledges, however, that this will not happen before smaller-scale actions that apply pressure to states. As such, he sees the fossil fuel free zones concept as a vehicle, to “inject a set of ideas into the public consciousness on which motivated groups might draw” to create change.
The legal mechanisms by which fossil fuel free zones could be introduced fall into roughly four categories: self-declaration (communities formally declare their territories off-limits); administrative protected area designation; litigation that enforces existing laws; and political moratoria (national or regional bans on new licences).
Sánchez says fossil fuel free zones are often based on pre-existing laws. This has the benefit of low regulatory costs compared to some other state-led climate change mitigation projects. For example, establishing one of these zones is cheaper and easier than building out a new energy system, or creating new institutions. Instead, lines can be drawn on a map using existing authority.
However, while design might be simple, implementation is harder. Osornio says enforcement remains the challenge in many regions, particularly in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, where governance capacity varies widely. In Ecuador, for example, the state has continued to drill for oil in parts of the Yasuní national park for years, despite its protected status: the country voted to completely halt extraction at the park’s ITT oil field in a 2023 referendum. Implementing that decision has proven complex and slow.
This is also relevant for marine protected areas (MPAs). Bruna Campos, the senior offshore oil and gas campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), tells Dialogue Earth that many marine protected areas are merely “paper parks”. She says oil and gas activities – whether inside or outside – can undermine an MPA’s very purpose.
Where are they already being used?
Lingo already has a global database of more than 500 registered subnational and local Fossil Free Zones. Such sites include: Belize, which has an indefinite moratorium on offshore oil activity; Costa Rica, with its moratorium on fossil fuel exploration and exploitation until 2050; Arctic Canadian waters, where there is a moratorium on oil and gas licensing, reviewed every five years; and five particularly biodiverse areas of Mexico, each granted a fossil fuel exploration and exploitation ban.
In 2025, Colombia banned new oil projects in its Amazon. And last month, it declared the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, the sacred territory of four Indigenous nations, liberated from fossil fuel extraction. But this legacy is already at risk from Colombia’s just-elected new president, Abelardo de la Espriella, who has called for a national resurgence of fossil fuels.
Fossil fuel free zones often overlap with Indigenous territories, and Indigenous people can be a force for their introduction. “Everything that is left in the subsoil must stay there. It fulfils an important function for our spiritual management of cooling the world,” Patricia Suárez, a leader from Colombia’s Murui Indigenous community, tells Dialogue Earth. “When those resources are extracted, elements of great importance for the planet’s balance are altered, creating strong climate impacts with serious effects on Indigenous territories.”
Across the Amazon, Indigenous organisations have been advancing similar declarations. Last year at the UN climate summit COP30, held in Brazil, Indigenous coalitions demanded their territories be designated exclusion zones for all extractive activities. Meanwhile, parliamentarians from four Amazonian countries have introduced bills to expand fossil fuel free zones.
But this political progress is fragile. “In my country, and across much of Latin America, the political shift brought about by recent elections means this idea will face greater difficulties,” Cecilia Requena, a Bolivian senator and member of Parliamentarians for a Fossil Free Future, tells Dialogue Earth. She argues protecting critical biomes like the Amazon makes just as much sense for economies as for the climate.
Dialogue Earth spoke to Alana Manchineri, an Indigenous leader representing Amazonian Indigenous organisations. Her stance on defending lands from extraction is anything but fragile: “This is our mandate, and it’s the most concrete contribution we can make to cooling the planet.”
What challenges need to be overcome?
The Santa Marta conference certainly put fossil fuel free zones on the map. Participating countries committed to developing post-conference roadmaps that will guide their fossil fuel production phaseouts, which could make use of such zones. The roadmaps will consider areas that could be prioritised for extraction bans, timelines and financing plans.
If governments are thinking about how that phaseout is going to look, the first thing is to stop producing in these sensitive areasBruna Campos, senior offshore oil and gas campaigner, the Center for International Environmental Law
Fossil fuel free zones are therefore seen by proponents as an early step towards a broader phaseout, rather than an end in themselves. “If governments want to prioritise, or are thinking about how that phaseout is going to look – because it won’t happen all at once – the first thing is to stop producing in these sensitive areas,” Campos adds.
The core problem many countries face is an economy that depends on fossil fuels, although the degree of dependence varies widely. In some countries, oil and gas revenues underpin government budgets, public services and employment. And while the economic case for fossil dependency is weakening (as investment increasingly shifts to mature and cost-competitive clean energy technologies), political leaders face immediate pressures. And besides fiscal pressures, many voters continue to associate fossil fuels with prosperity.
The second challenge is political inconsistency. Fossil fuel bans may not survive a change of government, as is now likely in Colombia. Durability requires anchoring these bans in stronger legal frameworks. Not just policy statements or executive orders, but statutes and international agreements that can survive political transitions.
Brazil has retained the UN’s climate conference presidency since hosting COP30 and as such, it is preparing a global phaseout roadmap to present at COP31 this November. It could include fossil fuel free zones but – unlike negotiated COP decisions – the roadmap will not be formally adopted by countries, nor carry legal or political authority under the UN.
Suárez says states must introduce strong policies and fulfil their promises. And she remains hopeful, too: “At Santa Marta, we saw the possibility opening up to the world to initiate a new context – a new political process on the transition beyond fossils.”
