The 2015 Paris Agreement to tackle climate change famously does not name the controversial root cause of the very problem it is intended to solve: fossil fuels.

In the year of its 10^th anniversary, Gillian Cooper, political director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative (FFNPT), described the Paris accord as “our North Star” in efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

“Unfortunately, as it is structured, it does not mention fossil fuels,” she added in an interview with Climate Home ahead of the mid-year UN climate talks in Bonn. “That is a massive omission because it is the root cause of over 80% of our emissions. So there is very little guidance as to how countries concretely will be able to transition from fossil fuels.”

Cooper argues that another international treaty is needed to provide that support to governments – a goal towards which her organisation has been working since 2020.

“The capacity of countries to transition from fossil fuels varies considerably across the globe and concrete solutions are needed to support an equitable, managed transition,” she said. “The treaty will provide greater guidance and support.”

Growing support for action on fossil fuels

In response to  a call by Pacific Island nations back in 2015 for a moratorium on coal, the FFNPT initiative seeks to foster global cooperation to halt expansion of this planet-heating fuel, as well as oil and gas, and accelerate the transition to renewable energy. With 17 participating nations so far, it is in talks with more countries to sign up to the commitment.

Its members so far are Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Colombia, Micronesia, Fiji, Nauru, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Marshall Islands, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

Cooper noted that meetings will be held with some delegations during the Bonn climate talks, especially target countries in Africa and Asia considered key due to their dependence on fossil fuels. “We are fairly confident that we will have more countries by the time we get to COP30,” she added.

Brazil’s current push to approve new oil exploration projects in the Amazon basin, with licences set to be auctioned in mid-June, would make it difficult for President Lula da Silva’s government to join the FFNPT.

The Amazon rainforest emerges as the new global oil frontier 

But in its role as the COP30 Presidency, Brazil could create the political momentum needed to incorporate more ambitious language on fossil fuels in the final decisions stemming from November’s climate summit in Belem – something it has indicated it wants to do. 

That aim is to drive forward the outcome of COP28 in 2023, in which countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems – but since then there has been little concrete progress within the UN climate process on how that could be done. 

Resistance from major producers

A Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty could help sidestep the objections of major oil and gas-producing nations, experts told a symposium in Bonn organised by the initiative.

Peter Newell, professor of international relations at the University of Sussex, said it is expected that big fossil fuel producers like Saudi Arabia or Russia will resist – but that might change as the world moves towards cleaner energy. 

“These countries usually produce for export to Europe or other countries. So, if demand falls, it will be easier to convince them to reduce production,” Newell told Climate Home.

Against the common narrative of “fossil fuels are key to energy security”, he encouraged people to ask whose energy is being secured, how, and at what cost? And in response to the argument that fossil fuels are needed for development, he questioned why in many developing countries that are rich in fossil fuels, there is still so much energy poverty. 

Newell believes that there will come a time when, due to the worsening impacts of climate change, or as the initiative gains more members, even big oil and gas nations might want to join the FFNPT. 

“The challenge will be to have enough countries that want a strong version of the treaty and not the weaker version that large producers may seek to push,” he said.

Another hurdle is fighting disinformation around the initiative’s aims. “Those countries considering endorsing will want answers to tough questions about why they should join,” noted Newell. 

Complementary to UN processes

Meanwhile, discussions about what shape a treaty to phase out fossil fuels could take are gathering momentum. At a ministerial meeting in late 2024 at COP29 in Baku, the initiative’s member countries highlighted the importance of identifying a framework.

One path would be through existing UN processes, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). But there is a catch. “They are consensus-based decision-making forums,” said Cooper. “This dilutes the ambition that we are pursuing.”

And if an FFNPT were to be pursued via the UN General Assembly (UNGA), it would require a two-thirds majority of states to approve it – and likely take many years to advance.

Comment: COP30 must heed the elephant in the room: fossil fuels 

“The other pathway is a dedicated process outside the UN,” said Cooper, noting that this is what happened in the case of the Mine Ban Treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. “A small group of progressive states can initiate a treaty process and start to change the norms and influence other multilateral spaces where climate change and fossil fuels can be discussed,” she added.

In that case, a connection with existing UN processes could be maintained, adopting a dual-track approach that is independent of the UN but still able to shape resolutions at the UNGA – for example, detailing countries’ needs in transitioning away from fossil fuels.

The analysis now being conducted by the FFNPT’s political and technical team will be presented to ministers of participating countries when they meet in Belem in November, so they can decide on a way forward. Building on this, the idea is to work on a diplomatic conference that would frame the issue and launch a mandate for the treaty. 

Text or no text?

While initiative is called a “treaty”, it has yet to start work on a draft text. This is partly to avoid falling prey to the arguments, pressures and blocking that small details such as a comma or a verb can provoke, as often happens in the UN climate negotiations.

Whether a text will be developed will become clearer next year, but in the meantime, the initiative is researching and advising its member countries on areas of policy that are key to progressing their energy transition – work that could form the basis of a treaty, Cooper said. 

Some of these levers were discussed at the FFNPT Research and Policy Symposium in Bonn ahead of the June negotiations. They include trade incentives and opportunities, legal and security aspects for actors involved in the transition, and financing mechanisms for a rapid and fair fossil fuel phase-out.

Funding a fossil fuel phase-out 

“The [FFNPT] treaty has to recognize that many Global South countries are in what we call a climate debt trap,” said Jwala Rambarran, independent expert and senior policy advisor for the Vulnerable Twenty Group (V20) of nations.

“They require considerable investments to finance their climate resilience – and at the same time they have limited fiscal space simply because they are highly indebted. And part of that debt arises because they have to finance the response to a climate shock.”

The challenge for the treaty is to find ways to fund a just energy transition without worsening debt further and avoiding dependence on loans as the primary form of financing. From 2016 to 2022, 90% of financing provided by multilateral development banks was in the form of loans, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

“All of this is taking place within this global financial architecture that is 80 years old and was created when many of these countries did not even exist or they were part of colonial systems,” Rambarran said, pointing to the need for reform.

The idea of ​​creating a new fund for the treaty emerged from ministerial discussions. A report by the OECD noted that as of 2022, more than 94 green climate funds had been set up, with 81 of them active, but their financial contribution accounted for less than 1% of global climate finance flows. So why create yet another?

That is being explored as part of the FFNPT discussions, said Rambarran, alongside issues such as: who would provide the money, who would be able to access the fund, would finance be provided as loans or grants, and would it be filled by donor countries or a tax on fossil fuels?

“I think it is good that the treaty is examining those questions and looking at the different types of mechanisms,” he added.