COP31 in Antalya: Two Presidents, One Test

For thirty years, a climate summit has had one president. In Antalya, it will have two — and that simple fact tells you most of what you need to know about where global climate politics stands. The talks are still essential, the big breakthroughs are harder to reach, and the work now is to make existing promises real before the next round of pledges.

COP31, the 31st meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, opens on 9 November 2026 and runs until 20 November at the Antalya Expo Center in Türkiye. The United Nations Climate Change secretariat describes it as focused on implementation: putting climate solutions into practice and advancing an energy transition tied to jobs, food security, health and affordable clean energy.

What happened

Türkiye will host the conference, and Murat Kurum, Türkiye’s minister of environment, urbanisation and climate change, has been nominated as President of COP31. Chris Bowen, Australia’s climate and energy minister, will serve as President of Negotiations. A World Leaders’ Summit is scheduled for 11 and 12 November, in the first days of the talks.

The arrangement was agreed at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, after rival hosting bids. Türkiye takes the presidency, the venue and the action agenda, while Australia leads the formal negotiations, in consultation with Türkiye. The United Nations University notes that this is the first shared presidency in the roughly 30-year history of the talks.

Before Antalya, a pre-COP meeting was held from 5 to 8 October 2026 with Fiji, Tuvalu and Australia partnering to deliver it — a Pacific setting meant to keep small island states’ priorities in the room before the main talks began.

Why the split matters

A COP presidency is not a ceremonial job. The president shapes the agenda, manages difficult late-night sessions and, in the final days, often steers the text that every country must accept. Splitting that authority is therefore a real experiment, not just a diplomatic compromise to end a hosting dispute.

Done well, the split plays to each country’s strengths. Türkiye, as host, can drive the voluntary action agenda, while Australia can focus on the text itself. The risk is the opposite: two centres of authority could blur who is responsible when talks stall.

What is actually on the table

The formal agenda is long, but it is not dominated by a single new treaty. Reporting ahead of the summit described more than 100 items, many of them technical — including approving indicators to track progress on adaptation to droughts, floods and other climate impacts. Negotiations will also cover reducing greenhouse gas pollution, climate finance for developing countries, and a just transition for workers and communities.

The most visible voluntary initiative is electrification: replacing technologies that burn fossil fuels directly, such as diesel cars and gas heating, with electric alternatives. The hosts argue that greater electrification can cut heat-trapping emissions and reduce reliance on costly fossil fuel imports. Alongside it, Türkiye is promoting voluntary initiatives on themes including artificial intelligence, methane, waste reduction and climate-resilient cities.

The trade-offs, honestly stated

Electrification is a useful goal, but it is not a complete climate plan on its own. About one-third of the world’s electricity is still generated from coal, and the electrification target does not itself say how the extra electricity should be produced. That leaves a genuine question: if demand for electricity rises faster than clean supply, does electrification simply move emissions from a car exhaust or a boiler to a power station?

The same caution applies to the wider negotiations. Countries agreed in 2023 to move away from coal, oil and gas, but since then efforts to negotiate concrete targets or timelines for that transition have gone nowhere, according to reporting ahead of the summit. Fossil fuel emissions hit record highs in 2025. At last year’s summit, fossil fuels were not mentioned by name in the final agreement after oil- and gas-producing nations prevented consensus on the issue.

None of this means Antalya is pointless. A summit that delivers clear adaptation indicators, steadier climate finance and credible voluntary pledges would do the unglamorous work that makes future, larger deals possible — work already being pursued elsewhere, with nearly 60 countries attending a fossil fuel phaseout conference this year outside the UN process.

• What helps the case for Antalya: a clear division of labour, a Pacific-centred pre-COP, and a voluntary agenda that countries can join without waiting for full consensus.
• What hurts it: a voluntary electrification goal without a clean-power plan, and a formal agenda with no new binding fossil fuel commitment.
• What to watch for: whether adaptation and finance discussions produce usable decisions, not just further rounds of talks.

What happens next

The first test comes quickly. The leaders’ summit on 11 and 12 November will show whether heads of government give negotiators real room to move, or simply repeat existing positions.

By the scheduled close on 20 November, three questions will have answers. First, how many countries sign up to the electrification goal and the other voluntary initiatives, and with what detail behind their pledges? Second, do adaptation and finance discussions end with decisions that developing countries can actually use? Third, does the final text say anything meaningful about fossil fuels, or does it avoid the subject again?

The split presidency will be judged by the same standard. If Türkiye and Australia finish the summit with a coherent outcome and no public dispute over who was in charge, the model may be remembered as a pragmatic fix. If the final days descend into confusion about authority, future hosts will be wary of repeating it. Either way, Antalya is less a summit about inventing a new climate promise than about proving the system can still deliver on the promises it has already made.