COP31: Turkey Hosts Global Climate Action Summit Amid Fossil Fuel Dependence Concerns

Written by Indu K Murthy Starting Monday (November 9), the next chapter of global climate action will unfold in Turkey at the 31st Conference of the Parties (COP31) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) until November 20, with about 100,000 participants and heads of state gathering for a World Leaders’ Summit on November 11 and 12. As the first COP since the United States’ exit from the Paris Agreement earlier this year, COP31 removes the largest historical emitter from finance conversations, sharpening developing countries’ demand that Europe and others fill the gap. Energy security, meanwhile, has taken centre stage. The war on Iran has pushed up oil and gas prices, raising the cost of fuel and food. Supporters of a faster energy transition argue that this shows the risks of fossil-fuel dependence, while importers such as India face more immediate pressure to keep supplies affordable. The questions that matter are how much finance will actually flow to developing countries, how adaptation will be measured and paid for, and whether mounting pressure on coal and emission targets will respect the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (CBDR-RC). What is a COP? A COP is the annual meeting of countries that signed the 1992 UNFCCC. In Antalya, there will be three meetings in focus: COP31, the 21st session of the Conference of Parties serving as the meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP21), and the 8th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of Parties to the 2015 Paris Agreement (CMA8). The Paris Agreement asks every country to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC), essentially its own climate plan, every five years, with the shared ambition of holding warming well below 2°C while pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. Because decisions require consensus, a single country can hold up an agreement. How is COP31 different from previous COPs? COP venues rotate among the UN’s regional groups, and 2026 was the turn of the “Western European and Others” group to host. Turkey bid with Antalya, and Australia bid with Adelaide, in partnership with Pacific Island nations. The resulting standoff led to an unusual power-sharing deal last year, making COP31 the first summit where one country hosts the meeting while another runs the negotiations. Turkey is the formal COP31 president and host, responsible for the venue, logistics, and the “Action Agenda” of voluntary pledges and initiatives, whereas Australia has “exclusive authority” over formal talks, drafting of texts, and steering decisions. This dual leadership model is untested, and questions remain about who would have the final word if there were disagreement in the closing hours. What’s on the table? COP31 is not expected to produce a landmark treaty text. The real fight is over delivery: mobilising finance, measuring progress, and accelerating the energy shift. In terms of co-chairing consultations, India and Germany must decide on mitigation, as in how to press countries whose 2035 plans fall short of 1.5°C and what “transitioning away from fossil fuels” actually requires. On finance, France and the Philippines will work to build consensus on delivering existing finance commitments. On adaptation, the UK and Sierra Leone must chart a credible path to tripling adaptation finance and make enough headway for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) to be finalised at COP32. Taking on newer ground, Mexico and Poland must work out how the just transition mechanism will function and what money and technical help it will give affected workers and communities. Palau and Canada handle the ocean, where Pacific Island countries want commitments written into formal decisions. Two more items will set the summit’s tone. Turkey wants countries to pledge to raise electricity’s share of global final energy use from about 23% today to 35% by 2035. Further, developing countries, including India, have pushed to include Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, the clause that obligates developed countries to provide finance, in the provisional agenda. What Belém left behind The COP30 in Belém, Brazil, closed with a package called the “Global Mutirão” (meaning, collective effort) and Antalya inherits this “to-do” list. It called for adaptation finance to be at least tripled by 2035, five years later than developing countries had wanted and without a clear baseline. More broadly, it endorsed the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap to scale climate finance for developing countries to at least $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 from public and private sources, building on the $300 billion-a-year goal agreed at COP29 in Baku (Azerbaijan). It adopted a set of “Belém indicators” to measure progress on the GGA, created new vehicles for delivery, namely a Global Implementation Accelerator and a “Belém Mission to 1.5” to help countries carry out their plans, alongside work on a just transition mechanism. The most conspicuous gap concerned fossil fuels. More than 80 countries backed a roadmap to move away from oil, coal, and gas, yet the final text left fossil fuels out entirely, referring only to the 2023 Dubai “UAE Consensus”. Brazil is now steering a voluntary roadmap process outside the formal talks, and Colombia and the Netherlands have initiated the Santa Marta process — an international, plurilateral climate initiative complementing the COP process launched in Santa Marta, Colombia — in April 2026 to identify pathways for the phase-out. Where does India stand on its climate goals? India goes to Antalya with a new climate plan and a central seat at the table, co-chairing mitigation consultations. India’s third NDC, covering 2031-2035, was approved and submitted in April. The new plan raises the target for reducing the emission intensity of gross domestic product (GDP) to 47% below 2005 levels by 2035, up from 45% by 2030. Emission intensity of GDP, which measures the volume of greenhouse gases (usually carbon dioxide, or CO 2 , equivalent) emitted for each unit of economic output or GDP, acts as a key indicator of how carbon-efficient an economy is as it grows. The plan increases the non-fossil share of installed power capacity from 50% by 2030 (already met) to 60% by 2035 and expands the promised additional carbon sink from forest and tree cover from 2.5-3.0 billion tonnes of CO 2 equivalent to 3.5-4.0 billion tonnes. A carbon sink refers to any natural or artificial system that absorbs more CO 2 from the atmosphere than it releases, helping reduce the greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. The NDC, however, ties any further ambition to “new and additional” finance and technology from developed countries. This conditionality runs through India’s negotiating line, which Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change Bhupender Yadav set out at the Pre-COP in Fiji last month (October 5-8, 2026). Yadav called for equal weight to be given to adaptation; mitigation; and the “means of implementation”, that is, finance, technology, and capacity-building. He insisted that the principle of CBDR-RC be upheld “in letter and spirit”, with no one-size-fits-all pathway imposed on countries. He backed the Article 9.1 finance discussion and argued that success should be measured by delivery on existing commitments rather than by new targets or declarations. Five questions will determine how Antalya is remembered. The first is finance, and whether developed countries put numbers and a timeline behind tripling adaptation finance and give the $1.3 trillion roadmap a monitoring system. The second is fossil fuels, and whether the negotiated text will include a transition away from them. The third is Turkey’s electrification pledge, specifically how many countries sign on to the 35%-by-2035 target. The fourth is the split presidency itself — the real stress test of a model that future COPs may copy. The fifth is the Global South bargain, and whether India and other developing countries secure the Article 9.1 discussion and reforms to finance access in return for engaging on mitigation. Ultimately, Antalya will be judged less on headline pledges and more on whether the promises of Paris, Baku, and Belém translate into meaningful action. The author heads the climate, environment and sustainability sector at the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP), a research-based think tank.