Belém — 17 November 2025, Less than twenty-four hours after diplomats in Belém digested Ethiopia’s confirmation as COP32 host for 2027, the focus shifted back to the unresolved question overshadowing COP30: the COP31 hosting decision for 2026. What appeared to be a potential breakthrough — Turkey’s proposal for a joint COP31 presidency with Australia — collapsed within a day, after Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese ruled out co-hosting as incompatible with UNFCCC rules. The rejection hardens an already delicate impasse, escalating the COP31 hosting deadlock at the very moment the Western Europe and Others Group is expected to deliver unanimity.
Both countries remain formally in the race to host COP31, which rotates through the WEOG regional group. UNFCCC rules require that all 28 countries agree on a single host — a consensus that has remained elusive for more than a year. If no agreement is reached by the close of COP30, hosting duties default to Bonn, a scenario Germany has repeatedly said it does not want.
Turkey’s Proposal and a Brief Window of Possibility
According to Turkish diplomatic sources, Ankara and Canberra held discussions on the margins of the UN General Assembly in September exploring what would have been an unprecedented model: a joint leadership arrangement for COP31. Talks reportedly included dividing responsibilities for high-level segments, jointly steering negotiations, and creating a presidency that symbolically bridged developed and developing country priorities.
The Turkish delegation described early conversations as constructive, saying the dialogue had created “a basis of mutual understanding.” But as further exchanges unfolded, deep differences emerged over how such a co-presidency could fit within UNFCCC procedures. The momentum stalled, and the idea never advanced to a formal proposal inside the process.
Turkey’s bid places strong emphasis on inclusiveness and cooperation, with a particular focus on elevating finance for developing countries. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in recent correspondence with Australian officials, cast Turkey’s candidacy as an opportunity to spotlight global South priorities while showcasing Ankara’s progress toward its 2053 net-zero target. Turkish officials insist that “flexible formulas” are still possible — but they reiterate that Turkey stands ready to host COP31 alone.
Australia’s Firm Rejection
In Melbourne, Prime Minister Albanese dismissed the notion of joint hosting outright. “Co-hosting isn’t provided for under the rules of the UNFCCC,” he said. “That’s not an option, and people are aware that it is not an option, which is why it has been ruled out.”
The statement made Australia’s position clear: Canberra will not entertain any arrangement that falls outside formal UNFCCC precedent. Behind that stance sits a bid politically important to Australia’s strategic repositioning. Australia seeks to co-host the summit with Pacific Island nations — a regional bloc facing existential climate risks and whose leaders were crucial in asserting the “1.5 to stay alive” goal in the Paris Agreement. The Pacific Islands Forum, representing 18 nations, strongly backs Australia’s candidacy.
Australian officials argue that hosting COP31 is central to accelerating the country’s shift toward becoming a renewable energy superpower, attracting investment in critical minerals, clean manufacturing, and grid-scale technologies.
“Hosting COP is absolutely crucial for Australia’s economic future,” said Wesley Morgan of the University of New South Wales. A presence at COP30 has bolstered the campaign.
Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen arrived in Belém on Sunday, giving what analysts described as “a shot in the arm” to the Australian effort.
A Standoff That Cuts to the Heart of Climate Diplomacy
The COP31 hosting deadlock is no longer a symbolic dispute — it carries tangible risks for the next negotiation cycle. A COP host sets the agenda, leads the diplomacy, and shapes outcomes from finance to mitigation. Without a president-designate, preparations for 2026 cannot begin, leaving the GGA review, Article 6 implementation, and political decisions on the next finance goal without a clear shepherd.
Turkey has signaled continued willingness to negotiate, including through hybrid leadership formulas, while Australia insists that rules preclude such arrangements. Both governments have incentives not to withdraw: a COP presidency is a bridge to economic visibility, diplomatic leverage, and regional influence at a time when climate politics increasingly defines foreign policy.
Analysts warn that even if co-hosting had been procedurally viable, the two nations are driven by fundamentally different priorities — Australia by its Pacific narrative and clean energy transformation, Türkiye by global South finance reform and geopolitical positioning. A compromise that satisfies both sides remains difficult to imagine.
Default to Bonn and the Clock Running Out
If the WEOG fails to reach unanimity in Belém, hosting duties automatically revert to Bonn.
German officials, while acknowledging their readiness to step in if required, have been explicit: “We would have to, but we do not want to,” said Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Environment Ministry.
For the Pacific, a Bonn default represents a lost diplomatic moment. For Türkiye, it means surrendering a bid it has pursued since 2022. For Australia, it disrupts a carefully sequenced strategy of climate leadership and economic transformation. And for the UNFCCC, it introduces avoidable instability in a cycle where implementation, not procedural friction, should dominate headlines.
The COP30 Presidency has appointed a facilitator to continue discussions, but negotiators acknowledge privately that options are narrowing as the final days of COP30 approach. Turkey continues to express openness to creative arrangements; Australia maintains its position that rules must be followed. With global climate diplomacy entering its most decisive decade, the risk is increasingly clear: unless the deadlock breaks in Belém, COP31 planning will begin with uncertainty — not leadership.
RELATED STORIES:
Follow SDG News on LinkedIn
