Time is running out for the Australian government’s bid to host the global climate change negotiations COP31 in partnership with the Pacific in November 2026. The government has pushed to host the event since 2022 and won the support of Pacific Island countries.
But the bid itself has languished in a long stand-off with Türkiye, which also wants to host.
Canberra rightly wanted to lock in hosting rights last year but under-estimated Ankara’s determination. And in the UNFCCC’s consensus process, Australia has had no means to force a resolution. The apparent inaction has led to doubts about the government’s resolve in the Pacific and Europe.
The most likely conclusion is for Australia and Türkiye to find a compromise by splitting hosting duties. Türkiye is reported to want to host the global leaders’ summit, which usually front-ends annual COPs, and to have proposed an ‘integrated co-presidency’ model. Türkiye hosting the leaders’ summit would alleviate some logistical and cost burdens for Australia, but it could also divert all the political attention there. And while there are presidency functions which can be sensibly shared, a fully integrated co-presidency would be unworkable.
Settling a hosting arrangement in which Australia, the Pacific and Türkiye all get most of what they want will be no easy feat. If agreement can’t be reached the default is for Germany to host in Bonn as seat of the secretariat. Or one of the bidders could withdraw and the opportunity won’t come around again until 2031.
The Australian government needs to weigh carefully its choices and the limited time available for preparation.
Hosting would require the government to think and act globally, which is not necessarily the default in Canberra as focus has been drawn closer to Australian shores.
COP31 would be the biggest and most complex diplomatic undertaking in the country’s history – well in excess of the G20 in 2014 or APEC in 2007. It would place Australia at the centre of global climate politics just as momentum is waning and geopolitical friction is waxing. Sharing roles with the Pacific and Türkiye, and the domestic political backdrop, would make managing COP31 all the more difficult.
Pulling it off successfully would require an enormous effort and dominate the government’s agenda in 2026, when its attention is already being pulled in multiple directions.
Logistics are surmountable if governments move quickly and spend what is needed. Recent COPs have swollen in size: UAE drew upwards of 100,000 delegates in 2023 and 70,000 went to Azerbaijan in 2024. Adelaide, which the government has designated as Australia’s venue, doesn’t have enough hotel rooms for an event that large. The host cannot control the size of government delegations and turning away business and civil society would defeat the purpose.
Expectations would require a Pacific leaders’ meeting, separate from a Turkish leaders’ summit. This might be attached to the mid-year Pacific Islands Forum in Palau. Or it could be designed as a standalone event in Australia with a focus on green industry deal-making and green trade and investment into Asia.
The diplomatic challenge is more formidable. Australia would need to design and mobilise a policy agenda of global consequence which simultaneously enhances the country’s standing and influence. The UK pulled this off in Glasgow in 2021 to its enduring benefit, although in better political conditions and with an extra year of preparation thanks to the pandemic.
There is a strong case for taking on hosting duties. The government laments the weakening of the multilateral system and climate change and the transition are of first order significance, including in Australia’s neighbourhood. Shouldering the responsibility would be an act of leadership, which backs up Australian rhetoric. And it could help drive investment needed for Future Made in Australia and the government’s transition plans.
It would require the government to think and act globally, which is not necessarily the default in Canberra as focus has been drawn closer to Australian shores. Pacific interests would need to be prioritised in a truly global agenda in which every region can be engaged.
COPs are platforms for a vast landscape of initiatives and events. The plurilateral realm is where the government needs several major initiatives aimed at the real economy. Mobilising finance, accelerating transition and utilising trade must be among them, along with a practical idea on transitioning away from fossil fuels. Australia won’t need to run these alone – partners will share the load – and overall success will be measured by how well this agenda delivers.
Negotiations under the Paris Agreement itself are less prospective. The world is passing through the 1.5°C threshold agreed in Paris and global climate finance targets are unrealistic. Australia can’t resolve the gap between aspiration and action, but could design and promote modest and pragmatic steps which sustain momentum.
Inevitably, however, COP31 is replete with risk. Australia could disappoint close friends and draw the ire of major powers and trading partners. The COP would bear on all diplomatic relationships, and each would require thought and careful handling. The sharpest risk would be demands to reduce Australia’s coal and gas exports.
Assembling and rolling out a diplomatic effort of this scale in less than a year would require powerful structures in government with licence to move faster than usual process allows. The Prime Minister and key ministers should steer a whole-of-government taskforce, which integrates expertise and capabilities across portfolios and mobilises the diplomatic network.
COP31 could become an enduring achievement for the Albanese government, bringing trade and investment to Australia, and paying diplomatic dividends – including in the Pacific. But without the necessary commitment, and a workable arrangement with Türkiye, the costs and risks are too high. If the Prime Minister wants to seize the opportunity of COP31 he needs to move fast.
