The first week of Cop 31 in Antalya was defined by an attempt by the Australia-Turkey presidency to shift the conversation from abstract climate targets towards implementation. The summit opened with a relatively smooth agreement on the formal negotiations agenda, but attention increasingly gravitated towards political initiatives outside the formal UN process, particularly Turkey's flagship "35-by-35" electrification goal, methane reduction efforts and renewed debates around the Cop 28 commitment to transition away from fossil fuels.
Underlying nearly every discussion was the same tension: broad support for accelerating decarbonisation, coupled with continuing disagreement over fossil fuels, transition pathways and who pays for the transition. Against a backdrop of energy security concerns amplified by the Middle East crisis and supply disruptions, countries repeatedly framed climate action through the lens of economic resilience, industrial competitiveness and national circumstances.
Negotiations agenda
The conference got off to a relatively orderly start after parties swiftly adopted the formal agenda. But reaching agreement required shelving some of the most contentious proposals.
African countries had sought dedicated agenda items on trade-related climate measures and adaptation finance. Neither ultimately made it onto the final agenda. Instead, parties agreed to establish a dedicated climate finance work programme focused on the provision of finance from developed to developing countries, creating a space where adaptation finance discussions can continue without reopening broader negotiations.
For many negotiators, the rapid adoption of the agenda avoided the procedural battles that have delayed previous Cops. Yet the compromise also revealed where negotiations are likely to remain difficult. Finance continues to dominate concerns among developing countries. While developed countries insist they are focused on delivering the existing $300bn/yr climate finance commitment agreed at Cop 29, many developing nations continue to argue that significantly larger flows will be required to support mitigation, adaptation and resilience.
Another notable feature of the opening week was what remained outside the formal negotiating process. Debates around transitioning away from fossil fuels, Turkey's electrification initiative and various sectoral pledges largely took place under the action agenda rather than formal UNFCCC negotiations.
Cover decision wish list
Tensions became clearer on Friday, when the Cop 31 presidency released an informal "wish list" of themes that countries may wish to see reflected in the eventual cover decision — an overarching political text led by the event's presidency, which can address themes that are not part of official negotiations.
The document included references to Turkey's 35-by-35 electrification goal, methane reductions, adaptation finance, Article 6 cooperation and follow-up work on Cop 30's roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels and forests.
While many parties welcomed the paper as a basis for discussion, reactions exposed significant divisions. Several countries argued the text risked being repetitive and internally inconsistent. Others emphasised that any cover decision must remain consensus-based and avoid introducing top-down sectoral targets.
Oil and gas producers are expected to scrutinise several elements closely. The methane section explicitly references venting and flaring in the oil and gas sector, while references to transition-away roadmaps could reintroduce politically contentious debates that many countries sought to keep outside formal negotiations.
On finance, the proposal to pursue efforts to triple adaptation finance by 2035 is likely to face resistance from developed countries, many of which have already signalled reluctance to take on additional commitments beyond existing pledges.
France welcomed the stronger focus on methane but signalled caution regarding electrification language. As one French official noted, electrification is a means of decarbonisation rather than an objective in itself, summarising a concern voiced repeatedly during the week.
Turkey's 35-by-35 electrification pledge
The most prominent political initiative of the first week was Turkey's proposed goal of increasing electricity's share of global final energy consumption to 35pc by 2035, up from roughly 20pc today.
Support emerged quickly among developed economies. The UK, Australia, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Finland, Norway and several Pacific nations backed the initiative. European Commission officials suggested support "in principle" is widespread, although many governments have yet to formally endorse it.
Supporters framed electrification as a pragmatic response to both climate change and energy security concerns. Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese argued electrification can "reduce global dependence on fossil fuels, enhancing energy security and independence". He linked the initiative directly to recent geopolitical disruptions, including the Strait of Hormuz crisis, and warned the world remains off track, heading towards only around 25pc electrification by 2035 absent stronger action.
Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan similarly cast electrification as a matter of energy independence as well as climate policy. He stressed that the initiative is intended to mobilise financing, technology and international cooperation rather than impose a uniform pathway. Turkey's own plans include expanding solar and wind capacity to 120GW by 2035, while it also develops nuclear generation as a source of low-emission electricity.
South Korea's special envoy Kang Kumsil described the goal as consistent with Seoul's ambition of becoming an "electro-state". Finland highlighted that around 70pc of its energy system is already electrified and that 96pc of its electricity generation comes from clean sources.
But support was far from unconditional.
Several European countries, including France, have argued that electrification targets should be explicitly linked to clean electricity. Critics warned that increasing electricity demand alone would do little for the climate if new power generation remains fossil-fuelled. Former US climate envoy John Kerry captured that concern when he warned that electrification "is not going to solve our problem" if the electricity comes from fossil fuels.
Another fault line emerged around fuel neutrality. Russia, Colombia and Venezuela argued that electrification pathways should remain technology neutral and continue to recognise natural gas and LNG as legitimate transition fuels. Russian climate envoy Ruslan Edelgeriev rejected what he called the politicisation of climate policy and advocated the use of "the entire spectrum of available economically sound technologies", including gas, LNG, nuclear power, CCS, hydrogen and biofuels. Colombia similarly promoted natural gas as a transition fuel capable of delivering immediate emissions reductions while preserving energy security.
Climate-vulnerable countries broadly welcomed electrification but insisted it must not substitute for direct action on fossil fuels.
Marshall Islands president Hilda Heine warned that electrification risks becoming a distraction if not explicitly tied to replacing fossil fuels. Tuvalu prime minister Feleti Teo similarly argued that adaptation alone cannot save vulnerable nations and reiterated the need to phase out fossil fuels and accelerate renewable energy deployment. UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres delivered perhaps the week's strongest rebuttal to fossil fuel dependence, warning that new oil and gas projects risk locking countries into costly stranded assets and arguing that "real energy security means breaking this dependence".
Together, those interventions revealed a central question likely to dominate week two: whether the electrification pledge can remain a broad coalition-building initiative or becomes drawn into wider disputes over fossil fuel phase-down and transition pathways.
Transitioning away from fossil fuels
Although not formally negotiated, debates around transitioning away from fossil fuels re-emerged repeatedly during the week.
Discussion was heavily influenced by the Cop 30 fossil fuel transition roadmap unveiled by Brazil. Many developing countries welcomed the document precisely because it recognised differing national circumstances rather than prescribing specific pathways.
Nigeria, Indonesia and other emerging economies repeatedly emphasised that energy transitions cannot occur without substantial financial support. Several countries highlighted dependence on fossil fuel revenues, while others stressed domestic energy security concerns.
At the same time, vulnerable countries and UN officials pushed for stronger implementation of the Cop 28 commitment to transition away from fossil fuels. Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Palau all argued that the Antalya summit should focus less on new declarations and more on implementing commitments already made.
The result was a familiar Cop dynamic: broad acceptance of the ultimate direction of travel, but continuing disagreement over pace, responsibilities and the role of transition fuels.
Growing convergence on methane
Methane arguably represented the clearest area of momentum during week one.
France led calls for methane language to be included in the final summit decision, arguing the issue should move beyond voluntary coalitions and become embedded within wider climate governance. Paris advocated near-zero methane intensity in the oil and gas sector by 2030 alongside the elimination of routine flaring.
The push received support from countries including Australia, Norway, Germany and Barbados. While disputes remain over sectoral scope, particularly whether the focus should remain on fossil fuel emissions or expand further into agriculture and waste, few parties openly challenged the need for stronger methane action.
This growing emphasis was reflected in the presidency's cover-decision wish list, where methane featured prominently alongside electrification.
Article 6 focus on better implementation
Discussions around carbon markets highlighted growing concern about implementation quality rather than rule design.
Negotiators largely agreed that Article 6 rules should not be reopened before the scheduled 2028 review. Instead, attention focused on improving reporting, review processes and consistency across participating countries.
UN reviews have identified shortcomings in initial Article 6 reporting, including incomplete baselines and weak alignment with national climate plans. But most government negotiators characterised these problems as early-stage growing pains rather than evidence of fundamental flaws.
There were also broader discussions around carbon market cooperation. Turkey, China and Ethiopia launched a joint initiative on high-quality carbon credit market cooperation, while UNCTAD announced plans for a global carbon market network designed to improve interoperability and transparency.
