Anthropogenic climate change poses an existential threat to humankind. Since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established, the Conference of the Parties (COP), the supreme decision-making body, has held annual sessions as mandated to address this crisis. In 1996, the UNFCCC developed a resolution on the Adoption of the Rules of Procedure (Draft Rules of Procedure), which sets out guidelines for the COP’s procedural rules and has been in effect since then. This year, Australia and Türkiye will co-host COP31. Given the unique presidential format, it is important to examine the implications of the procedural rules for the future of UN multilateralism.

The Rules of Procedure governing COPs

Since 1994, the world has witnessed 30 COP sessions that have negotiated and adopted decisions to enable climate action. Despite criticism of the legality and effectiveness of those decisions, COP negotiations remain a primary platform for promoting climate action and building global consensus on this crucial issue. For example, COP27 is remarkable for establishing the historic Loss and Damage Fund.

Under Rule 9 of the Draft Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat will finalise the provisional agenda in consultation with the President. The provisional agenda shall include items related to the implementation of the UNFCCC as mentioned in Article 7; items identified at a previous session for further discussion; items referred to in Rule 16 of the Draft Rules of Procedure; and items communicated to the Secretariat before the provisional agenda is circulated. With two exceptions, the same country holds the host government and the COP Presidency. Under Rule 23, the President is authorised to declare the opening and closing of the annual session, preside over meetings, and ensure the observance of procedural rules.

The Partnership Modalities between Australia and Türkiye

This unique presidential arrangement is set out in the COP31 Partnership Modalities. Under these Modalities, the Turkish Environment Minister, who will be nominated to serve as President-Designate at the commencement of the COP31 session, will oversee the procedural rules. The President-Designate announced the appointment of the Australian Minister for Climate and Energy as ‘President of Negotiations’ and delegated exclusive authority to lead negotiations. Both co-hosting countries will consult to ensure COP31 runs smoothly. Türkiye will enter into a Host Country Agreement to address logistical responsibilities. Australia will lead negotiations, including convening consultations and meetings to prepare negotiation-related communications; selecting ministerial and other co-facilitators to further discussions as required; and producing draft texts at COP31.

Prospects and challenges of such an unconventional partnership

In earlier instances, e.g. COP23 and COP25, a single country held the presidency. Therefore, COP31 co-hosting may challenge the application of existing procedural rules and the COP President’s authoritative functions, as it introduces a new parallel role, ‘President of Negotiations’. On the one hand, stewardship of the negotiations has been ‘exclusively’ delegated to Australia, while Türkiye’s role as President-Designate is to ensure compliance with the UNFCCC procedural rules, including agenda-setting and decision adoption.

Such an exclusive delegation might, to some extent, affect the powers usually entrusted to the COP President under the Draft Rules of Procedure. The key is to strike a balance between the two parallel Presidencies. Moreover, the partnership and sharing of power are subject to the qualifying phrase — ‘will consult each other’. However, official communications to date remain silent on the procedural aspects of such consultations/the dispute-resolving process.

This raises concerns about slowing the pace of negotiations, including agenda-setting or decision adoption. What will happen if they fail to reach an agreed decision on a particular agenda item? Will it be deferred to the next session, causing sheer disappointment, as happened with negotiations on long-term climate finance at COP15? Experts are also concerned about who will hold the gavel when the final text is adopted. Nonetheless, shared leadership could pave the way for future leadership from developing countries. The success of COP31 could shape the future of UN climate multilateralism, fostering trust and confidence among nations. However, its failure could lead to profound disappointment in addressing global crises.

In conclusion, the COP31 arrangement is a reality check on the future of multilateralism. Let’s see how it turns words into climate action, rather than offering consolation, as echoed at the COP30 closing session.