Bowen calls his first COP31 draft comprehensive. Critics say it is a just transition mechanism in name only

One week in, the polite phase of COP31 is over.

Late on Friday, the presidency released informal notes on two of the summit’s most contested questions: how to help workers and poorer countries move away from fossil fuels, and how much rich countries should pay to help vulnerable nations adapt to a hotter world. By Saturday, thousands of campaigners were marching through Antalya in the rain, and the halfway stocktaking session, chaired jointly by Türkiye and Australia, was set to show where countries draw their red lines.

What is in the just transition draft?

It sets out a two-tier mechanism. Its outputs are mainly a knowledge hub, reports, an annual meeting and what the text calls “matchmaking” of countries’ requests with support that already exists.

Mr Bowen called the draft comprehensive. Campaign groups were scathing. Amiera Sawas of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative called it a mechanism “in name only”, and negotiators said they were shocked by how low the draft set the bar. The least developed countries want political guidance kept separate from practical delivery, and advocates want any mechanism to be led by countries and funded by grants, so it does not add to poor nations’ debt.

Who pays for adaptation?

A draft on the global goal on adaptation proposes tripling adaptation finance to “at least $120 billion per year by 2035”. A second option would instead start a review of the target’s baseline, size and scope, to be reported at a later summit. African countries are expected to resist that.

The fight is over the starting point. Rich countries pledged at Glasgow to double adaptation finance to about US$40 billion a year by 2025, and tripling that gives US$120 billion. But last year’s COP30 deal did not fix a baseline, and the United Nations Environment Programme estimates developing countries need at least US$305 billion a year.

African negotiators also failed to win a standalone agenda item on tripling adaptation finance. Dr Antwi Amoah of Ghana, who chairs the African Group of Negotiators, confirmed it was not adopted. Developed countries prefer to handle the issue through a broader climate finance work programme.

What about fossil fuels?

The presidency has published a summary of options for the summit’s main “cover decision”, including advancing the transition away from fossil fuels. Campaigners have called it a wishlist, and none of it is agreed. Some large developing countries have pushed back all week on a cover decision and on sector targets, including a voluntary pledge, backed by more than a dozen countries, to lift electricity’s share of final energy use to 35 per cent by 2035, up from 23 per cent.

Mr Bowen has said that pledge sits outside the formal talks but the presidency wants to reflect its momentum in the final decision. He has been cautious about any late push for a global roadmap away from fossil fuels, which failed to win consensus at last year’s summit. UN climate chief Simon Stiell urged governments to move quickly to the hardest issues.

Why does it matter to Australians?

Australia gave up hosting COP31 to Türkiye in exchange for running the negotiations, on the promise of putting the Pacific at the centre. The outcome will be judged as Australia’s work. A weak text would sit badly with Pacific neighbours already facing rising seas, and a strong one on fossil fuels would land awkwardly on one of the world’s biggest coal and gas exporters.

Mr Bowen has said the co-presidency has worked “exceedingly well” and could become a model for future summits.