By Sadaf Sundas Riaz — SCN News
ANTALYA, Türkiye — When governments gather for COP31 in November, the central climate question will no longer be only how much more they are willing to promise. Countries have already submitted national plans covering cleaner energy, transport, industry, agriculture and adaptation, but many of those commitments remain far removed from projects that can secure financing and begin construction. COP31 is trying to close that gap by pushing the climate process from setting targets towards delivering projects.
The shift is important because a Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC, tells the world what a country intends to achieve under the Paris Agreement, but it does not automatically tell a bank, development lender or investor what it can finance. A pledge to expand renewable power, for example, still has to be broken into individual generation projects, transmission upgrades and storage facilities, complete with costs, permits, revenue structures and assessments of financial risk. The same problem applies to adaptation, where governments may identify flood protection, water security or resilient agriculture as priorities without yet having projects sufficiently developed to attract capital.
Türkiye's COP31 presidency has put that problem at the centre of its Climate Implementation Bridge, an initiative designed to connect national climate priorities with investment and financing partners. The programme calls for NDCs and National Adaptation Plans to be translated into concrete, investment-ready portfolios, supported by common appraisal criteria and project-readiness standards. It also envisages combining public, private and multilateral finance, including blended finance in which public resources are used to reduce risk and attract additional private capital.
That makes COP31, scheduled for November 9-20 in Antalya, a potentially important test of whether climate diplomacy can move beyond negotiating ambition and tackle the less visible machinery of implementation. The official COP31 agenda still includes longstanding disputes over adaptation, climate finance, loss and damage and other issues, and the second Global Stocktake will also begin at the conference. But the presidency has repeatedly said that the primary challenge is increasingly shifting from target-setting to implementation.
The problem is not simply a shortage of climate pledges
Under the Paris Agreement, governments prepare successive NDCs describing how they intend to reduce emissions and respond to climate change. The plans have become considerably more detailed: UNFCCC analysis says 89% of submitted NDCs now contain economy-wide mitigation targets and 73% incorporate adaptation components. Separately, its 2025 NDC synthesis found that 75% of Parties included climate-finance information in their new NDCs and nearly 63% referred to climate-financing strategies or investment plans.
Those figures suggest governments increasingly understand what must be done, but they also expose the next bottleneck. A national climate plan may contain dozens of policies and sector targets without identifying projects that meet the requirements of lenders or investors. COP31's emerging implementation agenda is effectively asking governments to make the next conversion: from national targets to specific assets and programmes that can be assessed, financed and delivered.
The difference can be illustrated by a country promising to increase the share of renewable electricity in its power system. That target must eventually become identifiable solar, wind, transmission and storage projects, each requiring decisions on location, engineering, permits, procurement, grid connections and financing. Until that work is completed, the country may have a credible climate objective but not a credible investment pipeline.
Why are projects getting stuck before the money arrives?
The financing gap is often discussed as though investors simply need to provide more money, but COP31's own documents point to a more complicated problem. Developing countries frequently face limited institutional capacity, fragmented investment opportunities and poor alignment between national policy priorities and available financing. The presidency says difficulties preparing bankable projects and accessing climate finance continue to restrict the ability of developing economies to turn commitments into action.
Project preparation itself can be expensive and technically demanding. Governments may need feasibility studies, environmental assessments, engineering designs, financial models, procurement plans and regulatory approvals before a lender can decide whether a project is viable. Ministries responsible for climate policy may also need to coordinate with finance ministries, utilities, regulators, development banks and private companies, turning what began as an environmental commitment into a broader economic and investment programme.
This is not an entirely new problem for the U.N. climate system. The UNFCCC's Needs-based Finance Project, established in 2017, has been helping developing countries translate finance needs into action and mobilise funding for priorities identified in NDCs and National Adaptation Plans. What is different at COP31 is the attempt to elevate that implementation problem much closer to the political centre of the summit.
Not every climate project can attract private investors
The idea of creating investable climate portfolios also raises a difficult question: what happens to projects that are essential but are unlikely to make money? A utility-scale solar development can sell electricity and generate a financial return, while a flood barrier protecting a vulnerable community, an early-warning system or drought-resilience programme may produce enormous economic and social benefits without creating a conventional revenue stream. Treating both categories as though they can be financed in the same way would risk directing capital towards commercially attractive mitigation while leaving adaptation behind.
COP31's Climate Implementation Bridge acknowledges that problem by envisaging combinations of public, private and multilateral capital rather than relying solely on commercial finance. Public and concessional resources can be used to absorb risks, improve financing terms or make projects attractive enough for additional investors to participate. That approach is particularly important in developing countries where borrowing costs, currency risk and limited domestic capital markets can make otherwise viable climate infrastructure expensive to finance.
The question for Antalya will therefore not simply be how many projects governments can label “investment-ready.” The more meaningful test will be whether financing structures match the different types of projects countries actually need, including those whose primary return is greater resilience rather than commercial profit. If only the easiest renewable-energy projects attract money while difficult adaptation priorities remain unfunded, the implementation gap will persist.
COP31 is already testing a different model
There are early signs of the climate process moving towards a more project-oriented approach. UN Climate Change said an investment-focused event held this year included a “Pitch Hub” where countries presented project concepts directly to investors and financial institutions and received feedback on investment opportunities and project preparation. A further investment-focused dialogue is due in Sydney at the end of September, before negotiations resume at COP31.
Climate finance is also broadening beyond conventional aid and development lending. Brazil is exploring an agreement under which China could buy Brazilian carbon credits, with Brasília hoping for progress by COP31, while Brazil, China and the European Union are discussing closer cooperation between their carbon-market systems. Such mechanisms could eventually create additional channels for financing emissions reductions, although their effectiveness will depend on market rules, environmental integrity and investor demand.
Experience also shows why creating a financing mechanism is not the same as securing capital. Brazil's Tropical Forest Forever Facility was designed to use $25 billion of public and philanthropic money to attract another $100 billion from private investors, but Reuters reported this month that it had raised about $7.3 billion so far. The shortfall illustrates a problem that COP31 will have to confront repeatedly: sophisticated climate-finance structures still have to convince governments and investors to commit real money.
So, are countries actually prepared for COP31?
The answer is uneven. Many countries now have more detailed climate targets and increasingly recognise the financing requirements behind them, but the existence of an NDC does not demonstrate that its projects are ready for investment. Countries with strong financial institutions, established infrastructure markets and experienced project-development agencies enter the implementation phase from a very different position from poorer and climate-vulnerable states.
COP31's own presidency effectively acknowledges this readiness gap. Its latest letter says developing countries continue to face significant barriers in accessing climate finance, preparing bankable projects and strengthening institutional capacity, and argues that these weaknesses limit their ability to translate commitments into action. The Climate Implementation Bridge exists precisely because climate ambition and implementation capacity have not advanced at the same speed.
That also means Antalya cannot be judged simply by another headline figure for climate finance or another collection of national announcements. A more meaningful measure would be whether countries leave COP31 with identifiable project pipelines, clearer financing structures and partnerships capable of moving projects towards financial close. Ultimately, implementation will have to be measured in power plants connected to grids, industries decarbonised, transport systems changed and communities protected from climate impacts — not only in documents submitted to the UNFCCC.
COP31 President-Designate Murat Kurum captured the change in emphasis when he announced the implementation agenda after the June climate meetings: “What the world needs today is not another round of promises. It needs to see existing commitments delivered.”
That may be the clearest way to understand what is changing in Antalya. For years, the climate negotiations have asked governments what they are prepared to promise. COP31 will increasingly ask them what they are prepared to finance, build and deliver.