Australia's Unsuccessful Bid to Host Cop31 Appears Like a Mess – Yet It Could Actually Be the Optimal Outcome Achievable

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's protracted campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to look at it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.