The Failed Attempt to Stage Cop31 Looks Chaotic – Yet It May In Fact Be the Best Result Achievable

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running bid to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the resort city of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. But there is another way to look at it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the leadership if his government led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations say it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and achieve an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this deal looking like the best chance available to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.