The Unsuccessful Bid to Stage Cop31 Appears Like a Mess – Yet It Could In Fact Be the Optimal Outcome Achievable

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to host the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to consider it.

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

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

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

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.