The Failed Attempt to Host Cop31 Looks Like a Mess – But It Could In Fact Be the Optimal Outcome Achievable

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to many people who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister 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 one interpretation. However, another perspective to consider it.

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

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the top if his administration led the discussions. And the Germans 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 UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.