The Unsuccessful Bid to Host Cop31 Appears Like a Mess – Yet It Could In Fact Be the Best Result Possible

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

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

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes 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 additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

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

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns 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 lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.