Australia's Unsuccessful Attempt to Host Cop31 Looks Chaotic – Yet It Could Actually Be the Best Result Achievable

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global 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. Instead, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the bid to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times completely against.

There is little sign 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 get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a summit obstructed from the top if his government led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

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

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society is essential at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.