The Failed Bid to Stage Cop31 Looks Chaotic – Yet It Could Actually Be the Optimal Outcome Achievable

Well. On one hand, the nation's protracted campaign to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights 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 conference known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention 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 opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

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

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

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

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc 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 weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, civil society is essential at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.