The Failed Bid to Host Cop31 Looks Like a Mess – But It Could In Fact Be the Best Result Achievable

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. 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 unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to recover value 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 creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the top if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.