Australia's Unsuccessful Bid to Host Cop31 Appears Chaotic – But It May Actually Be the Optimal Outcome Possible

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. 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

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's shift 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 process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness 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 influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the leadership if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.