🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to look at it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

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

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

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

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the top if his administration led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", 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 holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on civil society 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 provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.