🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running 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 climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

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

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed 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 completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. 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 word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted 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 confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing 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 multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred 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 Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.