🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's protracted campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, 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. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder 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 look at it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global 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 several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

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

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the top if his government led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.