🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

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

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed 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 survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint 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 be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, 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 high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to consider it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

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

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his government led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society is essential at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

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