🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's protracted 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 climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital 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 Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight 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 Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

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

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. 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 uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign 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 many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

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

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff 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, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal 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 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the top if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, 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 appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.