🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country'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 procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed 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 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 South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support 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.

But, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a conference obstructed from the leadership if his administration led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent 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. It's worth a try.