🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

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

There is little sign Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to look at it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result available.

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement 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 looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a conference obstructed from the top if his government led the discussions. 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 path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact 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 Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital 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 conference other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.