🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to host the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome 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 clean energy leader, 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 unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment 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 the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

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

The minister outlined 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 Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. 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 encourage them to exit the race.

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

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

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his government managed the negotiations. And the Germans 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 resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

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

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.