🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

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 strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on global warming.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

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

However, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared 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 resolution was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred 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 delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

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

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the best chance available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.