🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, Australia's long-running campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the bid to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

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

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

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

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the leadership if his administration led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based 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 each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the best chance possible to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. It's worth a try.