🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

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

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation 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. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his government led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

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

This matters. While some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president 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. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.