🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's long-running campaign to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to host the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

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

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. But there is another way to look at it.

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

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – 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 talks on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption 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 withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a conference obstructed from the top if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.