🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid 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 green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

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 stated the country was "in it to win it".

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

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his administration managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference 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 resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.