🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to host the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the resort city of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. 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.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event 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 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 salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done 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 nominating next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

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 heft to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his government led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.