🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's long-running bid to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

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

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus 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 unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, 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. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings 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 consider it.

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

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. 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 widely seen in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

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

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. 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 organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has empirically had an impact in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. 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 host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the best chance possible to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.