🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

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

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's transition from being a carbon-based 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 opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", 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, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly 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 southern pitch.

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

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the oil producers that provided the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit obstructed from the top if his administration managed the negotiations. Germany 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 resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has empirically had an impact in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.