🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, Australia's protracted bid to host the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city 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 hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

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

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined 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 weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly 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 supported the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his government led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. It's worth a try.