🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's long-running campaign to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process 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 be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed 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 uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit obstructed from the top if his administration led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

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

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

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