🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's long-running campaign to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

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

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis 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 doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the message being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the oil producers that offered the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered close to the Russian leader. Some countries feared a conference hindered from the top if his government led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and achieve an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society is essential at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.