🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia'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 environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's shift 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 procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment 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. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible 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 announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

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 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 impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a summit hindered from the top if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has empirically had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

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

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.