🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to host the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped organizing the climate carnival 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 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 questions that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change 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 the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed 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.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day 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 nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly 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 Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 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 path through was needed. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing 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 co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

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

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society is essential at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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