🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's protracted campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate 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 process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language 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 Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support 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 disengaged and at times completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy 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 influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit obstructed from the leadership if his administration managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has empirically had an impact in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite 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 force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial 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. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.