🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running bid to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global 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. 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

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help speed up the country'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 led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from 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 "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement 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 appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the oil producers 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 government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host 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 resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference 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 Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. While some have dismissed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks say it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

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