🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

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

There is little sign Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. 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. However, another perspective to look at 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.

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 conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. 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 global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the Cop 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 anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent 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. This attempt is justified.