🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to host the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift 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 questions that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

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

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, 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 close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged 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 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "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 fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his administration led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.