🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's protracted campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to host the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

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

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to many people who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

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

DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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 Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his administration managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has empirically had an impact in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence 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. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver 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 Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.