🔗 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 more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest 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 resort city of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press 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, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration 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 outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to consider it.

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

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had less support 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 Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. 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. With the US absent 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 some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the top if his government led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has empirically had an impact in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort 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

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.