🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

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

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

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

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. 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 this week may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement 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 climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid 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.

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

International Dynamics

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 heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a summit obstructed from the top 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 Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city 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, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.