🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's long-running bid to host the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read 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 confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the negotiations. 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 international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.