🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted campaign to host the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to host the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the resort city of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering 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 Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the bid to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

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

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, 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.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. 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 clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

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 stare down the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit obstructed from the top if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel 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 "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.