🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, Australia's protracted bid to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to host the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

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

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. 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. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context 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 available.

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government led the negotiations. 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 stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than 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 crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal looking like the best chance available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.