🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based 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 process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

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

DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended 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.

A Different Perspective

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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