🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's protracted campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

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

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered 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 secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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 international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would 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 close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

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 generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

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

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit obstructed from the leadership if his administration led 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 international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact 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 expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.