🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to put on the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

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 stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration 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 Albanese has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to look at it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be 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. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

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

But, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a conference hindered from the top if his administration led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see Bowen 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. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an significant result. 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 other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.