🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running campaign to host the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran 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 people to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the bid to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the Cop30 talks 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 not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

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

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

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 causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

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

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted 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 Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the top if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has empirically had an impact in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"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 Berlin 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 except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

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