🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, 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 privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated 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.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to look at it.

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, perversely, 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. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal 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 recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his administration led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.