🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's long-running campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

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

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the bid to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the government 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 stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support 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, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to look at it.

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

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 finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.