🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for over 36 months 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 November.

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

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed hosting 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 island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences 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 climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement 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 international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the top if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.