🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, 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 reports 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 city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

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

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, 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 persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, 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 most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

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

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