🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's protracted bid to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a fossil fuel 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 resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed international climate meetings 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. However, another perspective to look at it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

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

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Ankara 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 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 oil producers that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the top if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort 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 Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society is essential at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.