🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running campaign to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-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 high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the message 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 the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turks with some cover.

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

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed 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 president directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society is essential at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.