🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city 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 climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

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 nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. 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 international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to the Russian leader. Some countries feared a summit obstructed from the top if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital 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."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.