🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's long-running campaign to host the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention 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. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. But there is another way to consider it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

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 Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

There would also 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 close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

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

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly 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 backed the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his administration led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

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

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the best chance available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.