🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended 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.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

There would also 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. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could collapse 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.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 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.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested 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", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert 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. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference except for 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 crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this deal looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.