🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, 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 opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the message being conveyed 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. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a conference hindered from the top if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and achieve an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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