🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

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

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

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

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.

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

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. 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 gets started.

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the top if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host 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 resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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