🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is moving 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 climate carnival could help accelerate the country's shift 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 joint hosts.

The process 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 really wanted 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 walking away.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

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

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

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

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit obstructed from the leadership if his government led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared 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 resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.