🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country'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 joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure 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 be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated 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 government have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

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

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

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

But, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Some countries feared a summit hindered 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 occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts 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, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. It's worth a try.