🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's long-running campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

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

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the bid to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, 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 be interested.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, perversely, 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. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been determined 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 race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read 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 aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a conference hindered from the top if his administration managed 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 stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society is essential at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.