🔗 Share this article

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

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 South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, 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. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder 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 climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing 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.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid 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 backed the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Some countries feared a summit obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement 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 carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.