🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention 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 senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, 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 the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations 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 the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to the Russian leader. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the top if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference 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 understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and achieve an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.