🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's protracted bid to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference 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 hoped organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the message being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has considered international climate meetings a important focus. 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. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement 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, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, 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 completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

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 generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his government led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. 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 "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions 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 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 the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

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