🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's protracted campaign to host the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus 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. Recently, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the message 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. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

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 decision on this week may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together address the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, 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 agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global 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 several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

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

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his administration led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact 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 Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. 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 Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.