🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question 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 decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

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

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. 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 deal is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the leadership if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, civil society is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. It's worth a try.