🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible 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 Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds 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 entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

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

However, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations feared a conference obstructed from the leadership if his administration led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can understand, 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. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.