🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host 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.

That's not happening. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to many people who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel 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 led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

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

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

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

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. But there is another way to look at it.

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – 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 discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement 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 determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

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

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. 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 some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a conference hindered from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters 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 needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún 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, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

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