🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change 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 Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to look at it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

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 finalized at the time of writing. 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.

The Turkish government 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 consensus. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.