🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's long-running campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to host the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

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

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped hosting 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 existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the government 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 hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent 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 race those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as close to the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit obstructed from the top if his administration managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. 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. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.