🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's protracted campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

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

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

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the administration 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 stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

DFAT, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. 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 matters that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. 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 collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

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

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

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his administration managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, civil society is essential at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.