🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is moving 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 climate carnival could help speed up the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention 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 unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the message being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done 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 climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

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

However, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation 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.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit 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 Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.