🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories 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 environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

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

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to look at it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks 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.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an impending disaster 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. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly 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.

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just 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 confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his government led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations say it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.