🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's long-running campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, 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. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized 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 approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. 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 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.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference obstructed from the top if his administration managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in 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 some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society is essential at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

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