🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

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

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. However, another perspective 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.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. 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 influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit obstructed from the leadership if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support 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 lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

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

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.