🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus 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 opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories 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 Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

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 announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. 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 recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted 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 confront the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the leadership if his government led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

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 global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.