🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to host the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the bid to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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 decision on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together combat the climate crisis.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, 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.

Turkey clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the top if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.