🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to put on the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide 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.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

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

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, 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 consider it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result available.

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, 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 nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the oil producers that offered the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the top if his government managed the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.