🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's protracted bid to host the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

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

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences 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 environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún 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 except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. 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 arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.