🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

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

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has considered international climate meetings 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 get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to look at it.

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

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 scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over 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 global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, 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.

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

But, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" 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. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to the Russian leader. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the top if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations say it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. We saw that in the German capital 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 conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. 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 region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.