🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, Australia's protracted campaign to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office 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. But there is another way to look at it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

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 venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. 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 deal appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.