🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid 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 differed from the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question 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.

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc 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 compromise is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

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

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact 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, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.