🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to host the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

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

The process 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 succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from 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 "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – 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 working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

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

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. 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 encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently 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 certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a summit obstructed from the leadership if his administration managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings 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 Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.