🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, 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 Cop31 is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the government 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".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

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 many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. 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 this week 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, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been thrown around 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. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit obstructed from the leadership if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.