🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to host the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals 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 co-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 truly desired the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a priority. 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 the negative take. However, another perspective to look at it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia 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 appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the top if his administration led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister 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 participated in.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.