🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's protracted 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 largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference 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 many people who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the message 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".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to look at it.

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

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

The Turkish president is seen as close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the top if his administration managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and achieve an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort 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 conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.