🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, Australia's long-running campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. But there is another way to consider it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey 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 stuff that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. 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 global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a summit obstructed from the leadership if his administration managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress 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 requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

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

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation 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 provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.