🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, 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 sometimes appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

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

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the top if his government managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. The UN system is flawed 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 keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader 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 conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, civil society is essential at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.