🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention 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 doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to together address the environmental emergency.

There would also 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. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement 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 southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his government managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.