🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's protracted bid to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to host the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions 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 local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

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 South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid 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 supported the southern pitch.

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

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness 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 heft to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a summit hindered from the top if his government managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

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

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.