🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running bid to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's transition 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 led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed 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 not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

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

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible 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 decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. 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 persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a summit hindered from the top if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. While some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen 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 unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.