🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help speed up the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, 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 doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

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

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

Evidence suggests Albanese 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 get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to look at it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted 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 petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a summit hindered from the leadership if his administration led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. While some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver an significant result. We saw that in the German capital 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 conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.