🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's long-running bid to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

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

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the bid to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. 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.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together address the climate crisis.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, 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 whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation 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. 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 bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his government managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates 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 is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president 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," they note. "It's the most important role at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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