🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's protracted campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent 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 hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. 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 withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade 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 nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city 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 unresolved issues. For example, civil society is essential at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.