🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's protracted campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

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

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed 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 uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has considered 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 additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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 international perspective – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized 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 looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a conference obstructed from the top if his government managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris 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 people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.