🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

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

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

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

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. But there is another way to look at it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the countries 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 doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" 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 fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the top if his government led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists 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 participated in.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.