🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, Australia's long-running 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 delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up the country's transition 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 procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

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

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

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

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey clearly 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.

However, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the top if his government managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.