🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

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

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While 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 outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to look at it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night 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. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

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

But it could also be a way to recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on global warming.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations 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 weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

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 dominant nation with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

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