🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted bid to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions 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 reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration 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 declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, 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 turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

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

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a conference obstructed from the top if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

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

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

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 prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.