🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to many people who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's transition 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. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations 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 not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the nations 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.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference hindered from the top if his government managed the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

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

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. 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. "It's the most important role at the conference except for 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. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. 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 global community. This attempt is justified.