🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to host the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is moving 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 many people who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to look at it.

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

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his government led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. While some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions 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 understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred 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 other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, civil society is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.