🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's protracted bid to organize 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 climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based 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 opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the bid to succeed. 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 communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question 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.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday 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 take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed 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 appeared to be an approaching car crash 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. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

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

The Turkish president is seen as close to the Russian leader. Some countries feared a conference hindered from the top if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has empirically had an impact in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society is essential at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. 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, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.