🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia'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 rights to host the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

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

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist 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 whole thing could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

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

Geopolitical Context

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

The Turkish president is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his government led the discussions. 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 resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

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