🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's long-running bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to many people who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint 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. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences 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.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

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

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 gets started.

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

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, 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 reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.