🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

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

There is little sign Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions 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

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his administration managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and achieve an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.