🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to put on the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

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

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations 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. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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 global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, host 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 stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan 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 the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

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