🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's long-running campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight 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 the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the bid 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 relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

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

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

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. 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 matters that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations 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 begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly 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 venue had supported the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

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 stare down the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. 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 Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.