🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government 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 outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. 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 the negative take. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions 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 novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise 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 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, 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 influence to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, 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. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.