🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, 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.

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse 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.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference obstructed from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.