🔗 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 more than three years for the privilege to host the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based 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 procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations 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 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, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to consider it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation 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. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft 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 feared a summit hindered from the leadership if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has empirically had an impact in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, civil society is essential at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

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