🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to host the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Instead, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being relayed 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".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported 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 global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to look at it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing 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 global warming.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

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 dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his administration managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

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

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.