🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global 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. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

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

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a summit obstructed from the leadership if his administration managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize 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.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference 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 contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the best chance available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. It's worth a try.