🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question 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 global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his government managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.