🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted bid to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

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

DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. 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. But there is another way to look at it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, 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 talks on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. 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 multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and achieve an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown 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 offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.