🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to many people who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the message being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. 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 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 conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

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

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his government 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 imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver 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 Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.