🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running bid to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate 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 procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister 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 communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change 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. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement 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 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 designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.