🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's long-running campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

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

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. But there is another way to look at it.

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

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role 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 climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. 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 persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his administration led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that 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. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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