🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

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

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to look at 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 available.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

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

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

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

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the oil producers that provided the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the top if his administration led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and achieve an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the best chance possible to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.