🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's long-running bid to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a fossil fuel 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 resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times completely against.

Evidence suggests 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 get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to look at it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

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

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate 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 encourage 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.

However, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the leadership if his government managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.