🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift 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 co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

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

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done 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 Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day 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 the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. 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 recover value from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly 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 supported the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his administration managed the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.