🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's protracted campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, 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 opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with 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 "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. 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 secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly 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, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a conference hindered from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

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