🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's protracted bid to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to host the world's biggest 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. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate 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 joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to look at it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

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

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.