🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to host the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention 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 unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language 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 Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

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

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details 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 approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen 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. 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 exit the race.

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 southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the oil producers that offered the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a summit hindered from the top if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has empirically had an impact in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress 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 attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.