🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's protracted bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could collapse 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 climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either bow out voluntarily, 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. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a summit obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.