🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference 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

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate 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 co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the best result available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting 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 moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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