🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's long-running bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. But there is another way to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the top if his administration led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can understand, 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 Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.