🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, 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 discussions on how to together address the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent 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.

The Turkish president is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the leadership if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks say it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, civil society is essential at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

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