🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's long-running bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the world's biggest 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 summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, 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 unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other senior members 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 priority. 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 consider it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

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 fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

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

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going 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 UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and achieve an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.