🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

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

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge 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 hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. 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 fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, 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 read 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 Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences 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 participated in.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. It's worth a try.