🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's protracted campaign 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 largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is headed 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 many people who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint 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 really wanted the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. 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 impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed 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 less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

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 confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as close to the Russian leader. Some countries feared a conference hindered from the top if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably 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 understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.