🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based 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 process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

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 international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

There would also 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 scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal 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 global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

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

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.