🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to many people who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister 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 one interpretation. But there is another way to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to together address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the oil producers that offered the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

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

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.