🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's protracted campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-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 be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

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

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed 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 international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to look at it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

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 supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had less support 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 Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the oil producers that offered the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to the Russian leader. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the top if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. While some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, civil society is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.