🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's long-running campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

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 "fully committed to success".

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

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a priority. 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.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia 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 salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined 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 competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped 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 Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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 world. This attempt is justified.