🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift 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 process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the message being conveyed 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".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported 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 uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since taking office 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 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 announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the countries 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 Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

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

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a summit obstructed from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has empirically 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.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún 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 delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society is essential at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown 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 summit that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.