🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation'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 host the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a fossil fuel 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 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 bid to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the message being relayed 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".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would 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 scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

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 creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference obstructed from the leadership if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system 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 keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

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

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital 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 people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society is essential at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.