🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

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

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to look at it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

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

But it could also be a way to recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his administration led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations say it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. 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 Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this deal looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.