🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's protracted campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

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

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

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

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office 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. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together address the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work 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. The system 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 compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the oil producers 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 negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital 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."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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