Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's long-running bid to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.
The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.
That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.
Letdown and Conflicting Signals
The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-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 high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.
This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".
Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.
DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.
There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.
An Alternative View
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 global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the best result available.
The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.
Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.
Reasons for Doubt
There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.
But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work 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. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.
Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.
But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.
Geopolitical Context
Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.
The Turkish president is considered close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the top if his administration led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.
An Innovative Approach
A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with climate change. 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 contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.
This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks say it is pivotal to their positive outcome.
"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún 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 conference other than making sure that people have food."
Remaining Concerns
Multiple unanswered questions. 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 host government?
Perhaps not much. 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 global community. This attempt is justified.
