🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's long-running bid to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

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

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

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

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

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 confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.