🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to host the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted 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 headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to many people who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the bid to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, 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 agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

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 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. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the top if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, 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 arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.