🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's protracted campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many 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 resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

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

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. But there is another way to look at it.

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation 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. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the top if his government led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, 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 the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.