🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted bid to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister 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 look at it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, 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 discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a greater focus 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 time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

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

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a conference hindered from the top if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups 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 experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún 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 except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal looking like the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.