🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest 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. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's shift 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. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

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

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration 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 outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out 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 the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

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

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal 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. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. 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 hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, build consensus and achieve an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as 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.