🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's protracted campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the bid to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories 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, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While 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 international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. 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.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host 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 turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy 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 oil producers that offered the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations feared a conference obstructed from the leadership if his administration led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen 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 unanswered questions. For example, civil society is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.