🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

DFAT, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly 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 Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

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

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a conference obstructed from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

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