🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's protracted bid to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based 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 process that resulted in defeat 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 were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

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

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together combat the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by consensus. 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 encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference obstructed from the top if his administration managed the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.