🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

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

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition 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 procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a priority. 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 secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. 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 exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read 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 certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the leadership if his government led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.