🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running 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 attracted many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to many people who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia'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 resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

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

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

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister 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 the negative take. However, another perspective to look at it.

Considering 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 possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together address the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race 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 the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a conference obstructed from the top if his administration led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has empirically had an impact in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

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

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. 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," he says. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, 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 Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.