🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, Australia'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 privilege to host the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures 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 message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse 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 international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption 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 weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the top if his administration led the discussions. 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 international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

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

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, civil society is essential at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.