🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to put on the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

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 Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed 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.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. 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 best result possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the countries 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

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

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

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, 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 weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a summit hindered from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings 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 matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.