🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Instead, 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.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the bid to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

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

There is little sign Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the best result available.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations 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 greater focus on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

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

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

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

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

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent 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 close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.