🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate 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 high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing 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.

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

There is little sign Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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 announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy 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 heft to confront the oil producers that offered the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the top if his government managed the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and achieve an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction 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, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.