🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

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

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate 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 joint hosts.

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

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

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the best result available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

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

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared 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 needed. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris 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 unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

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