🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, Australia's protracted campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran 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 South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

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

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

There is little sign Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

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

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects 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.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as close to the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the top if his government managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.