🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to host the largest global 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. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the message being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. 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. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, host 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 countries actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

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

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

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

But, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the oil producers that offered the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, civil society is essential at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.