🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to put on the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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 international perspective – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would 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 strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

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

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

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

But, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the top if his administration led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation 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.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.