🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's protracted campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to put on the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to many people who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks 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 a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, 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.

Considering 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 that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

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

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 gets started.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government 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 competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. 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 "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the top if his administration managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. While some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if at all, 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 available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.