🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's long-running campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired 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 contrasted with the message being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other senior members 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 uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to look at it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal 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 salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared 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 resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

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