🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's protracted campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to put on the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to consider it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together combat the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

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

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, 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," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.