🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, 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 world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped 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 island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

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

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

There is little sign Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. But there is another way to look at it.

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

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

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

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this deal looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.