🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference 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 major let down to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help speed up the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge 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 becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

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

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific, 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. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the leadership if his administration led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.