🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's protracted campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to host the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts 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 stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

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

There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

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

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

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

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. 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 step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, 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 offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.