🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to put on the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

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

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a priority. 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 consider it.

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

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

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a conference hindered from the leadership if his administration 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 occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, 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 arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. It's worth a try.