🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, the nation's protracted bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's transition 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 co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended 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 one interpretation. However, another perspective to consider it.

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

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively address the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over 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 climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a conference hindered from the top if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society is essential at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.