🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

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 delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

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

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

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

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office 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 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, ironically, have been the best result available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value 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 determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a conference obstructed from the top if his administration led the discussions. Germany 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.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop 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 climate conferences. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. It's worth a try.