🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's long-running bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to many people who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed 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.

A Different Perspective

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

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

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

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

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, 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 plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness 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 heft to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations feared a summit obstructed from the top if his administration led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress 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 UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. While some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement 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 Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.