🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

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

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to consider it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation 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 considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings 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 is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped 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 the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, civil society is essential at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.