🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to host the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other senior figures really wanted the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. But there is another way to look at it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position 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 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 scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey 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.

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries feared a summit obstructed from the top if his administration led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and achieve an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite 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

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.