🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's protracted campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings 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.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to consider it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the best result available.

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, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the climate crisis.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting 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 agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

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

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his administration managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host 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 resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the best chance available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.