🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to put on the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Instead, the summit 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 numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations 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 a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other senior members 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 sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

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

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it begins.

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

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global 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 multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

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

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted 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 oil producers that offered the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his administration led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, 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 observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.