🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's protracted campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. 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.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

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 viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could collapse 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 UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, 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 provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation 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, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.