🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's protracted campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to host the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led 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 city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, 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 look at it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

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 conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what looked like an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement 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, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the top if his government managed the negotiations. 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 resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort 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 Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.