🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's long-running campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

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

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, 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 step aside.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened 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."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. It's worth a try.