🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted bid to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures really wanted the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other senior members 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 disengaged and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. But there is another way to look at it.

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

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

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

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his government managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. While some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society is essential at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.