🔗 Share this article

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

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

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister 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 the negative take. But there is another way to consider it.

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, 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 talks on how to together combat the climate crisis.

There would also be a greater focus 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 close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing 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 international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the global community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. 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 certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit obstructed from the top if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, 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 most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

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 positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and achieve 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 the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.