🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to put on the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many 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 tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the message 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".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to consider it.

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized 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 appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. While some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.