🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, 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 rights to put on the largest global 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 Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

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

There is little sign Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on global warming.

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

The Turkish bid plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted 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 petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government 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 talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks say it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún 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 is essential at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.