🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running campaign 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 largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition 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 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 sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed 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.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the announcement on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

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

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement 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.

But, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the oil producers that offered the Turks with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations feared a conference obstructed from the top if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

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

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the best chance available to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.