🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's long-running campaign 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 environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

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

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

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

There is little sign Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office 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 the negative take. But there is another way to look at it.

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

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the matters 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 region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.

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

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Ankara refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a summit hindered 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 environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference 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 understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates 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 each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the most promising opportunity available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.