🔗 Share this article

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

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 Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to many people who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing 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.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. But there is another way to consider it.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

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 moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it begins.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to host Cop31. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has attended.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.