🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to host the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

This won't occur. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help accelerate the country's shift from being a fossil fuel 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 resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

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

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered 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 the negative take. However, another perspective to look at it.

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on Wednesday night may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively combat 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

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

But it could also be 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 widely seen in the global community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness 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 petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

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

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. It's worth a try.