🔗 Share this article

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up the country's transition 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 led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal 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 message being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

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

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

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

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Some countries feared a conference obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation 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 most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, civil society is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.