🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, the nation's long-running campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

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

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. 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. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

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

There is little sign Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually turn up 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

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could collapse before it gets started.

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 global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

But, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the oil producers that provided the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his administration managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and deliver an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement looking like the best chance available to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.