🔗 Share this article

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to host the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the South Australian capital 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.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

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

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

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

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

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing 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 preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

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 time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference obstructed from the top if his administration led the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see Bowen as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from research centers and veteran observers at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and achieve an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

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