🔗 Share this article

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's long-running campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals 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 international focus to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks 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 Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a priority. 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 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 decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what appeared to be an impending disaster for the international cooperation on global warming.

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support 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 organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had supported the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Turkey refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the oil producers that offered the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered close to the Russian leader. Some countries feared a summit obstructed from the top if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed 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 creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

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

This matters. While some have dismissed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and experienced analysts at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity possible to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.