🔗 Share this article

Well. On one hand, Australia's long-running campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for more than three years for the rights to put on the world's biggest environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has considered international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal 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 approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. The system 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 encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "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 divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference obstructed from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a leader holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and achieve an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.