The Failed Bid to Host UN Climate Summit Looks Like a Mess – But It May Actually Be the Optimal Outcome Possible

Well. From one perspective, Australia's protracted bid to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to host the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Rather, 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 numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, the climate minister, 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 administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, 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 consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together combat the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. The two nations do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement 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.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's venue had supported the southern pitch.

However, exceptionally, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the fight against global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is pivotal to their success.

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

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, 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 Turkish leadership?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. It's worth a try.