Australia's Failed Attempt to Host UN Climate Summit Looks Chaotic – Yet It May Actually Be the Optimal Outcome Possible

Well. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to organize the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the message being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a important focus. 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.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together address the environmental emergency.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster 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. This framework is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with less support either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

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

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be read 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 stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit obstructed from the leadership if his government managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, 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 imperfect and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been requested to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While some have dismissed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks say it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.