Australia's Failed Attempt to Host UN Climate Summit Looks Like a Mess – But It May In Fact Be the Optimal Outcome Possible

Ouch. On one hand, Australia's protracted campaign to organize the Cop31 next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to put on the largest global climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 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 renewable energy superpower, 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 opaque mess. Recently, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other senior figures truly desired the proposal to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. But there is another way 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 best result available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually turn up for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would 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 agreement had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. The system is designed to operate by consensus. Typically, 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 step aside.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than Australia and Pacific islands to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the Australian bid.

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a conference hindered from the top if his government managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This is significant. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. We saw that 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 Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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