Australia's Failed Bid to Host UN Climate Summit Appears Chaotic – But It May Actually Be the Optimal Outcome Possible

Ouch. On one hand, the nation's protracted campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next November.

This won't occur. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment 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 process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

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

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the best result possible.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually turn up for – the discussions on how to together combat the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, 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 finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. This framework 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 compromise is quietly done to encourage 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 selecting next year's venue had supported the Australian bid.

However, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "disruption" has been thrown around in recent days, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turkish government with some cover.

President Erdoğan is considered aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a conference hindered from the leadership if his government managed the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation has demonstrably made a difference in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a creative idea that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for increasing fossil fuel 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 participated in.

This is significant. While some have dismissed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and deliver an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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