The Failed Bid to Host UN Climate Summit Looks Chaotic – Yet It Could Actually Be the Optimal Outcome Possible

Ouch. From one perspective, Australia's long-running campaign to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the rights to put on the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have attracted many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Rather, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of the Turkish coastal city, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had believed organizing the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other senior figures truly desired the bid to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change 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 high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to look at it.

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, perversely, have been the most favorable outcome available.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster 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. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to persuade them to exit the race.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. 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 "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a conference hindered from the top if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an underprepared Cop31 at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to observe, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the federal administration over its hypocritical support 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 requested to lead negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This is significant. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts 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 understand, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop other than making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on civil society by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance possible to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. This attempt is justified.