The Unsuccessful Attempt to Stage UN Climate Summit Looks Like a Mess – Yet It May In Fact Be the Best Result Achievable

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

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next fall.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as Cop31 is moving to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

The result will be a major let down to many people who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language were ambiguous at best. It translated to stories in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This contrasted with the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations 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 Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

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

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

That's the negative take. But there is another way to look at it.

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

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the environmental emergency.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

There are plenty of grounds for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the multilateral work on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid plainly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for selecting next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

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

International Dynamics

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turks with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference obstructed from the leadership if his administration led the negotiations. Germany did not want to have to host an underprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, 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 needed more than ever.

Despite reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can listen, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. As an illustration, civil society plays a vital role at climate conferences. How, if at all, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity possible to have a summit that may provide benefits for the Pacific region, Australia and the global community. It's worth a try.