The Failed Attempt to Stage UN Climate Summit Appears Like a Mess – But It Could Actually Be the Optimal Outcome Possible

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

The effort ran for more than three years for the privilege to host the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought many thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital 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 Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the proposal to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

This differed from the message being relayed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. Although Bowen championed it, other high-level figures of the government have only occasionally appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and at times completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question 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.

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the countries actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

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

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. The details of the agreement had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over 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 multilateral work on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey plainly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. At least 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the Australian bid.

However, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under the former president, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a conference hindered from the top if his government managed the discussions. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared Cop31 at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often unsettling to watch, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the negotiations. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. Although some have dismissed the role of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is crucial to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and achieve an significant result. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the conference other than making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at climate conferences. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to stop a restriction on civil society by the host government?

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