Australia's Failed Bid to Stage UN Climate Summit Looks Chaotic – Yet It Could In Fact Be the Optimal Outcome Possible

Well. From one perspective, Australia's long-running campaign to organize the UN climate conference next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for over 36 months for the rights to host the largest global environmental conference and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

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 Turkish Mediterranean.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had believed hosting the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, 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. In recent days, there have been questions that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to be approved. His statements were ambiguous at best. It translated to reports in the local and global press saying the government was withdrawing.

This differed from the communication being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is not a new issue for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but some will wonder if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's one interpretation. However, another perspective to look at it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, perversely, have been the best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. The Turkish government would be the conference leader, organizer and primary coordinator, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually attend for – the discussions on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

There would also be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. The details of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could fall over before it gets started.

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

The Turkish government is generally viewed in the international community as having been determined on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a deal is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

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

But, exceptionally, Turkey declined to withdraw. The term "bastardry" has been used frequently in recent days, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a reflection of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to confront the oil producers that provided the Turkish government with certain protection.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with Vladimir Putin. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the leadership if his government managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to host an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in Bonn, which is what would have happened under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't broken.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically had an impact in the fight against global heating. The Turkey-Australia arrangement is a creative idea that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding fossil fuel exports, climate activists who attend UN conferences see Bowen as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. Although certain critics have downplayed the role of a "chief negotiator", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations assert it is crucial to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president holding the pen who can listen, build consensus and deliver an significant result. We saw that in Berlin in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations plays a vital role at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the Australian government do to stop a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this arrangement looking like the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may offer something for the Pacific region, the nation and the world. This attempt is justified.