The Failed Attempt to Host UN Climate Summit Appears Chaotic – Yet It Could Actually Be the Best Result Possible

Well. From one perspective, the nation's protracted campaign to host the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to host the world's biggest climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have attracted tens of thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next fall.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

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

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. It translated to stories in the Australian and international media saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the message being conveyed at the Cop30 talks in the Brazilian city, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Uncertain support is not a new issue for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other high-level figures of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes completely against.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. He has missed one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to secure the hosting rights.

A Different Perspective

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

In the context the Cop30 talks this week in Brazil – and from an global viewpoint – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and primary coordinator, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis 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 strong partnership. The details of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on global warming.

Turkey is generally viewed in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the UN climate process. The system is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are several nations in the race those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is quietly done to persuade them to step aside.

The Turkish bid clearly had less support than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's venue had backed the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Ankara declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in recent days, and not only by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be interpreted as a reflection of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is considered close to the Russian leader. Several nations worried about a conference hindered from the top if his government led the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN climate headquarters in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was needed. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but multilateral action has demonstrably had an impact in the battle with climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who attend international meetings see Bowen as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has attended.

This matters. While some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", experts from academic institutions and experienced analysts at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Each effective summit has been determined by a president directing proceedings who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an significant result. We saw that in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. The reverse happened in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unanswered questions. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown 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 provide benefits for the Pacific region, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.