Australia's Unsuccessful Bid to Host UN Climate Summit Appears Like a Mess – Yet It May In Fact Be the Optimal Outcome Achievable

Well. From one perspective, the nation'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 largest global environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have attracted tens of thousands of delegates to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the conference known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Mixed Messages

This outcome will be a major let down to many people who had believed organizing the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's transition from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the survival crisis facing Pacific island nations, who would have been co-hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to succeed. His statements were ambiguous at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Uncertain support is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. Although Bowen championed it, other senior members of the administration have only sometimes appeared to care.

DFAT, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered international climate meetings a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but some will wonder if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. But there is another way to consider 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 best result available.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. The Turkish government would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", wrangling almost all nations on the stuff that the countries actually turn up for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a increased emphasis 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 close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been finalized at the time of writing. The whole thing could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what looked like an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

Turkey is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the competition those with less support either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

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

However, exceptionally, Ankara refused to yield. The word "bastardry" has been thrown around in the past week, and not just by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. With the US absent under the former president, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to confront the oil producers that offered the Turkish government with certain protection.

President Erdoğan is seen as close to Vladimir Putin. Several nations feared a summit hindered from the top if his government led 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 occurred under international regulations if the deadlock wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has empirically made a difference in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is needed more than ever.

Notwithstanding understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in UN conferences see Bowen as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to lead discussion groups at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This is significant. Although some have dismissed the importance of a "chief negotiator", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their success.

"Each effective summit has been shaped by a president directing proceedings who can understand, build consensus and deliver an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in Cancún in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that delegates are fed."

Unanswered Questions

There are plenty of unresolved issues. For example, civil society is essential at climate conferences. How, if anything, can the Australian government do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

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