The Unsuccessful Bid to Stage UN Climate Summit Appears Like a Mess – But It May In Fact Be the Optimal Outcome Achievable

Ouch. From one perspective, the nation's protracted bid to organize the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

It campaigned for more than three years for the privilege to put on the world's biggest climate summit and green trade fair, which would have brought many thousands of people to the city of Adelaide next November.

That's not happening. Instead, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of Antalya, on the Turkish Mediterranean.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a significant disappointment to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate the country's transition from being a carbon-based economy to a renewable energy superpower, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been co-hosts.

The process that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been questions that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to succeed. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to stories in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This contrasted with the message being conveyed at the climate negotiations in the Brazilian city, where the environment minister, Chris Bowen, had just stated the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for Australia's Cop31 bid. While Bowen championed it, other senior members of the government have only occasionally appeared to care.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, traditionally responsible for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and sometimes outright opposed.

There is little sign Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a important focus. 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.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the Cop30 talks this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the decision on Wednesday night may, ironically, have been the best result possible.

The minister outlined on that day an unprecedented deal that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and effective event manager, and the Australian delegation – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together combat the environmental emergency.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. The two nations do not have a close relationship. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the moment of announcement. The whole thing could collapse before it gets started.

But it could also be a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been determined on creating disruption in the UN climate process. The system is designed to operate by unanimous agreement. Usually, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either bow out voluntarily, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to exit the race.

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

However, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The term "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by Australians.

International Dynamics

Ankara's stubbornness can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries 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 environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have occurred under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't broken.

An Innovative Approach

A resolution was needed. International frameworks is flawed and often unsettling to watch, but global cooperation has empirically had an impact in the battle with global heating. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its hypocritical support for increasing fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who attend international meetings see the minister as a positive influence in the talks. He has been asked to co-chair discussion groups at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the role of a "president of negotiations", specialists from academic institutions and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can understand, build consensus and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and Paris in 2015. We saw the opposite in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. How, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a crackdown on NGO participation by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. But that doesn't stop this arrangement appearing as the most promising opportunity available to have a conference that may provide benefits for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.