The Unsuccessful Bid to Host UN Climate Summit Appears Like a Mess – Yet It Could Actually Be the Best Result Possible

Well. On one hand, Australia's protracted bid to host the Cop31 next year has ended in clear failure.

The effort ran for over 36 months for the privilege to host the world's biggest environmental conference and green trade fair, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

This won't occur. Instead, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the resort city of the Turkish coastal city, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Letdown and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a significant disappointment to many people who had hoped organizing the climate carnival could help speed up Australia's shift from being a fossil fuel economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that resulted in defeat has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that the prime minister and other high-ranking officials really wanted the bid to be approved. The prime minister's language sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the government was walking away.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the climate negotiations in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "fully committed to success".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. While the minister supported it, other senior members of the government have only sometimes appeared to be interested.

DFAT, usually in charge for global environmental talks, has been disengaged and at times completely against.

There is little sign the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a important focus. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if additional efforts were possible to get the bid over the line.

An Alternative View

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

Considering the climate discussions this week in Brazil – and from an international perspective – the decision on this week may, ironically, have been the best result available.

Bowen set out on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was developing with his Turkish counterpart, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the conference leader, host and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would assume a role as "chief negotiator", managing nearly 200 countries on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively combat the climate crisis.

There would also be a increased emphasis on the Pacific, including a lead-up event on an Pacific island.

Reasons for Doubt

Multiple reasons exist for doubt. Turkey and Australia 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 begins.

However, it might represent a way to recover value from what looked like an impending disaster for the multilateral work on global warming.

The Turkish government is generally viewed 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. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is quietly done to encourage them to step aside.

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

However, exceptionally, Turkey refused to yield. The word "bastardry" 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 Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with some cover.

President Erdoğan is seen as aligned with the Russian leader. Some countries feared a summit hindered from the top if his administration managed the negotiations. And the Germans did not want to have to organize an unprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in the German city, which is what would have occurred under international regulations if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was necessary. The UN system is imperfect and often disconcerting to observe, but multilateral action has empirically made a difference in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that maintains progress when it is most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the federal administration over its contradictory stance for increasing carbon-based exports, climate activists who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the talks. He has been asked to lead negotiation streams 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 climate talks assert it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader holding the pen who can understand, forge agreement and achieve an ambitious outcome. This occurred in the German capital in 1995, in the Mexican resort in 2010 and the French capital in 2015. We saw the opposite in Copenhagen in 2009," they note. "It's the most important role 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 climate conferences. How, if anything, can the federal administration do to stop a crackdown on civil society by the Turkish leadership?

Possibly little. However, this doesn't prevent this deal appearing as the best chance possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, Australia and the global community. This attempt is justified.