The Failed Attempt to Stage UN Climate Summit Appears Like a Mess – Yet It Could Actually Be the Optimal Outcome Achievable

Well. On one hand, Australia's protracted bid to host the UN climate conference next year has concluded unsuccessfully.

It campaigned for more than three years for the rights to put on the largest global climate summit and sustainable business expo, which would have brought tens of thousands of delegates to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as the UN climate meeting is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

The result will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped hosting the environmental gathering could help speed up Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring international focus to the existential plight facing island countries in the Pacific, who would have been joint hosts.

The procedure that led to failure has been an opaque mess. In recent days, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials really wanted the proposal to be approved. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the Australian and international media saying the administration was withdrawing.

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

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. Although the minister supported it, other senior members of the administration have only occasionally appeared to care.

DFAT, usually in charge for international climate negotiations, has been disengaged and at times outright opposed.

Evidence suggests the prime minister has considered UN climate conferences a priority. He hasn't attended one since taking office in 2022. It's uncertain, but many may question if more could have been done to get the bid over the line.

A Different Perspective

That's one interpretation. But there is another way to look at it.

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

The minister outlined on Wednesday an unprecedented deal that he was working on with his Turkish counterpart, Murat Kurum. Turkey would be the Cop president, organizer and effective event manager, and Australia – the climate minister – would take on the position as "president of negotiations", managing almost all nations on the matters that the nations actually attend for – the talks on how to together address the climate crisis.

Additionally, there would be a greater focus on the Pacific region, including a preliminary meeting on an island nation.

Grounds for Scepticism

Multiple reasons exist for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the agreement had not been finalized at the moment of announcement. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

But it could also be a way to recover value from what appeared to be an approaching car crash for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the global community as having been hellbent on creating disruption in the international climate negotiations. This framework is supposed to work by consensus. Typically, that means if there are multiple countries in the race those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a compromise is privately arranged to encourage them to step aside.

Turkey clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to host Cop31. Approximately 24 of the 28 countries responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

However, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "bastardry" has been used frequently in the past week, and not only by local commentators.

Geopolitical Context

Turkey's obstinacy can be read as a manifestation of the divided international landscape. With the US absent under Donald Trump, there has been no major power with the influence to confront the petroleum exporters that provided the Turks with some cover.

The Turkish president is considered aligned with Vladimir Putin. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the leadership if his government managed the discussions. Germany 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 UN rules if the deadlock wasn't resolved.

An Innovative Approach

A path through was needed. The UN system is flawed and often disconcerting to observe, but global cooperation has demonstrably had an impact in the fight against climate change. This joint approach is a innovative solution that keeps that going when it is most crucial.

Despite understandable criticism of the Australian government over its contradictory stance for expanding fossil fuel exports, environmental advocates who participate in international meetings see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at multiple summits he has participated in.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", experts from academic institutions and veteran observers at climate talks assert it is pivotal to their positive outcome.

"Every successful Cop has been determined by a president holding the pen who can listen, forge agreement and deliver 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 Copenhagen in 2009," he says. "It's the most important role at the conference except for making sure that people have food."

Remaining Concerns

There are plenty of unanswered questions. For example, non-governmental organizations is essential at climate conferences. What, if anything, can the Australian government do to stop a crackdown on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. However, this doesn't prevent this deal looking like the best chance possible to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific region, Australia and the world. It's worth a try.