Australia's Unsuccessful Attempt to Host UN Climate Summit Looks Like a Mess – Yet It May Actually Be the Best Result Achievable

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

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 attracted many thousands of people to the South Australian capital next fall.

That's not happening. Rather, the summit known as Cop31 is headed to the tourist destination of Antalya, on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey.

Disappointment and Conflicting Signals

This outcome will be a major let down to numerous individuals who had hoped organizing the environmental gathering could help accelerate Australia's shift from being a carbon-based economy to a clean energy leader, and bring global attention to the existential plight facing Pacific island nations, who would have been joint hosts.

The process that resulted in defeat has been an unclear situation. Recently, there have been doubts that Anthony Albanese and other high-ranking officials truly desired the bid to succeed. His statements sent mixed messages at best. This led to reports in the local and global press saying the administration was walking away.

This differed from the communication being relayed at the Cop30 talks in the city of Belem, where the Australian climate change minister, the climate minister, had just declared the country was "in it to win it".

Ambiguous backing is a recurring problem for the hosting proposal. 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 international climate negotiations, has been uninvolved and sometimes outright opposed.

Evidence suggests Albanese has viewed international climate meetings a priority. He hasn't attended one since becoming prime minister in 2022. We'll never know, but many may question if more could have been done to secure the hosting rights.

An Alternative View

That's the negative take. However, another perspective to consider it.

In the context the climate discussions this week in South America – and from an international perspective – the announcement on this week may, ironically, have been the most favorable outcome possible.

The minister outlined on Wednesday an novel agreement that he was working on with his colleague from Turkey, the Turkish minister. Turkey would be the Cop president, host and primary coordinator, and Australia – Bowen himself – would assume a role as "president of negotiations", wrangling nearly 200 countries on the stuff that the nations actually attend for – the discussions on how to collectively address the environmental emergency.

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

Reasons for Doubt

There are plenty of grounds for scepticism. Turkey and Australia do not have a strong partnership. Specific aspects of the deal had not been completed at the time of writing. The entire arrangement could fall over before it begins.

However, it might represent a way to salvage something useful from what looked like an impending disaster for the international cooperation on climate change.

The Turkish government is widely seen in the international community as having been hellbent on causing havoc in the international climate negotiations. This framework is designed to operate by consensus. Usually, that means if there are several nations in the competition those with weaker backing either withdraw gracefully, or a deal is privately arranged to encourage them to exit the race.

The Turkish bid clearly had weaker endorsement than the joint Pacific proposal to organize the summit. Approximately 24 of the 28 nations responsible for nominating next year's host had backed the southern pitch.

But, uniquely, Turkey declined to withdraw. The word "disruption" has been used frequently in the past week, and not just by Australians.

Geopolitical Context

Ankara's stubbornness can be interpreted as a manifestation of the fracturing geopolitical climate. Without US participation under Donald Trump, there has been no dominant nation with the heft to stare down the petroleum exporters that offered the Turkish government with some cover.

The Turkish president is seen as close to the Russian leader. Some countries worried about a summit hindered from the top if his government led the discussions. Germany did not want to have to organize an underprepared climate conference at the UN environmental office in Bonn, which is what would have happened under UN rules if the stalemate wasn't resolved.

A Creative Solution

A path through was necessary. International frameworks is imperfect and often disconcerting to watch, but global cooperation 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 most crucial.

Notwithstanding reasonable concerns of the Australian government over its hypocritical support for expanding carbon-based exports, environmental advocates who participate in UN conferences see the minister as a force for good in the negotiations. He has been requested to co-chair negotiation streams at each of the four conferences he has attended.

This matters. While certain critics have downplayed the importance of a "president of negotiations", specialists from research centers and veteran observers at environmental negotiations say it is crucial to their success.

"Every successful Cop has been shaped by a leader directing proceedings 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. The reverse happened in the Danish city in 2009," he says. "This position is critical at the Cop except for making sure that people have food."

Unanswered Questions

Multiple unresolved issues. As an illustration, non-governmental organizations is essential at environmental summits. What, if at all, can the federal administration do to prevent a restriction on NGO participation by the host government?

Perhaps not much. But that doesn't stop this deal appearing as the best chance available to have a summit that may offer something for the Pacific, the nation and the global community. This attempt is justified.