News & Insights

By staying away from COP29, Ursula von der Leyen may have calculated that discretion is the better form of valour and her priority right now should be to avoid aggravating German farmers, German centre-right and French far-right MEPs about to vote on her top team of Commissioners, by taking a prominent role in Baku; after all, without a functioning executive there will be zero EU power to influence anything

BRUSSELS – Initially, there was surprise that Commission President von der Leyen would not, after all, attend the climate COP in Baku in mid-November. Her reason was plausible – she needed to be in Brussels because of the transition, with the critical European Parliament confirmation hearings for her team taking place at the same time. She was also scheduled to travel to the G20 Social Summit in Brazil, making her participation at the COP logistically nigh on impossible. The Commission line is unchanged however: the climate agenda remains a top priority for the EU for the coming years.

It subsequently transpired that neither French President Macron nor German Chancellor Scholz would attend COP – again, both had plausible reasons. For Macron, it revolved around the deterioration in French-Azeri relations following France’s recent condemnation of Azerbaijan’s military offensive against Armenian separatists in the Karabakh region, the subsequent arrest of three of its nationals and an apparent Azeri-initiated anti-French media campaign in its overseas territories. For Scholz, it was simpler: his government coalition had collapsed. An added complicator was that Donald Trump had just won the US presidential election. The irony will not have been lost on anyone when Azeri president, Ilham Aliyev, hailed oil and gas as ‘… a gift from God’ in the opening speech at COP – music to Mr Trump’s ears and likely intellectual lodestar for his second term.

Heads of state and government invariably have good reasons for not attending international conferences – except of course when they want to be there. The fact that this trio of EU leaders is absent indicates therefore that there may be more at stake than mere diary clashes. Despite their protestations to the contrary, this may be amongst the first signs that perhaps the EU’s climate agenda will feature less prominently for the VDL II Commission than it did in her first term.

European politics – perceptibly drifting rightwards

One of the main reasons for this are the European elections in June this year which saw sweeping gains for right-wing political parties right across the Continent – particularly in France and Germany – coupled with European farmers’ anti-green protests in Brussels earlier in the year. Populist anger at green policies can perhaps be considered the catalyst for a quiet change of heart among senior EU politicians. Von der Leyen’s centre-right European People’s Party, the EPP, is the dominant political force in the European Parliament – and has already cooperated on policy initiatives with the far-right which gives them even more control on influencing legislation – as well as among a majority of member state governments. If approved – MEPs vote on the college of Commissioner next week – it will have 14 EU commissioners (significantly more than from any other political group) sitting in the executive from 1st December to shepherd through its pro-business agenda.

Cracks in the EP’s ‘cordon sanitaire’

Following the elections and respecting a decades-long tradition, the main centrist groups in Parliament once more confirmed their agreement not to cooperate with extremist/far-right political groups. There is nothing new there – the so-called cordon sanitaire (‘sanitary cordon’) has been in place in all recent Parliaments since the 1990s, with the French Rassemblement National (National Rally) (RN), German Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany) (AfD) and other groups effectively excluded from holding committee chair, quaestor and other senior EP positions and responsibilities. The most recent – and ground-breaking – example that has shown the all too visible cracks in the cordon sanitaire was at the end of October at the plenary vote on the EU’s 2025 budget of almost €200bn (€199.44bn to be precise) where the EPP backed an amendment proposed by AfD supporting EU funding for enhanced border infrastructure and so-called ‘return hubs’ for deporting migrants who have arrived illegally in Europe.

Other, less prominent, examples of collaboration included on a Parliamentary resolution about Venezuela and the content of the EP debating agenda, largely ignored because these were not seen as having such a dramatic impact on the legislative agenda. That changed with the vote at the end of October which impacts how EU funding will be disbursed in the coming years. Funds spent on building additional border fencing and infrastructure to keep migrants out of the EU will, after all, not now be available to support EU social support structures or investment in green technologies.

But … is this all that different from what EU leaders seek?

The irony of course is that while there disquiet has been expressed, primarily by the centre-left Socialist & Democrats (S&D) group, Liberals and Greens – and even from within the EPP itself – the anti-migrant amendments are arguably no more radical than what the European Council discussed in mid-October. However, it sends a strong political signal from an increasingly powerful EPP group.

With the focus of the new Commission expected to be competitiveness and defence, with special support promised to Europe’s farmers, it is inevitable that there will be less emphasis on green and climate initiatives. In the event, much of the challenging work on getting the Green Deal’s climate legislation through the EU institutions has already taken place and it is now for member state governments to begin the process of implementation at national level. With German and French leadership at the EU level weakened, the leaders of these countries are also likely to focus in the immediate term on domestic issues, as both struggle with progressing government business because of the disruptive nature of large anti-establishment, pro-agrarian, far-right parties in their parliaments blocking environmental, climate and related legislative initiatives.

Vexed issue – financing for adaptation to climate change

Another reason for the absence of key EU political figures in Baku is perhaps more immediate, relating to one of the most vexed issues to be agreed at COP – financing support for developing countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change. In mid-November, MEPs adopted a resolution calling on all major and emerging economies with high emissions and high GDP to contribute financially to global climate action. The main challenge for the EU, of course, is to use its good offices to persuade China to contribute to the fund; it is after all the largest CO2 emitter in the world, with more than 11,000m tonnes emitted in 2022. As tensions increase following the EU’s recent imposition of duties on Chinese EV imports and to which the Xi government has responded with retaliatory measures, this is not likely to become any easier a conversation. Added to that, seeking to have the US contribute its share to climate financing is likely to become orders of magnitude more difficult under a Trump II administration.
 
By staying away from COP29, von der Leyen, at least, may have calculated that discretion is the better form of valour and her priority right now should be to avoid aggravating German farmers, German centre-right and French far-right MEPs about to vote on her top team of Commissioners, by taking a prominent role in Baku; after all, without a functioning executive there will be zero EU power to influence anything. No doubt she also has an eye trained on the other side of the Atlantic and the next occupant of the White House: very soon, she and he will once more begin the tango that ended abruptly in 2021, reprising their positions as the two most recognised global politicians in 2025.

Contact

John Duhig, Partner at BOLDT: [email protected]