Climate Policy Integration and Von der Leyen 2.0: Climate Advocacy in Changing Times

Tackling the climate crisis is more important than ever, with worsening floods, hurricanes and heatwaves across the world, and the latest UN report warning of a 3.1°C global temperature rise as governments are failing to deliver on their policy promises.

*****

Climate Policy Integration and Von der Leyen 2.0: Climate Advocacy in Changing Times

Tackling the climate crisis is more important than ever, with worsening floods, hurricanes and heatwaves across the world, and the latest UN report warning of a 3.1°C global temperature rise as governments are failing to deliver on their policy promises. Under such conditions, climate advocacy has a vital role to play in pushing forward climate, energy and environmental policy.

Yet, compared to the climate optimism of the late 2010s and the start of the first Von der Leyen mandate – marked by mass youth climate movements and the early announcement of the ambitious European Green Deal – the second Von der Leyen Commission starts on a much more sober footing. Among other things, farmers’ protests around Europe and the “green backlash” make it a more difficult time for climate policy, and those advocating for it – including NGOs and civil society. But in addition to a less favourable political environment, climate advocates also face institutional changes from the Commission’s side – both in terms of structure and framing of policies – which are changing the shape of climate policy and advocacy. In this context, this commentary digs deeper into some challenges facing climate advocates, and how they can respond.

The Challenge

The content of the new Commission’s policies remains to be seen, as it started work just ten days ago. But it is clear from the structure of the Commission that climate and environmental considerations are integrated across a range of different portfolios. The European Green Deal was already touted as the EU’s “new growth strategy”; the second term of the Von der Leyen Commission will strengthen this link between climate and competitiveness through the Clean Industrial Deal. And Von der Leyen’s Political Guidelines point to other overlaps, including the security implications of natural resource management, and linking the energy transition to digitalization and industrialization.

Although the mainstreaming of climate policy has long been a goal of the EU, two aspects seem new here. First, the shift towards explicitly framing climate policy in terms of competitiveness (and security) extends the integration started in the European Green Deal. Second, these changes are also reflected in a Commission structure that explicitly links the two issues under Teresa Ribera, Commission Vice-President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition. This new structure and emphasis on interconnected policy fields reflects the interlinked crises that Europe faces; indeed, such climate policy integration, or “mainstreaming” climate concerns across policy areas, can be seen as a key goal of successful climate action. Yet, it also presents several challenges for climate advocates.

First, as has been pointed out by CAN Europe, although the new Commission structure indicates a willingness to keep with the Green Deal and climate action, there is a “worrying lack of clarity on who calls the shots” on key issues. Moreover, a new structure means a new way of working for climate advocates: integrated structures mean new venues for many climate advocates and new partners for dialogue, which might require new ways of framing issues, different sensibilities of policymakers, and cultures of negotiation. This is particularly the case when climate issues fall under ‘foreign’ Commission DGs, committees in the European Parliament or Council formations. For example, interviews with those involved in cross-cutting dossiers such as CBAM (which fell under DG TAXUD and the Ecofin Council, but also the ENVI committee in the European Parliament) showed that this required new ways of communicating to gather information that is relevant and speaks to different policymakers. This can be challenging not only for negotiators themselves, but also for climate advocates, who do not necessarily speak the language of different fields.

Second, both academic research and experience show that integrating climate into different policy fields runs the risk that climate concerns are minimized compared to other issues. Combining competition and climate policy – even with a strong ecological figure like Teresa Ribera at the helm – risks prioritizing industry and economic growth over green goals. Similarly, the ‘Clean Industrial Deal’ represents an important opportunity to get businesses and industry on board, which is particularly important after the green backlash we’ve seen on key files over the last couple of years. Yet, it also means that business concerns might be prioritized over the implementation of Fit for 55 and reaching the EU’s 2030 goals, or over societal aspects of a just transition – potentially making the job of climate advocates more difficult.

What can climate advocates do?

With all of this in mind, how can climate advocates best rise to the occasion? Ultimately, of course, the basics of EU advocacy will remain the same: monitoring and mapping issues and stakeholders with the new Commission working methods. Yet, I suggest three other ways to deal with the changes outlined above.

The first is by adapting strategies to the current situation. Advocating on integrated policies require flexibility: the ability to understand different viewpoints, be able to speak the same language as partners and perhaps even the willingness to compromise. A seemingly successful example here could be the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture, a “forum for depolarization” which took place during 2024 with the goal of reaching common understanding among different interest groups. The outcome of the report, which was surprisingly pro-biodiversity, showed that shared dialogue and compromise was possible, even amidst the farmers’ protests. Flexibility can also help in finding allies among different types of groups, which becomes particularly pertinent when green issues are framed through a competitiveness lens – being able to speak the same language on such issues is key to getting one’s point across. Similarly, the renewed focus on competitiveness and just transition issues provides opportunities for unions and NGOs to work together to push for policies that are both clean and just.

A second response is to strengthen work as watchdogs and enforcers of existing policy. For some NGOs, trying to ensure implementation of Fit for 55 may not be an easy sell to supporters, but will be vital if the EU is to reach its climate targets. This is increasingly difficult in a polarized political climate, where various trade-offs must be made. Take the very recent trilogue agreement on the Deforestation Law: while its entry into force has been delayed one year, NGOs are celebrating the fact that proposed amendments by the EPP were not taken on board. Yet, the Commission has promised to explore additional simplifications to the regulation. Combined with the emphasis in all Commissioners’ mission letters on reducing administrative burdens and simplifying legislation, careful monitoring is needed to ensure that this does not lead to a weakening of regulation and enforcement. Similarly, a recent call by carmakers and several member states to delay the enforcement of tougher automobile emissions’ limits show the need to stay mobilized on policies that have already been created to ensure their timely implementation

Finally, climate and environmental advocates should continue pushing for integration of more than just climate and energy concerns. While emissions are now firmly integrated into competitiveness and growth – at least on paper – issues such as biodiversity, waste and other social and environmental issues are on the whole much less present in EU policies. In line with the goals of the European Green Deal, all aspects contributing to a healthy and liveable future need to be taken into account as the EU develops policies for competitiveness and growth.

Ultimately, integrating climate and environmental concerns into EU policy has the potential to lead to better policies that can tackle the interconnected crises that the EU faces. However, care needs to be taken to ensure that the EU continues to implement and create strong climate and environmental policy throughout the second Von der Leyen Commission’s term. Climate advocates can, and should, rise to the occasion.

(Photo credit: Hans, Pixabay)