Tanya Cox
Director of CONCORD

I recently participated in the CSO Advisory Platform meeting dedicated to the Global Gateway. By now, we’re all fairly familiar with what the Global Gateway is – in general – about: large investment projects in infrastructure, connectivity, clean energy and so on.

But we were nonetheless very keen to hear from EU officials about what’s going on since getting any detailed information about Global Gateway projects is like getting blood out of a stone. So we were very happy to not only be looking at three country case studies, but both the outgoing Commissioner for International Partnerships (INTPA), Jutta Urpilainen, and INTPA Director General Koen Doens would speak to us.

They were extremely upbeat, naturally, about Global Gateway. However, Koen Doens was especially keen to reassure us that they ‘don’t only do Global Gateway’ – even if the EC will be taking it ‘from start-up to scale-up’ and even if it will be using up the bulk of the EU’s international cooperation budget. One thing that they didn’t manage to assuage our concerns about was the real involvement of partner countries in the choice of projects – whether it be the thematic sector, the design of the projects, or the modality for implementation.  

This is of concern because we know that the main aim of the Global Gateway is to support the EU’s economic interests: it’s written in the Commission President’s Political Guidelines and it’s re-affirmed in the Mission Letter sent to Commissioner-designate Síkela. What’s more, President von der Leyen stated very clearly when publicly presenting her proposed College that all Commissioners from now on would be expected to contribute to the EU’s competitiveness.  

Really? So international cooperation is now less (or not at all?) about supporting partner countries to reach their (sustainable development) goals, and pretty much only about securing the EU’s economic interests? It would seem so. At least we can’t criticise the EU for being opaque about this! 

But that goes beyond a wish to ensure a ‘win-win’.  

One might even ask whether that approach is aligned with the definition of Official Development Assistance, or ODA, which accounts for much of the money the EU will use in Global Gateway projects. One of the criteria that the OECD DAC set out for expenditure to qualify as ODA, is that it must have as its “primary objective” the “economic development and welfare” of the partner country. How does that tally with the EU’s economic interests being the primary objective? 

CONCORD elaborates on this theme in our 2024 AidWatch report, aptly entitled, Whose interests does ODA truly serve? Launched mid-October, AidWatch tracks not only the quantity of ODA going to partner countries but also its quality. On the issue of quantity, we question the EU’s and Member States’ calculations of ODA, and call a considerable portion – over €1 in every €5 – inflated aid. It gets spent on things like in-donor refugee costs, or imputed student costs. Now, however, for the first time, we put forward a conservative estimate of how short the EU has fallen on ODA promises by not reaching the 0.7% target of ODA. We reckon that EU Member States owe partner countries at least €1.2 trillion! And that is notwithstanding the inflated aid, so the EU has a huge debt to partner countries. 

If we then compare that with all the money streaming out of partner countries in the form of debt servicing payments, illicit financial flows, or as tax avoidance, that figure would no doubt double. It becomes mind-bogglingly huge. 

Now, why do I bring that up? Because the Global Gateway projects are premised on loans, which inevitably means an increase in debt repayments for partner countries. CONCORD is concerned about the use of loans over grants when it comes to using ODA. And we are pretty sceptical about the so-called ‘billions to trillions’ argument. Especially when the EU is in so much debt to partner countries. But again, it comes back to the question, whose interests does ODA serve? In whose interests are Global Gateway projects implemented?  

Only time will tell, but at the very least the EU should be asking themselves the question: is it really in the EU’s interests to ignore others’ interests? The EU is a small fish in a big sea, and that sea is getting pretty choppy these days. The EU will need partners. And since those very partner countries now have plenty of choice – for example, BRICS countries are also potentially keen to invest heavily and also keen to secure their own energy and raw material resources  – the EU should go the extra mile to listen to partner countries and truly support their interests. 

Contact us

Rue de l’industrie 10
1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tel:  +32 2 743 87 60
Fax: +32 2 732 19 34

Connect with us

This website is co-funded by the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of CONCORD and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.