Yesterday, the European Parliament debated and voted on the report “Global Gateway – past impacts and future orientation” (co-rapporteurs Chloé Ridel and Hildegarde Bentele). This is the first report to be adopted by members of the European Parliament since the publication of the Global Gateway strategy in December 2021, and its adoption is timely in light of the current negotiations on the MFF, in particular the Global Europe Instrument.
The Global Gateway has been promoted by the EU and Member States through a Team Europe approach over the past 5 years, reflecting broader shifts in the world of development cooperation. This paradigm shift in the EU’s approach to aid moves away from “traditional” grants-based cooperation anchored in tackling inequalities and eradicating poverty, partner-country ownership, and sustainable development, towards a new investment-driven approach that puts the pursuit of the EU’s strategic interests at the centre of the EU’s external action. This is visible in the way the EU’s budget for external action is being delivered (which financial tools and actors are being privileged) and the multiple objectives it seeks to achieve.
We welcome the position adopted by the European Parliament and are optimistic about more regular reports on the Global Gateway and its implementation going forward. The following aspects of the report are particularly positive and encouraging:
> calls to improve the governance structure of the Global Gateway, including a stronger role for the European Parliament and more consultation and participation of the GG Civil Society and Local Authorities advisory platform.
> recognition of the commitment by the EU and its Member States to spending 0.7 % of their gross national income on Official Development Assistance (ODA) and the request that Global Gateway funds using ODA budget respect ODA criteria (e.g. partner-country ownership, concessionality, etc.).
> the emphasis on the need for greater transparency and effective monitoring of Global Gateway projects and their impact in partner countries; including calls for more details on projects and their funding.
> the inclusion of references to key policy frameworks and commitments around gender equality, disability rights, and financing for development.
> the need to enhance partner-country ownership by clarifying project selection and success criteria and the proposal for a demand-driven strategy based on partners’ needs.
> the recognition that public-private partnerships can complement but must not replace ODA for human development.
> that all financial institutions involved in implementation are expected to apply the highest standards of transparency and accountability in their projects, to demonstrate the development impact of their investments, to avoid practices that increase debt vulnerabilities in partner countries, and to align their financing with equitable and locally beneficial development outcomes.
> importantly, a demand that investments do not exacerbate countries’ debt burdens. Global Gateway projects should avoid worsening debt or creating new ‘debt-traps’; urging the EU and its Member States to reduce and alleviate the debt burden on developing countries, particularly those in the Global South, by supporting global debt relief and debt restructuring, taking into account the UN Conference on Trade and Development principles on promoting responsible sovereign lending and borrowing as well as the OECD debt sustainability principle.
> calls to respect development effectiveness principles and the necessity of integrating and ensuring policy coherence for development in the Global Gateway.
> highlighting the 360° approach as a way to help reduce inequalities, support human development and promote inclusive and equitable systems; but regret that it is still largely presented as an add-on to investments, rather than as an integral part of project origination and design.
We do, however, have concerns about some aspects of the resolution:
> while we support and encourage moving away from donor-recipient models of cooperation, this should be done in a way that creates fair and equal partnerships rather than transactional arrangements that are principally guided by the EU’s own strategic interests.
> the very strong emphasis on the EU competitiveness agenda
> the lack of information highlighting the current financing for development trends and the weak evidence of development and financial additionality in the European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus (EFSD+).
What’s next?
The Council of the EU, under the Cyprus Presidency, is drafting Conclusions on the Global Gateway to be adopted later this Spring. EU Member States have an opportunity to improve the governance of the Global Gateway and shape the direction it will take in the coming years.
The European Commission will also carry out an evaluation of the Global Gateway strategy later this year. We look forward to the process being designed in a way that facilitates and maximises inputs from all stakeholders, including the CSO/LA Advisory Platform, as well as local civil society organisations.
To this end, CONCORD has published a paper outlining how to better involve civil society in designing, implementing and monitoring the Global Gateway. We encourage the EU, the EP and Member States to take our recommendations into account so that all actors, in their respective capacities and can contribute to anchoring projects in local priorities and realities, ensure long-term sustainability and enhance their effectiveness, reach, and legitimacy.